Is the Pac-10 That Good? Really?
posted on 12/14/2009 @ 8:00 AM EST
Frankly, I don't think Oregon is all that good, I feel like they got in through a backdoor to the Rosebowl. They earned it, but I don't think they're the powerhouse we're being led to believe. They have a potent offense, and that's about it. They lost to Boise State and Standford, one is a really good team and the other is just a decent team. Stanford lost to Wake, Oregon State, Arizona, and Cal. Oregon's power wins came against USC, Cal, Utah, and Oregon State. I'm not sure any of those really impress me so much (although neither do any of the Bucks power wins outside of maybe Penn State). I also think that the entire Pac10 became over ranked early on because of how high USC and Ohio State were ranked before their big showdown. Once USC beat Ohio State and their frosh QB looked good, Pac10 teams got huge points and rankings for beating USC, but that obviously slowed down as it became obvious that most of the teams in the Pac10 could beat USC on any given Saturday this year.
Here's some stats I'd like to throw out that highlights the vaunted 2009 Pac-10:
This is a break-down of the non-conference wins/losses for the top 4 team in the PAC-10. I chose the top 4 because the 3 teams that followed Oregon had identical division and overall records. In essense, these stats are highlighting the top 2 places in the Pac-10.
1. Oregon (10-2): LOST to Boise State, Beat Purdue by ONLY 2 points, Beat Utah
2. Arizona (8-4): LOST to Iowa, beat other gimme's
3. Oregon State (8-4): Lost to Cincinatti, beat UNLV by 2 points
4. Stanford (8-4): Lost to WAKE Forest, Beat Notre Dame by 1-Touchdown in a Shootout that they probably shoudl've lost if Notre Dame didn't choke every time a game was tight in the closing minutes.
The end result is this, the Pac-10's non-conference wins from its top 4 teams consists of Utah and Notre Dame (wins against anyone that's even moderately respectable, I left Purdue off...that doesn't count!!!). Hell, the Mac's top 4 teams have non-conferenc wins against (again, wins semi-worth mentioning): Michigan State, Purdue, Army, and Navy. While none of these are world beaters, the wins are moderately respectable (considering it's the MAC) and probably looks better on paper than just Notre Dame & Utah...but we're talking about the freaking MAC in comparison to what's supposedly one of the top 3 conferences????
I'm not saying the Pac-10 is bad, I'm just saying they haven't proven ANYTHING to me except beating up on each other so the top few teams in their conference each have a decent record. Am I supposed to believe this conference is great based on the fact their best 4 teams only managed 2 meaningful non-conference wins against Utah and Notre Dame (go ahead and throw Purdue in there if you want)?? I want to see some "W's" against teams outside of the conference. The bowl games will let us know if these guys are pretenders or the real deal. I'm hoping someone else will take some heat for once for being overrated rather than the Big-10.
UPDATE!
12/24/2009 @ 9:00 AM EST
We're learning the Pac10 might be about as tough as I predicted (or less)...so far, they've kicked off their bowl season 0-2 with losses to BYU & Utah. Granted, BYU and Utah are pretty good teams, but I think it's safe to say they aren't world beaters. The AP Poll had Oregon State ranked 16th and BYU ranked 15th, but Oregon State got BLOWN OUT by BYU. Cal looked tough early against Utah, but gave up something like 30 unanswered points to lose the game. Granted, I don't think CAL was good enough to play Utah, but that's the nature of bowl selections...pick one team that deserves to be there and the other is simply the team that's available who will bring the best crowd possible.
With all of that being said, the Pac-10's top 4 teams still only have 2 meaningful out of conference wins, Notre Dame & Utah.
For those that are interested, here's the link to ESPN's ranking page....
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
Frankly, I don't think Oregon is all that good, I feel like they got in through a backdoor to the Rosebowl. They earned it, but I don't think they're the powerhouse we're being led to believe. They have a potent offense, and that's about it. They lost to Boise State and Standford, one is a really good team and the other is just a decent team. Stanford lost to Wake, Oregon State, Arizona, and Cal. Oregon's power wins came against USC, Cal, Utah, and Oregon State. I'm not sure any of those really impress me so much (although neither do any of the Bucks power wins outside of maybe Penn State). I also think that the entire Pac10 became over ranked early on because of how high USC and Ohio State were ranked before their big showdown. Once USC beat Ohio State and their frosh QB looked good, Pac10 teams got huge points and rankings for beating USC, but that obviously slowed down as it became obvious that most of the teams in the Pac10 could beat USC on any given Saturday this year.
Here's some stats I'd like to throw out that highlights the vaunted 2009 Pac-10:
This is a break-down of the non-conference wins/losses for the top 4 team in the PAC-10. I chose the top 4 because the 3 teams that followed Oregon had identical division and overall records. In essense, these stats are highlighting the top 2 places in the Pac-10.
1. Oregon (10-2): LOST to Boise State, Beat Purdue by ONLY 2 points, Beat Utah
2. Arizona (8-4): LOST to Iowa, beat other gimme's
3. Oregon State (8-4): Lost to Cincinatti, beat UNLV by 2 points
4. Stanford (8-4): Lost to WAKE Forest, Beat Notre Dame by 1-Touchdown in a Shootout that they probably shoudl've lost if Notre Dame didn't choke every time a game was tight in the closing minutes.
The end result is this, the Pac-10's non-conference wins from its top 4 teams consists of Utah and Notre Dame (wins against anyone that's even moderately respectable, I left Purdue off...that doesn't count!!!). Hell, the Mac's top 4 teams have non-conferenc wins against (again, wins semi-worth mentioning): Michigan State, Purdue, Army, and Navy. While none of these are world beaters, the wins are moderately respectable (considering it's the MAC) and probably looks better on paper than just Notre Dame & Utah...but we're talking about the freaking MAC in comparison to what's supposedly one of the top 3 conferences????
