Painful to watch . . . maybe not quite as painful as a woodchuck (or whatever the hell that is) being killed by a tree, but painful nonetheless. 0-0 until the last play of the third quarter. Unreal. Their defenses are good, but not THAT good. Terrible offensive display from both sides. And even when they got it going, they messed it up (See Tennessee fumbling through the back of the 'bama endzone). Just plain bad.

I'd like to see an SEC team actually try and score 30 points in a conference game. It's like they go into the game looking to score 10 pts.

I'd like to see a pac 10 team play some defense and try to hold someone under 30 points. It's like they go into a game looking to give up as many points as they can and win.

USC managed to hold Arkansas to 17 points in a close fought (70-17) game. How did the Razorbacks -- a represntive SEC team -- do in Alabama, or Georgia?

The point of the game is to score MORE than the opponent, not to hope they score less than you're capable of!

Sounds like Dawgy1 doesn't watch Pac-10 football . . . big surprise.

My post about pac 10 defenses was in response to stephen kim's post. Dumb = Dumb.

You're right RA the point of the game is to win It doesn't really matter if it's a 3 pt. win or 21 pt. win.

Ginn Fan, if you pac 10 homers are qualified to talk about SEC football then I'm just as qualified to talk about pac 10 football. I probably have seen more pac 10 games than you've seen SEC games. What are you all of 19 years old?

Just some stats, 1995-2004 all games: SEC avg. 26 ppg on offense, 22 ppg on defense. pac 10 avg. 27.9 ppg on offense and 25.1 ppg on defense.

I would say that it's clear that the goal of every college football team to score more than they give up, and it doesn't matter if you are in the Pac 10 or SEC.

There's two sides to that coin--one could say that the SEC can't score points, one could say that the Pac 10 can't play defense. Both 'Bama-UT and WSU-Cal were great games--in one, points were at a premium; in one, they weren't. In one, scoring points was a struggle; in one, points were given away cheaply.

For my money, I appreciated both games, and I think it's too bad if you couldn't watch 'Bama-UT and appreciate it, and then close out your day with Cal-WSU and appreciate that one as well.

And for you, Ghost--how is it that Stanford only managed 3 points on offense against mighty provisional 1-AA team UC-Davis, but scored 45 on Arizona State, more than USC scored? Are Pac-10 defenses that bad?

Sounds like Pac-10 has some pretty good offenses to me. How has the SC defense faired against OOC compeition in the last two years? They've given up about 14.5 points per game. Against Pac-10, it's about 17 points per game. And keep in mind, the OOC schedule included teams like Oklahoma, Va Tech, Notre Dame (twice), an extremely high scoring Hawaii team, and the SEC's own Arkansas while the Pac-10 schedule featured perennial patsies like Arizona and (as of late) UW. If you go back further than that, the discrepancy is far greater, as SC beat up on OOC opponents (except for ND) during the Hackett era and got pummeled in conference (See Penn State, Colorado, etc. as compared to Oregon State, Arizona, Stanford, and Cal).

How has the SC defense fared against recent SEC competition you might ask? How about just over 11 points per game since 1998?

Not that this is conclusive of the relative strengths of each conference, but you must admit that the Alabama-Tennessee game was a horrible offensive (and I do mean offensive) display. I mean, even the vaunted Blazers of UAB managed to score a touchdown against Tennesse, as did Middle Tennessee State against Alabama. That was a patehtic offensive showing, even the most ardent SEC honk must admit. T

he Pac-10 has much better offenses than the SEC, but it doesn't mean the Pac doesn't play any defense. Sure, there are some good ol' shootouts, but many of the teams in the Pac-10 can bring the lumber on D as well.

And yes, I am 19, jealous much old-timer?

P.S. -- Ted Ginn plays for Ohio State (that's Big-10, in case you weren't sure)

Dawgy your stats are skewed when you consider that just about every SEC team plays patsies for 3-4 non-conf games a year. That is where SEC teams pad their offensive stats because they know when it's time for conference play, the 6-3 type games are a common occurance.

Can someone tell me how SEC offenses fare against Pac-10? I recall Auburn getting shutout by USC a few years ago.

ASU held LSU's offense in check this season as well. ASU has a below-average defense, yet is able to hold LSU's offense because of their playbook that originated around the time the Mason-Dixon line was originated.

