I have recently been asked by Bleacher Report's own Tim Pollock to answer some questions regarding the dominance of Pac-10 football.
Are national titles subjective?
Yes, they are. Under the current system with the BCS, the national championship game is always going to have a problem. What made Ohio State better than USC or Georgia last year? What made Oklahoma better than Utah or Auburn in 2004?
Without a playoff, there are too many different things to consider when asking the question, "Who is the best?"
We try to make the national champion and the national championship an objective thing, and we do the best we can with the BCS system that we have in place—but the bottom line is that it does not work in some years.
As I've stated many times before, let the teams decide the national champion, not a computer program.
How would Cal do if they played in the SEC East?
If California was placed into the SEC East this year, we all know how California would do out of conference. They'd probably play Sacramento State, Weber State, Eastern Washington, and MIT to start the season off. 4-0 automatically, in the top 25, with everyone yelling about how many top 25 teams the great SEC has.
California would beat Vanderbilt and Kentucky pretty handily. I base this off the fact that both Vanderbilt and Kentucky are usually bottom-dwellers in the SEC East, and the fact that both teams lost to Tennessee last year, who California beat pretty badly.
South Carolina and Tennessee are teams that have pretty similar talent from my perspective. I really believe that South Carolina overachieved in the first half of the year and then was brought back to reality in the second half of the season. Both of these games would be won by California, maybe by three points or a touchdown.
Florida would be an interesting match-up, and I think the outcome of this game would be based largely on when it was played in the season and where it was played. This game is essentially a toss-up.
Georgia would beat up on California.
You never know what you're going to get out of the SEC West (which is why it's dumb to have 12 teams), so I'm going to say 2-1 on that side of the conference.
Overall, California would finish with a 9-3 or 10-2 record if they played in the SEC East.
How would Arizona State do if they played in the SEC West? How about Oregon (cue the Dennis Dixon injury comment, as if other teams don't have injuries)?
Only time will tell on this one. I think Arizona State would do very well in the SEC West. Georgia is going to have a hard time with the Sun Devils, much more than people expect. LSU came into Sun Devil Stadium and walked out with a 35-31 victory in an extremely close game.
I'm confused about the second part of the question—are you asking how Oregon would have done last year or how they would do this year? Because last year, they would have been undefeated national champions in any conference in America if Dixon was healthy.
Would USC go undefeated every year if they played in the SEC?
No, but they would come pretty damn close. USC just wailed on Arkansas in 2005 and 2006 when Arkansas was a pretty strong team. I believe they would be a one- or two-loss team at worst in that conference.
Of course, if USC played in the SEC, we would miss out on those exciting non-conference games like Ohio State and Notre Dame.