Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 7:41 p.m.

Miles does not appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Wasn't LSU the last public school not to allow colored players on their team?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 8:59 p.m.

He's right. The pac 10 is a joke from top to bottom. Look at Stanford, Washington, UCLA, Arizona. Mediocre teams. Southern Cal plays 3 somewhat tough games a year in Michigan, Notre Dame, and whatever bowl game they get. The SEC from top to bottom is the toughest conference period. If I saw some defense in the Pac 10 maybe I wouldn't be so biased, but the defense isn't there. It's like watching arena football any time I see a Pac 10 game. Joke. The only reason other SEC coaches don't come out like this is because other SEC coaches realize that it doesn't need to be said. The SEC being the best conference is common knowledge to anyone who is not dillusional about whatever conference their favorite team is in.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 8:59 p.m.

"Wasn't LSU the last public school not to allow colored players on their team?"

What in the world does this have to do with anything in this lame article? And... "colored" players? And people think the south is stuck in the past.

"no one gave them credit for their computer national title in 2003, with a vast majority of experts favoring USC."

Hmmmm... I've seen the ADT crystal trophy from 2003. It's on the campus of LSU, so SOMEONE sure as hell gave them credit for winning the national championship.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 10:17 p.m.

This is ridiculous. USC is going to have the best defense in the country and will beat every SEC team that gets in there way. They have done it the last 5 years, and theres no stopping. There offense might suck, but no-one gonna score more than 14 on them. Also, UCLA, CAL, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, and Notre Dame are all probably gonna be ranked at the end of the year. Most of those games on the road. Teams in the Pac-10 are only apreciated for having offense and no defense. Well, u forgot about SC. They are the best team and will compete for the NC for the next 5 or so years. So SEC lovers, just wait till the Trojans hand the Tigers their heads on a platter in the National Championship Game. See whos talkin then.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 10:21 p.m.

Yes but USC is allowed to pay its players and their families. The NCAA prohibits other teams from doing so.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/4/07 5:06 a.m.

Miles and LSU can't recruit against USC, What makes him think he can play against them? Lets hope the Tigers can survive their rugged SEC schedule and make it to the the title game. What a sight it would be, McKnight and the Trojans rolling through his home town defeating the Tigers. Come to think of it that All-American Trojan QB's from down their way too. Can't blame that one on Miles though, some things just don't change I guess.

Posted by TheSeattleRealist at 7/5/07 12:30 a.m.

I believe USC beat the second best team in the SEC last year - Arkansas - on the road by 50 points. The same Arkansas team that won the SEC West title...the title LSU didn't.

Obviously the SEC has some great tradition and is a great conference. But Tennessee, Georgia, and 'Bama are not the great powerhouses they once were.

For Miles to mouth off like that is just stupid. Maybe he should do some research. Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, and Washington State in Pullman can be tough match-ups.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 8:51 a.m.

the fact that lsu was the last school to allow colored players has nothing to do with the points made in this article.

furthermore, the biggest point made here is that USC's schedule sucks, not that USC sucks. LSU faces a much tougher schedule than anyone in the Pac 10, just like any other SEC team.

Florida barely made it out alive from their SEC schedule last year and then they DESTROYED the unanimous #1 "undefeated" team. Florida players were quoted saying that Ohio St. was the 4th or 5th toughest team they played last year. The SEC is too tough and they beat eachother up.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 11:43 a.m.

Les is dead on.

The PAC-10 is minor league FB.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 11:45 a.m.

Hey Ted, I am not here to argue the strength of the SEC or the PAC 10 nor am I here to devent Les Miles, but you have to admit one thing when comparing the SEC to the PAC 10:

The SEC plays a conference championship game, the PAC 10 does not. Given that the conference championship game is between close to the two best teams in the conference, don't you think a game of that caliber makes the SEC much more difficult to run the table undefeated than the PAC 10?

Quite the contrary to my SEC breathern, I think the PAC 10 has some good teams. What if USC had to beat Cal twice to make the BCS? That is a whole different story. Playing and beating a team twice in the same season is TOUGH!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 11:52 a.m.

