I really would like to argue LD's stats and assertions, but I can't fully get my head around a good enough point to bite on, take hold, and shake it to shreds....most of it stands up pretty well. I'd be interested to see if the someone would run the same stats against the Big10+1, or the Big12, or any other conference.
Random thought...Big10+1 keeps calling itself the Big10 and avoiding a two division playoff because they can't add another team and call themselves the Big12...'North'?...'v2.0?'....'Yankee Conference?' ... 'Snowballers?'.... I dunno. That, and they can't go with Big11 because a) they have so many trophies to re-plaque; b ) they would forever be just a little 'less' than the Big12; c ) the players can only count to 10...drop trou and count to 11...then give up; d) when you count a fighter 'out', you only count to 10
Back on topic, as I was trying to find some point of discussion on all this Pac-10 ignorance the non-left-coasters (myself included) seem to retain every year.... I started wondering, is it name recognition, and reputation? I mean, you hear "Big 10 (+1
)" and you think of the history, the big programs like MICH and PSU and OSU and the rivalries that got national coverage when you grew up and all that history....but then you add in the recent poor overall strength and that image gets diminished a bit, but there is still the name recognition for the conference, for the key programs. The SEC has been hot as of late, and a few teams stay up near the top, and a few keep their storied history (Alabamie, as they will remind you at every turn 8) ), but I don't think that other than Alabama there really is all that much 'history' if you reach beyond 20-25 yrs ago (80's a bit, certainly 90's with Spurrier getting a lot of air time with that attitude). Essentially, I'm seeing less history than the Big10+1, but more (recent) recognition...bolstering the perception of the conference.
Then, we could look at the BigEasy or the ACC a bit. BigWheezy used to ride on MIA and VT, and while MIA brings a medium amount of history to the table (80's), it is vanquished to the shit pile in recent years, while VT was an up and comer who couldn't sustain their prestige once they went to the ACC. Honestly, FSU had their time in the limelight (80's and early 90's) but they really have a medium history and very weak recognition at this point. I'm not hearing anyone trying to justify either of those conferences as any kind of force...for quite awhile.
Big 12? yeah, worth putting into my train of thought - you have history with Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, then some B+ teams when you think of history. There has been enough teams with 'recognition' in recent years (last 5-10 yrs) to bolster the conference image, so they keep the prestige image.
But Pac-10....the 'bias' claim... Based on what? The fact that before college football went nationally televised, there was no 'history' known to the right of Nevada on the map? That storied programs like UCLA and USC were only known up to that point for their bout's with ND or band members from Stanford? Yeah, I think Pac-10 fans will say they have history (and certainly as much as SEC claims they do, or Big East or ACC......though only the Pac10 fans will try to put it on par with Big10 or Big12), but to a large degree it isn't known until college football hit big time and the rest of the country got to actually watch the games (if we stayed up that late
). The other half of my equation...the recognition part? That is where I think the Pac-10 is really suffering. The non-USC teams really only garner attention for a) beating USC; b ) getting cool uniforms (the image of lab rats running around in yellow and green made me grin); or c ) the off chance there is a matchup of two ranked teams and no other decent games worth watching at that hour.
Really, if I threw out the words "What do you think about MSU?" do you think Miss State? Michigan State? People in those conference have an immediate recognition of who
they think you mean, but to America at large...those teams and others like them are 'participants' in conferences, and have a chance to get on TV when they play someone big. Other than USC, the rest of the Pac-10 remains viewed as 'participants', and their history (and that of the conference) remains important (known?) primarily to conference fans....but not to the rest of us. Those teams remain 'members' of that conference, without really ever being viewed as having a chance to win the conference (get into BCS) or have sustaining power.....random programs periodically challenge USC for a year or two, but overall....it just isn't seen as a strong conference.
People laugh at the bottom half of the SEC (Vandy, MSU, KY, etc) because they never really built a history or have sustainable power; same goes for IN, IL, NW in the Big10+1; same goes for TT (though they are fun to watch, they don't get taken seriously), CO, CSU, etc in the Big12. There are teams in any conference that just aren't given credit....both based on their program history and national recognition in recent (5-10) yrs. I think other than USC...the rest of the conference is in that 'participant' category. Same gets said for Big10+1 teams outside of OSU & PSU in recent years...and PSU is 'sorta' there
my .02, as I count down to this Thur nite ...can't freaking wait. We'll need to start up some sort of pool or weekly predictions :D