Any given Saturday
Syracuse -- ranked #128 in the current Sagarin ratings, two spots below Buffalo -- is beating Louisville, at Louisville, 31-14 late in the third quarter. WTF?
What is it SEC fans always say about how there's never an off-day in SEC play, even the bottom-feeders can beat you, etc.? Well... looks like that's true in the Big East, too! (Er, in some instances, at least. On the other hand, West Virginia is beating East Carolina, 41-0.)
Speaking of SEC bottom-feeders being competitive, Ole Miss is keeping it close against Florida, so far.
Also, Nebraska is struggling with Ball State.
If this post suggests that the Big East is competitive because Syracuse is a decent team, I'll have to disagree.
Posted by: Wobbly H | Sep 22, 2007 3:23:43 PM
No, Syracuse sucks. The Big East is competitive because it has a bunch of good teams, not because of Syracuse. But I'm just saying that if SEC fans can rebut the biggest knock on their conference ("you have a bunch of bottom-feeder teams that are pretty much the same year after year") by saying, "Yeah, but there are no off-days in the SEC, even the bottom feeders can beat you" -- and I guarantee you people will be saying that after today's Florida-Ole Miss game -- then it's fair game for the Big East to say the same thing. However, in reality, the CW will be, "Louisville was overrated," while nobody will say Florida was overrated based on the Ole Miss game; they'll just say, "See, the SEC is so tough, even Ole Miss can beat you!"
It's the same thing when USC gets challenged by teams from the bottom two-thirds of the Pac-10, or even beaten by such teams (i.e., Oregon State last year); the common response is that USC played poorly, rather than giving the Pac-10 credit for being competitive from top to bottom. Yet when the same exact thing happens in the SEC, people fall all over themselves to talk about how competitive it is from top to bottom. The double-standard galls me a little bit.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 3:26:29 PM
P.S. It's kinda like how, when Big East teams play high-scoring games, the big talking point is how they can't play defense, but when Ohio State beat Michigan 42-39 last year, it was the "Game of the Century," and the "experts" seemed to not to notice the lack of defense until both teams got exposed in their bowl games.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 3:32:44 PM
Florida is good, no doubt there, but are they great? Well look at who they have played? Western Kentucky? Troy? Oh wait, big bad Tennessee...who are 1-2 and may be overrated themselves. The SEC, good not great.
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 4:01:06 PM
David, you're taking the anti-SEC argument too far, IMHO.
To wit: do you think USC is great? Because what you just said about the Gators could just as easily be said of the Trojans. "USC is good, no doubt there, but are they great? Well look at who they have played? Idaho? Oh wait, big bad Nebraska...who barely beat Ball State today and may be overrated themselves. The Pac-10, good not great."
If your point is simply that it's too early in the season to know for sure whether anyone is "great," I'll concede that point. But if you're arguing that there is something especially doubtful about the supposed greatness of the SEC teams who are currently highly regarded (LSU and Florida, mainly), I have to disagree. Any objective observer who has watched them play would have to agree USC, LSU, Florida and Oklahoma have all looked pretty freakin' great so far this year... and maybe West Virginia too. Florida was a little off today, but not so off as to suggest they're not in the Top 5 anymore.
Besides, Florida is the defending champion and they've got most of their key players back, plus a bunch of hot new recruits, so I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt until there is some reason to doubt their greatness. I don't care what conference you like or dislike, you gotta acknowledge the obvious. If any team in college football can be described as "great" right now, it's... well, maybe LSU first, but then Florida is definitely in the next group that really can't be doubted unless you want to deny the whole concept of teams being "great" by Week 4.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 5:54:02 PM
I think its a bit too early to be declared great, but especially the SEC. I think they are one of the strongest conferences true, but not strongest by far like SEC loyalists claim, and I think Florida looks vulnerable given that thy almost lost to Ole' Miss. SC has yet to look vulnerable. LSU has yet to look vulnerable. Oklahoma has yet to look vulnerable. I'd be comfortable calling any of those three potential greats. Personally while I'm rooting for South Carolina because I like Steve Spurrier, I'd also love to see an LSU/USC national championship game.
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 5:59:17 PM
Okay, David, but are you sure you aren't just reversing the double-standard? For example, if Washington State plays USC close tonight, but the Trojans ultimately win, will you say, "USC looks vulnerable given that they almost lost at home to Wazzu," or will you say, "This just proves the Pac-10 is a tough conference"?
I don't think a single close conference game on the road is anything to be ashamed of, even if the opponent is Ole Miss. Especially given that, while it was close throughout, Florida never trailed after taking a 7-3 lead, and from what I saw of the game, it wasn't that Florida played horribly -- it was mostly that Ole Miss played well. I give Florida the benefit of the doubt unless struggling against weaker foes becomes a habit.
Besides, Florida won by two field goals, which in an SEC game is like winning by two touchdowns in the Pac-10. ;)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 6:09:10 PM
LOL, true on the last part, and if USC struggles at home against WSU i'd say its good for WSU but also shows that USC is vulnerable. I expect great teams to show it, if they struggle they might still prove themselves but atleast for now they aren't great. I agree that Ole Miss played well, and I'm not saying it means Florida won't achieve greatness this season, but so far, to this point, they are a good team, one of the top 10 clearly, but I reserve GREAT for the very very few.
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 6:16:33 PM
BTW, I kept meaning to remind out about this story:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/09/20/jones.notredame.ap/index.html
Whats up with that?
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 6:17:12 PM
Fair enough, then. I would just advise you to watch your Reverse East Coast Bias with regard to the SEC. I understand you get frustrated with the blind SEC homers -- so do I -- but I think the best way to respond to homerism is to be as objective as possible. Not saying you aren't being objective on this particular issue, but I think you're sometimes a little eager to tear the SEC a notch. :)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 6:26:43 PM
Yeah, I'm totally confused about what's going on with the whole Demetrius Jones thing. Whatever.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Sep 22, 2007 6:27:54 PM
Also, when are we going to see ANY update on the pick-em contest?
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 6:34:51 PM
BTW, whatever happend to the pick-em contest?
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 6:35:41 PM
Sorry, first comment looked like it had been lost in comment limbo.
Posted by: David K. | Sep 22, 2007 6:36:07 PM
I imagine comment limbo is a on the same dimensional plane as missing socks in the dryer?
Posted by: kcatnd | Sep 23, 2007 1:23:30 AM