After reading the comments above about how great USC is, I am not sure those posters have any idea what Miles said of they failed reading comprehension.

USC is awesome, and Miles would agree to that anywhere anytime. His point was top to bottom the PAC 10 does not stack up.

In the now famous 2003 debate, LSU did what it was supposed to do: play a BCS opponent, on the road at that. All beating the daylight out of Arizona did was hurt LSU's strength of schedule once Arizona went on to play their conference slate.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 12:01 p.m.

Something tells me that the Seattle area is suffering from a dearth of citizenry who are capable of reading comprehension...

Nowhere did Miles say that USC wasn't talented...I think it was an indictment of the rest of the PAC-10. I don't see any of you actually defending the rest of that putrid conference.

What I do see is a lot of you-the author included-exhibiting an unnaturally keen ability to misinterpret and read what you want to read into someone's comments...

Do yourselves a favor, re-read his comments, and see where he talks about USC, and where he talks about USC's schedule and path to a national championship...They're two different things...

When he talks about Stanford or Cal-Berkley as "juggernauts" he's not talking about SC, is he?

Tell me you people understand this...

It's depressing that a city that a verbose, loquacious guy like Tom Robbins calls home can't grasp a simple paragraph or two uttered by someone in an interview...

Truly depressing...

Posted by creerslev at 7/5/07 12:29 p.m.

News flash; the Huskies ARE terrible.

And Les Miles is an ignorant fool.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 12:42 p.m.

how'd Cal look in Knoxville on opening day last year?

how about Washington State when they traveled to Auburn?

and I know FSU isn't part of the SEC, but how'd UCLA look in the Emerald Bowl?

"but USC blew out Arkansas"

face facts, left coast: if you subtract the top team from the Pac-10 and the top 2-3 teams from the SEC, what's left is evidence that the SEC as a football conference is ***light years*** better than the Pac-10...regardless of how "tough a matchup" Washington State can be in Pullman

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 1:05 p.m.

Wow Ted! It's SEC bashing time for you again. Can you and your brother still score 17 points on Ole Miss's defense if you played them in your backyard?
Les knows what he's talking about. The SEC's 34-21 edge over the Pac-Ten in the number of ranked teams this decade(AP poll) doesn't lie.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 1:15 p.m.

Good for Miles. I have to agree with him. And sorry, USC fans, the official 2003 national champion was LSU. Get over it.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 1:36 p.m.

I still don't understand what the fuss is about. He didn't say USC isn't a good team, he said that it's easier to go undefeated through the Pac10 than the SEC. Who with a brain disputes that?

By the way, most football fans with a brain also think the Huskies stink.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 2:46 p.m.

This guy is a clown. Or a clone. Im not sure. Anyways, I almost quit reading the "SEC sucks" posts because they're just so rediculous. Strengths of conferences change every year, but the SEC consistantly stays at the top. Maybe its not the best every year, but probably nine out of every ten years. The Pac-10 is not a good conference, although I'd agree USC looks like the best team in the country right now. Cal and UCLA could beat the Mississippi schools and Vandy, but I think that's it. Miles is probably biting off more than he can chew though. They could have some problems early working in the new QB (Im sure they dont have a big game for a few weeks though). I know he's good, but it usualy takes guys time to get comfortable.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 3:13 p.m.

"Les, of course, you could always call USC AD Mike Garrett and ask for a home-and-home. I promise he'd agree on the phone and fax over a contract within minutes."

Earn your pay and do a little research for us, Teddy. I believe I read within the last few years that LSU tried to schedule a home and home with USC and that USC balked.

Please use all of your resources and journalistic acumen to confirm or disprove. (And be sure to publish a nice big retraction when you confirm.)

Posted by ralphus at 7/5/07 3:44 p.m.

Wow, this piece is strikingly simliar to what appeared Monday on TheWizofOdds.com.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 4:59 p.m.

"Earn your pay and do a little research for us, Teddy. I believe I read within the last few years that LSU tried to schedule a home and home with USC and that USC balked."

