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.