Pac-10 v SEC

[Metroid]

That getting up for the game garbage is the worst argument I've ever seen in this forum. When teams get snubbed they get MORE up for the next game to prove everyone wrong.

This whole bias thing is utter crap. If you're good enough you'll get your bowl games and you'll get your media hype. See: USC.

Anyone that thinks Oregon got snubbed last year is just a blind, pitiful homer. I like Oregon (though I admit to absolutely hating their whiney, annoying fans) but they were nowhere near a BCS team last year. Their marquee victory was a 3-point win over a team that lost to the likes of Nevada, Tulsa, and everyone's favorite week 1 warm-up team Louisiana Tech.

Then just to prove everyone right they lost to the first mediocre out of conference team they came across in their bowl game.....just like the last time they bitched and moaned about this crap.

You don't prove everybody wrong and set yourself up for next time by losing to a crappy team out of conference just like everyone said you would. It's about damn time some whiney ass Oregon fans took some accountability.

I disagree. When teams get snubbed it effects their play greatly. You just lose the heart after you spent the whole year proving what your team was about then get put into a joke game to end the season. What were they going to prove against a crappy team. Even if they win people would disrespect them by saying "Ok st is horrible anyway, they shoulda won."

Looks like you are so much a part of that bias you actually believe it.

By the way I'm not an Oregon fan.

What a crock. If anything getting "snubbed" makes you want to win more to prove everyone else wrong. USC got "snubbed" and beat up on a very good Michigan team. Auburn got "snubbed" (worse even since they actually had a tough schedule compared to Oregon's patsy-fest) and beat a very good Virginia Tech team. Maybe that's why Auburn and USC are top contenders yet again while Oregon is still whining over this made up bias that people lacking in self confidence have exaggerated ten-fold (whenever we don't get what we want, it can't be OUR fault, it's obviously someone else because the whole world is out to get poor little us). So basically what you're saying is those teams went out and won, but Oregon decided to fold their arms and cry about it instead?

Not only should getting "snubbed" have made them want to win MORE (everybody on the planet wants to prove everyone wrong when they feel disrespected, hence the lunacy behind your claim), but they shouldn't have even had to get "up" for those games. Those other "snub" teams could've gotten through those games that Oregon played in on one leg.

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy in thinking that if someone wants us to think they're good they should SHOW US rather than TELL US. And no, beating up on a handful of schools that lost to D2 programs and losing to the only decent teams you face all year certainly doesn't qualify as showing us anything.

That getting up for the game garbage is the worst argument I've ever seen in this forum. When teams get snubbed they get MORE up for the next game to prove everyone wrong.

This whole bias thing is utter crap. If you're good enough you'll get your bowl games and you'll get your media hype. See: USC.

Anyone that thinks Oregon got snubbed last year is just a blind, pitiful homer. I like Oregon (though I admit to absolutely hating their whiney, annoying fans) but they were nowhere near a BCS team last year. Their marquee victory was a 3-point win over a team that lost to the likes of Nevada, Tulsa, and everyone's favorite week 1 warm-up team Louisiana Tech.

Then just to prove everyone right they lost to the first mediocre out of conference team they came across in their bowl game.....just like the last time they bitched and moaned about this crap.

You don't prove everybody wrong and set yourself up for next time by losing to a crappy team out of conference just like everyone said you would. It's about damn time some whiney ass Oregon fans took some accountability.

You really need to quit with the whiney ass Oregon fans crap. It makes you sound like and arrogent jerk. Dont generalize all of us, if you have a problem with individuals here call them out. In fact the poster you were arguing with said himself hw isnt even an Oregon fan. Stick to the facts and your opinions there is no reason to insult people. Vary classless.

I don't really feel the need to mention individual names when it applies to every single one I've ever heard say a word or type a post. I've met a lot (I go out west fairly often) and not a one that's humble in any way, shape, or form. It's always "oh we got screwed" this, and "man we got snubbed" that. I'm all for being loyal to your team, but it gets to a point where you should realize that maybe it's possible that you could be wearing blinders when every single person that's not a huge Pac-10 homer disagrees with you and your team then follows it up by proving every one of them right and losing to the first mediocre out of conference team you play. Even the Husker guys' matching sigs are less annoying than that .

I'm utterly sure that I'm coming off as overly harsh here, but I don't really care in this instance. If it was once, ok. Twice, eh. But it's duck fan after duck fan year after year crying and moaning about how everything bad is somebody else's fault. It's got to be one of my biggest pet peeves.

I don't have a bias against Oregon (heck, like I've said several times I like the TEAM), I have a bias against people that just try and blame everything on everyone else.

