Auburn vs Oregon in Dallas - 2019

[WarTiger 3,901]

Will probably be best OOC game in Auburn history.

Nah.

Home and home with Nebraska in '81 and '82

Home and home with Texas in '83 and '84

Home and home with Florida State in '83 and '84

Those were games against some freaking power houses. Not teams with a lot of costumes.

The Nebraska pair set the tone for the Dye era; If you want to be the best.....

In terms of greatest, that 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard.

In those days the SEC was a slightly tamer animal.

Oregon as a program is probably better right now than those 3 were at the time. Use the costumes as a detriment but they made the first CFP championship, couple of BCS bowls, and was a field goal away from a BCS championship

They could just as easily be the second most dominant team of the past 5 years instead of otherwise

Based on this comment, I'll guess you are probably in your early 20's if that, OR you simply never bother to actually do any research to educate yourself before you post. Research is your friend.

Nebraska is one of the best programs in college football history. Beginning back in 1969, Nebraska won 9 games or more EVERY SINGLE YEAR all they through the 2001 season. In 1981 and 1982 Nebraska was 9-3 and 12-1. The 4 years prior 9-3, 9-3, 10-2 and 10-2. The 4 years AFTER 12-1, 10-2, 9-3, 10-2.

Texas was 10-1 and 9-3 the two years prior to playing Auburn. They were 11-1 and 7-4-1 the years they played Auburn. They had a couple of mediocre/bad seasons after that but I still wouldn't put Oregon 4 years from now above that Texas program. We have no idea how Oregon will be in 2019.

Fsu, in 1983 and 1984 were 8-4 and 7-3-2. The year prior to playing Auburn they were 9-3. The years after playing Auburn they were 9-3, 7-4-1 and then won 10 games or more from 1987-2000.

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference. Oregon is a solid program right now, and they may very well be ahead of where texas was back then, but they aren't even remotely close to the other two based on those results. Both Texas and Nebraska have winning percentages OVER 70%.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams. The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

[AURex 1,995]

I'd say that the PAC12 is the 2nd strongest conference, top to bottom, these days. And Oregon has consistently been a Top 10 program over the past 5 years. Whatever anyone thinks about their fun with uniforms, they have earned a reputation as one of the best programs in the country. I, for one, look forward to Auburn playing them again.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

This will be an awesome game.

[augolf1716 21,122]

This will be an awesome game.

well there you are...................finally we hear from a4e. All is well...................for now. Still say AU scared to play my Lobo's

[Barkchevious 75]

Will probably be best OOC game in Auburn history.

Nah.

Home and home with Nebraska in '81 and '82

Home and home with Texas in '83 and '84

Home and home with Florida State in '83 and '84

Those were games against some freaking power houses. Not teams with a lot of costumes.

The Nebraska pair set the tone for the Dye era; If you want to be the best.....

In terms of greatest, that 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard.

In those days the SEC was a slightly tamer animal.

Oregon as a program is probably better right now than those 3 were at the time. Use the costumes as a detriment but they made the first CFP championship, couple of BCS bowls, and was a field goal away from a BCS championship

They could just as easily be the second most dominant team of the past 5 years instead of otherwise

Based on this comment, I'll guess you are probably in your early 20's if that, OR you simply never bother to actually do any research to educate yourself before you post. Research is your friend.

Nebraska is one of the best programs in college football history. Beginning back in 1969, Nebraska won 9 games or more EVERY SINGLE YEAR all they through the 2001 season. In 1981 and 1982 Nebraska was 9-3 and 12-1. The 4 years prior 9-3, 9-3, 10-2 and 10-2. The 4 years AFTER 12-1, 10-2, 9-3, 10-2.

Texas was 10-1 and 9-3 the two years prior to playing Auburn. They were 11-1 and 7-4-1 the years they played Auburn. They had a couple of mediocre/bad seasons after that but I still wouldn't put Oregon 4 years from now above that Texas program. We have no idea how Oregon will be in 2019.

Fsu, in 1983 and 1984 were 8-4 and 7-3-2. The year prior to playing Auburn they were 9-3. The years after playing Auburn they were 9-3, 7-4-1 and then won 10 games or more from 1987-2000.

