Big 10 Fraud Exposed, but what about PAC 10

[lostinNala]

This bowl season (and last) has showed that generally, Big 10 as a conf. is really pretty weak. My question is when will everyone realize the same about Pac 10.

Much like the Big 10, their leadership protects them from meaningful regular season competition. Now both conferences refuse to get behind a plus one system. Why? The answer is simple. They prefer to play all but two games within conf., not have a championship, thereby increasing the chances that their one or two legit teams (USC) (OSU and Mich.) will end the season in contention for a NC.

I am unsure from a $$ perspective why this makes sense, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with the "Tournament of Roses" and their exclusive TV deal.

What irritates me about their stance; however, is that I am sick of sports media talking about how great USC is and how they really may be the best team in the country. Admittedly, I am biased about SEC football, but the facts are what they are. USC was a two loss team, dropping both games to teams far inferior to those LSU lost to. (For the record, I think UK was as good or better than Oregon, and that both UK and Arkie were far and away better than Stanford). Additionally, the wins USC racked up were against far lesser competition, judging objectively based upon their final records and AP rankings.

Just venting my frustration about these conferences unwillingness to get on-board with the other commissioners attempts to create a plus-one. I have been one of those few skeptical of whether or not a playoff would be good for College FB; however, I am now coming around to the idea of a plus one system with a four-team play-off. Would have loved to see UGA, USC, LSU and OSU each win a BCS bowl, then move on to play each other for the right to play for the NC.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

The PAC-10 is pretty good. I would rank them as either the 2nd or 3rd best conference alongside the Big-12.

Southern Cal is scary good. In a one game playoff they could match up with any SEC team. During an entire season in the SEC, however, they would probably lose at least 2 games a year. I could easily see them surviving a war with LSU but then get smacked around by UGA the next week.

Over the last few years the SEC has entered an arms race and the quality of the teams is probably unprecedented. The league is loaded with coaches that can recruit and coach the players up. We have at least 7 coaches that can do that - most conferences have at most 2.

 

[Nick4Bama]

This bowl season (and last) has showed that generally, Big 10 as a conf. is really pretty weak. My question is when will everyone realize the same about Pac 10.

Much like the Big 10, their leadership protects them from meaningful regular season competition. Now both conferences refuse to get behind a plus one system. Why? The answer is simple. They prefer to play all but two games within conf., not have a championship, thereby increasing the chances that their one or two legit teams (USC) (OSU and Mich.) will end the season in contention for a NC.

I am unsure from a $$ perspective why this makes sense, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with the "Tournament of Roses" and their exclusive TV deal.

What irritates me about their stance; however, is that I am sick of sports media talking about how great USC is and how they really may be the best team in the country. Admittedly, I am biased about SEC football, but the facts are what they are. USC was a two loss team, dropping both games to teams far inferior to those LSU lost to. (For the record, I think UK was as good or better than Oregon, and that both UK and Arkie were far and away better than Stanford). Additionally, the wins USC racked up were against far lesser competition, judging objectively based upon their final records and AP rankings.

Just venting my frustration about these conferences unwillingness to get on-board with the other commissioners attempts to create a plus-one. I have been one of those few skeptical of whether or not a playoff would be good for College FB; however, I am now coming around to the idea of a plus one system with a four-team play-off. Would have loved to see UGA, USC, LSU and OSU each win a BCS bowl, then move on to play each other for the right to play for the NC.

I believe the Pac and big 10 would agree to a plus one eventually, but the rest of the country shouldn't agree to it untill they start playing a conference championship game.

All a plus one would do at this point is give the winner of the rose a chance to play for the national championship every year. Believe me. The media would have a pac or big 10 team in the plus one game every year.

I still don't really think they will agree untill both conferences are left out of the BCSCG. They didn't join the BSC until they felt left out

 

[drjamesm]

IMO,it is the Pac10 that is the fly in the ointment preventing a true play off. They know they are the big 1 and little 9 with USC the only contender. Also,if USC played an SEC schedule they would have problems making the big game losing 2-3 every year.They can cruise through the season and play only 2 tough games where in the sec west alone there is 3 very hard games with 1-2 SEc east games in the mix with the SECC game too. The Pac 10 doesn't even play a title game........so Lame!

 

[CornBiscuit]

I personally think the Pac 10 is a lot better than most give them credit for.

Probably the second best conference.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I personally think the Pac 10 is a lot better than most give them credit for.

Probably the second best conference.

Agreed, at least for the last 7 years or so. But to simply say they are second best is oversimplifying it, IMO. If the SEC is #1, and the PAC 10 is the next best conference, they would be about #4 - there is that much separation.

The SEC is far better than any other conference. The stats and on-field results bear that out...

 

[JeffAtlanta]

I personally think the Pac 10 is a lot better than most give them credit for. Probably the second best conference.

I agree, but it is their fans that screw it up. They've been saying that they were the best conference in the country for the last 15 years, even before USC's resurgence.

They have always tried to assert that the SEC is overhyped and cite out of conference schedules. Just like the ACC and Big-10 they then go on and on about their superior academics but leave out the fact that they've all of their athletic powers have created easy majors for their athletes and relaxed the entrance requirements for them.

They are pretty good, but the teams #3 - #10 would be chewed up by their corresponding SEC teams.

 

[rollntider]

Alabama, Auburn and Miss State are 0-6 the last 6 meetings since 2000 against pac 10 competition We lost to UCLA, the barn USC, Miss State to Oregon
I believe UT was 1-1 vs. Cal right?

We havent fared well vs. the Pac 10 for all of the big 10 wins we get.

 

[BamaInBham]

I personally think the Pac 10 is a lot better than most give them credit for.

Probably the second best conference.

I agree. They've eaten the SEC up the last few years for the most part. Though the sample has been way too small to make a definitive statement. USC will play anyone anywhere.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

Alabama, Auburn and Miss State are 0-6 the last 6 meetings since 2000 against pac 10 competition We lost to UCLA, the barn USC, Miss State to Oregon

You have to look at the match ups. If the #1 Pac-10 team beats the #5 SEC team, does that really say much about either conference?

 

[REBELZED]

You have to look at the match ups. If the #1 Pac-10 team beats the #5 SEC team, does that really say much about either conference?

Exactly. I'd hate to see what happened if you put our #1 against the #5 Pac 10 or #5 from ANY other conference for that matter...

 

[CaliforniaTide]

I'll put in my experience from the Rose Bowl game b/w USC and Illinois that I went to last week...

Before, during, and after the game, there were lots and lots of USC fans that cursed the Pac-10 commish (whoever he is), the Rose Bowl Committee, and the overall "traditional" match-up b/w Pac-10 and Big 10 in the Rose Bowl game. They REALLY REALLY wanted UGA or even OSU as their opponent and not the 3rd place team from the Big 10. So at least with the sample of USC fans at the Rose Bowl, there are a lot of them that want a playoff and want to get rid of the "tradition" that to them, is making the Rose Bowl lose its luster.

The Pac-10 is a good conference. That is not the same as saying that it is on par with the SEC. USC has been the leader in getting decent/great OOC match-ups; next season, they open up at UVA and then they host Ohio State. Sure, they may lose 2-3 game every year in the SEC if they played the SEC conference slate, but that isn't any different than UF, UT, UGA and LSU this year. Aside from USC, it really depends on the year. This year was supposed to Oregon's chance, and really every year, Oregon should be up there, but Coach Belotti seems to have a hard time regularly contending for the Pac-10 crown. Cal has had its chances but still couldn't win enough games to go to the Rose Bowl. Washington has traditionally been the other "superpower" in the Pac-10 but I don't know if Willingham is the right man for the job (even though he did lead Stanford to a Rose Bowl berth and win I think). Erickson could make something out of ASU if he can continue his success.

 

[Mamacalled]

I believe the Pac and big 10 would agree to a plus one eventually, but the rest of the country shouldn't agree to it untill they start playing a conference championship game.

All a plus one would do at this point is give the winner of the rose a chance to play for the national championship every year. Believe me. The media would have a pac or big 10 team in the plus one game every year.

I still don't really think they will agree untill both conferences are left out of the BCSCG. They didn't join the BSC until they felt left out

WHy should they play a conference championship game when they play EVERY TEAM inthe PAC 10?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Alabama, Auburn and Miss State are 0-6 the last 6 meetings since 2000 against pac 10 competition We lost to UCLA, the barn USC, Miss State to Oregon
I believe UT was 1-1 vs. Cal right?

We havent fared well vs. the Pac 10 for all of the big 10 wins we get.

USC ran through Arkansas too.

 

[jthomas666]

I agree. They've eaten the SEC up the last few years for the most part. Though the sample has been way too small to make a definitive statement. USC will play anyone anywhere.

True, but at the same time, U$C's payroll probably exceeds that of most NFL small market teams.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

USC ran through Arkansas too.

True, but LSU, UGA or UF would have likely ran through all of the other PAC-10 teams as well.

 

[BamaFanTraeInGeorgia]

I think USC has been a high calibur team for the past few years. A few years ago when they demolished Oklahoma in the BCS, there was no doubt in my mind they were the best team in the country. Auburn deserved a chance to play them that year instead of Oklahoma, but I really believe the end result would have been the same.

I also think USC is a good football team this year. We can all say dont lose at home to Stanford, but cant they say the same about LSU and Arkansas? The real reason USC did not play in the BCSNCG this year is because of their conference and how weak it is (coupled with Stanford loss). I do think a USC/UGA matchup this year would have been a great game and I dont think either team would have a huge advantage if played out of PAC 10 and SEC territory.

BTW, didnt USC beat Arkansas one year pretty handily, and Arkansas end up winning the SEC West?

 

[BigEasyTider]

CornBiscuit is right, the Pac-10 is good, and much better than it gets credit for being. USC is a dynasty, and they have several other good teams in that conference, too.

The funny thing is that everyone always talks about how USC would struggle in another conference, but if you break it down, the Pac-10 teams always give them a much harder time than out-of-conference opponents.

For example, in 2003 they annihilated Auburn, Notre Dame, BYU, Hawai'i, and Michigan, but lost to Cal.

In 2004, they blew out Virginia Tech, Colorado State, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma, yet had very close wins over Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and UCLA.

In 2006, they easily beat Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Michigan, but lost to Oregon State and UCLA.

In my opinion, the Pac-10 is probably the most underrated conference out there. It's good and solid from top-to-bottom, plus you have to play every team in it every year, so you can't luck out and dodge a top team on the conference schedule like you can in some conferences. I'd put the Pac-10 right up there with the Big 12 as the best conference outside the SEC, maybe even slightly ahead of the Big 12.

 

[BigEasyTider]

BTW, didnt USC beat Arkansas one year pretty handily, and Arkansas end up winning the SEC West?

Yep, in 2006. USC beat Arkansas 50-14 in Fayetteville, and then Arkansas reeled off 10 straight wins to win the SEC West and go Atlanta. That was the same team that took LSU right down to the wire and lost a narrow game to the eventual national champion Florida.

 

[OCtide]

WHy should they play a conference championship game when they play EVERY TEAM inthe PAC 10?

Agreed....there is no need for a conference championship game when you play everybody in the conference in the regular season.

As for USC....I think for the last 5 years they have generally been as good as anybody in the country and could compete in any conference. The difference between the SEC and the Pac 10 is not at the top. The difference is the depth. The 3rd through 8th best teams in the SEC are significantly better than those in the Pac 10.