I'm not saying the Pac-10 is bad, I'm just saying they haven't proven ANYTHING to me except beating up on each other so the top few teams in their conference each have a decent record. Am I supposed to believe this conference is great based on the fact their best 4 teams only managed 2 meaningful non-conference wins against Utah and Notre Dame (go ahead and throw Purdue in there if you want)?? I want to see some "W's" against teams outside of the conference. The bowl games will let us know if these guys are pretenders or the real deal. I'm hoping someone else will take some heat for once for being overrated rather than the Big-10.
UPDATE!
12/24/2009 @ 9:00 AM EST
We're learning the Pac10 might be about as tough as I predicted (or less)...so far, they've kicked off their bowl season 0-2 with losses to BYU & Utah. Granted, BYU and Utah are pretty good teams, but I think it's safe to say they aren't world beaters. The AP Poll had Oregon State ranked 16th and BYU ranked 15th, but Oregon State got BLOWN OUT by BYU. Cal looked tough early against Utah, but gave up something like 30 unanswered points to lose the game. Granted, I don't think CAL was good enough to play Utah, but that's the nature of bowl selections...pick one team that deserves to be there and the other is simply the team that's available who will bring the best crowd possible.
With all of that being said, the Pac-10's top 4 teams still only have 2 meaningful out of conference wins, Notre Dame & Utah.
For those that are interested, here's the link to ESPN's ranking page....
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
you mention oregon's loss to boise and oregon states to cincinnati like they are chump teams. they are higher ranked than osu!
Reply to this
Danni, thanks for posting. But, if you read closely, I'm not in ANY way trying to compare them to OSU or their losses/wins to OSU, the entire point is...WHO have the top teams in the Pac-10 beaten (outside of their conference)???
The point of the post is to show that the Pac-10 has been talked about like it's the 2nd or 3rd best conference behind the SEC. If that's the case, how is that substantiated when the only notable OOC (out of conference) wins are against Notre Dame and Utah? I don't think there's a well founded answer other than the fact they had good offenses that looked impressive.
Going back to the post, I think the Pac-10 got annointed as a super conference this year because of USC's early high ranking, Oregons very potent offense, and the fact that their top 6 teams all had good records. But, when you look closely, their top 4 teams have not beaten ANYONE of note out of their conference (except maybe Utah, and it's arguable as to how strong that win is). How do you then confidently nominate them the 2nd or 3rd best conference? Hell, they might be the 2nd or 3rd best conference when all is said and done, my point is that right now...there's not enough wins against other conferences for it to carry weight.
Reply to this
Well, you make some good points concerning the lack of marquee wins for the PAC10, but let's not forget that USC did beat our Buckeyes. That win can certainly be considered a key win for USC and when you consider their other losses this year, rather makes the Buckeye's loss to them even worse to stomach. Then again, it's a BIG reason why we continue to jump on The Vest ... losses to team he can and/or should be able to beat.
Although I see your point about OOC wins, or lack thereof, I still think the PAC10 to be a tough conference. Looking at it another way, you could say the PAC10 has reached parity and therefore in conference wins could be considered as quality wins. I dunno, I think I'm just making the point the PAC10 has come up in the world and can therefore it's conference champ shouldn't be taken lightly.
I do agree that it might be tough to make the case that the PAC is the second best conference in the land but more likely the third best behind, in my opinion, the BIG12, SEC then the PAC10. I feel the SEC gets more credit than it's due and the competition in the BIG12 is tougher from top to bottom than any other conference and has been the case for the past couple of years. The PAC10 has finally improved after 5 years of USC's dominance so it's just far too early to tell if it stays that way.
We will know more when the bowl matchups are completed and the post mortem begins!
Reply to this
Ok. Guess I might be in line for some humble pie.
The PAC-10 ain't exactly lighting it up so far in bowl play ... 1 for three is pretty poor and USC's win over Boston College wasn't exactly inspired football. I must say I'm a little surprised at Cal's loss but really dumbfounded at Oregon State getting hammered. All this leads me to perhaps a couple of conclusions:
1) The PAC10 IS overrated and got more credit based solely on perceptions and not performance. Then again, this is a complaint I've voiced here before ... college football rankings are more about perceptions than necessarily performance.
2) The Mountain West Conference is grossly underrated and it's possible it's top teams are as good or better than any conference in the land. The of course remains to be seen in how TCU does but so far, they look tough!
A final thought. Notice how you don't hear much in the college football media about the PAC10's woes in bowl play this year? But if it were the BIG10 suffering these embarrassments, BOY HOWDY we'd never hear the end of it! Why is that? I honestly want someone to explain to me why it is the BIG10 is so hated on. I just don't get it.
Reply to this
I think you're on track...I believe it's due to a little of both.
I think the Pac-10 got a little overrated because of previously mentioned reasons, and I think that Mountain West has some damn good coaches with damn good teams. Granted, they're playing a little lighter schedule, but they are probably tougher than most of us want to think.
I think the PAC-10 get's somewhat of a free-pass from the media right now because they exciting offenses (most tv analysts and the general population look at offense when judging/ranking teams) whereas the Big10 would typically play powerhouse, smashmouth football with boring, low scoring games that would lose making them look worse in their eyes. But, I do believe that if the Pac-10 does this type of thing a couple of more times, they'll get similar scrutiny.
Reply to this