Pac-10 Goes 5-0 In Bowls in 08-09

[EagerBeaver]

For those of you who think the Pac-10 is weak:

Las Vegas Bowl - Arizona 31, BYU 21
Emerald Bowl - California 24, Miami FL 17
Holiday Bowl - Oregon 42, Oklahoma State 31
Sun Bowl - Oregon State 3, Pittsburgh 0
Rose Bowl - USC 38, Penn State 24

Pac 10 goes FIVE AND OH in bowls this year. Amazing for a conference that was supposed to be down on its luck and frankly looked the part for most of the season.

I think the most impressive win in this group is Arizona over BYU. Zona didn't have much to boast of and there had been talk earlier in the year of BYU being BCS-worthy. For Zona to come in and beat a team as explosive as BYU by 10 is a huge statement.

Oregon over OK State was a surprise in a way...I knew being a Duck fan that the quack attack would put a ton of points on the board but I didn't realize that OK St relied on Dez Bryant so heavily. That being said, one guy does not a team make (as Yoda would say), so OKST fans need to stop complaining that Bryant's injury ruined their chances at winning and look at their defense being unable to tackle anyone.

USC's thrashing of Penn State yesterday proved the Trojans belonged in the National Title Game. Pee on Florida.

OUT

[Paully_44]

exactly!!

And for USC, most of their starters will be returning next year.

[dolfan]

And, Beav, the SEC put 8 teams in bowl games in a down year. You can toot the horn all you want, and that's fine, but I'm not going to say "anybody but Pac-10". Fact is, I don't care enough about the Pac-10 to even not like them. I'd rather beat Tennessee or Auburn any day of the week.

And, the Pac-10 didn't play anybody in 3 of those games. BYU was marginal (Utah made them look like paper boys). Miami hasn't been relevant in 6 years. Oregon State (whom I like because they are coached by a Bama alum and one of Bear's boys) managed to post the lowest score in a bowl game in 47 years against a defense that, frankly, really is quite not awesome (Pitt total defense ranked 27th, which is fair). Of them all, Oregon and USC had the most impressive victories against quality teams.

Ole Miss demonstrated today what Florida will show next week. SEC defenses are the best, hands down. (USC is the sole exception, but even their defense is the best only since who? ----- Alabama, 1992. Thanks so very much.)

[Susie Hamilton]

And UK an SEC team wins the Liberty Bowl. I am a happy camper.

[Tim Elston]

Yay, PAC-10. Especially Oregon! All other conferences, eat your heart out.

[rjjunior]

And, Beav, the SEC put 8 teams in bowl games in a down year.

The number of teams in bowl games emphasizes the bias of bowl selection, not necessarily the strength of the conference.

[EagerBeaver]

And, Beav, the SEC put 8 teams in bowl games in a down year.

The number of teams in bowl games emphasizes the bias of bowl selection, not necessarily the strength of the conference.

Bingo.

[dolfan]

And, Beav, the SEC put 8 teams in bowl games in a down year.

The number of teams in bowl games emphasizes the bias of bowl selection, not necessarily the strength of the conference.

Why didn't more western bowl games choose more Pac-10 teams, then? And, why did C-USA send 6 teams to bowls this year? Certainly, bowls are not biased toward them!?

This year, the Pac-10 had only 5 bowl eligible teams. This year the Pac-10 was contracted to send its sixth to Hawai’i and seventh to the Poinsettia Bowl, but only managed to field five that were bowl-eligible. Both were begging for Pac-10 teams but didn't get them. The Poinsettia had to go get TCU from the Big 12 to fill the slot. They'd much rather have had UCLA or Az. State to play Boise.

The SEC sent 8 teams to bowl games this year. We are in a down year, everyone says. We have 9 bowl-tie ins. We expect to send 9 teams each year. Had we had more eligible, we could've sent 10 since we had two teams in BCS bowls. Bowls expect us to have 9 eligible teams; that's why they have contracts to get them. That's not bias. That's strength of conference.

[pastorables]

That's strength of conference.

Bingo.

To prove the point further, Ole Miss has owned Big 12 foes in bowl games during the past 12 years. In no particular order, they have beaten Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech twice.

pa

[Tim Elston]

Hey, could we put this thread into the Doctrine forum where it belongs?

[dalebert]

Hey, could we put this thread into the Doctrine forum where it belongs?

Now that was funny....

[turbotim]

Congrats to the Pac 10. I agree with Dolphan...

This year, the Pac-10 had only 5 bowl eligible teams. This year the Pac-10 was contracted to send its sixth to Hawai’i and seventh to the Poinsettia Bowl, but only managed to field five that were bowl-eligible. Both were begging for Pac-10 teams but didn't get them. The Poinsettia had to go get TCU from the Big 12 to fill the slot. They'd much rather have had UCLA or Az. State to play Boise.

I see no bias at all... You have to be bowl eligible first.

[rjjunior]

So, if the # of bowl eligible teams is the true test of conference strength, let us all bow to the ACC. (10 teams)

The number of bowl-eligible teams is ONE factor, so is head-to-head record vs. other conferences.

2000-2007 Pac-10 record vs. SEC teams 9-6.

My argument isn't "Pac-10 is better." It's "SEC isn't the cat's meow." Pac-10 is every bit as good as the SEC.

[pastorables]

2000-2007 Pac-10 record vs. SEC teams 9-6.

That's a skewed comparison. How much of that is USC vs. Arkansas?

[dolfan]

Now, that's a comparison I personally think is worth making. Although there have been only those 15 head to head games between our conferences in those 8 years (way too few), and although I don't think that 9-6 record in favor of the Pac-10 is enough to make the case that the Pac-10 is better (and you admittedly don't use it to make that point), you do use it to say that they are equal.

I don't think it is a bad method to compare the two conferences in head-to-head games over the past 8 or 9 years -- actually, I think it is one of the best ways if not THE best way, depnding on diversity of matchups. I do wonder how many of those 9 wins were USC, an especially dominant team, and how many of those USC games were against ranked SEC opponents? I don't know. I'm asking honestly.

I look at USC v. Arkansas, for example, when Arkansas is really struggling. But, I look back at USC v. Auburn when Auburn was doing well, and Auburn lost pretty badly. The 9 wins --- how many were USC?
I look back, too, at Bama vs. UCLA. An unranked UCLA team beat Bama in 2000, at UCLA, 35-24. In 2001, #15 UCLA beat #25 Alabama 20-17 in Tuscaloosa. So, there's another 2 games out of 15 in that period where USC wasn't involved, and the SEC opponent was ranked. So, I see validity in the point, although I'm not YET persuaded by it.

Another point to be made, though, for the Pac-10, since I'm trying to be fair. Pac-10 teams play 9 conference games each year, SEC teams play 8. After the advent of 12 game regular season schedules, the Pac-10 alone decided to make that additional game a conference game. I still think the Pac-10 should hold a conference championship game, and that the 9th conference game was added so they could avoid doing that. That will favor the LA teams year in and year out. But, they do all play an additional conference game, which means that each conference team has one more chance to hand a loss to another conference team, which could push down the number of bowl eligibles.

I like the study.