I'm tired of hearing about how bad the ACC is.
This conference has done better than a lot of people have expected, and it simply isn't the worst BCS conference in college football. In my opinion the Pac-10 is worse than the ACC, and I'll give you five reasons why.
1. The Pac-10 has a total of 10 teams in the conference and five of them are under .500. Only four teams are above the .500 mark. The ACC has 12 teams and nine of them are above the .500 mark, with only three below it.
2. Both conferences have embarrassing losses, both in conference and out of conference. Virginia Tech lost to East Carolina, Wake Forest lost to Navy, Maryland fell to Middle Tennesse State and beat California, Clemson was embarrassed by Alabama, Arizona (who sits atop the Pac-10) has a loss to New Mexico, USC fell to Oregon State who was defeated by Stanford, UCLA was destroyed by BYU who almost fell to win-less Washington, and Arizona State fell to UNLV.
3. The Pac-10's best team is probably better than the ACC's best team. Then again, who would you take, East Carolina or Oregon State?
4. The ACC has more talent spread throughout the conference than the Pac-10. The two worst teams in the Pac-10 have a combined 1-10 record, with the lone win coming against Portland State. The ACC's worst two teams are a combined 4-7.
5. ACC has less bias. Clemson lost to #24 ranked Alabama and fell from number nine in the nation to number 26. USC lost to Oregon State, who was 1-2 at the time, and fell from number one to number nine. Sure USC beat Ohio State, but is anyone really sold on Ohio State? Virginia Tech lost to ECU, who then beat eighth ranked West Virginia the next week, and it took Virginia Tech four weeks to crack the AP Poll. Now the ACC has three teams ranked in the top 25, and the Pac-10 has one team somehow ranked in the top 10. Shouldn't Georgia be ranked higher than USC? It's just a thought.