7-2 in the SEC relates to 9-1 or 10-0 in the Pac 10. USC is the only team that LSU wouldn't beat every, single time they played them. the SEC had a better bowl record with tougher bowl tie-ins than the Pac 10. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
Nice estimate but I'm still not buying it. No more than you would if I said the best SEC team year in and out would go 7-2 in the Pac. I'm in Cali, yeah. :yelwink2: I agree the SEC has better bowl tie-ins. I'd love to see a change there especially a yearly set up with Pac vs SEC. Shouldn't be hard to understand that other conferences (which prolly means little here) see an inflated SEC based on cupcakes and home games for OOC.
which refers to your team being fortunate to have a schedule full of in-conference rent-a-wins? That is about the Pac One being weak, not your team. See Post 77 The floor is now yours. I have to get some sleep so that I can go to a job in the morning which I am sure is much more difficult than yours. :wink:
that all may be true, but I see a 4-0 record when :crystal: is on the line and the whole world is watching. that isn't too inflated. :wink:
Funny that. I saw an article today that Monday's game was the 3rd lowest in TV ratings since the BCS era. NEW YORK (AP) — This year's LSU-Ohio State matchup in the BCS title game couldn't draw as many television viewers as last season's Florida-Ohio State game. The Tigers' 38-24 win Monday night on Fox earned a 14.4 rating and a 22 share, down 17% from the 17.4/27 in 2007. It was the third-lowest rating in 10 years of BCS championship games. Southern Cal-Oklahoma drew a 13.7 in 2005 and Miami-Nebraska attracted a 13.8 in 2002. Hey, it was ahead of the USC/Okie game in 2005. :rofl:
Florida doesn't play Miami every year. Not counting the 2 Bowl games they met up in (which neither team actually schedules), they've only played twice since the late 80's. Either way, playing @ Miami, is playing @ Miami. Regardless of where you boarded a plane to head that way. Utah beat UCLA. Please. And I'm so sure Trojan fans were so worried about Stanford (AT HOME) and their backup QB. And USC has ZERO legit threats in the Pac-10, it's to your favor. USC only beat 2 teams with winning records this year (sounds awful similar to what ND did last year), I don't give a rat's arse if every game was played on the moon, that is a farce of a schedule. Now's the part where you attempt to convince us that Nebraska was scheduled back when they were relevant, which was like 15 years ago.
It's not our fault our last 2 bowl opponents turned out to be cupcakes, WE didn't schedule them, but USC did.
