Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!lor
From: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Fuel for Flames/OU & Conferences
Message-ID: <8370@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15-Jan-86 02:59:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.8370
Posted: Wed Jan 15 02:59:40 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 07:17:18 EST
References: <30400015@ISM780B.UUCP> <30400022@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 91


     
>So why does the fact that the Big 8 sent half their teams and the Pac 10 sent
>half their teams mean that the Big 8 is the weaker conference?

        Sending half of their teams to bowls does not make the Big 8
a strong conference, it doesn't make the Pac-10 a strong conference
neither. Which traditional major football conferences did not
send (almost) half of its teams to bowls? SEC sent 5 out of 10
(with Florida on probation), Big-10 sent 6 out of 10,
and SWC sent 4 out of 9. The only exceptions are WAC (2/10),
and ACC (2/8). I won't argue with you about the superiority of
the WAC and ACC.

        The reason I consider the big 8 a weak conference is the gap
between its top two teams and bottom six teams. Year in year out,
none of the little teams can challenge for the conference title.
Well, you can say Oklahoma St. won 8 to 10 games in each the past
three years, but they are 0-6 against Oklahoma and Nebraska
(coming close in some of the games didn't count.) And Oklahoma
St. of 1983-85, Colorado of 1985, and Missouri of 1983, may have
good records, but they were not able to beat any top teams
(again, coming close did not count.) That's why the
3rd to 8th teams in the conference do not get any respects.

        The champions of Pac 10 may not be as good as Nebraska/
Oklahoma (proved by the two Nebraska routs against UCLA). But our
conference is more balanced. Year in year out, USC, Washington,
UCLA, and the two Arizona schools have definite shots
at the conference title. You may think it is mediocre,
but I consider this as competitive.

        This is only the Pac 10. Can Oklahoma/Nebraska be
considered classes above Tennesse and Florida in the SEC? or
Michigan and Iowa in the Big-10? While none of these teams
have to look up to Oklahoma/Nebraska, they got much
tougher schedules en route to their conference titles.
You can say Oklahoma embarrassed Nebraska last year, but
who else they defeated worth a mention?
Tell me from your heart, Dennis, had the sooners been a member of
SEC and played any three of Alabama, Florida, Tennesse,
Auburn, and Georgia, or a member of big 10 and played Ohio State, Iowa,
and Michigan, and finish a respectable 9-2 last year, do you expect
them to get a chance to play Penn St?

        Sure, all these SEC and Big Ten powerhouses played
some Indiana, Northwestern, and Mississippi St. But it is
the number of true contenders, not the number of patsies,
you DEFEATED that matters.

>that in non-conf. games in 1985 (before the bowls) the Big 8 was 17-14-0.
>The Pac 10 was 16-14-1.  Roughly equivalent.  With the bowls figured in
>its 18-16-0 and 18-16-1. *Very similar*.

        Non-conference records are not proper benchmarks because
the oppositions are different. You can also claimed the Big-8
having a 4-2 advantage against the Pac-10, but that is not
a proper comparsion neither. Unless it is something like the NBA,
that everybody in the Eastern conference plays everybody in
the Western conference, that you can use inter-conference
records for comparison.

>Yeah, and if UCLA deserves to be rated ahead of Oklahoma, then pigs do have
>wings!  JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!!  Oklahoma lost one game all year long (to
>a top ten team).  UCLA was tied by a top ten team and lost games to two
>teams, Washington and USC, which finished 7-5 and 6-6, respectively.
>Mediocre, at best!  UCLA had to eke out a 31-30 victory over lowly
>Washington State, for Chrissakes!  Sure, UCLA played a #1-type game against
>Iowa, but you gotta do it all season long to end up highly-ranked.

        No, UCLA does not deserve to be ranked higher than Oklahoma
UNDER THIS SYSTEM. This system rewards consistency more than
supremacy. Oklahoma won games it was supposed to win (this is
easier said than done) while UCLA did not. However, my bruins
proved they could beat (or tie) the extremely tough opponents:
at BYU, at Tennesse, and Iowa, while your sooners did not
(don't give me any more excuses in the Miami loss). Had there
been a playoff, say, among Michigan, Iowa, Miami, Penn St.,
Texas A&M, Tennesse, UCLA, and Oklahoma, do you think #1 Oklahoma
has a better chance than #7 UCLA?

        About next September's matchup between UCLA and Oklahoma,
let's put that off for nine months. I am still more interested
in discussing the past season. Who knows what's going to happened
in September?

--
                                        Eddy Lor
                                        ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor
                                        lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
                                        Computer Science Department, UCLA