Where'd you get this ridiculous tidbit from? A message board? Reposting message board rumors is not doing research. LSU would never come out to Cali to play USC. You need to do some research. Never happened. What they balked at playing LSU but scheduled Ohio St. and Nebraska instead?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 5:18 p.m.

Les Miles is 22-4 in two seasons at LSU and this dumbass refers to him as "not the brightest of coaching lights". In two years at LSU, Miles has beaten Tommy Tubberville; Houston Nutt (twice); Phil Fulmer; Urban Meyer; Larry Coker; and the coaching "genius" Charlie Weiss. Les Miles has coached two LSU teams to top 5 finishes and consecutive 11-2 records including two bowl wins (Peach and Sugar).

By the way, Miles never said anything negative about USC, all he said was that USC had an easier road to the BCS Title game than LSU does. Hell, that's simply the truth.

Posted by Kurosawa at 7/5/07 5:50 p.m.

In the last five seasons, USC has lost six games. Of those six losses, four were to Pac-10 teams (Oregon State, UCLA, California, and WSU). In that time, USC beat the likes of Arkansas (twice), Nebraska, Notre Dame (five times), Michigan(twice), Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Auburn (twice), Colorado, and Iowa, while losing only to Texas and Kansas State.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 7:36 p.m.

"Les Miles is 22-4 in two seasons at LSU and this dumbass refers to him as 'not the brightest of coaching lights'."

Agreed that Les Miles is not the brightest of coaching lights. He had those two winning seasons due to Nick Saban's recruits (#2 class in the country 2003, 2004). Even Larry Coker would have top five finishes with those kind of players. Fact is, in a couple more years as the talent level declines, LSU will soon be on par with the likes of Ole Miss.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 10:39 p.m.

This is exactly why the SEC hates the Pac-10, every "expert" has that west-coast bias.

Last year the "experts" said Ohio was the best team in the land and they got destroyed by Florida.

Take USC out of the Pac-10 and name another powerful team, any team you name would get demolished in the SEC.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 10:43 p.m.

This guy likes the Huskies, yeah he knows something about football.

USC is a great team, but YES they do have an easier road.
Let LSU play Standford, Cal, & Washington instead of Florida, Auburn, and Tennesse.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/5/07 10:47 p.m.

Same story but written by someone more qualified with all of the info: http://www.realfootball365.com/college/articles/2007/07/sec-versus-pacten060707.html

They break down USC v.s The Sec and LSU v.s. Pac-10

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 10:45 a.m.

Does it really matter if the SEC is better than the PAC 10? It's fairly obvious that, at this time, it is. It is also obvious that USC is a better team now, and will continue to be in the future, than LSU. Remember 03, Tiger fans, because that will be your last championship for a long, long time. Meanwhile, Pete Carroll will be hoisting that crystal ball, the one you cherish so much, again this year. Fight on!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 12:49 p.m.

lsu beat notre dame and arkansas by a combined 32. usc beat them by 56. not to mention lsu barely beat arkansas by 5, usc blew them out by 36. and what about the combine? the sec has 2 more teams then the pac 10, so of course they have more players invited. and what about western illinois and applachian state?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 2:59 p.m.

USC is the powerhouse of college football.
But the Pac-10 is a JV league.

The Sec has more players in the nfl right now then any other conference in pro football, duh.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 4:29 p.m.

And look who is quarterbacking those NFL teams trooooojans. Name another school w/ two starting qb's in the NFL. Lets also not forget how the SEC loves to pad their schedules with weak I-AA teams while SC plays ND, Nebraska. Didn't Florida last year play 2 I-AA teams? Yeah real strong schedule. The SEC boasts about how great their defenses are, but lets face it your offenses aren't exactly juggernauts.
No other team blew out Arkansas like SC did last year. And SC didn't post those points (50) up against any other team in the PAC 10. So are your defenses really all that good? I bet SC would fare better in the SEC than Florida or LSU. You guys are softies!
Top to bottom the SEC isnt all that strong. Vandy, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State arent exactly top notch ballers. They are no better than the bottom half of the PAC-10.
Look at LSU's Scheduale next year: Miss, Miss state, Middle Tenn, Tulane, kentucky, and Louisiana Tech.. THESE Team are Husky level at best!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 4:48 p.m.