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference. Oregon is a solid program right now, and they may very well be ahead of where texas was back then, but they aren't even remotely close to the other two based on those results. Both Texas and Nebraska have winning percentages OVER 70%.

I think we have a little idea on how Oregon will be in 2019. Probably pretty good. And I think if Gus is still with AU, we will be pretty good also. This will be a big-time game. Probably the best OOC game yet for MANY of us AU fans, whether or not we've done any research or educated ourselves on early 80's college football. It's a pretty good ways down the list on my education interests, and apparently, . . I'm not alone. I sure am pumped for this game though!

[WarTiger 3,901]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

Will probably be best OOC game in Auburn history.

Nah.

Home and home with Nebraska in '81 and '82

Home and home with Texas in '83 and '84

Home and home with Florida State in '83 and '84

Those were games against some freaking power houses. Not teams with a lot of costumes.

The Nebraska pair set the tone for the Dye era; If you want to be the best.....

In terms of greatest, that 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard.

In those days the SEC was a slightly tamer animal.

Auburn vs. Miami '84 in the Kickoff Classic at East Rutherford, NJ

Single game, season opener, hyped to the max versus a seriously talented team. AND the original Nike costume showboat.

Auburn did play football in the 20th century. Check it out, we were pretty good.

[AU64 10,122]

Will probably be best OOC game in Auburn history.

Nah.

Home and home with Nebraska in '81 and '82

Home and home with Texas in '83 and '84

Home and home with Florida State in '83 and '84

Those were games against some freaking power houses. Not teams with a lot of costumes.

The Nebraska pair set the tone for the Dye era; If you want to be the best.....

In terms of greatest, that 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard.

In those days the SEC was a slightly tamer animal.

Auburn vs. Miami '84 in the Kickoff Classic at East Rutherford, NJ

Single game, season opener, hyped to the max versus a seriously talented team. AND the original Nike costume showboat.

Auburn did play football in the 20th century. Check it out, we were pretty good.

I was at the Nebraska game in AU and despite the loss, the game was an indicator of things to come....toughness on display by AU though the talent was not yet there.

Otherwise, the thing that sticks with me is that AU lost most of those games....and in the process cooked some pretty good season expectations before we even got started in the SEC.....and as noted, the SEC was mostly bama and those chasing them.

I'm happy with more balance and just don't see the point of stacking the schedule in such a way that the up and coming players won't see the field more than a few minutes each week...if that.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Lets line up another team from the power 5 conference for 2018. I'd still like to see us play UCLA in the Georgia Dome or in the Jerry Dome.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

It wasn't a 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard. Auburn won 42-41.

[AURex 1,995]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

Oregon beat undefeated FSU, UCLA beat Kansas State (which was 9-3 going into the game), AzState beat Duke (which was 9-3 going in), USC beat Nebraska (which was 9-3 going in), Stanford and Utah both won their games. That adds up to 6 victories in bowl games the way I count -- four of them having no more than 3 losses going into the bowl game.

In comparison, USCe, TA&M, Tenn and Ark all beat up on teams that barely qualified for a bowl, Florida eeked out a win over East Carolina, Mizzou beat up on powerhouse Minnesota, while Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State all lost. UGA was the only SEC team that had a bowl win over a decent opponent (Louisville, which was 9-3 going in).

If the PAC12 isn't the second best conference, who do you think is? B1G? I guess the case could be made. Their top 3 teams (tOSU, MichSt and Wisconsin) all won against good opponents.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

Oregon beat undefeated FSU, UCLA beat Kansas State (which was 9-3 going into the game), AzState beat Duke (which was 9-3 going in), USC beat Nebraska (which was 9-3 going in), Stanford and Utah both won their games. That adds up to 6 victories in bowl games the way I count -- four of them having no more than 3 losses going into the bowl game.

In comparison, USCe, TA&M, Tenn and Ark all beat up on teams that barely qualified for a bowl, Florida eeked out a win over East Carolina, Mizzou beat up on powerhouse Minnesota, while Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State all lost. UGA was the only SEC team that had a bowl win over a decent opponent (Louisville, which was 9-3 going in).

