Basically what I am saying is that the middle of the road ACC teams are good enough to beat the top dogs (Miami, VT, FSU) if they a. have their "A" game, or b. the top dog team does not.Originally posted by: kalster
if that is the case USC being much better than others in their conference is the resaon PAC 10 is considered weak? Pac 10 also has a lot of 7-4, 6-5, 5-6 teams.
In other words, you have to come to play every weekend in the ACC. USC doesn't have to do that in the Pac 10.
So I'm also saying that USC would have one or two losses if they played an ACC schedule, because they tend to have 2-3 games a season where they take the first half off, or simply don't take the opponent seriously and get in a hole then have to climb out of it.
And if they did that with ACC teams they would lose some. Pac 10 teams evidently aren't good enough to beat USC even when they aren't playing well. I know some will say that's because USC is just that much better, but I don't believe that at all.
Again, let USC play VT, FSU, NC State, GT, Clemson, UMD, BC, and UVA and I will guarantee you that they lose one or two.
THAT is why people say conferences like the ACC or Big 10 are better than the Pac 10.
You can usually include the SEC in that, too, but they are a bit down this year.