Pac 10 irrelevant? - Page 6 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BlueK · 09-26-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't have the 2008 figures handy.

7-3

Indy Coug · 09-26-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

Not surprising though. Winning teams are harder to beat. You could run the same analysis for BCS leagues and come up with something similar.

Similar, but not THAT stark.

TripletDaddy · 09-26-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

It's 7-3 this year, by the way. So the trend seems to be upward. .500 in OOC games vs. the BCS is nothing to sneeze at since most of the 6 BCS conferences are right around .500 against each other every year.

*sneezes*

BlueK · 09-26-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Similar, but not THAT stark.

But we're not the WAC or Sunbelt or MAC.

TripletDaddy · 09-26-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

But we're not the WAC or Sunbelt or MAC.

Please do not denigrate the Sunbelt or the MAC. I would hate for fans to start thinking that the Sunbelt is any less of a conference than the SEC.

BlueK · 09-26-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

*sneezes*

So let me ask you this. How do you perceive the MWC in comparison to the other non-BCS leagues? Better? The same? Worse?

BlueK · 09-26-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Please do not denigrate the Sunbelt or the MAC. I would hate for fans to start thinking that the Sunbelt is any less of a conference than the SEC.

If you can't see the difference between 7-3 and 2-22, then you need some real help with math. Are you really this dense? Did I ever say the Sunbelt was as good as the SEC? My original point was the fans like you see no real difference between a league like the MWC and the Sunbelt. After all, we're both "mid major." And while you seem to refute that on the surface, your arguments pretty much reveal that IS what you think. This is where I have a problem with the mid major label. It's just an attempt to group us all together whether the grouping makes sense or not. The MWC is a lot closer to the PAC 10 than the other non-BCS leagues are. Indy can bring up that the 7-7 record last year doesn't mean much, but hell, WAC teams lost EIGHTEEN freaking games in a row against the BCS last year before they won one. Was every one of those 18 teams a winning team?

Surfah · 09-26-2008, 04:39 PM

How many of those games versus the BCS were road games?

TripletDaddy · 09-26-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

So let me ask you this. How do you perceive the MWC in comparison to the other non-BCS leagues? Better? The same? Worse?

If I understand your logic correctly, then there is really no difference. Conferences are mostly equal and year over year, the talent gap and quality is basically the same.

Personally, I am biased towards BYU. Also, Utah had an amazing run of dominance. In 2004, they were an excellent team that was definitely Top 5 material. This year, both BYU and Utah are poised to make a special run on the national stage. My point being, of all the mid majors, the MWC seems to have consistently produced someone to take the national stage each year.

So if I had to answer, I would say that the MWC generally is better than....say....the SunBelt or the MAC.

TripletDaddy · 09-26-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

If you can't see the difference between 7-3 and 2-22, then you need some real help with math. Are you really this dense? Did I ever say the Sunbelt was as good as the SEC? My original point was the fans like you see no real difference between a league like the MWC and the Sunbelt. After all, we're both "mid major." And while you seem to refute that on the surface, your arguments pretty much reveal that IS what you think.

On the surface? My original point is that i DO think that the MWC is a mid-major. I have never hidden that. Of course we are a mid-major. We play in a lame conference that has little national appeal, we are tired to a crappy stupid bowl game, and it is impossible to watch our games on TV. We are generally not as deep as the BCS conferences top to bottom, our revenues as a conference are lower, our attendance as a conference tends to be lower, our recruiting classes as a conference tend to be rated lower, etc....what evidence do you have that the MWC is NOT a mid-major?

This is the big head scratcher for me. Why is being a mid-major such a big deal? Why is it so negative? I don't see it that way. I just see it as reality.

Where we seem to really differ is your unsupportable stance that all fans of BCS schools believe that all BCS teams are better than non-BCS teams. As I stated before, such a stance seems silly.

09-26-2008, 04:39 PM	#58
Surfah Master Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: F'burg, VA Posts: 3,211	How many of those games versus the BCS were road games? __________________ Ernie Johnson: "Auburn is a pretty good school. To graduate from there I suppose you really need to work hard and put forth maximum effort." Charles Barkley: "20 pts and 10 rebounds will get you through also!"