Why is there even a debate between the Pac-10 and the SEC as to which conference is better?
Seriously, there really shouldn't be any.
Why?
Because the two conferences aren't competing against each other. They don't regularly play each other in the regular season.
They don't have bowl tie-ins with each other.
They don't recruit the same athletes, or even the same type and profile of athletes.
They don't have the same style of play.
They also have different emphases of where college (and high school) football fit into their educational framework and overall culture.
These things—and many others—are the results of athletic conferences comprising universities that are 3,000 MILES APART.
So, this talk about how the conferences should schedule more non-conference games with each other and seek more bowl tie-ins: pardon me, but why? What would it gain either conference?
Respect?
The SEC doesn't need or want respect from anybody.
Instead, it invites anyone and everyone to hate the SEC as much as they choose to do so long as such people take notice of the national titles, bowl wins, draft picks, and recruiting classes that the SEC racks up, even during its "down years."
Hate but don't denigrate because, quite frankly, you can't while remaining intellectually honest. (Yes, the same applies to SEC fans who claim that USC is anything other than an outstanding programs that produces great teams year after year.)
As for the Pac-10, it has an 11-7 record against the SEC in recent years already, and what has it gotten them? Cal beat Tennessee in 2007 and finished 7-6. UCLA beat Tennessee in 2008 and finished 4-8. USC beat Auburn in 2002, Arkansas in 2006, and finished with two losses both years.
So, beating SEC teams will not help the Pac-10 do what it really needs, which is to win enough regular season games to get national title shots and major bowl bids under the current system.
As for money and exposure, the SEC doesn't need it. They are already No. 1 in both. Playing and even beating the SEC is not going to get the Pac-10 exposure and money. That will only come from (and I repeat) winning as often as the SEC teams do.
In order to do that, the Pac-10 will have to recruit as well as the SEC does. That means changing the philosophy and approach that Pac-10 schools have towards college football.
But why would they do such a thing?
College football is nowhere as meaningful on the west coast as it is in the southeast.
Why haven't the Pac-10 lured in Mack Brown, Bob Stoops, Nick Saban, Jim Tressel, Rich Rodriguez, Les Miles, or Urban Meyer with these $4 million a year salaries?
The Pac-10 wouldn't accomplish anything even if they were to win BCS bowls right and left as these coaches have done prior.
Most people out west still wouldn't care because the university culture out there is not college football driven, it is image driven.
Sending the image that you care more about BCS at-large bids than Nobel laureates is part of the reason why Silicon Valley is in California and not Mississippi or Alabama.
13 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete