Do you think a BCS win means that team's conference is better?

This year specifically, I think it would confirm that the SEC is better if LSU wins. But, this is already well known. In years that two conferences are similar, I fully agree with your point.

The better team that night wins. Better conference arguments is talk radio stuff. There's no way to prove anything. The BCS is awful.

the sec and big10 are both weak conferences. the bcs artificially jacks them up for tv ratings purposes. the bcs is run by the bowl games. the ap polls are run by the ap which has voters from media companies who make profits on sales of advertisments, newspapers, magazines, television shows. the ap is not independent and unbiased, it's job is to make money for the big media interests. plus, the 4 week lull between the regular season and the bowl games renders them demonstration games, with no title significance. no sports league expects teams to be ready after 4 weeks of wanking off.

Surprise! wrote:

This year specifically, I think it would confirm that the SEC is better if LSU wins.

But, if you believe that, then you MUST believe the opposite to be true -- that if Ohio State wins that it proves the Big Ten is better. Do you believe that? If you DON'T believe that, then you can't believe an LSU win proves that the SEC is better. You just believe the SEC is better as a whole regardless of who wins (which is what I believe).

Of course there are people out there that don't believe LSU is the best team in the SEC even though they are the conference champion. That argument falls on deaf ears for me.

MY VIEW:

If LSU wins, the SEC is a better conference.

If Ohio State wins, the SEC is a better conference.

The only thing that would convince me that the Big Ten is better than the SEC is if Ohio State wins AND the Big Ten wins their matchups in the other bowls against SEC teams. Then I think it's fair to say that everyone was mistaken about the strength of the SEC.

I don't understand why so many people get so geeked about conferences anyway. I don't care if Purdue wins their bowl game (and they did) or if Wisconsin does. I only care if Ohio State wins. Sometimes if there's a special reason to root for a team, I'll do that (2004 Boston Red Sox for example), but as a general rule, I couldn't care less if other Big Ten teams win their bowl games. I actually like to see Michigan lose.

This is something I had to hear a lot about (living in SEC hotbed Atlanta) after last year's game. I look at it both ways - does UF's win last year mean that UGA, LSU, AU, etc. could have beaten OSU? No way. Does it make those schools LOOK better in the public eye and perception wise? Of course it does. Should it? I don't know...maybe. I mean, it's like living in a town where you are the #2 runner but the kid that beats you all the time goes on to the Olympics...it's something to hang your hat on and will make you LOOK better in the process.

In terms of bowl games...it's so hard to really draw much from them because there is so much mental stuff going on. Think about it - you've got teams with coaches leaving, teams that feel "slighted", teams that feel overwhelmed b/c of the attention and cool city they get to visit. All these things disrupt the natural flow that was built during the course of the season (not to mention the lay offs). I think that's why so many weird results happen in the bowl season.

As a Georgia fan, I have to say that as much as I hate the Gators, I was happy to see them win big last year b/c I know that my team hung with them and (save a few stupid turnovers) could have won...it made me feel better about my team heading into the off-season and the potential of the future. BUT I did not view the win as a "win for the SEC".

Flagpole Willy wrote:

I don't understand why so many people get so geeked about conferences anyway. I don't care if Purdue wins their bowl game (and they did) or if Wisconsin does. I only care if Ohio State wins. Sometimes if there's a special reason to root for a team, I'll do that (2004 Boston Red Sox for example), but as a general rule, I couldn't care less if other Big Ten teams win their bowl games. I actually like to see Michigan lose.

I like it when the conference does well because that is my regional home. They're more likely to have local players. A win by the conference makes everyone in the conference look better.

That said, I still like it when Michigan loses. They're always deserving of being knocked down a few pegs.

"But, if you believe that, then you MUST believe the opposite to be true -- that if Ohio State wins that it proves the Big Ten is better. Do you believe that? If you DON'T believe that, then you can't believe an LSU win proves that the SEC is better."

Huh? Why must I believe the opposite to be true? The SEC is clearly better. LSU winning would confirm that.