If the PAC12 isn't the second best conference, who do you think is? B1G? I guess the case could be made. Their top 3 teams (tOSU, MichSt and Wisconsin) all won against good opponents.

*Rex drops mic*

[AU64 10,122]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

Oregon beat undefeated FSU, UCLA beat Kansas State (which was 9-3 going into the game), AzState beat Duke (which was 9-3 going in), USC beat Nebraska (which was 9-3 going in), Stanford and Utah both won their games. That adds up to 6 victories in bowl games the way I count -- four of them having no more than 3 losses going into the bowl game.

In comparison, USCe, TA&M, Tenn and Ark all beat up on teams that barely qualified for a bowl, Florida eeked out a win over East Carolina, Mizzou beat up on powerhouse Minnesota, while Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State all lost. UGA was the only SEC team that had a bowl win over a decent opponent (Louisville, which was 9-3 going in).

If the PAC12 isn't the second best conference, who do you think is? B1G? I guess the case could be made. Their top 3 teams (tOSU, MichSt and Wisconsin) all won against good opponents.

The problem IMO is deciding how deep to go into any given conference when making "strength" comparisons. Bowl games or championship games don't do the story. So do you rate based on the top 4 or 5 teams....or maybe match the lowest 3 teams in each conference against each other?

This stuff makes good discussion but probably takes a math whiz and a computer programs to compare the strength of a 10 team conference against a 14 team conference and get any kind of valid result.

SO...in the meantime, let's just call the SEC the #1 conference and let others try to prove differently.

[war eagle6 0]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

Oregon beat undefeated FSU, UCLA beat Kansas State (which was 9-3 going into the game), AzState beat Duke (which was 9-3 going in), USC beat Nebraska (which was 9-3 going in), Stanford and Utah both won their games. That adds up to 6 victories in bowl games the way I count -- four of them having no more than 3 losses going into the bowl game.

In comparison, USCe, TA&M, Tenn and Ark all beat up on teams that barely qualified for a bowl, Florida eeked out a win over East Carolina, Mizzou beat up on powerhouse Minnesota, while Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State all lost. UGA was the only SEC team that had a bowl win over a decent opponent (Louisville, which was 9-3 going in).

If the PAC12 isn't the second best conference, who do you think is? B1G? I guess the case could be made. Their top 3 teams (tOSU, MichSt and Wisconsin) all won against good opponents.

Uh-oh, you're in trouble now.

[cooltigger21 0]

This is an excellent matchup Will definitely be buying to to tickets to this one.

[WarTiger 3,901]

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference.

The Pac-12 is a weak conference? Yes, It's a weak conference, top to bottom. This past bowl season, their teams went 6-2 WRONG They went 5-3 (which means 8 of 12 teams went bowling) Wrong again. 7 conference teams went to bowls. with a 5-1 record against other "Power 5" conference teams (Wrong again...5-2). The Pac 12 went through a bit of a down period overall for a few years, but I can't agree with you that it's a weak conference.

You don't have to agree with me, its just the way I see it. I don't look to the bowls as the sole measuring stick of conference strength. But, let's examine those results from the Bowls that you are touting. Arizona State defeated duke (9-4), USC defeated Nebraska (9-4), Stanford defeated Maryland (7-6), UCLA defeated Kansas State (9-4), and Oregon defeated FSU (13-1), which was the only quality win the conference had in bowls. Now, let's look at the losses. Arizona LOST to Boise State (12-2)(non power 5 program), Washington LOST to Oklahoma Sate (7-6) and Oregon LOST to Ohio State (14-1) and got HAMMERED. ONE win against teams with fewer than 4 losses and a LOSS to a team with 6 losses. Sorry, the PAC 12 doesn't impress me any more than the ACC does.

Oregon beat undefeated FSU, UCLA beat Kansas State (which was 9-3 going into the game), AzState beat Duke (which was 9-3 going in), USC beat Nebraska (which was 9-3 going in), Stanford and Utah both won their games. That adds up to 6 victories in bowl games the way I count -- four of them having no more than 3 losses going into the bowl game. I missed the Utah game but it still doesn't change my opinion of the pac12.

