RazorHawk wrote:Pretty much agree, but LSU is a much better team than Iowa. They were playing with a Freshman QB, that had almost no experience. With Mettenberger, they probably win by 21 points.
Michigan State won the Rose Bowl with a QB who got his first start in that game.
RazorHawk wrote: LSU is a very good team, possibly the second best in the SEC, behind Alabama.
LSU is a good team, for the most part. But I watched the games this year, and saw chinks in both Alabama's & LSU's armor.
The feeling of dominance is becoming noticeably depreciable, and I think that can be expected. Conference power has always gone around in cycles.
The Big 12 was considered untouchable at the flip of the millennium. They had stalwart defenses who were stingy and let very few points scored against them; and had tidal wave offenses who would crushed you under the pressure, suffocating you until you had no fight left.
Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, even Colorado before their scandal torn them down --- The Big XII lost its edge, and in its place, the SEC took over.
The difference here, is that the SEC caught on at good time as a conference. Whereas Tennessee & florida were dominating for years, the rest of the SEC started to build just as these two schools were losing their momentum.
First florida fell off a bit under Zook; then Tennessee under the indecisiveness of Fulmer to choose only one QB and stick with him ... Georgia was always there, somewhere, just couldn't get over that hump.
Then LSU became a strong program with Saban, continuing on with Miles; as florida picked it back up with the acquisition of Meyer.
Of course, florida has faded back to less than worthwhile; though the rest of the SEC has come to a somewhat parity. Which is about the same thing that happened to the Big Twelve.
First Kansas State had become strong, then a couple of up and down years with Kansas (who is terrible now). Missouri had a few good years up there, reaching a #2 BCS ranking as a Big XII member. Colorado tumbled, but Oklahoma State rose up. Baylor went from somewhere below Iowa State to conference Top Dog.
Parity hit the Big 12, and the motions look similar in the Southeast right now.
The reason why the Pac never quite took #1 on the conference list, is because of usc.
They actually did more to damage the conference by being so dominant. Same thing happened with the ACC having florida state as a cardinal member.
Sure other schools would rise to challenge usc each year. But nobody could sustain their competitiveness on a consistent basis.
With usc being down, the pac-12 has risen up a rung or two. Stanford is formidable, as well as Oregon. UCLA has benefitted greatly at usc's expense. This year alone, 5 teams from the pac finished with ten + wins (including usc).
The best thing that could happen to the pac-12, is for usc to not see the kind of success they had in early to mid first 2000 decade.
We'll see what happens from here; but now that teams are adjusting themselves to compete against their conference peers more suitably, I suspect the title toughest conference may shift here in the near future.
.
.
.
