LSU may have lost too, but they lost in 3OT to a ranked opponent. Plus the other game they had trouble with was with Florida also a highly ranked opponent. Cal and USC, the flagship programs of the Pac10 this year are not supposed to lose to unranked opponents, even if they are conference opponents.

When the top of our conference dominates, you call us weak b/c it's "USC + 9", when our conference shows that it's balanced, and there are honestly great teams out there that aren't getting recognition, you call us weak for not having dominant teams.
Make up your mind!
No, if anything, it means the Pac-10 is TOUGH conference, where no one (I'm looking at you Ohio State) can go undefeated b/c you don't play anyone good.

lets start with the cal oregon game that put cal as that flagshift oregon had a bad game and then cal and usc losing proves that the pac ten is a tough league since even its worst teams can beat its best, remember usc's qb got injured even the best team will go down without its qb

No...it means that the Pac-10 is balanced.

Keep in mind unranked SEC teams constantly beat ranked SEC teams at least once or twice every year.

I think upsets like that speak more to a league's overall competitiveness instead of detracting from it.

I agree with Catch That Tiger.

If anything, the Pac-10 is ten times better than in years past.

For the most part, USC has dominated the Pac-10...but the shift of competitive balance is starting to shift to other teams in the Pac-10. California and Oregon are very good teams and I'm sure will remain to be teams in the top 25 for years in the future. Washington is in a rebuilding phase, but with Jake Locker have a bright future. Not to mention Arizona State is performing like back during the "Jake the Snake" days.

I dont like the Pac-10...but the conference is up and coming...and not just because of USC.

Lets put it this way, Cal, Oregon, and USC are the best teams in the Pac-10 respectively. USC is overrated. Cal would have won with their starting QB, and Oregon lost to Cal at its best. LSU, Florida, and UK are the best teams in the SEC. They all beat each other. I'd say that the top end is about equal, while the depth of the SEC is better than Pac-10. So in essence, no the Pac-10 isn't weak, it just has bad recruiting for football at the lower end. Not to mention OSU and UCLA aren't bad teams, they just play very inconsistently.

Yes thats what it means to me

It means USC is riddled with injuries and Cal was playing with a back up QB.

I know good teams overcome injuries. I just ask that you realisitically look at the numerous injuries USC has had you will find the answer. It is hard to win when you could field a team with injured players

No conference is truly weak, save for the Big Ten. The Pac-10 is just getting what they deserve.

its a good conference in which every team plays each other, so they will all be familiar with each other. unlike the big 10 in which you can go without playing michigan and ohio state in the same season like wisconsin did last year. how fair is that? its a round robin in the pac-10 and in college football anything can and will happen. the pac 10 is the 2nd best conference after the sec.