Yes, it is true. The Pac-10 currently has the #1 (USC), #15 (ASU), and #16 (Cal) ranked teams, and four additional Pac-10 teams (Oregon, Oregon St., UCLA, Arizona) received votes.

The Pac-10 seems to be a very strong conference this season, but nobody ever talks about it. So, why is that? Is it because the West is far removed from what is traditionally considered "College Football Territory?" Just a though.

Discuss.

i think it's a couple things. the distance from the huge media hubs and late start times.

i think it is underrated, but to convince others i think asu needs to beat lsu.

well, considering that ASU doesn't have an experienced QB and they have a suspect defense, i don't consider them a top tier team. Cal just lost their starting QB for the year. Oregon doesn't look like a top 15 team, Wash St is average at best, Washington blows, Oregon St never seems to get over the hump, UCLA lost to fucking Wyoming in a bowl game lasy year, Stanford hasn't had a decent defense in 20 years...etc.... The Pac 10 has an interesting style of west coast college ball but they can't consistantly beat SEC, Big Ten and ACC teams. USC is off the map in that conference. if they lose a game to one of those Pac 10 teams it's a fucking shame. I'd like to see a Big Ten/SEC/ or ACC team play USC in the title game

I think I agree with you on both points.

I'm wondering, though, if it has anything to do with the fact that the Pac-10 schools are mostly located in large metropolitan areas where college football isn't exactly the biggest sport.

well, perhaps. some of the pac ten schools are like that, but not all. the oregon schools aren't, and neither are the arizona schools really. USC and UCLA are two of the more storied sports schools in the country, even if LA is the shittiest sports city in America.

The season is young. Wait a few weeks until we see which teams are real contenders. The ACC has 7 ranked teams, but I don't think I can safely say it's the best conference right now.

I don't think beating lsu under these conditions really proves anything. There is no telling how these 18-21 year old kids are going to be able to perform after their lives have changed so much in the ten days.

I like watching the pac 10 games on Saturday night when I am going to bed. Their problem is lack of tv coverage around the entire country.

wouldn't losing to lsu mean something, though?

It depends on how well LSU plays. I think it should become clear during the game whether their performance has been affected.

yea. I guess it just depends on how the game is played. I wasn't rying to argue with you, but I am not sure how lsu, southern miss, tulane, and other schools are going to perform on the field.

i understand the point, but i'm not sure it affects how big the game is. i dunno, it's gotta be tough for those kids.

Don't forget Wash St... that place is in the middle of fucking nowhere.

I don't think there's *really* any kind of bias against the Pac-10... I lost a lot of respect for them after Cal (the Pac-10's supposed #2 team) got dismantled by Texas Tech, which is only a middle-of-the-road team in the Big 12... once some team other than USC does something of serious merit, call me... until then, I say quit all this bitching about East Coast biases

Underrated, if anything it's overrated but that is just my two cents on that.

It's neither.

The Pac 10 usually has 3 good teams, 2-3 ok teams and 4-5 bad ones. Top to bottom the conference is generally among the weakest top-tier conferences. No way does it compare to the Big Ten, SEC, ACC or Big 12. It's easily behind those.

There are some very good Pac-10 teams.

I think there may be some historic bias, and some built on the percieved and the actual lack of Defense in much of the conference.

pac-10 this year only has two BAD teams - Stanford and Washington. Everyone else is good but not great, except USC of course. All I gotta say is GO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tedford is a genius with QB's.

Corrected. Although it doesn't really matter in the context of this thread.