Wow I dont even no what to say, aparentlly you already know me and after reading many of your posts I think I know you. Its funny youd rather take the time to write this post and keep the negetivity rolling than to back pedel a little on your blanket view of Duck fans. You may have met quite a few irrational homer Duck fans in your day but you dont know this one. And this one is pretty humble. So keep on sterotyping if thats what makes you happy.

[Cowboys 4 life]

What a crock. If anything getting "snubbed" makes you want to win more to prove everyone else wrong. USC got "snubbed" and beat up on a very good Michigan team. Auburn got "snubbed" (worse even since they actually had a tough schedule compared to Oregon's patsy-fest) and beat a very good Virginia Tech team. Maybe that's why Auburn and USC are top contenders yet again while Oregon is still whining over this made up bias that people lacking in self confidence have exaggerated ten-fold (whenever we don't get what we want, it can't be OUR fault, it's obviously someone else because the whole world is out to get poor little us). So basically what you're saying is those teams went out and won, but Oregon decided to fold their arms and cry about it instead?

Not only should getting "snubbed" have made them want to win MORE (everybody on the planet wants to prove everyone wrong when they feel disrespected, hence the lunacy behind your claim), but they shouldn't have even had to get "up" for those games. Those other "snub" teams could've gotten through those games that Oregon played in on one leg.

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy in thinking that if someone wants us to think they're good they should SHOW US rather than TELL US. And no, beating up on a handful of schools that lost to D2 programs and losing to the only decent teams you face all year certainly doesn't qualify as showing us anything.

I disagree. Like I said when you get snubed you lose no matter what. If you win all you hear is you should have anyway and becaus ethe team youbeat isn't even ranked you get no credit. Does you absolutly no good. If you lose big deal you don't move down in rank anyway. Your comparisons are teams that were still in good bowl games. The holiday bowl or sun bowl are much different. They mean nothing. There are only like 5-6 bowl that really mean anything. The rest are nothing. Auburn and SUC still got to play in one of those top games. If you are going to make a comparison make it with a team that deserved to be in one of the top games and had to play in a crapper instead.

We are just different in the way we think. When a top team plays a pile and wins 62-0 that means nothing to me except the teams should never have played. It never crosses my mine that the team that scored 62 is possibly a good team. To me if they were truly a good team they wouldn't have played such a bad team. Does beating an unranked mediocre team really make people think you deserved to play in a better bowl game? I don't believe it does nor does it change anything. I think the team that isn't ranked is the one who has something to prove. Not the team that was snubbed.

So you mean to tell me that had Oregon won that game you would have thought they deserved a better bowl game? You'd be singing the same note as you are now. And nothing would have changed.

We simply disagree on this. And I'm a UCLA fan not an Oregon fan. I just feel bad for teams that have great years and don't get to show it in a decent game against a decent team. It pays dividends to be a scholl on the east coast because you get the benefit of the bias and that bias helps you build your football team with extra money to spend on scouting and scholarships. Private donations are one thing handouts from bias rankings are another. And you wonder why the SEC is better than the Pac 10.

[CC]

What a crock. If anything getting "snubbed" makes you want to win more to prove everyone else wrong. USC got "snubbed" and beat up on a very good Michigan team. Auburn got "snubbed" (worse even since they actually had a tough schedule compared to Oregon's patsy-fest) and beat a very good Virginia Tech team. Maybe that's why Auburn and USC are top contenders yet again while Oregon is still whining over this made up bias that people lacking in self confidence have exaggerated ten-fold (whenever we don't get what we want, it can't be OUR fault, it's obviously someone else because the whole world is out to get poor little us). So basically what you're saying is those teams went out and won, but Oregon decided to fold their arms and cry about it instead?

Not only should getting "snubbed" have made them want to win MORE (everybody on the planet wants to prove everyone wrong when they feel disrespected, hence the lunacy behind your claim), but they shouldn't have even had to get "up" for those games. Those other "snub" teams could've gotten through those games that Oregon played in on one leg.

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy in thinking that if someone wants us to think they're good they should SHOW US rather than TELL US. And no, beating up on a handful of schools that lost to D2 programs and losing to the only decent teams you face all year certainly doesn't qualify as showing us anything.

I disagree. Like I said when you get snubed you lose no matter what. If you win all you hear is you should have anyway and becaus ethe team youbeat isn't even ranked you get no credit. Does you absolutly no good. If you lose big deal you don't move down in rank anyway. Your comparisons are teams that were still in good bowl games. The holiday bowl or sun bowl are much different. They mean nothing. There are only like 5-6 bowl that really mean anything. The rest are nothing. Auburn and SUC still got to play in one of those top games. If you are going to make a comparison make it with a team that deserved to be in one of the top games and had to play in a crapper instead.

We are just different in the way we think. When a top team plays a pile and wins 62-0 that means nothing to me except the teams should never have played. It never crosses my mine that the team that scored 62 is possibly a good team. To me if they were truly a good team they wouldn't have played such a bad team. Does beating an unranked mediocre team really make people think you deserved to play in a better bowl game? I don't believe it does nor does it change anything. I think the team that isn't ranked is the one who has something to prove. Not the team that was snubbed.

So you mean to tell me that had Oregon won that game you would have thought they deserved a better bowl game? You'd be singing the same note as you are now. And nothing would have changed.

We simply disagree on this. And I'm a UCLA fan not an Oregon fan. I just feel bad for teams that have great years and don't get to show it in a decent game against a decent team. It pays dividends to be a scholl on the east coast because you get the benefit of the bias and that bias helps you build your football team with extra money to spend on scouting and scholarships. Private donations are one thing handouts from bias rankings are another. And you wonder why the SEC is better than the Pac 10.

You're right, it's the system that makes the SEC better than the Pac-10, not the fact that Vanderbilt and Kentucky's defenses are of comparable quality to some of the better defenses in the Pac-10. Crying about reffing and the system is pretty much as lame as it gets. If you lose, you LOST. It isn't because you couldn't get up for the game, it is because the other team played better than you.

[Free Bagel]

w I dont even no what to say, aparentlly you already know me and after reading many of your posts I think I know you. Its funny youd rather take the time to write this post and keep the negetivity rolling than to back pedel a little on your blanket view of Duck fans. You may have met quite a few irrational homer Duck fans in your day but you dont know this one. And this one is pretty humble. So keep on sterotyping if thats what makes you happy.

Why would you be exempt? It's entirely possible that I'm thinking of someone else here but I recall getting into this after one of these posts you started up last year.

I disagree. Like I said when you get snubed you lose no matter what. If you win all you hear is you should have anyway and becaus ethe team youbeat isn't even ranked you get no credit. Does you absolutly no good. If you lose big deal you don't move down in rank anyway.

Honestly I just don't see how anyone can even make this agrument. I don't know what else I can tell you other than you have a completely convoluted view of college football players, coaches, and people in general. No one goes out there and thinks the game doesn't matter so they're not even going to try. While we're at it why don't we just apply your utterly bogus argument to every non-BCS game out there? All these guys have dozens of things to play for, including trying to show everyone else how wrong they were and not prove them right.

If Oregon had won would that have meant everyone had thought they deserved a BCS bowl? Probably not, but at least they wouldn''t have PROVEN that they didn't deserve one. At least then maybe I wouldn't think it's a joke that they were even considered a top 15 team.

Honestly this is the single worst basis for an argument I have ever seen on these boards, and that includes people trying to argue that Peyton Manning is a first round fantasy pick.

We are just different in the way we think. When a top team plays a pile and wins 62-0 that means nothing to me except the teams should never have played. It never crosses my mine that the team that scored 62 is possibly a good team.

Wait wait wait....I thought you were arguing FOR Oregon. All they did all season was pile on against unranked teams....minus the piling on part.

I just feel bad for teams that have great years and don't get to show it in a decent game against a decent team.

Since when did Oregon have a great year? They beat up on a bunch of weak teams like you were just talking about above, and lost to the first mediocre out of conference team they played.

They beat ZERO teams that finished ranked, and the only ranked team they played during the season creamed them into the ground.

It pays dividends to be a scholl on the east coast because you get the benefit of the bias and that bias helps you build your football team with extra money to spend on scouting and scholarships.

Good point...especially considering Oregon brings in tons and tons and tons of extra money to spend on anything and everything like a dozen different uniforms, giant posters in Times Square promoting their players, etc. The owner of Nike is an Oregon booster FFS, talking about money here is hilarious.

Oregon faced two teams that finished in the top 25 and they lost them BOTH.

Private donations are one thing handouts from bias rankings are another. And you wonder why the SEC is better than the Pac 10.

Once again it's somebody else's fault, and you're just a poor little victim. If you want to talk about talented recruits maybe you should mozy on a few miles up the west coast road and talk to USC who probably had more talented position players than the whole SEC combined. Maybe you should talk to them about voting bias when they finished ranked ahead of the teams that the computers said were better.

Oh wait wait, I know....it was COMPUTER bias, right?

Funny how east coast bias only applies when the teams actually just aren't that good. USC certainly got their hype when they showed they were a legitimately great team.