<p>^ I believe the key words were: “this season”.</p>
<p>^ And I never said you were wrong.</p>
<p>Of course, USC’s BCS bowl record (6-1) didn’t help the past two years, when they were passed over for teams with identical records because of “weaker schedule”…</p>
<p>WAAAAAAAAAAAR EAGGGGGGGGLE, HEY!</p>
<p>Don’t bash me, I know we’ll probably have a losing season but I can still be a happy football fan can’t I?!</p>
<p>USC=University of Sanctioned Cheating hehe</p>
<p>^ Haha…possibly my new fav knickname for 'SC other than University of Scholastic Compromise. :)</p>
<p>
The computer rankings were supposed to correct for this. However, human polls still have biases…another complaint from 'SC people that “peer assessment” holds them down.
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I like USC. Much, much more original than its cross town rival.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Psh, football’s about entertainment, and nothing would be more entertaining than seeing Lame Kitten get crushed. </p>
<p>I’ll consider it a win-win situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>you missed the key word “major” and "other major conferences do get a positive by not “beating each other up” but by beating the cupcakes from non-majors. you actually said it yourself, the FBS cupcakes (and I’d add minor conferences in bowl division) would get a negative but those are mostly from weak non-majors. so who are the ones that get the positive so that the overall net is zero? the teams from the major conferences. </p></li>
<li><p>you may think that teams from major conferences beat each other too. that’s obviously true but not to the extent that once you count them already in the other three games. in recent years (I am not that old to know all those years way back), pac-10 conference has played higher number of games against teams from major/quasi major (like WAC/Mountain West) conferences than other 5 major conferences despite the fact they only play 3 non-conference games. That effectively means that extra 4th OOC game other teams in major conferences play are against cupcakes.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>perhaps you misunderstood whom i was comparing pac-10 to when i said pac-10 is inherently at a disadvantage. i am not comparing it to all other conferences; i am comparing it to the other 5 major conferences.</p>
<p>The P10 is the third best conference. Period. We con stop these arguments now. Without USC, they’d be the worst out of the big 5.</p>
<p>chaoses
By the way, what i said is nothing new. if you still aren’t convinced, perhaps you want to listen to a few others that had said the same thing:
[Pac-10</a> coaches vote 6-4 against round-robin scheduling - Pac-10 - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/1536/pac-10-coaches-vote-6-4-against-round-robin-scheduling]Pac-10”>Pac-10 coaches vote 6-4 against round-robin scheduling - ESPN - Pac-12 Blog- ESPN)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I might actually have to agree with you on this one… Kiffin was a lousy offensive coordinator while at USC and basically coasted on Norm Chow’s old offense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see your point 1 with the 6 major conferences. However, that is not always true. Some other conferences do schedule strong OOC games. The ones who schedule against cupcakes will have less strength of schedule compared to the pac 10. So the pac 10 is not ALWAYS at a disadvantage to other 5 major conferences. It will be at a disadvantage in a year where all conference members are good and they will beat each other up (in addition to all other 5 major conference schedule their 4th OOC game with a weak opponent and win). All those combinations have to happen for the pac-10 to be at a disadvantage compared to the other 5 major conferences. Do we agree? In reality how many years that happened?</p>
<p>Now, the pac10 will have an advantage if for example, as I pointed out, last year when washington and washington state suck. They will have 2 easy conference wins and boost up their conference record (that’s why some coaches support that round robin format, plus 6-4 is not that convincing). In addition to that, the top 2 teams will not have to play a final game. So their #2 team will benefit by not losing another conference game (where as in some other major conferences top 2 teams will beat each other up and the #2 team will look bad because of another loss). This is where the top teams in the pac-10 have advantage over other conferences top teams.</p>
<p>I think the ones who should complain are the non-big 6 conferences</p>
<p>I agree choases. Even though I am a huge fan of the SEC, I do feel for the teams who, pardon my french, get screwed. I remember how mad I was when Auburn got slighted for the national championship in 2003 after going undefeated, and I can only imagine how fans who legitemately have close to no chance of watching their team go to the championship feel.</p>
<p>One more reason for playoffs would be getting to see Case Keenum and the Cougars take on some other good teams (if they win CUSA) instead of playing a meaningless bowl.</p>
<p>playoff is not gonna happen because the BCS is a business and people creating it only care about money.</p>
<p>
I disagree
SEC
Big 12
ACC</p>
<p>They are the top 3 and a notch above the Pac 10 and Big 11</p>
<p>chaoses,</p>
<p>I think you are still missing the point. The disadvantage applies to the “entire” conference. Let me explain this differently: in recent years, each pac-10 has had, on average, 1 game against cupcakes while those in other conferences, have had, on average, 2 games against cupackes. So the opponents for the 4 OOS games would look like this:</p>
<p>Other 5 major conferences:
- other major/quasi major
- other major/quasi major
- minor/FCS
- minor/FCS</p>
<p>If you don’t believe that’s the pattern, look them up. That’s the approximate average, a minority would have 3 majors/1cupake or 3 cupcakes/1major.</p>
<p>Pac-10
- other major/quasi major
- other major/quasi major
- minor (i don’t remember last time Pac10 played FCS)
- Pac-10 foe</p>
<p>Take out the first three out of the equation since they are even for both. You are left with cupcake for other 5 major conferences vs a conference foe for Pac-10.<br>
- The fourth game means # wins/# games =0.5 for Pac10 (5 wins and 5 losses). For other 5 major conferences, the fourth game against cupcakes mean the #wins/# games would be a lot higher than 0.5 and easily be 1.0 (all wins, no surprise).
