Pac 10 irrelevant?
 

I like that article, but I think the guy is drawing his brilliant insights from the same place Waters is:

"[This loss] means a team needs to exhibit more than talent alone if it wants to compete for a national title."

No kidding! Here I thought coaching, maturity, discipline, luck and passion were all irrelevant.

I swear I can't believe these guys get paid for this stuff.

Some how I knew you would.

Has the DDD suicide watch been downgraded?

It's a tough break, but I think he'll be safe around the coat hangers. Like I said, there's always next year.

Besides, it's only one loss. Big12 and SEC will be lucky (very lucky) to get out with one loss apiece. SC's not out of the picture. Losing this early is often a blessing in disguise.

The interesting thing for BYU, as a mid-major, is to see how certain fans deal with the obvious dilemma.....

The main thing BYU has on which to to hang its hat is the fact that it beat Washington and UCLA. Those 2 were supposed to be the big measuring sticks for us this season.....can Bronco finally win vs the BCS on the road? Can we consistently play and beat the "big boys."

Yet now, because of little brother syndrome, many mid-major fans are prematurely celebrating the alleged demise of the Pac 10, even calling it irrelevant.

If the Pac 10 is irrelevant (and I fully admit that it has been less than stellar), then it basically throws into question BYU's success this season. In essence, BYU has had zero legitimate success because it has only played awful (irrelevant) teams, plus a D-2 opponent.

I don't get too caught up in the hype for SC or BYU. As I have stated many times, I enjoy the ride. If BYU loses a game along the way, then Las Vegas Bowl here I come. Another fun season. If they win out and go to a BCS bowl, I will go to that, too. SC in the Rose Bowl.....I went last year and seemed to enjoy myself, despite the fact that it was not a national championship game. Life goes on....I choose to enjoy it.

There was talk this morning on the Dan patrick show that SC actually will wind up making more money as a result of this loss. The Rose Bowl has a separate payout agreement from the other BCS bowls and in fact pays more than all the other games, including the NC game. Also, SC would not have to blow much of the payout in travel expenses to Miami. So while any team would prefer to play for the title, the silver lining is that SC will still be in a position to make even more money. See.....Lemons ---> Lemonade!

That's easy for you to say. You just spent an entire week at Disney World and then today you get to go to Disney Land. We'd all have that happy go lucky if all we did was ride roller coasters and eat cotton candy.

How do we really know if any team is good, when none of these supposedly good teams in the Big 12 and SEC every play anyone in non-conf?

Look who's talking.

I "visit" the aforementioned. You get to LIVE in Dayton.

You give new meaning to the term "permanent vacation," what with your proximity to Huffy HQ, LexisNexis, and downtown Cincinnati. Ah, to live in the Gem City!

Duh. There's no one else worthy of playing the SEC. The SEC conference schedule *is* the college football playoff. The BCS title game is just the coronation.

And the Big 12, we play real non-conference opponents, we just postpone them 'til the bowl games. Helps us maintain the facade longer.

.

When a Big 12 team plays ONE BCS team non-conf. it's considered a really, really big deal, and very, very brave.

A&M vs. Miami. <yawn>. Blowout wins by Miami twice in a row.

Texas vs. Arkansas. The Arkies are REAALLLLL good. I have a longhorn friend who was complaining that UTEP was "too dangerous."

Texas Tech, notorious for playing no one, just beat up on Massachusetts. It is frickin ridiculous.

A&M plays Army tomorrow. Call Holmoe. He's jealous.

Smart teams don't schedule the dangerous games. There's not much to be gained.

smart fans don't pay $1000 to see their team beat directional polytechnical institutes.

The mid major label sucks. It doesn't even belong in football. It was originally a basketball term to describe teams like Weber State who are D1 in basketball and 1-AA in football. And before bashing the MWC explain why the PAC 10 is doing better against other BCS conferences than they are doing against the MWC.

Another knock against aTm?

Besides BYU, there hasnt been another football national champion outside a "BCS" conference since probably World War 2.

I would say that the term "mid major" is pretty generous. It implies that there is even a shred of "major" involved.

So let's throw out most BCS teams then. Not many of them have won national chamipionships since WW2 either, if that's your standard. The problem I have with this blanket labeling is that it gives fans the idea that every team from a BCS conference is automatically better than any team not in a BCS league. This season is proving how false that idea is. You may know and care about BYU's history and tradition, but if we were to play a bad BCS conference team back east like Duke or Vanderbilt, how much do you want to bet you could poll the fans of those teams and 80-90% would think they should kick our butts? That's all due to BCS media hype, mostly from ESPN.

Who cares what fans think?

And nobody has ever claimed that any BCS school is automatically better than a non BCS school.

Your hypo is ridiculous. We were favored both against UCLA and Washington, so there goes your argument.

whenever you say "we", it is very confusing. It would be less confusing if you just said "BYU was favored..."

what do you mean? Mid major is an artificial label, so what else other than fan perception would we be talking about? No one has claimed that a BCS school is automatically better? How about ESPN's Mark May before a Boise State/Oregon State game last year picking OSU with his only reasoning being that OSU is a PAC 10 team? BSU went on to beat the crap out of them. If guys on ESPN don't do their homework and automatically assume those things, you don't think a lot of fans don't do the same?

