How can you even say that? There isn't a SINGLE TEAM FROM THE PAC-10 IN THE TOP 25 IN TOTAL DEFENSE.

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?div=4&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org

Fresno is the top defense they've played at #33. USC is the top Pac-10 defense at #46.

They don't recruit defensive players in the Pac-10.

Total Defense Rank

USC Schedule
28. California
26. Fresno St.
46. Notre Dame
48. Oregon
54. Arkansas
68. Arizona
83. Arizona St.
92. Stanford
93. UCLA
94. Washington
102. Washington St.
111. Hawaii

Yeah.. with all of the top defenses they have faced.

I think Bush & Co. would encounter a bit more resisitance in the SEC.

SEC
2. bama
4. LSU
5. Georgia
6. Auburn
17. Florida
20. Tennessee
31. South Carolina
34. Ole Miss
45. Miss. St.
54. Arkansas
85. Vandy
110. Kentucky

Awesone...so what?

He is THAT good.

I know we are supposed to hate USC but some of our bitching about them is comical

No disrespect to Bush, he's a damn good player, but I would sever a limb to watch him play against a real defense. I'm tired of hearing about how great these offensive players inb the Pac-10 are and that the SEC has no offense at all, but look at the NFL SEC players dominate both sides of the ball. Bush running wild against high school type defenses in the PAC-10 is not as impressive as what everyone seems to think it is. Hell you have to go all the way back to Corey Dillon to find a back who was better than average at the next level. (jury is still out on Steven Jackson)

Bush is a great back, but playing against inferior defenses is of course going to make him look better than he is.

Bush is a playmaker & very dangerous in open space. Pac 10 defenses give him that space, the SEC wouldn't. He would bust out the occassional long run in the SEC, but would be contained much better than he is now.

It's not just that SEC defenses are better, which obviously they are, but they are more aggressive & would meet Bush in the backfield a lot more often that he is now.