Pac 10 better than the SEC???

[GAVol]

I'll just say this about the SEC: It's the easiest BCS conference in the country to make a bowl in, and the hardest to succeed in.

That makes perfect sense . . . wait a minute . . . no it doesn't.

 

[orangeblooded_2]

Spoken like someone who's team doesnt have to play an SEC schedule.

A mediocre 8-4 SEC team is a darn good football team...period. They may not be the best in the conference, but they are battle hardened.

 

[kptvol]

That makes perfect sense . . . wait a minute . . . no it doesn't.

Don't you realize it's virtually impossible for a Big 12 school to make a bowl when they have to play teams like Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas? I'd have to say the Big 12 conference is the easiest conference to make a bowl. There's only two teams that any good team shouldn't beat: OU and Texas. Texas Tech, A & M, Nebraska, Kansas State, and Missouri have been mediocre or bad lately.

 

[Vol423]

This article by a Cal blogger might upset some but I felt maybe Maotai should read it. I think it could help him. :dunno:

The Band Is Out On The Field :: Objective Analysis of Conference Schedules

That's objective? That's the best laugh I've had in weeks. Thanks!

This "objective analysis" starts by defining "quality opponents" as the BCS opponents plus Utah, BYU, Boise St. Fresno St., TCU, Southern Miss, Hawaii, Navy and Nevada. How objective is it to include 9 non-BCS conference teams as "quality opponents" and have 6 of those 9 teams as teams in the WAC (Western Athletic Conference) and the Mountain West Conference, which play PAC-10 teams FAR more regularly than any other BCS conference? How more regularly do you ask? Well, when you review the schedules of these 6 teams for the 2006 regular season, you see that they played a total of 9 games against PAC-10 opponents, 2 games against ACC opponents, 2 games against SEC opponents, and 1 game against Big 12 opponents. That certainly makes for a real objective analysis. These teams appear to be handpicked for the number of games that they play against PAC-10 teams. If not, then I'm sure that the author of this so-called objective analysis would be hard pressed to find a more skewed sample.

These conferences are also pretty much an absolute joke. SEC teams would be ridiculed for padding their schedules if they loaded up on games against these teams. In addition, the idea that playing a 9th conference game inside the PAC-10 is tougher than playing a non-conference game is ludicrous as well. The PAC-10 teams suck. Playing 9 games within the conference is an advantage in the PAC-10.

It's also hilarious that he chooses to exclude conference championship games due to the fact that the PAC-10 doesn't have one. Conference Championship games hurt the BCS conferences that do play them because they often end up knocking one of two teams that otherwise would potentially both be heading to a BCS bowl out of a BCS bowl and into a lesser bowl game.

 

[Jasongivm6]

That's objective? That's the best laugh I've had in weeks. Thanks!

This "objective analysis" starts by defining "quality opponents" as the BCS opponents plus Utah, BYU, Boise St. Fresno St., TCU, Southern Miss, Hawaii, Navy and Nevada. How objective is it to include 9 non-BCS conference teams as "quality opponents" and have 6 of those 9 teams as teams in the WAC (Western Athletic Conference) and the Mountain West Conference, which play PAC-10 teams FAR more regularly than any other BCS conference? How more regularly do you ask? Well, when you review the schedules of these 6 teams for the 2006 regular season, you see that they played a total of 9 games against PAC-10 opponents, 2 games against ACC opponents, 2 games against SEC opponents, and 1 game against Big 12 opponents. That certainly makes for a real objective analysis. These teams appear to be handpicked for the number of games that they play against PAC-10 teams. If not, then I'm sure that the author of this so-called objective analysis would be hard pressed to find a more skewed sample.

These conferences are also pretty much an absolute joke. SEC teams would be ridiculed for padding their schedules if they loaded up on games against these teams. In addition, the idea that playing a 9th conference game inside the PAC-10 is tougher than playing a non-conference game is ludicrous as well. The PAC-10 teams suck. Playing 9 games within the conference is an advantage in the PAC-10.

It's also hilarious that he chooses to exclude conference championship games due to the fact that the PAC-10 doesn't have one. Conference Championship games hurt the BCS conferences that do play them because they often end up knocking one of two teams that otherwise would potentially both be heading to a BCS bowl out of a BCS bowl and into a lesser bowl game.

Well, Shazzam!@!


The Pac 10 also plays Div2 teams, and loses to them occasionally, just like a bottom feeder SEC team.