How I see it next year

[whateveritis1224]

SEC and Big XII are the two best, Pac 10 and Big 10 second, ACC third tier, Big East and Mountain West are in the last tier. Because no matter how good there top 4 teams are (TCU, BYU, AFA, and Utah) the rest of the conference just doesn't cut it with the rest.

 

It's been pointed out that the Big East needs to lose it's Automatic Qualifier, but I think instead of that they should give the Mountain West on of the at-large spots. It seems like the past few years that at least one Mountain West team has made a run at the BCS, and I think at least one team was in the 10-20 range or better.

 

Give the Mountain West an Automatic Qualifying spot and it'll be easier for Boise to jump into the BCS yearly without too much whining like what happened this year with TCU and Boise where if Nebraska won the Big XII there was a good chance the Boise wouldn't have been invited.

[miamihrrcns2001]

how can you forget Georgia Tech in the ACC?

 

I forgot to mention them... my bad. I think they are going to be good next year as well but they + miami and vt only keep the ACC at #3 due to the lack of talent at the bottom of the conference. Also, I still do not see GT as a legitimate title contender.

[WVhuskerXX]

my bad. I think they are going to be good next year as well but they + miami and vt only keep the ACC at #3 due to the lack of talent at the bottom of the conference

 

Good point...top is solid though

[Never Skerd']

PAC 10 WENT UNDEFEATED IN BOWLS LAST YEAR DUUUUURRRR

[pastamax]

I actually think KState will be the second team in the North (besides us of course). They return many people and their RB will be good.

[miamihrrcns2001]

I actually think KState will be the second team in the North (besides us of course). They return many people and their RB will be good.

 

if they can find a defense and a passing option to compliment their run game, they've got a chance.

 

I'm not convinced of Mizzou's O-line and BG doenst look very comfortable running the ball...

[bernorange]

Next year's Conference rankings

...

Your thoughts?

 

Conference rankings? Seriously? I'll hitch my wagon to my alma mater - not some conglomeration of teams that include the black holes of Oklahoma and College Station.

 

If you want to talk about individual teams, I'd say this:

 

Florida loses a lot, I don't think they reload. It's rebuilding time.

 

LSU is stuck with the Les Miles curse. They are guaranteed 1-2 losses every year because of it.

 

Auburn will be good, but not elite.

 

USC (Pac-10 version) will be improved and top ten worthy most likely.

 

Oregon - I don't know who they are losing. I'm not sure about them.

 

Washington/UCLA will be decent to good - on par with Auburn at best.

 

Nebraska will be better on O and probably a slight dropoff on D (which will still be elite). Top 10 for sure.

 

OU loses a lot. Rebuilding year but still 2nd in the South division.

 

Texas has question marks on O with OL & QB, but the D will be strong enough to win the early part of the schedule. I think they mature fast enough to make the Nebraska game a top 10 showdown of undefeateds.

 

Tech is going to drop off and A&M might surpass them for 3rd place in the South division. A&M's offense will be elite. Their D is the big question mark.

 

I don't know enough about the other teams you mentioned to have an opinion.

[NoDoubt]

I would keep an eye out for Ohio State as well, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pryor have a breakout season. And it's obvious with their win over Oregon that they can stop the spread with their physicality on D, Big 10 proved a lot this year, mostly that the spread has been exposed, back to smashmouth...

 

NU vs OSU in championship game??? What a story that would be...

[knapplc]

I think the Pac 10 proved that they are not physical and I would not put them ahead of Big 12, Big 10, or ACC.

 

I think this is true, too. I was really shocked at how poorly the Pac-10 represented themselves in the bowls. It's difficult to say how teams will react to their postseason, though. Some teams are just darned glad to go bowling (Iowa State), some get pissed because they feel they got shafted in their bowl selection (Missouri), some go out there with something to prove (Nebraska), and some go out like a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter (Texas). I think the Pac-10 is a LOT better than they showed in the bowls. There's just no way to prove that.

 

 

 

 

In general I don't have a problem with the OP's rankings, although with the parity we have now the 2-4 conferences are almost interchangeable.

 

I don't agree with the bolded part at all. I've been saying all year that the Pac-10 is not physical enough to be considered an elite conference. I think all of the Little 9 teams are about where they always are . . . decent speed in the skill positions . . . but not exceptional speed. Also, these teams in particular lack any sort of physicality on either side of the ball. USC is usually an elite school, but they are down far enough this year that everyone assumed that the other 9 schools were improved. Actually (IMO) USC just got worse. The other teams didn't improve.

Well, I really can't fault your reasoning. I know the Pac-10 didn't fare well in the bowls, and it did seem like the physical game got the better of them, but there is a lot of talent over there, too. I don't have much defense for these teams, I guess.

 

I'll work on something here and post it in a bit. Maybe it'll help rank the conferences....