- I don’t care how bad you said UW/WSU were in the last few years; I would take a cupcake from minor conference/lower subdivision over UW/WSU any day/any year. After all, LSU and BYU (10-2) had quite a scare playing UW this year and last year, respectively. The year before, UW beat syracuse, boise state in OOC games. It’s nowhere as bad as Duke; so I don’t get where you get the notion that UW is so bad. But as I said, that’s besides the point. We are look at the “entire” conferences, not just the top teams.</p>
<p>This explains why year in and year out, Pac-10 has had disporportionally less bowl eligible teams than all other conferences. While Pac-10 may not be the strongest conference, it’s no worse than 4th in any of the recent years. It’s no surprise even the Big10 had a down year last year, it still managed to have decent number of bowl eligible teams.</p>
<p>I am talking about OOS and that 9th game only. Whether round-robin or having the extra champsionship is advantageous or not is a completely separate matter and it’s up for debate. It’s really not as black and white as you make it out to be:</p>
<p>Round-robin:
Advantage: 1. no risk of extra loss from the championship game
Disadvantage: 1. no chance to get the extra boast right before the voting. A.k.a. less opportunity to control your own destiny. 2. you play with everyone, no lucky schedule.</p>
<p>Championship game/non-round-robin:
Advantage: the winning team would solidify his chance to play at the NC if it’s already in the mix
Advantage: you can avoid certain foes and get lucky schedule.<br>
Disadvantage: risk of losing in that extra game</p>
<p>You see how it really goes both way. Remember when the #2 team gets a little bump in the loss, the #1 team gets the extra boost. It just balances out.</p>
<p>I know what you’re saying about the extra OOC game. All I’m saying is the pac 10 is not ALWAYS at a disadvantage because of the round robin format. (If they are, the comittee would have changed it already). The example of washington and washington state last year proves it. If for example they were dead last out of 120 teams in the FBS, then the other pac-10 teams would have 2 easy wins. The advantage of having a round robin is that it only takes 1 bad team to benefit the entire conference. People from other major conferences might loose to a cupcake. In that case, having a round robin actually helps because everyone will have a chance to beat that worst team. What if you have 2 or 3? Everyone else in the conference will have 2,3 easy wins.</p>
<p>Let’s be honest, each conference sets its own format. How can you set it and say you’re at a disadvantage? If anything, you will have more TV coverage, more publications for the pac10 and therefore more money (people would definitely air pac 10 rivals over some big 6 teams playing cupcakes). You also pointed out the advantages / disadvantages of each conference format. So obviously the pac 10 doesn’t always get robbed because of its format. If anything, I think they have an advantage over others through the TV coverage and strength of schedule.</p>
<p>^You were confused. I already said whether having a round-robin format is advantageous or not is a completely separate matter. I even mentioned the pros and cons for both format in my post. </p>
<p>Yes, if the bottom two teams are really really bad, the other 8 would have 2 easy wins. But the flip side of that is if the conference is strong from top to bottom or not top-heavy, then it’s gonna be all about beating each other up. Also, not having to face everybody means you can avoid some teams in your own conference. So it can go both ways in either format. </p>
<p>The disadvantage I was talking about is all about the number of teams being bowl eligible. You should go back and see the context. I mentioned nothing about the TV coverage…etc. It’s been said that one reason why Pac10 commission keeps the round-robin format has something to do with revenue (games against pac-10 foes would generate more revenue than games against cupcakes). Strength of schedule does almost nothing to bowl eligibility which is pretty much all about W/L ratio >= 1.</p>
<p>By the way, I seriously doubt UW/WSU (especially UW) were dead last out of 120 teams. UW had the toughest schedule in the nation and played BYU, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame with a 0-3 start and just pretty much gave up afterward. If not for the bogus “excessive celebration” call (extra point was then kicked further and missed), the game against BYU, which was the media darling pretty much the whole season, would have easily gone to OT and it might won the game. I wouldn’t put it 119th/120th. I find it interestingly you keep insisting it’s so bad with no basis whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when the Pac-10 housed that #120 team constantly anyway? Worst than ALL teams in the minor conferences? Are you serious? If I am not mistaken, the most consistently bad team seems to be Duke, if I am not mistaken though there seems to be some improvement in the last couple years. But they still beat some cupcakes from minor conferences. 1 to 3 years don’t make a trend anyway.</p>
<p>Fitting for CC:</p>
<p>
</p>