I can tell you this, all-time through 2004 the SEC has a 61-38-7 against the pac 10 but, then again someone will only want to pick out the last 2 years to try to prove some point. i.e. one time 2 years ago Auburn got shut out by the national champs USC. I believe Auburn lost 5 games that year and were beaten worse by Georgia than USC.

Ginn Fan, if anyone should be jealous it should be you. If you happened to be as blessed as I, you will live to be an old-timer too and see much more college football and be a little wiser for it.

Solon,

I'm sure you're as baffled by Stanford as I am. Clearly they're not the same team right now as the one that lost to the 1-AA team. Obviously they're still not very good, but they changed.

That's what I like about teams, when they can improve themselves over time, instead of getting worse. Through no fault of their own (Shockley's injury) it looks like UGA is going to decline a bit. Their run D just collapsed, too (probably a 1-game thing, those Arkansas backs are very good), signs of trouble.

Dawgy1,

All time records are irrelevant to the current landscape, which is what we're talking about here.

Yes, the point of the game is to win. But winning comfortably is a measure of a team's abilities on both sides of the ball. When you play a ton of close games you're leaving a lot more up to chance, and showing an attitude less of dominance than survival.

RA, I agree completely on Stanford--they're a much better team now than they were at the beginning of the season. That said, even though their QB went down they should have been able to add more points against UC-Davis. As it stood, I think Edwards led them to a FG, and then they scored twice defensively--the point being that Edwards played 1 or 2 drives, and then Ostrander couldn't score any points the rest of the game.

Even Joey T led the Dawgs to 16 points in 2 1/2 quarters against an Arkansas D that's got to be better than UC-Davis'. So, yeah, I've got no clue what to make of Stanford. They were a little lucky to win last week, it sounds like, but still, 45 points is 45 points.

Regarding the Georgia D, they lost their spine (the two starting DTs, and their MLB), which is a lot of why Arkansas did so well running against them. Vandy actually ran against them as well, the week prior when those players were out--Vandy's backs aren't near as good as Arkansas', so it wasn't as obvious at the time, but in retrospect it is.

Word is that of the missing defensive players, all but DT Golston will be back for the UF game. I'd have the D would've stepped it up with DJ out but at some point attrition will get you. Either way, doesn't look too good at this point for the Dawgs.

Dawgy1, the comment about being 19 was sarcastic, although I see it was lost on you through your senility.

The truely irrelevant statistics in evaluating the two conferences this year are the ancient statistics (yes, 1995 is ancient. The entire landscape of college football has changed since then).

I'm sure "someone will want to" argue that the SEC is superior to the Pac-10 today because Bear Bryant won a bunch of championships back in his day, but it's completely irrelevant in this discussion. Although, come to think of it, is Alabama still running the same offense that they did during Bear's day? I think this is a distinct possibility.

Anyway, try and focus on the relevant stats, not what happened in 1995. I'd be interested in a more recent analysis, let me know if you find anything.

I think you are confused, Ginn Fan--Ohio State is now using the advanced (for them) Bear Bryant offense--light years ahead of the Woody Hayes offense that they used for so long. Kudos.

Of course, Penn State is using the same offense and those two look to be the class of the Big 10, because they can play defense. Who cares what the offensive gameplan is if in the end they outscore their opponent?

And I don't care how outdated their O is, if you don't think 'Bama's prehistoric attack would run for 250 yards against the UCLA defense, then you haven't watched either team play this season.

You're preaching to the choir on Ohio State. Ginn could be flourishing in any half-way decent system (not to mention that in any system with decent athletes on O, he would be able to focus primarily on D).

UCLA's run defense = pourous, no question about it. But, one team's weak run defense does not a weak conference make. Whether 'bama would go for 250 on the ground . . . well I don't think they'd go for that much, but the point is well taken: 'Bama (undefeated, including in the SEC) could have success running the ball against the worst rushing defense in the Pac-10.

But big whoop. Don't you think EVERY Pac-10 team would have success passing against the worst pass defense in the SEC? Judging a conference by its weakest link hardly seems like an accurate measure of conference strength.

250 yards is a lot Solon, especially without any big-gain back.

180-210 sounds about right. Same with the way UGA runs. 250+ totals usually come when there's a back who is a little more slippery and can get out into the open for a few huge gains. I think Darby's a fine back but he's too much thunder and not enough lightning.