"...the always overrated Pac-10.."
So as usual, where do we begin? Oklahoma played two Pac-10 teams this year, getting blown out by 'overrated' UCLA 41-24, and squeaking by an Oregon team finishing up the year without their quarterback, 17-14. Oklahoma averaged over 30 points a game in their eight Big-12 games, but just 20 per game against the 'lousy, non-existent' Pac-10 defenses they played. You say Oregon was a 'prohibitive' favorite over Oklahoma, but the line was 3 points. When Clemens went out with the broken leg, Oregon limped through three consecutive close games, winning all against Arizona 28-21, Cal 27-20, and Washington State 34-31. It's commendable that they won the games while working in two rookie quarterbacks, but they weren't the same team without Clemens, and this was reflected in the 3 point line for the game, and Oregon missing out on a BCS game. Oklahoma got absolutely screwed by the refs against Texas Tech, otherwise they finish up the season with 7 consecutive wins. So don't try to tell me that it was some huge upset that Oklahoma beat Oregon 17-14.
The toughest game LSU faced all year was Arizona State, who put up 560 yards on that 'powerful SEC defense'. LSU needed two kicking game flukes and a last minute Hail Mary to beat ASU 35-31. Arizona State also played Northwestern earlier this year and beat them 52-21, and UCLA put up 50 on them yesterday. Of the five Pac-10 bowl teams, 3 of them (Cal, Oregon, and Arizona State) lost their starting quarterbacks for the season to injury, and yet still played well.
So gimme a break on this anti-Pac-10 crap. I can understand the frustration of watching USC dominate college football over the past three years, and I can understand your desperate attempt to explain away 34 straight wins as not having come against good competition, but your arguments hold no water. I know they don't hold much water in Norman.
Also, the Pac-10 is 6-1 in their past 7 BCS bowl games, and all six wins were routs. 'Always overrated'? And also, something like 8-3 in their last 11 games against the 'powerful' SEC. How has your conference done in both these categories, by the way?
First off I never belittled USC and I don't want to take anything away from them. They won a half title and then kept going. The Pac 10 however is another story. They are a 2-4 team conference this year and in most years. If you want to compare conference stats we could argue all day and you might have the edge the last two years but I don't think you'd find many who expect that to continue. As for the Oregon line in the Oklahoma game you are talking about the number 6 team in the country with one loss against a team with 4 losses including two in a 'weak' conference. I don't know about you but I would expect a bigger line if you chose two other like situated teams...e.g. 7 1/2. Look at who Oklahoma beat in that stretch of wins and their best game was the loss you mentioned to T Tech. USC is the only real team in the conference much like Texas is the only true contender in the Big 12. I guess my gripe is the belittlement of the Big 12 this year and I chose to compare them to another conference I follow.
Then I looked at the history for the last six years (why six? -- because www.collegefootballpoll.com only goes back that far and the research was easy).
During that period, the ACC had the best bowl record, 19-11 (yes, some of the ACC games were against smaller conference opponents, but many were against the majors); four years with an overall winning record. The SEC followed with 24-20, virtually all against majors; three years with an overall winning record, two with a tie (and at least three wins each of the six years -- not bad when you consider that 2005 was the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY the Big 10 had three bowl wins three years in a row). The Big 10 was 18-21; two years with an overall winning record, four with a losing record. The PAC 10 was 14-19, with only two winning bowl seasons. The Big 12 was 22-26, with only two winning bowl seasons.
During that period, the SEC had winning bowl records against the ACC, the Big 12, and the Big 10. I may have missed one, but I didn't find a single PAC-10/SEC bowl matchup in the last six years (I know there have been regular season games, and the PAC-10 has dominated the SEC there).
The big loser was the Big 10, at least when it came to winning the games it was supposed to win. I didn't look at performance versus the spread. If a team was favored to win (by one point or twenty), I looked to see whether it won or lost. If a team was picked to lose, I looked to see whether it lost. 57% of the Big 10 teams picked to win their bowl games over the last six years lost; 38% of those Big 10 teams picked to lose their bowl games won. By contrast, in the SEC, only 35% of those SEC teams picked to win their bowl games lost, while 42% of those picked to lost their bowl games won. I didn't throw out any statistics favoring the Big 10. I just ran the stats, and you can imply anything or nothing from them.
As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies, and statistics. I don't mean to prove anything with these statitics (except that you can always make money betting against the Big 10).