I just fail to see how you can make a claim like that when Vandy, Mississippi and Mississippi State play the elite teams of your conference tougher than they do these supposedly inferior opponents who have gone 7-1 against not only your bottom end teams, but the top-tier as well.

I am not attacking you personally, but I am attacking this mindset that the SEC and Big-12 specifically are the better conferences, especially given this season of parity, which has shown consistent signs of evolving throughout the BCS era.

Personally, I fail to see how LSU can be ranked ahead of West Virginia, Ohio State, Kansas, Missouri or Arizona State, especially given their 5-5 record against the BCS and the fact that the highest ranked team the conference has beaten is Virginia Tech. Thank you for posting and I am still going to add you as a link because I enjoy your writing and perspective. I am hopeful you will at least consider mine.

We can’t lay claim to the fact that the SEC is the strongest conference in the nation can we if you’re utilizing this mindset. Spoken like a true SEC fan (speaking out of both sides of their mouth), if the SEC is so strong as evidenced by the media proclaiming how every game in the SEC is such a juggernaut of a challenge, how exactly can we conclude this conference is the best if in your own words:

On the Big East / SEC comparison: those games were the Louisville-Kentucky rivalry (one-sided up until this season, Louisville’s gone 3-1 since 2004), the MSU / WVU home-and-home (which you can’t call an even matchup; not surprisingly, WVU won both those games going away), Vandy/Rutgers in 2004 (Rutgers win, but if you want to compare two bad teams, go for it; neither was any good), and the WVU win over Georgia in the Peach Bowl. Also, I forget if USF was in the Big East or C-USA back in 2004; if they were, they lost to South Carolina 34-3. Anyway, point is that the Big East really should’ve won most of those games - of *course* they can beat Vandy, Mississippi St., and Kentucky. So can most of the rest of the conference. The record’s a record, but the quality is what I’d focus on.

Stewart Mandell, Craig James, Ivan Maisel, John Saunders and of course the boys over at CBS (the flagship station for the SEC) claims that all of these teams are so good and yet are the first to discredit a Kansas, Oregon, West Virginia, Arizona State or in your words “South Florida” when push comes to shove.

If you claim that of course these teams can beat most of the lower teams in your conference, how do you explain the fact that this year, the history laden teams from the best conference (bogus distinction) in the WORLD can’t beat South Floria (Auburn), West Virginia (Mississippi State or Georgia and it was the BCS Sugar Bowl, not the Peach), Florida State (Alabama…they can’t beat UL-Monroe either), Missouri (Mississippi - only down 14-7 to LSU, almost beat Florida) and California (Tennessee is likely to play for the SEC Championship this year when they got dominated by a California team who will likely play in the Emerald Bowl).

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. The SEC is just so strong from top-to-bottom isn’t it? Or is it over-hyped and part of a unionized alliance in the polls with a direct history and connection to the two founding fathers of the CFA who formed the Harris Poll and is responsible for hiring coaches and administrators at the key power schools. LSU has beaten two quality teams this year (Virginia Tech and Florida) and yet got beat by one of those teams you claimed the Big-East should be able to beat (Kentucky) and almost got beat by Alabama, Auburn and is still struggling against lowly Mississippi a team Missouri beat soundly!

Mark my words, no matter how this season shakes out, you will likely see either Oklahoma, LSU or Ohio State in the national championship game, not because they are any better than a number of teams, but because they are a part of a unionized allianced once called the CFA who has now morphed into the BCS. Check the facts and the history of the polls and the BCS…the same people are intertwined in both movements, and when push comes to shove this year, you will hear the media and the networks cry out regarding the over-hyped strength of the Big-12, SEC and even (incredibly) the Big-10, when the two conferences, who are equal and arguably superior, The PAC-10 and The Big-East will be completely discredited.

On the Big East / SEC comparison: those games were the Louisville-Kentucky rivalry (one-sided up until this season, Louisville’s gone 3-1 since 2004), the MSU / WVU home-and-home (which you can’t call an even matchup; not surprisingly, WVU won both those games going away), Vandy/Rutgers in 2004 (Rutgers win, but if you want to compare two bad teams, go for it; neither was any good), and the WVU win over Georgia in the Peach Bowl. Also, I forget if USF was in the Big East or C-USA back in 2004; if they were, they lost to South Carolina 34-3. Anyway, point is that the Big East really should’ve won most of those games - of *course* they can beat Vandy, Mississippi St., and Kentucky. So can most of the rest of the conference. The record’s a record, but the quality is what I’d focus on.

If you take USC - who is whole-heartily supported by the CFA alliance in the polls - out of the equation, have the polls really supported the PAC-10?

Look at Oregon, Washington and Oregon State in 2001, Oregon in 2002, California in 2004? Or how about UCLA in 1998? I would say the polls did not support the PAC-10, but did support the two schools who supported their agenda (USC and UCLA).

There is a constant smear campaign against the PAC-10 and the real issue can be traced back to the civil war turmoil created by the CFA.

Craig James went to SMU, who received the death penalty from the CFA. The PAC-10 Conference commissioners were the key people involved with the NCAA enforcement committee and to this day, I don’t think I have heard Craig James say one thing in positive regard to the PAC-10.

Today, on the ABC pre-game show, James again reinforced Oklahoma and LSU as the only true legit contenders giving us a true national championship game. If Kansas, Missouri or West Virginia happen to win out while Oklahoma and LSU lose - in his mind, along with the rest of the CFA cronies - he would support the notion that the BCS is a crock because Kansas versus West Virginia, Missouri versus Oregon or any other match-up that doesn’t match-up two traditional CFA powers would be a suspect national championship game.

Even if LSU loses the conference championship game, you will likely still see an LSU - Oklahoma championship game because that is the match-up that satisfies the CFA agenda of matching up two traditional CFA powers for the title. LSU has to play in the this game to help the rebuilding effort of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the other will be Oklahoma if they are at all even with the other contenders at 11-1 or 12-1. Left out will be Arizona State or West Virginia (possibly at 11-1 or 12-1 themselves).

The people as you say, other than USC (a major CFA power) have not supported the PAC-10 Conference and now this is being extended to the Big-East in spite of the fact that the SEC (the CFA breeding ground) is 1-7 against the Big-East since the latest Big-East expansion in 2004.

The BCS is really driven by the Big-12 and the SEC, the two conferences along with Notre Dame that pushed the CFA agenda in overthrowing the NCAA back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

Re: the traditional powers’ rankings, I have nothing - even though I’m a Tennessee fan. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, either, but it hasn’t really worked for us one way or another yet this season.