Ranking the conferences so far.

[King Crimson]

i'll agree the Big XII is pretty bad.

i'm not sure i'm ready to call the Pac the best, tho.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

1 SEC - Deepest conference in college football. Even in a "down" year, it's still the best, unfortunately.
2 Pac 12 - Top heavy but the second tier teams like ASU, Washington and UCLA appear to be good as well. Having a traditional power like USC suck balls knocks them down a peg, however.
3 ACC - A top four of FSU, Clemson, Miami and Ga Tech is pretty strong. Maryland could be respectable.
4 Big Ten - I think the "Legends" (still feel weird typing that) division is going to be a fun and competitive one between Michigan, MSU, Nebraska and Northwestern. But the league as a whole is pretty mediocre and doesn't make up for that with being top heavy like some of the other conferences. OSU looks vulnerable and weak on D. Wisky appears to be pretty good, but their record is already blemished. I think the UofM performance was mostly a hangover thing yesterday, but their QBs have thrown 7 ints. Devon Gardner is Pickalicious. Northwestern might actually be the most balanced team.
5 Big 12 - I don't think the Big 12 is that bad. Texas kind of ruined things, but this could still potentially be a top heavy conference if OU and Okie Lite pan out. Baylor is still ridiculous offensively and Texas Tech seems to have finally fielded a defense. What happened to K State though? Was Colin Klein really that good? He seemed like the ultimate system qb to me. Tough player though.

[campinfool]

I'm glad the Big 12 is a little down this year. Falls right into place for Texas to make it's move. I know there's lots of haters, but at the post game presser last night, Mack Brown said the team still has a conference championship as a goal. After that statement how can I argue?

[The Seer]

The rankings are still a beauty contest and having a loss is a big nose wart to overlook...even if you happen to reside in the SEC...Georgia & AtM both lost and should be replaced in the top 10...unless this is an abstract way to condition/reward an SEC team for playing somebody.......

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Nobody cares. The excuses reasons why you suck are irrelevant. Fact is you suck, and it's a chink in the Pac 12's armor.

Oregon and Stanford would be good regardless of the state of USC's program. Oregon has a billionaire funding its program and Stanford has great coaching. UCLA and ASU are probably benefiting a little bit from USC being down, but their starters are probably even better than USC's, and USC's starters are supposed to be great. It's their depth that is supposed to be affected by the sanctions. But when your starters on offense only account for 7 points against a Mike Leach defense, that's more than just sanctions. That's a shitty run program, because, well, you have a shitty head coach.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Some stats to chew on...

ACC
21-7 overall record
2-4 vs Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame
9-0 vs FCS

Big 10
28-8 overall record
6-4 vs Power 5
7-0 vs FCS

Big 12
16-7 overall record
1-3 vs power 5
6-2 vs FCS

Pac 12
23-4 overall record
6-3 vs power 5
7-1 vs FCS

SEC
22-6 overall record
5-4 vs Power 5
7-0 vs FCS

[Mikey]

2 Pac 12 - Top heavy but the second tier teams like ASU, Washington and UCLA appear to be good as well. Having a traditional power like USC suck balls knocks them down a peg, however.

The only reason the other Pac schools are doing anything is because USC is down right now. Even if USC was good enough the best players out west still wanted to go to USC, USC couldnt take them. On top of the scholarship limits there has been about 5 years of negative recruiting against USC by all the other schools in the conference and the new head coach will have to be a Carrollesque recruiter to rebuild those bridges.

Stanford recruits from a completely different pool of HS players than SC does. They need at least a rudimentary ability to spell to get admitted.

[The Seer]

"Oregon and Stanford would be good regardless of the state of USC's program. Oregon has a billionaire funding its program and Stanford has great coaching. UCLA and ASU are probably benefiting a little bit from USC being down, but their starters are probably even better than USC's, and USC's starters are supposed to be great. It's their depth that is supposed to be affected by the sanctions. But when your starters on offense only account for 7 points against a Mike Leach defense, that's more than just sanctions. That's a shitty run program, because, well, you have a shitty head coach."