I think we all know that USC would and will absolutley dominate any SEC team they come up against. We're going to hand LSU their butts on a silver platter, and it's going to be bent!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/07 6:07 p.m.

Yes USC is the powerhouse, thats why they put on such a good showing in last years championship game....oh wait.

Florida won.
Actually Florida destroyed.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/7/07 1:11 a.m.

So, in 2003, at the beginning of the season... if you asked Pete Carrol "Where would you like to see your season end?" I'm almost positive he would of said that he would wanted to get to the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans (the designated BCS National Championship that year). I don't know too many teams who set their goals as to win the AP poll and be satisfied. USC accepting and SETTLING for the AP Championship in '03 was just a ploy to try dismiss LSU's actual national title win. If Michigan would of beat USC, would they have been the AP Champions? Because I'm pretty sure they were ranked lower than LSU and OU in the AP poll. Go figure. They hired PR people to see how they could turn the AP deal into their favor. Did you forget who USC lost to that year? and who LSU lost to that year?
USC = Cal
LSU = Florida

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/rankings.asp?Ranking=1&Week=34&Year=2003&team=ALABAMA

So ask any top rated teams coach this year... at the beginning of the season, and see what there goal is. I'm sure they will all want to end up with the Crystal Ball.

Posted by DMANN at 7/8/07 1:47 p.m.

Living out west I thought all the pot smokers were out here. But, listening to these SEC folks I see it's alive and well down south. The SEC is and always has been a step child to the PAC-10 thru out the history of these conf's. Was the SEC better last year in football, yes. But over the years the PAC has been not only better at football but every other sport you can list the last 25 years. Pointing to one game or one year is meaningless. The PAC has a winning record against the SEC straight up in all sports and countless more NATL titles. Prove that one wrong. The comment that the PAC doesn't play defense, wrong. It's the SEC that doesn't play offense. When people talk about great offensive schemes it's the " WEST COAST " offense that they talk about. I can't recall anyone converting to that legendary " SEC " offense. As far as ranked teams go, yes the SEC has had more but I suspect it's the same as the college baseball senario. The SEC this year was loaded with ranked teams but who won it all again ? Yes that's right the PAC-10 ( 25th in conf history ). The SEC had the #1 ranked team that didn't even make it to the super regional's let alone Omaha but in the end it was agreed that the four best teams were Oregon St, Irvine, Arizona St and Fullerton ( all west coast ) in that order. The SEC want's a playoff but you should be carefull what you wish for as I suspect a playoff system will exspose your conf as being over-rated like what happened to the SEC in baseball this year. The SEC will continue to ride the coattails of the PAC. The success of the majority of both men and women's athletics all started with the PAC-10. Lastly, who even respects SEC athletic's. The SEC will except anyone who passes the breath test into one of thier schools. when people think of academics the rest of the country is sure not thinking of the SEC. Sorry SEC I know it's hard to swallow the truth.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/8/07 7:39 p.m.

from 2002 to the present the Pac-10 is 6-6 against the SEC, so the idea that the SEC is some godsend is ridiculous. If the SEC wants to claim supremacy maybe you should earn it...Florida last year did that but that means nothing this year. As for 2003, USC was #1 in both polls but got jumped for the National Championship...so that is why there IS A SPLIT TITLE!

Posted by jake24 at 7/9/07 12:06 p.m.

Let me get this straight, LSU, with a schedule that includes Ole Miss, LA Tech, Kentucky, Tulane, Mid Tennessee State and Miss State, is questioning USC's path to the national championship. Also, Auburn, Florida and Arkansas, are at LSU this year. I am sure Les did not check his schedule before his comments, please tell me he forget to check it before calling out USC's road to the N.C.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/9/07 6:39 p.m.

Why do SEC fans feel compelled to justify themselves every year with quotes like "The SEC from top to bottom is the toughest conference period." Is there some inferiority complex with SEC fans that they constantly must say that! Sure, some years the SEC is the toughest conference. Other years it is the Big Ten or the ACC. I mean this is a joke right? Let's look at perennial bottom feeders like Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Ole Miss. I mean those are four easy wins for any decent team.

