Pac 10 irrelevant?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When a Big 12 team plays ONE BCS team non-conf. it's considered a really, really big deal, and very, very brave.

Smart teams don't schedule the dangerous games. There's not much to be gained.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Smart teams don't schedule the dangerous games. There's not much to be gained.

smart fans don't pay $1000 to see their team beat directional polytechnical institutes.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The interesting thing for BYU, as a mid-major, is to see how certain fans deal with the obvious dilemma.....

The main thing BYU has on which to to hang its hat is the fact that it beat Washington and UCLA. Those 2 were supposed to be the big measuring sticks for us this season.....can Bronco finally win vs the BCS on the road? Can we consistently play and beat the "big boys."

Yet now, because of little brother syndrome, many mid-major fans are prematurely celebrating the alleged demise of the Pac 10, even calling it irrelevant.

If the Pac 10 is irrelevant (and I fully admit that it has been less than stellar), then it basically throws into question BYU's success this season. In essence, BYU has had zero legitimate success because it has only played awful (irrelevant) teams, plus a D-2 opponent.

I don't get too caught up in the hype for SC or BYU. As I have stated many times, I enjoy the ride. If BYU loses a game along the way, then Las Vegas Bowl here I come. Another fun season. If they win out and go to a BCS bowl, I will go to that, too. SC in the Rose Bowl.....I went last year and seemed to enjoy myself, despite the fact that it was not a national championship game. Life goes on....I choose to enjoy it.

There was talk this morning on the Dan patrick show that SC actually will wind up making more money as a result of this loss. The Rose Bowl has a separate payout agreement from the other BCS bowls and in fact pays more than all the other games, including the NC game. Also, SC would not have to blow much of the payout in travel expenses to Miami. So while any team would prefer to play for the title, the silver lining is that SC will still be in a position to make even more money. See.....Lemons ---> Lemonade!

The mid major label sucks. It doesn't even belong in football. It was originally a basketball term to describe teams like Weber State who are D1 in basketball and 1-AA in football. And before bashing the MWC explain why the PAC 10 is doing better against other BCS conferences than they are doing against the MWC.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

smart fans don't pay $1000 to see their team beat directional polytechnical institutes.

Another knock against aTm?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

the mid major label sucks. It doesn't even belong in football. It was originally a basketball term to describe teams like Weber State who are D1 in basketball and 1-AA in football.

Besides BYU, there hasnt been another football national champion outside a "BCS" conference since probably World War 2.

I would say that the term "mid major" is pretty generous. It implies that there is even a shred of "major" involved.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Besides BYU, there hasnt been another football national champion outside a "BCS" conference since probably World War 2.

I would say that the term "mid major" is pretty generous. It implies that there is even a shred of "major" involved.

So let's throw out most BCS teams then. Not many of them have won national chamipionships since WW2 either, if that's your standard. The problem I have with this blanket labeling is that it gives fans the idea that every team from a BCS conference is automatically better than any team not in a BCS league. This season is proving how false that idea is. You may know and care about BYU's history and tradition, but if we were to play a bad BCS conference team back east like Duke or Vanderbilt, how much do you want to bet you could poll the fans of those teams and 80-90% would think they should kick our butts? That's all due to BCS media hype, mostly from ESPN.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

So let's throw out most BCS teams then. Not many of them have won national chamipionships since WW2 either, if that's your standard. The problem I have with this blanket labeling is that it gives fans the idea that every team from a BCS conference is automatically better than any team not in a BCS league. This season is proving how false that idea is. You may know and care about BYU's history and tradition, but if we were to play a bad BCS conference team back east like Duke or Vanderbilt, how much do you want to bet you could poll the fans of those teams and 80-90% would think they should kick our butts? That's all due to BCS media hype, mostly from ESPN.

Who cares what fans think?

And nobody has ever claimed that any BCS school is automatically better than a non BCS school.

Your hypo is ridiculous. We were favored both against UCLA and Washington, so there goes your argument.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Who cares what fans think?

And nobody has ever claimed that any BCS school is automatically better than a non BCS school.

Your hypo is ridiculous. We were favored both against UCLA and Washington, so there goes your argument.

whenever you say "we", it is very confusing. It would be less confusing if you just said "BYU was favored..."

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Who cares what fans think?

And nobody has ever claimed that any BCS school is automatically better than a non BCS school.

Your hypo is ridiculous. We were favored both against UCLA and Washington, so there goes your argument.

what do you mean? Mid major is an artificial label, so what else other than fan perception would we be talking about? No one has claimed that a BCS school is automatically better? How about ESPN's Mark May before a Boise State/Oregon State game last year picking OSU with his only reasoning being that OSU is a PAC 10 team? BSU went on to beat the crap out of them. If guys on ESPN don't do their homework and automatically assume those things, you don't think a lot of fans don't do the same?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

what do you mean? Mid major is an artificial label, so what else other than fan perception would we be talking about?

I was talking about the fact that non"BCS" teams have almost never won a title in college football, so why would it be shocking to label those conference as generally inferior? I have never understood why that is so offensive to mid-major fans. Do they expect to be held in the same regard as conferences that produce national championships every decade? Every few years?

Your argument about perception is a strawman. How can you argue about the perception of every fan? You said that "it gives fans the idea that every team from a BCS conference is automatically better than any team not in a BCS league." Do you know people who think this way? They think that Duke football is better this year than BYU or Utah?