Forget the SEC, Big-10 and Pac-10, the conference this year is the Big 12. Did you watch a middle of the conference Texas team kick the crap out of the co-Pac-10 champion last night?

Surprise! wrote:

"But, if you believe that, then you MUST believe the opposite to be true -- that if Ohio State wins that it proves the Big Ten is better. Do you believe that? If you DON'T believe that, then you can't believe an LSU win proves that the SEC is better."

Huh? Why must I believe the opposite to be true? The SEC is clearly better. LSU winning would confirm that.

If you believe that an LSU wn proves the SEC is better, then why doesn't an OSU win prove the Big Ten is better? Reality is that you don't need LSU to win to prove to you that the SEC is better.

No matter what though, shouldn't an LSU win just mean that LSU is better than OSU? Why does a win for a team mean it's conference is better? If LSU beats Ohio State does that mean that the third best team in the SEC is better than the third best team in the Big Ten? I say no. Team vs. team only is the way to look at it.

SWEDES wrote:

Forget the SEC, Big-10 and Pac-10, the conference this year is the Big 12. Did you watch a middle of the conference Texas team kick the crap out of the co-Pac-10 champion last night?

The Pac-10 sucks this year. The Big Ten is down, but the Pac-10 as a whole sucks. USC is good. Everyone else is Vanderbilt.

Gosh, you know, I haven't even thought about college football since the regular seeason ended, since this proliferation of pointless bowls with 7-5 teams is so easy to ignore, and frankly...what was the question again? Oh yeah. Who cares?

Biblioteca wrote:

Gosh, you know, I haven't even thought about college football since the regular seeason ended, since this proliferation of pointless bowls with 7-5 teams is so easy to ignore, and frankly...what was the question again? Oh yeah. Who cares?

What a waste of your time to repond to a thread you don't care about. Go make better use of your time.

"The Pac-10 sucks this year. The Big Ten is down, but the Pac-10 as a whole sucks. USC is good. Everyone else is Vanderbilt"

Vanderbilt could beat half of the teams in the Big 10 and Big 12.

coach, after 4 weeks of krispy kremes, you want me to do what ? play another football game !

SWEDES wrote:

Forget the SEC, Big-10 and Pac-10, the conference this year is the Big 12. Did you watch a middle of the conference Texas team kick the crap out of the co-Pac-10 champion last night?

ASU had to be one of the most overrated teams in the country. The only team of note that they actually beat was a down and out Cal team. They got destroyed by Oregon and USC, which were really the only big time tests they had. They got lucky with an easy early season schedule in a much weaker than expected Pac-10.

magic johnson wrote:

"The Pac-10 sucks this year. The Big Ten is down, but the Pac-10 as a whole sucks. USC is good. Everyone else is Vanderbilt"

Vanderbilt could beat half of the teams in the Big 10 and Big 12.

No they couldn't.

don't get upset over holiday games. they don't mean anything.

Surprise! wrote:

This year specifically, I think it would confirm that the SEC is better if LSU wins. But, this is already well known. In years that two conferences are similar, I fully agree with your point.

I agree with this. Of course you can't judge conferences based on one game played by one team from each conference, but this year it's pretty clear that the Big Ten is weak (unless, of course, Michigan beats Florida... then maybe an Ohio State win will mean something, conference-wise).

There was a view expressed when Miami was the dominant team that a dominant team that wins the NC frequently goes along with a weak conference. The same view has been expressed with regard to USC. You could say the same thing about Ohio State and th3e Big 10. The Pac-10 was much stronger before Dixon went down injured, and USC likely would have been undefeated playing OSU had Booty not broken a finger in his throwing hand, but USC being not quite as dominant as they were does seem to coincide with the conference being stronger.

If Ohio State and Illinois meet relatively the same fate that OSU and Michigan had last year (which is what I expect) I don't see how you can argue the conference being stronger: You would simply have a team or two that is not quite so dominant that didn't play anybody except much weaker conference opposition.

Compared to the SEC, Big-12, and Pac-10, the Big 10 is simply slow, period.