I was talking about the fact that non"BCS" teams have almost never won a title in college football, so why would it be shocking to label those conference as generally inferior? I have never understood why that is so offensive to mid-major fans. Do they expect to be held in the same regard as conferences that produce national championships every decade? Every few years?

Your argument about perception is a strawman. How can you argue about the perception of every fan? You said that "it gives fans the idea that every team from a BCS conference is automatically better than any team not in a BCS league." Do you know people who think this way? They think that Duke football is better this year than BYU or Utah?

Oui.

Please name all the teams since WW2 that have won a championship. I bet the list has less than 20 teams on it. Are you giving the rest a pass because of conference affiliation? And go back and see my Mark May example. Maybe this topic isn't that important to you and you don't pay attention to media coverage about it, but I see this kind of thing from talking heads pretty much every week. It's like when we beat a bad ASU team a few years ago and the Fox announcers were going crazy about what a huge upset it was. It wasn't. ASU sucked and we were better.

You can find that list easily online.

We are talking about conferences, not teams.

The MWC, WAC, etc are mid major conferences. they are inferior, in general, to the BCS conferences. Not sure why that is such a difficult pill to swallow.

Perhaps you believe that on average, year in and year out, the MWC, CUSA, Big Sky, etc are actually on par with the BCS conferences? Just as deep, just as talented, etc.

You are obviously free to believe as you wish, but I will simply disagree that the MWC is not a mid-major. For if it were not, then the only alternative would be that it is an equal conference to the other BCS conferences. And that, amigo, is laughable.

the MWC against the BCS this season: 7-3. Not laughable, my friend. BYU, Utah or TCU would all have a good shot at winning the PAC 10, Big East, ACC or Big 10 this year. The MWC is closer to the BCS leagues than they are to the WAC, Sunbelt or MAC. You would probably want to argue otherwise, but the data at least this year doesn't back that up. Really, it hasn't for years. The WAC usually has one or two decent teams, but the rest is pathetic. Even "bad" MWC teams like UNLV can go on the road and beat a ranked ASU. You couldn't say that about any of the also rans from any other non-BCS leagues.

Our own fans don't even buy your argument.

We get all excited because our schedule has "Arizona" and "UCLA" on it. We beat an awful UCLA and Washington team and people on both boards are talking about Heismans and National Championships. The reason being is because we generally LOSE those games, so to finally break through and win them feels pretty good. Why is that? Because, for the most part, teams in our conference are not as good as those teams and it feels nice to beat up on them every now and then.

This year is different. MWC has 3 teams better than any team in the Pac 10.

Good point. The past 3 weeks proves your point.

All conferences are equal. I am now convinced.

Go back since the MWC inception. What is BYU's record against BCS schools? Is it a winning margin? i dont know off the top of my head....i bet we dominate...

This year so far has been a good one for the MWC. Check that....these past 3 weeks have been good for the MWC.

Like i said, the term mid-major does not preclude this. BlueK is suggesting that the presumption is that every team in the BCS is automatically better. I dont think anyone really thinks that.

The MWC is a mid-major because, on the whole, the conference is weaker than its BCS counterparts. References to wins over really bad UCLA, Washington, etc teams does little to contradict. The win over ASU was about the only real quality win for the MWC.

Pick a random list of BCS teams and see what their record against non-conference BCS teams is and then let's compare. I'd say we'd be in the middle of the pack.

it's not possible to have a quality win when you are playing the Pac 10. There aren't any quality teams.

And I never said every conference is equal.

I need to update my database, but covering 1999 through 2006, the MWC is 57-106 versus BCS schools.

what percent are road games?

Bullcrap. No one in our conference is better than USC. One game doth not superiority make. Unfortunately, football season just isn't long enough to prove that.

Utah will dominate OSU.

There is no doubt in my mind that USC could lose to BYU, TCU, Utah.

Could lose one game? Sure. Would be expected to win a best of 7 series? No freaking way.

BYU is 13-13 against BCS teams since 1999. And that includes the Crowton years. Is that great? No. But few BCS teams would have a much better than .500 record in non-conference games agasinst other BCS teams. That's just basic statistics because in every such game there has to be a winner and a loser. We're in the middle of the pack at worst in those conferences over the last 10 years. Since Bronco the record is better than that. Conference games are a totally different animal. Familiarity, rivalry and other factors all play into it, and that increase parity within conferences. Baylor might give a team like Texas a much better game than they would play against USC. USC probably wouldn't have lost to OSU if they were in different conferences, and BYU would also probably occasionally beat a great team if we were in the same conference. I know one thing. On paper BYU is much better than Oregon State, as is Utah, who will most like take the Beavers to the woodshed.

Apparently everyone forgot that USC is led by an inexperienced QB. For most teams, this would be a problem. But for USC, we were told, Sanchez was amazing and one of the team's strengths.

Red Hat. Green Hat. Yellow Hat. Oops!

Everyone else forgot that OSU is incredibly overrated.

USC will lose another game in the regular season.

BYU is .500 if my quick look is correct. For the entire MWC, I bet if you looked at the last 5 years the winning percentage is much better. The MWC got off to a bad start, but has gotten a lot better recently, IMO.

It's not been very good before this year. A lot of almost-upsets. And a lot of losses that should have been wins (see BYU).