Those aren't Pac-1 schools? Just asking as they appear to be on the same level as Washington, Arizona, Stanford, Washington State, and UCLA. :hihi:
Why wouldn't they? Went out West vs Arizona 1st Going out West vs Washington 1st Went east vs Va Tech 1st
Yes, LSU is one of the SEC schools willing to travel OOC... I respect that. Tennessee also travels most years. I think the last time the Gators left the confines of Florida was back in the early 1990's when they ventured up to Syracuse and got waxed. Wasn't Georgia's trip out to the desert this season their first big regular season road trip since the 1960's or something crazy like that...? It's hard to fault USC or Ohio State, as they both have a history of scheduling OOC prime time games. Plus, USC plays in a conference that now has 9 league games and only three OCC games... so it's hard to fault USC when this year's three were @Virginia, Ohio State and Notre Dame. Personally, I think all conferences should have added a league game.
I have said it before and I firmly believe it now, you take a mid ranked SEC team and throw them into the PAC10 and they become a contender. You take a mid ranked PAC10 team and throw them into the SEC and they become a bottom ranked team. Don't get me wrong, and I think many here know me to be objective, USC is a damn good team, but so is Texas, OU, and Utah. The only way to settle things the right way is a playoff but until the conference and school presidents get on board with conference championship games it will never happen. This is one of the big obstacles in getting a playoff system in place. The SEC, Big12, and ACC all have these. Why do the PAC10 and Big10 still choose not to? Are they worried that a top ranked USC or tOSU may be upset in the conference championship? I have listened to the USC folks do nothing but complain since the BCS game was announced. To me Texas had way more of an argument as they were left out of their conference championship in favor of a team they beat on the field and had the same record as. Head to head should always be the first tie-breaker. It's kinda funny that the SAME USC folks complained back in 03-04 season when LSU proved on the field to be the "true" champions and yet had nothing to say when an undefeated Auburn got screwed over when SC won the championship in 04-05. They had no wish for a plus one then. Coach Carroll said (as he should) he thinks SC could be anybody right now. Well I think that UF, Texas, OU, and maybe Utah could hold their own with SC and have a good chance to defeat them. A playoff system would sure answer all those questions. It would be a lot more fun instead of having SC take on yet another over-rated Big10 team in the Rose Bowl. And it goes without saying, yes, I am very happy with the BCS outcome this year but it would have been even more satisfying to win it in a true playoff system. I feel our conference champions, not matter who it is, would still win out in a playoff system. I don't think any SEC coach, player, or fan would tell you different.
A playoff system would settle once and for all the question of who the true champ is, but it won't stop the media talking heads from proclaiming someone else the true champ. Like I said earlier, they'll just start complaining about the playoff format, seedings, etc instead. They'll do it because, the BCS formula reduced their relevance, and the playoff system will eliminate it.
simple Pittsburgh Steelers are 12-4 Baltimore Ravens are 11-5 Steelers are 2-0 this year against the Ravens but if Baltimore wins Sunday, I'm supposed to believe that they're really the better team? Even though Pitt had a better season and a winning record against them? Good luck trying to convince me of that one.
I guess I'm like Herb who said he was for the formula when it favored LSU but was all for the playoffs if it didn't. I just have a pet peeve with the sports talking heads who play to where their ratings come from (USC, ND, etc). I think the posters here are often more objective than the unbridled ego show on ESPN because the heads probably influence the pollsters too much. some of the posts here claimed that the coaches and the AP pollsters don't watch the game films of the most important matchups and end up voting with opinions based on final scores and other peoples opinions. Political pollsters at least try to have a statistically unbiased sample of opinion even when they have their own hidden agendas as reflected by how they word their opinions. Whereas the prevailing winds of public opinion and ratings rule with the sports media.
Arizona Cardinals: most losses of NFC playoff teasm bottom 10 in NFL schedule strength 0-4 in regular season vs NFC playoff teams (didn't play ATL) but if they win this week, I'm supposed to believe that they're actually the best team in NFC? highly unlikely you'll ever convinve me of that one either.
No worries those teams listed above are just as good as the bottom of the PAC 10. SEC has the crystal....now three years in a row. Keep cry'in.