In comparison, USCe, TA&M, Tenn and Ark all beat up on teams that barely qualified for a bowl, (So did Stanford beating a 7-6 Maryland team) Florida eeked out a win over East Carolina, Mizzou beat up on powerhouse Minnesota, while Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State all lost. UGA was the only SEC team that had a bowl win over a decent opponent (Louisville, which was 9-3 going in).

If the PAC12 isn't the second best conference, who do you think is? B1G? I guess the case could be made. Their top 3 teams (tOSU, MichSt and Wisconsin) all won against good opponents.

I don't know who is, nor do I care. It's all opinion anyway and there's no way to prove any of it. The bowls are not and shouldn't be the only deciding factor as to conference strength. I believe the pac12 is a weak conference, you don't. That's perfectly fine.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Hope we'll play UCLA in 2018.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I think it would cool of we came out for the kickoff wearing blue jerseys and blues pants with orange facemasks. However, if we're the road team, then we should wear white jerseys, blues pants and orange facemasks.

[auburnphan 6,050]

Home and Home series can be creative in the set up, look at the LSU V UW played in Houston and LambeAU Field I believe. Of course it is preferred to be a real home and home, the experience and exposure could be just as huge for the program. Penn State home and home at Heinz Field and Georgia Dome for example.

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Took our kids on a family vacation to the Pacific Northwest shortly after our national title win over the Ducks and adults out there were getting in my 7 year old daughter's face when she wore an Auburn shirt. Can't wait for this game.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,666]

Will probably be best OOC game in Auburn history.

Nah.

Home and home with Nebraska in '81 and '82

Home and home with Texas in '83 and '84

Home and home with Florida State in '83 and '84

Those were games against some freaking power houses. Not teams with a lot of costumes.

The Nebraska pair set the tone for the Dye era; If you want to be the best.....

In terms of greatest, that 42-42 win in Tallahassee against FSU is the gold standard.

In those days the SEC was a slightly tamer animal.

Oregon as a program is probably better right now than those 3 were at the time. Use the costumes as a detriment but they made the first CFP championship, couple of BCS bowls, and was a field goal away from a BCS championship

They could just as easily be the second most dominant team of the past 5 years instead of otherwise

Based on this comment, I'll guess you are probably in your early 20's if that, OR you simply never bother to actually do any research to educate yourself before you post. Research is your friend.

Nebraska is one of the best programs in college football history. Beginning back in 1969, Nebraska won 9 games or more EVERY SINGLE YEAR all they through the 2001 season. In 1981 and 1982 Nebraska was 9-3 and 12-1. The 4 years prior 9-3, 9-3, 10-2 and 10-2. The 4 years AFTER 12-1, 10-2, 9-3, 10-2.

Texas was 10-1 and 9-3 the two years prior to playing Auburn. They were 11-1 and 7-4-1 the years they played Auburn. They had a couple of mediocre/bad seasons after that but I still wouldn't put Oregon 4 years from now above that Texas program. We have no idea how Oregon will be in 2019.

Fsu, in 1983 and 1984 were 8-4 and 7-3-2. The year prior to playing Auburn they were 9-3. The years after playing Auburn they were 9-3, 7-4-1 and then won 10 games or more from 1987-2000.

Like fsu, oregon plays in a weak conference. Oregon is a solid program right now, and they may very well be ahead of where texas was back then, but they aren't even remotely close to the other two based on those results. Both Texas and Nebraska have winning percentages OVER 70%.

so Nebraska had pretty much the same level of success while neither of the other two teams you listed had the same amount. I'm talking about in the general area of time leading up to Auburn playing these teams. Sure Oregon might not still be a top 5 program leading up to Auburn but based on the past 5 years (which is the general area people like to base how a team's performed, or at least for me) and how they're set for the future, I don't see why they wouldn't at least be a top 10 team. They're usually finding the type of recruits that perfectly fit their system, and they're the best at scheming out a hurry up no huddle offense.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,666]

The PAC 12 is clearly not a weak conference, it's not really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of them not being weak. To even say "oh you're not being objective" is wrong, they're not weak. They were the best post season conference and they didn't look too bad during the regular season. Saying they're weak for having a bad bottom cellar is like saying the SEC is weak for having a bad bottom cellar. Plus you also get some competition from both divisions over there instead of just getting the one division heavy slaughter SEC gets EVERY YEAR.

