Chicago @ Arizona

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Offensive schemes mean nothing when the players that run them are crap. And make no misake, when Leinart was at USC, that's exactly what the rest of the PAC-10 was -- CRAP.

Let me guess... you are a believer that the SEC is head and shoulders the best conference year in and year out? I'm sorry, but the SEC is top heavy, just like the Pac. This year, there is really no dominant team in the SEC- Florida, LSU, Tenn., Auburn, Ark are all pretty good- but they all have their distinct flaws. And let's not forget Tennessee and Arky have been mediocre the past few seasons. Didn't Georgia just lose to Vandy? Vandy doesn't even have an official athletic department anymore! The Pac-10 isn't just SC... Cal and Oregon are still top teams and the Washington schools are definitely getting better.

For every Florida and LSU, you still have Vanderbilt and Miss. St. The SEC heavyweights always schedule D. 1-AA teams like Louisiana Lafayette and the Sisters of the poor b/c of the perceived notion that "they always beat up each other in conference play." And when they do play out of conference, they NEVER travel. It's always at home, where there is a decided advantage in college football with an SEC home field. Yes, the SEC worked the Pac-10 this season: but the heavyweights (LSU and Auburn) played our patsies (Arizona and Wazzou) at home. I definitely give you the Vols destruction over Cal, who choked in an SEC environment. The results would have been flipped if you sent Mississippi St. to Autzen or Vandy to Berkeley. And you saw what happened when one of the best Pac's teams actually went head up against one of the best SEC teams (USC 50, Arkansas 14... in Fayetteville I may add).

Here's some direct quotes from Sagarin (who creates one of the polls used by USA today), who lists the Pac above everyone else:

"I think most people's perceptions are based on the top one-two teams in each conference, and they don't consider the rest," Sagarin explained.

"Sagarin's point is that you have to look at conference strength top to bottom. The Pac-10 has fewer lousy teams than the SEC, which is being dragged down by ankle weights Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi State and Kentucky." (jacked from http://heismanpundit.com/).

"The Pac-10 played a more challenging nonconference schedule than most conferences...SEC schedule strength lurks as a potentially explosive issue for the BCS."

Pac ratings

The link above also lists the Pac on top of the Massey and Anderson & Hester's ratings.

In conclusion, the historical East coast stereotype regarding the Pac-10 holds no basis. Try watching a Pac-10 game before criticizing it... why isn't the ACC being slammed? There's no way you can tell me that conference is better than the Pac when Clemson is your best team. The Big East may actually be on par with the ACC this season, even without Miami and VT. The Big 12? Now that's a conference with only two teams... The Big 10 pretty much relies on OSU and Michigan every year, with UW and Iowa showing up once in awhile.

Don't take this as offense (to any other college fans of different conferences)... I'm just making a point that all major D-1 conferences have top to bottom similarities. And conference strength sways back and forth every season.

[MTK]

Campbell didn't really blossom until his senior year.

Leinart put up some big time numbers in his 3 years and won a Heisman.

I don't think it's really fair to compare the two, or say that just because Leinart is playing well that should somehow mean that Campbell should be playing. Two different players, two different situations, and circumstances.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Campbell didn't really blossom until his senior year.

Neither did Carson Palmer...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Neither did Carson Palmer...

And he didn't start right away in the NFL either.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

And he didn't start right away in the NFL either.

You're right. He sat for one season and was the unquestioned starter the following season.

[RobH4413]

Isn't it great how every thread, every where, on every planet, seems to lead to the Brunell vs. Campbell debate. Oh man...

[Rexi]

All I have to say is that this was THE PERFECT game. It's better than if the Cards would have been blown out because of how sweet the choke job was, I love it. I am sad to see that Leinart will be stuck on the floating piece of poo franchise, I liked him at SC and he looks like the best rookie QB since Marino. They need to fire Green ASAP and get a coach that isn't a complete f***tard. As bad as Grossman is when he's blitzed, I think that he still rips our D apart in two weeks unless we magically find a pass rush before the game.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Campbell didn't really blossom until his senior year.

Leinart put up some big time numbers in his 3 years and won a Heisman.

I don't think it's really fair to compare the two, or say that just because Leinart is playing well that should somehow mean that Campbell should be playing. Two different players, two different situations, and circumstances.

No one is saying they're the same guys with the same talents in the same situations.

But Leinart, Gradkowski and Vince Young all proved that it's not necessarily a signal of the Apocalypse if rookie quarterbacks have to play.

[RedskinRat]

I saw a thread on the World Health Organization this morning that blamed the Darfur issue on Joe Gibbs' reticence in starting Jason Campbell.

See? Even THEY know!

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I saw a thread on the World Health Organization this morning that blamed the Darfur issue on Joe Gibbs' reticence in starting Jason Campbell.

See? Even THEY know!

I told you, every thread... everywhere....

in the world.