USC blows out Arkansas two straight years. How about bowl games? Wisconsin takes down Auburn and Arkansas in back to back years in the bowl game. West Virginia beats SEC conference champ Georgia in 2006. Oklahoma State beats Alabama in 2007, Penn State over Tennessee and on.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 11:39 a.m.

News flash...beating Arkansas silly without the heisman candidate running back NcFadden and the third string QB starting in the line up is not an impressive accomplishment...

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 11:41 a.m.

ok, first off, USC DID NOT BEAT THE 2nd best team in the sec!!!!!!!!!!!! I hear this over and over again. They beat the 4th best team without a healthy McFadden. The sec's 5th bestteam did crush the pac 1's 2nd best team though in Cal. The sec was also 3-1 against the pac 1 last year. USC is 4-0 against the sec, but LSU is 4-0 against the pac 1 the last 5 years as well so this arguement is worthless. The last time USC played a team as talented as LSu, they lost- in the rose bowl.Let's line up the best pac 1 and sec teams from last year and see how they would have done if they matched up...

Florida vs. USC -- UF would have won
LSU vs. Cal --- LSU would have won
Auburn vs. oregon state---AUburn would have won
UCLA vs. arkansas - Arkansas would have won
ASU vs. UGA- UGA wins
oregon vs. Tennessee--- UT wins
Arizona vs. South Carolina- Sc wins
wash st. vs. Kentucky- UK wins

I could go on, but I think you can see Les is right.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 11:43 a.m.

"Agreed that Les Miles is not the brightest of coaching lights. He had those two winning seasons due to Nick Saban's recruits (#2 class in the country 2003, 2004). Even Larry Coker would have top five finishes with those kind of players. Fact is, in a couple more years as the talent level declines, LSU will soon be on par with the likes of Ole Miss."

I guess we can contribute Florida's recent success to Ron Zook then huh? Try not to be such a dumbass for the rest of your life.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 11:50 a.m.

where do i begin, first of all how did tht UCLA game turn out last year? second of all Miles never said anything about the caliber of a football team SC is. Its simply a much easier schedule. I would love for USC and LSU to trade schedules. i know that LSU would come out undefeated. hell they would only be challenged twice!! then USC would have one hell of a time on their way through the sec. Florida, Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and arkansas. i'm not saying that all these teams would beat USC but they would lose one or two, and thats what could keep that out of the championship game.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 12:50 p.m.

"The SEC is and always has been a step child to the PAC-10 thru out the history of these conf's. Was the SEC better last year in football, yes. But over the years the PAC has been not only better at football but every other sport you can list the last 25 years."

DMANN, Do you really believe this? Do you know what the record in Football is between the PAC 10 and the SEC? You sir are a Moron. The overall record between the PAC and SEC is 65-40-7 in favor of the SEC. So "Over the years" you are wrong!!

"The SEC will except anyone who passes the breath test into one of thier schools."

Well with your spelling/grammar (it should be "accept" and "their" dummy) I'm sure you would get in fine then. Oh, and Arizona, ASU, WSU and OSU are Ivy League caliber huh!!

"The comment that the PAC doesn't play defense, wrong. It's the SEC that doesn't play offense."

Why is it then DMANN that the highest rated Defense in the PAC 10 last year was USC at 20? There is only one PAC 10 team in the Top 30, and 6 SEC teams. Before you talk smack do a little research bud, it won't make you look like such a moron. Oh, and Offense, the best PAC 10 team was only ranked 20th in total offense. Strange how both LSU and Florida had a better offense than the PAC 10's best team. Weird huh?

Now to summarize my statistical beat down, the SEC has more Football national champions than any other conference, more BCS bowl victories than any other conference, more Bowl victories than any other conference, more players in the NFL...........need I go on?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 3:35 p.m.

