PAC 12 is an easier road to the BCSNCG than the old PAC 10...

USC will drop at least 2 games next year and won't make the Rose Bowl, IMO.

I think they are the their best team in the country today, but the hype around Barkley will prove to be a shite-show and Lane Kiffin will find a way to frick them to tears.

The old Pac 10 was the worst for making it to the BCS...play everyone and decrease the computer score of the conference by mandating an extra loss for 5 teams compared to every other conference. It hurt the PAC 10 tremendously...and was frankly unfair...if everyone else wasn't going to play everyone, then the Pac shouldn't.

That said, now USC has to beat a Top 5 team twice - Pac 12 North (Oregon) to make the BCS title game.

someone had to win those games though...

So the 10 Big 12 teams did not play 9 conference games this season?

Even though SC is returning the majority of their starters and Barkley, Oregon is returning a good bit too. I still have the utmost confidence that we can beat them in LA. Don't get me wrong, it'll be difficult for sure. With that being said, I still think we can take them.

I would rather play Oregon 4 times than Alabama 2 times.

quote:

---

The old Pac 10 was the worst for making it to the BCS...play everyone and decrease the computer score of the conference by mandating an extra loss for 5 teams compared to every other conference. It hurt the PAC 10 tremendously...and was frankly unfair...if everyone else wasn't going to play everyone, then the Pac shouldn't.

---

You couldn't blow Pac12 or put down the SEC anymore than you currently do. It's not humanly possible.

quote:

---

You couldn't blow Pac12 or put down the SEC anymore than you currently do. It's not humanly possible.

---

No doubt.
His PAC 10 homerism is only outdone by his hatred of the SEC.

quote:

---

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. There "5 extra losses" also resulted in "5 extra wins". It in no way hurt them. Their playing an "extra BCS conference team" HELPED them in the computers, especially Sagarin which always seemed to boost the pac10. The Pac 10 suffered for 2 reasons: (1) they didn't have a conference championship game. The SEC and Big 12 always had another top 10 team on their schedule at the end of the season. and (2) The pac 10 just sucked OOC as a whole. It wasn't uncommon for them to go 17-13 OOC with losses to mid-majors and FCS schools.

---

I think the real difficulty lies in forgoing a weaker opponent (FCS type or WAC/Sunbelt) in lieu of another conference game. I overlooked the Big 12 composition this last season, because as I was reminded they DID in fact play a true round robin (and were rewarded by the computers for doing so) but this fact reinforces my point: Playing a "true round robin" schedule with no CCG (because you can't do both) makes it more difficult to reach the BCSCG. The fact that oSu had to play Iowa State on the road as opposed to Northern Iowa or San Jose State at home obviously hurt them. The bugabear factor (LSU has had this in the past with Arkansas and even KentuckY) with a team from your conference sucker punching you is overcome when you don't play a true round robin, because the better team in conference is bailed out by their appearance (provided they win) in the CCG. Without even looking up the statistics, I can tell you that the favorite almost ALWAYS wins the Conference Championship game. As you can see from this season's SEC Championship, they are largely superfluous in actually deciding a Champion, but they do make it easier (how much? you do the math) for a team to get in to the BCSCG. The SEC has provided the blueprint, and the PAC 12 has followed it along with the Big 10, but it has IMHO diluted the value of individual college football games by providing these conferences with "a mulligan" if you will.

It undercuts the mantra of CFB "traditionalists" who oppose a playoff system: Every game is a playoff game.

It isn't.