Southern California helped save face for the Pacific-10 Conference with its win over Boston College on Saturday night in the Emerald Bowl.
It hasn’t been going well with losses to Mountain West Conference foes by Oregon State and California, proving the conference is in a down cycle.
The Pac-10 can’t afford these kind of public opinion defeats. It’s up to UCLA, Stanford, Arizona and Oregon to finish bowl season strong.
Coaches love to say how strong the conference is because anyone can beat anyone. However, that’s not how it’s perceived on the outside.
Equality translates into a weak conference. Voters – AP, coaches and the guys in the Harris Poll – want to see a dominant team and a team just a little off that pace.
The coaches and Harris folks are important because their votes are part of the BCS computer equation. So winning these bowl games help with preseason rankings. Starting high means less work to get high at the end.
Why is that important?
The Pac-10 needs to place a second team in a BCS game, for the money and the PR. To do that it needs an undefeated team in the national title game or the Rose Bowl and an 11-1 team to earn an at-large bid.
After that, five other teams need to fill out the conference bowl allotment. Then they must win the games.
When coaches need to keep their jobs, winning solves problems. When it comes to money, conference wins go a long way, too.
Arguments can be made for why each team is struggling. Youth, injuries and turnover in coaches are the most common. So stability, maturity and experience will return in time.
The key is to do it sooner than later. TV contracts will be negotiated in the near future. And that means more money.
So as you watch the rest of bowl season and fret how your team rebuilds this offseason, remember this is a crucial time for the Pac-10.
The parts make the sum strong, and sum represents the parts.
8 comments
COBever04 says:
Dec 27, 2009
I am glad to see a pac 10 team win last night though it was far from a dominating performance by SC. I am a huge PAC 10 fan however i think that it is time to tear down the term "BCS Conference." The Mac clearly had better top three teams than the top three teams the pac 10 put up. I hated to see the Beavs lose however it was clear that BYU wanted it more. Same when you watch the Cal game. Utah wanted the win more. I think that it should just be conferences no BCS or Non BCS.
WebTraveler says:
Dec 27, 2009
Just a month ago we had comparisons from just about everyone as to how the Pac 10 was better than the SEC. Maybe that is not true. Now we'll see how heads roll with Urban Meyer stepping down in the SEC. That's big and will have an effect on football programs across the country; whomever gets Florida likely comes from somewhere else…..and that starts the dominos.
kersting13 says:
Dec 28, 2009
The Pac 10 will have an extremely hard time getting a 2nd BCS team until they decide to drop the 9th conference game.
Having the 9th game to complete the round-robin was the "right" thing to do, but I've always been so shocked that the powers-that-be couldn't recognize how badly it would damage the Conference's reputation by adding those extra guaranteed losses.
This is one of those situations where doing the "right" thing doesn't pay.
aaron_ says:
Dec 28, 2009
teh problem with the Pac-10, unfortunatley is that no Pac-10 team is a leader in any team defense stats. Go to NCAA.ORG and check it out. We are an offensive conference and even that was doen this year. The stats dont lie. The SEC had leaders in the top 10 in all of the defensive team stat categories. Until the Beavs and the rest of the Pac-10 teams step it up in defense we will lose our bowl games to other top teams. You just have to be able to stop people.
beeverluv says:
Dec 28, 2009
If any Pac 10 teams played a bunch of glorified high school teams for four non-conference games then followed that with a conference schedule against a bunch of lousy offenses then it would be highlighted by everyone. Such is not the case when over-hyping the SEC or Big 12.
Even if the Pac 10 fielded two undefeated teams, the only way we get two BCS games is if USC is one of them and ends up in the NC game. That's it. We're not going to get any love from the polls in any situation, so why play crappy football to try to change what can't be changed?
Playing and beating winning programs is the only way we get respect. Sure we run the risk of losing since the teams we play actually have ability. But that's what champions do.
BeaverDon says:
Dec 28, 2009
"That's what champions do" Whose schedule are you looking at? Texas playde Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida. Alabama had Chattanooga, North Texas, Florida International and Virginia Tech. How tough are those schedules? Okay I'll admit VA Tech is good, but that's 1 out of 8 and I don't see a Boise State or TCU on the schedule. Yet these two teams are playing in the National Championshhip. So it seems the answer is to load up on "glorified high school teams" for the OOC schedule, thats what champions do.
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 28, 2009
BeaverDon posted this but it's not showing up:
"That's what champions do" Whose schedule are you looking at? Texas playde Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida. Alabama had Chattanooga, North Texas, Florida International and Virginia Tech. How tough are those schedules? Okay I'll admit VA Tech is good, but that's 1 out of 8 and I don't see a Boise State or TCU on the schedule. Yet these two teams are playing in the National Championshhip. So it seems the answer is to load up on "glorified high school teams" for the OOC schedule, thats what champions do.
beeverluv says:
Dec 28, 2009
We do that and everyone points to our schedule as an excuse not to put us in an at-large BCS bowl position. Florida, Texas, Alabama do it, and they're 'champions' despite playing NOBODY all year long. Maybe one of these teams is really that good, but we'll never know until they play someone.
Just because they call it a championship doesn't mean it is. It's just another old boys' pay off. Follow the BCS money trail and you'll find a bunch of self-congratulatory, bottom feeding slouches eating their own refuse.