Bottom line is National Championships and Heismans. USC is on top with ND.........no SEC. Heck if USC doesn't lose to UCLA last year, Florida gets left out of the NC game. Auburn got left out 2 years ago, so that tells you that nobody respect the SEC. Why....because you guys believe playing your conference teams through the year is so tough that you have to schedule pansies for at least 4 or 5 games every year. USC has never, I repeat, NEVER played a Div II school, but every team in the SEC schedules 1 or 2 every year. So to be the best you have to want to play the best. USC never backs down to anybody. We'll play anybody, any time. Just look at USC non-conf schedule and compare it to LSU, Florida, Auburn, or any other SEC team. No comparison.........cause we don't schedule weak out of conference softies. That's why the best high school players in the SEC areas want to go to SC so badly. Competition is what we teach and you can't be scared to compete against the best, in order to become the best. SEC teams need to learn that if you're going to schedule soft, your pretty much already sending the message to your team that......maybe we didn't attempt to play the best that's out there. Enough said. Fight On!!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/07 9:49 p.m.

Interesting, go to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team.php now tell me no SEC team? another misinformed USC fan. Alabama has as many NC's as USC buddy.

Heck, If LSU didn't lose to Florida Last year they would have been in the NC game. See how silly your "what if" game is.

You are absolutely right about 1 thing. USC has never played a DIV II team. They have however played 62 games against DIV III schools. Bravo!!! USC crushed Carnegie-Mellon ! If you can Show me 1 team on an SEC schedule that is in Div II for the 2007 season, I will gladly eat crow. You won't find one though. As far as USC's scedule goes, If you really think Idaho (preseason ranked #113, lower than any SEC opponent is ranked!!) is not a softie opponent then you must be a moron. Don't brag about USC's schedule too much Pal, it might get you in trouble. Fight on beat them Vandals!!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/31/07 4:53 p.m.

Mississippi, MSU, Vandy, Kentucky, and South Carolina have not been power teams over the past 10 years. No offense to Archie Manning, Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier. When was the last time Vandy went a bowl game? How about MSU?

The same can be said for Washington, Washington State, Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona, and UCLA...

However, Washington won 11 games in 2001, WSU enjoyed three straight 10 win seasons this decade, Stanford has gone to two Rose Bowls since 1995, UCLA and Arizona State have won 7-8 games per season, Arizona won 11 games in 1998.

The point being, the balance of power in college football is truly cyclical. When looking at the facts, the SEC possesses two programs that have had long term droughts (Vandy and MSU) of success. Where as the Pac-10 has not had a true long term bottom dweller, since the futility of Oregon State in the late 70's and most of the 80's and 90's This statement remains true even in the wake of once top 25 programs UCLA and Washington, struggling to gain momentum.

In college football one has to have a memory, especially when looking at Sec-Pac-10 regular season match-ups. I witnessed UW traveling to Baton Rouge in 1983 for a thumping, while WSU and Timm Rosenbach visited Tennessee and absolutely annihilated the Vols by 5 touchdowns. I would like to see the conferences schedule more dates between respective teams, but the amount of travel and the low expectations of fan road attendance, contribute to scheduling headaches.

Both the Pac-10 and SEC play good football, but unless more head to head match-ups are in the works, can trash talking will last all season long, but does not count in the BCS standings.

Speaking of memory and to the blubber spouted forth from Les Miles, did not a mediocre Oregon State team travel to Baton Rouge in 2004 amidst a rain storm and lose to the Tigers 22-21 in overtime, if not for a missed extra point. Is Mr. Miles, the former long time Michigan assistant, venting his frustration from having to play such a physical UW team in the Rose Bowl for two straight seasons (1991-1992, even though the two teams split)? Shame on Miles! He should be very familiar with the competitive tradition of the Pac-10, as the Big Ten was absolutely dominated in the 80's and 90's in the foothills of Pasadena.

The Pac-10 could and should implement a conference championship game.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/3/07 9:13 a.m.

The SEC is by far the best conference.USC could compete but would not always be number one if they had been in the SEC.Lsu would beat them if they played.they will play in the championship game.im not a Lsu fan at all.im a Georgia dawgs fan.I just think if USC is going to get all the hype,they need to play some teams that are good.Washington almost beat them.