[stupac2]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over theACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

That's more because Stanford is a small school and the big bowls want big schools with big fanbases, not that they thought Stanford as a team (or the Pac-12 as a whole) sucked. They wouldn't say that about USC, for instance.

[stupac2]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over theACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

That's more because Stanford is a small school and the big bowls want big schools with big fanbases, not that they thought Stanford as a team (or the Pac-12 as a whole) sucked. They wouldn't say that about USC, for instance.