[WarTiger 3,901]

The PAC 12 is clearly not a weak conference, it's not really a matter of opinion,

Actually it is a matter of opinion. It's my opinion that they are a weak conference.

it's a matter of them not being weak. To even say "oh you're not being objective" is wrong, they're not weak.

My OPINION is they are. It's not up to you to decide who is right or wrong. It's called an OPINION.

They were the best post season conference and they didn't look too bad during the regular season.

Actually in terms of winning percentage they did NOT. Conference USA went 4-1 in the bowls. Pac12 went 6-3 and besides that's one season. Never once has anything been said based on one season (until you just did) and see the records below for reality. The pac12 also only had 8 qualify for bowls. While the SEC, BIG 10 and ACC all had 11 or more. That's why bowl records aren't and shouldn't be the only standard by which to rate conferences.

Saying they're weak for having a bad bottom cellar is like saying the SEC is weak for having a bad bottom cellar.

Nobody here ever said they are weak for having a bad bottom cellar. Quit making stuff up to validate yourself.

Plus you also get some competition from both divisions over there instead of just getting the one division heavy slaughter SEC gets EVERY YEAR.

Research is your friend.....

See, here's where you are WRONG. But, instead of just spouting off that you are wrong, I'm actually going to show some proof to back up why you are wrong...

PAC 12

2011 3 teams with 10 or more wins 2 of those in the north division (oregon and Stanford) South division USC 10.2 (not bowl eligible because of NCAA) The rest of the teams in the south division finished BELOW .500 meaning they had a LOSING record

2012 2 teams with 10 or more wins both in north division Stanford 12-1 and Oregon 12-2. NOBODY in the south won more than 9 games (ucla finished 9-5)

2013 5 teams with 10 or more wins.3 in the south Arizona State 10-4, UCLA 10-3, USC 10-4

North division 2 teams - Stanford 11-3, and Oregon 11-2

2014 4 teams with 10 or more wins...3 of them from one division (south) Arizona 10-4 , UCLA 10-3, and Arizona State 10-3

north division Oregon 13-2. The rest of the records in the north division - 8-5, 8-6, 5-7, 3-9, 5-7

Never once did I say the pac12 didn't have some good teams, because they do. What they don't have (other than oregon right now) is consistency. So, which year did they have that competition from both divisions? An argument could be made for 2013, but again, NO CONSISTENCY. What about 2011 with one south division team with a winning record. Nope, no cross division competition there. What about 2012 when the best team in the south division finished with 9 wins? Or, perhaps you want to use 2014. You know, the year you tout their success in the bowls. Oregon won the north at 13-2, NOBODY else in the division had more than 8 wins.

Now, that one division slaughter you mention about the SEC couldn't be further from reality. Again, RESEARCH...

SEC

2011 5 teams finish with 10 or more wins

East - Georgia and South Carolina

West lsu, uat and arkansas

2012, THREE teams from each division won 10 games or more (Georgia, Florida, South Carolina) and uat, lsu and Texas A&M

2013 - 2 teams in the East (Missouri and South Carolina) won 12 and 11 games respectfully

3 teams in the WEST (Auburn, uat and lsu) won 12, 11 and 10 games respectfully

2014 2 teams in each division won 10 games or more. (Missouri and Georgia and uat and Miss. State)

Every team in the West division went to a bowl last year. While the PAC12 has four teams each of the last 3 years with LOSING records

You can believe what you want to believe but don't pass it off as fact or act like its the final word. We are all entitled to our opinions.

[Barnacle 9,064]

Just as an innocent bystander, it seams to me that you two aren't necessarily arguing about whether the conference is weak or not, you are arguing over what criteria makes a conference strong or weak, and that's what I see as your opinions. If you could agree on what criteria or attributes actually constitute weakness or strength, this would probably be a more productive discussion. Until then you're just talking past each other. Sorry for intruding in your business, just an observation.