Pat Forde Sucks

by inVINCEable on Aug 16, 2007 4:44 PM CDT Comment 9 comments

The dude bases his claim on the SEC conference being the best conference because of the devotion of the fans to their teams and a whole long list of ridiculousness. Now, this just may be the thoughts of a fan of the REAL UT in Knoxville, but I get sick and tired of hearing how much better the SEC is just because the intra-conference games can go either way.

I suppose more than anything, I find the whole argument over which conference is the best to just be a total waste of time. Some people base it on the few games played that year verses the other conference. Some base it on rankings. I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who would love to hear people just be quiet about the strength of conferences.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What?

First of all, He's right. Second of all, why are you vilifying the guy for writing a college football article? We need more college football article...not less. I got way too much work done today.

I've had the same debate with my friends a thousand times. Some guy writes an article about it on a main stream web site and he's a douche?

Eventually people will realize that you can have a mainstream media and a blog-o-sphere without either being evil and both being enjoyable.

Guess what? USC looks to be the best team on paper this year. Everyone and their do writes a 'who is the best' article. Thus you have a ton of articles about USC. Deal.

Plus, I've had three beers. :)

by afat on Aug 16, 2007 7:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No

What I'm saying is that the entire promotion of one conference over another has very little effect on the game in many situations. I normally like Pat Forde for most of his other stuff which I find to be better than a few of ESPN's other writers (see: Ivan Maisel) but I think that everybody and their mothers have gotten up into arms about this Pac-10, Big 10, SEC dominance stuff when really, it does not matter at all.

I'm also pointing out that his reasons for which teams are BETTER, that is not to say which teams have a more passionate fan base, but which teams play better on the field. Bringing up UTenn's absolute dominance over Cal would be at least a reasonable argument for SEC being better but even that is a dumb comparison.

41-38

by inVINCEable on Aug 16, 2007 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes and No

While I haven't read the article myself, I can agree that the criteria of most devoted fans doesn't really hold up.

As for the whole best/strongest conference debate, I think it's a very valid discussion to bring up. Teams going through tougher conferences ought to have more weight behind their number of wins at the end of the season (hence Florida's invitation to the national championship last year).

From the desk of your self-proclaimed resident gamer.

by Ramzlita on Aug 16, 2007 7:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I get that

I understand the importance of the strength of schedule. But is it good to look at the conference at whole and say "If they play in the WAC, they've got to be worthless" or "They played in the SEC? Wow tough win!"

Take a team like Alabama who has struggled in the past 10 years. They may have fielded a pretty good defense some of the time, but as a team, they rarely had any offense. They were still being viewed as a tough team to play in many of the arguments for why Florida should be in the NC last year. Same with Georgia who, with a few successes set aside, struggled moderately especially in the start of the season. I think it's important to look at TEAMS and not Conferences.

41-38

by inVINCEable on Aug 16, 2007 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the teams on the coasts

get ALOT more hype than any other teams, because of the media, and that being said, there are A LOT of people that live on the coasts, and that's why the teams on the coasts have a huge amount of fans.
if Texas were to be on one of the coasts, let's say, the West coast, Texas would probably getting about the same hype as USC, and the so called 'espn experts' would probably be debating whether who would win in the 'already set' NC, with it being Texas vs USC, so... basically what im trying to say, is that the teams on the coasts get WAY too much hype

it's [check your watch] o'clock and ou still sucks....

by ut fan in ok on Aug 16, 2007 8:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree this is a bicoastal culture ...

... but when it comes to college football, who are the overhyped East Coast teams? Rutgers? BC? Don't mean to nitpick, but living on the East Coast I am usually starving for big-time college football. I think the CFB hype is more specifically targeted to California and Big 10 schools, plus (of course) Notre Dame. Seems to be dictated more by tradition than geography.

by NYCHorn on Aug 17, 2007 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One word: Miami

Thinking back to the 90's and early 00's, they had as much hype then as USC does now. Miami was the east coast team that got all the pub, and to a certain extent too so did FSU. I know they qualify as southern teams, but everyone and their dog was on the Miami bandwagon, probably due in part to the bicoastal culture that you point out.

by DogTown on Aug 17, 2007 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Touchee

I'll give you that!

by NYCHorn on Aug 17, 2007 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lived in Virginia Beach

from 1975-1987. Felt like college football was viewed as a secondary sport. Everything was basketball.........basketball........Some years Texas/ou wasn't even showed because Wake Forest vs. Duke was the high profile regional game that day.
Damn it sucked.....

"Nobody leaves this field until we beat the hell out of them".................... L.J."Louis"Jordan in 1913 before kickoff of the Texas/ou game.

by ouALWAYSsux on Aug 17, 2007 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs