Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should all BCS conferences have 12 teams and a conferance championship game?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by HindSight View Post
    Oh......right....east coast bias.
    No, not just an east coast bias. The perception is built-in like I said. Even most Pac-10 fans have a hard time computing the impact of the round robin and tougher non-conference schedule. It's hard for a person to look at a winless Washington team and think they were better than anybody last year, but it's true. There were several teams that were worse than Washington last year. They just happened to play an incredibly difficult schedule and didn't come through and win the games they should have.

    Originally posted by HindSight View Post
    On any given year the Pac-10 has a top 3 team in USC.....a pretty good team that is either Cal, Oregon, ASU, or a surprise team......a couple of average teams from that list combined with Oregon St and UCLA.......and then the sucktacular Washington teams, Stanford, and Arizona.

    That happens every year. That's 1 awesome team, 1 pretty good team, 4 average teams, and 4 awful teams.
    Yes, it can be difficult to accurately account for the fact that the Pac-10 has less teams. It can also be difficult for people to realize that when every team in the conference plays each other and there's only ten teams, it's damn near impossible to have several teams with impressive records. The tough non-conference scheduling only enhances that effect.

    Stanford, for example, was not a bad team last year. Of course they went 5-7 so they must not have been that great, but they were a solid football team that almost certainly would have been bowl eligible with a schedule like that of say Kansas or Nebraska. See, Stanford along with most other Pac-10 teams don't play a 3 game preseason like so many other teams do. There is no automatic 3-0 to start the season when you open against Oregon state then travel to Arizona State and then head down to TCU. But there certainly is when you open with a 3 game home stretch againt decidedly inferior competition and then go on to miss out on 3 of 11 conference opponents.

    Again, a quick glance at conference standings will only imprint a false perception on your mind. You must look much deeper to discover how those results came about.

    Originally posted by HindSight View Post
    Having quality players that go to the NFL doesn't necessarily mean the teams as a whole are any good.
    I am in complete agreement, which is why I opened that statement by reminding you how often people point to that particular stat as evidence of SEC superiority. It doesn't tell the whole story, but the amount of players a conference or team sends to the NFL does reveal some things. As do bowl wins. Obviously I understand that one must look at the entire picture in order to gauge just how good an individual team is. Shouldn't we all?

    Originally posted by HindSight View Post
    Neither do bowl records....especially considering the following opponents: Penn State, Pitt, OK St, Miami, & BYU.
    Ok. Penn State was the Big-10 champ. SC already beat the usual Big-10 champ 35-3. If the Pac-10 is "not that good," what's that make the Big-10?

    9-3 Pittsburgh was the 2nd place team in the Big East playing our 3rd place team in 8-4 Oregon St. So again, what's that make the Big East if the Pac-10 is so horrible?

    Oklahoma St. came into the Holiday Bowl with the same record as Oregon and ranked 4 spots higher in the BCS at 13. They were favored, and we beat them soundly.

    Miami and BYU? Right, our middle of the road teams beat other middle of the road teams. Whoever wins those games isn't going to get a ton of credit either way.

    And again, I'm fully aware that this past bowl season is merely 5 pixels in a very large picture.

    Originally posted by HindSight View Post
    "Beating up on each other" is a cop out. My friends used that excuse when people started bashing the Big 10. It means we aren't that good.
    It's not a cop out. It's an explanation for why the records and perceptions are what they are. It is a simple fact that the Pac-10 has more losses built into their schedule than any of the other BCS conferences. That's all it is. As long as it is the way it is, the Pac-10 will always have a lower percentage of bowl eligible teams and the average fan or talking head will blindly attribute facts like that to inferiority.

    And the same thing can't be said about the Big-10 because they only play 8 of 10 opponents. I remember when Wisconsin enjoyed a 4 year run where they missed Michigan in '03 and '04, and Ohio State in '05 and '06. Just so happened they did pretty well those years.

    I mean, if the Pac-10 isn't that good, who the hell is?

    Comment


    • #32
      Ok. Penn State was the Big-10 champ. SC already beat the usual Big-10 champ 35-3. If the Pac-10 is "not that good," what's that make the Big-10?
      Not that good.

      9-3 Pittsburgh was the 2nd place team in the Big East playing our 3rd place team in 8-4 Oregon St. So again, what's that make the Big East if the Pac-10 is so horrible?
      The Pac-10 isn't horrible. The Big East is.


      Listen.....I actually hate this conference war crap that redneck SEC fans started. It's ********. But Pac-10 fans (not you....the generic stereotypical Pac-10 fan) have convinced themselves that their teams are better than they really are. Yes, your schedule has more losses built in. But that doesn't mean those teams would win the games if they were scheduled like every other conference. I mean.....they would if the games were against 1aa schools or NMSt or something like that.....but nobody is saying beating those teams makes you any good.

      Basically.....Washington played a 'tough' schedule, so they lost a bunch of games. That doesn't automatically mean they would have won more games with an easier schedule. They would have against an SEC non-conference slate.....but nobody would consider them any better for it.

      I think the Pac-10 has it right, and I wish the Big10 would/could do it that way.....but it also has a built in excuse for when your team isn't that good.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by HindSight View Post
        Ok. Penn State was the Big-10 champ. SC already beat the usual Big-10 champ 35-3. If the Pac-10 is "not that good," what's that make the Big-10?
        Not that good.

        9-3 Pittsburgh was the 2nd place team in the Big East playing our 3rd place team in 8-4 Oregon St. So again, what's that make the Big East if the Pac-10 is so horrible?
        The Pac-10 isn't horrible. The Big East is.


        Listen.....I actually hate this conference war crap that redneck SEC fans started. It's ********. But Pac-10 fans (not you....the generic stereotypical Pac-10 fan) have convinced themselves that their teams are better than they really are. Yes, your schedule has more losses built in. But that doesn't mean those teams would win the games if they were scheduled like every other conference. I mean.....they would if the games were against 1aa schools or NMSt or something like that.....but nobody is saying beating those teams makes you any good.

        Basically.....Washington played a 'tough' schedule, so they lost a bunch of games. That doesn't automatically mean they would have won more games with an easier schedule. They would have against an SEC non-conference slate.....but nobody would consider them any better for it.

        I think the Pac-10 has it right, and I wish the Big10 would/could do it that way.....but it also has a built in excuse for when your team isn't that good.
        Wow. Way to wave the flag of ignorance. I can't believe they make people like you still. What? We're redneck because we're from the South? Every state has rednecks not just the southern part of the United States.

        Beastly sig by BoneKrusher

        Super Bowl XLIV Champions
        WHO DAT!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by diabsoule View Post
          Wow. Way to wave the flag of ignorance. I can't believe they make people like you still. What? We're redneck because we're from the South? Every state has rednecks not just the southern part of the United States.
          did I say all SEC fans are rednecks? learn how to read if you're going to get that offended by words.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by HindSight View Post
            did I say all SEC fans are rednecks? learn how to read if you're going to get that offended by words.
            Well you didnt distinctly say SEC fans weren't rednecks. I think you were insinuating that the SEC fans on this board are rednecks.


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by YAYareaRB View Post
              Well you didnt distinctly say SEC fans weren't rednecks. I think you were insinuating that the SEC fans on this board are rednecks.
              You didn't disctinctly say that you don't hate all black people.....so I'm going to assume you're insinuating that you do hate all black people.

              Why are you a racist?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by YAYareaRB View Post
                So does anyone think the Pac-10 is superior to the SEC?
                In regards to what?

                Comment

                Working...
                X

                Debug Information