Register

Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

This is the one to use if you want to talk about general college football topics.
The X-Man Cometh
User avatar
Posts: 2411
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 10:40 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Xenon » February 13th, 2020, 9:41 am

I can't get to the whole article, so maybe there is some good news at the end of the article but .....

https://theathletic.com/1604854/2020/02 ... gan-state/

Folks, I’m here today to officially recant my previous position on a certain topic.

Last year, as Pac-12 fans increasingly made known their collective angst over the conference’s football struggles, I tried to assure them that the league will eventually rebound. “Call me crazy, but my guess is sometime in the next five years, a roster of coaches that includes (Chris) Petersen, (David) Shaw, (Chip) Kelly, Mike Leach and … maybe Urban Meyer? … will figure this thing out at some point,” I wrote last May.

As you may have noticed, Petersen and Leach are no longer in the conference. Kelly has thus far been a dud at UCLA, Shaw is coming off the worst season of his Stanford tenure and Clay Helton, not Urban Meyer, remains the coach of USC.

More regrettably: “I don’t share the same degree of panic about the impact of (the Pac-12’s) revenue gap. … Money is not near the top of the list of reasons why Pac-12 teams are struggling in...


I’m no longer confident the Conference of Champions is going to rise back up into a regular CFP participant in short order. The coaching lineup is underwhelming. The recruiting is alarming. And now, I finally share their fans’ panic over the mounting revenue gap between the Pac-12 and the Big Ten/SEC.


It's NOT just a question of "get better coaches" ... since they had what certainly looked like great coaches and that didn't help ... and now they are losing those great coaches.

It's NOT just a question of "do better recruiting" ... since they are losing recruits to the SEC in particular, but also to the BigTen and BigXII.

There is something structurally wrong in the PAC-12 .... and that is not going to just get better....

It's not going to get better in 2020 ... and probably not until there are pretty major changes in the PAC-12.... but those might be tooooo late.

I don't think 5 Power Conferences is stable long term when you have structurally 4 slots for the CFP .... So somehow things are going to settle to 4 Power Conferences eventually. BigEast I'm sure thought they were going to be a Power Conference in Football ... until suddenly they don't even exist in Football any more. The next big round of re-alignment is probably a few years away, but the patterns that are going to dominate that new re-alignment are being set RIGHT NOW ....

If the BigXII offered USC the same deal as Texas has right now ... do you think USC might jump?

You can say I'm just a PAC-12 hater ... but that doesn't change that the PAC-12 is struggling ... others see it too....

The Artist FKA SECRules
Posts: 3021
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 12:17 pm
Location: Metro Atlanta

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby MikeTheTiger » February 13th, 2020, 9:58 am

Xenon wrote:It's NOT just a question of "get better coaches" ... since they had what certainly looked like great coaches and that didn't help ... and now they are losing those great coaches.

It's NOT just a question of "do better recruiting" ... since they are losing recruits to the SEC in particular, but also to the BigTen and BigXII.

There is something structurally wrong in the PAC-12 .... and that is not going to just get better....

It's not going to get better in 2020 ... and probably not until there are pretty major changes in the PAC-12.... but those might be tooooo late.

I don't think 5 Power Conferences is stable long term when you have structurally 4 slots for the CFP .... So somehow things are going to settle to 4 Power Conferences eventually. BigEast I'm sure thought they were going to be a Power Conference in Football ... until suddenly they don't even exist in Football any more. The next big round of re-alignment is probably a few years away, but the patterns that are going to dominate that new re-alignment are being set RIGHT NOW ....

If the BigXII offered USC the same deal as Texas has right now ... do you think USC might jump?

You can say I'm just a PAC-12 hater ... but that doesn't change that the PAC-12 is struggling ... others see it too....


The problem for the Pac-12 is as much perception as it is overall competitiveness. The biggest issue is that perception is so focused on the top strength of each conference rather than overall competitiveness. The Pac-12 did not have a lot of high profile wins this past season, but they did have their fair share of mid-level wins. In reality, the Pac-12 performed better than both the Big 12 and ACC this season, but they are perceived to be worse because they do not have a program on the level of Clemson or Oklahoma right now. The SEC has an ability to cycle through top programs from year-to-year (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Florida) that the other conferences just can't match. The Big 10 is just as dependent on Ohio St to be that standard bearer as the Big 12 and ACC are on Oklahoma and Clemson. The problem for the Pac-12 is that no one is stepping forward to fill that role. Otherwise, overall conference strength has been better than the Big 12 and ACC and really not that far behind the Big 10 as evidenced by the Oregon-Wisconsin, Arizona St-Michigan St, and Cal-Illinois results.

The Postmaster General
User avatar
Posts: 9907
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 1:08 pm
Location: Suwanee, GA

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Dubby » February 14th, 2020, 11:44 am

MikeTheTiger wrote:
Xenon wrote:It's NOT just a question of "get better coaches" ... since they had what certainly looked like great coaches and that didn't help ... and now they are losing those great coaches.

It's NOT just a question of "do better recruiting" ... since they are losing recruits to the SEC in particular, but also to the BigTen and BigXII.

There is something structurally wrong in the PAC-12 .... and that is not going to just get better....

It's not going to get better in 2020 ... and probably not until there are pretty major changes in the PAC-12.... but those might be tooooo late.

I don't think 5 Power Conferences is stable long term when you have structurally 4 slots for the CFP .... So somehow things are going to settle to 4 Power Conferences eventually. BigEast I'm sure thought they were going to be a Power Conference in Football ... until suddenly they don't even exist in Football any more. The next big round of re-alignment is probably a few years away, but the patterns that are going to dominate that new re-alignment are being set RIGHT NOW ....

If the BigXII offered USC the same deal as Texas has right now ... do you think USC might jump?

You can say I'm just a PAC-12 hater ... but that doesn't change that the PAC-12 is struggling ... others see it too....


The problem for the Pac-12 is as much perception as it is overall competitiveness. The biggest issue is that perception is so focused on the top strength of each conference rather than overall competitiveness. The Pac-12 did not have a lot of high profile wins this past season, but they did have their fair share of mid-level wins. In reality, the Pac-12 performed better than both the Big 12 and ACC this season, but they are perceived to be worse because they do not have a program on the level of Clemson or Oklahoma right now. The SEC has an ability to cycle through top programs from year-to-year (Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Florida) that the other conferences just can't match. The Big 10 is just as dependent on Ohio St to be that standard bearer as the Big 12 and ACC are on Oklahoma and Clemson. The problem for the Pac-12 is that no one is stepping forward to fill that role. Otherwise, overall conference strength has been better than the Big 12 and ACC and really not that far behind the Big 10 as evidenced by the Oregon-Wisconsin, Arizona St-Michigan St, and Cal-Illinois results.


Agreed with with MTT

Let me also add USC is not going anywhere and their adm said that years ago and still say that today

The article posted is perception view and not on field view

CFP is being dominated by few teams Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma & Ohio St

Its not being dominated by anyone one conference

Even B10 miss prior 2 years until tOhio St made it back this season

B10 3
PAC 12 (2) Oregon loss to tOhio St 2014/2015

B10 its Been tOhio St U 2 and Sparty 1

Why our we giving the B10 pass?

Just because TOSU made it the past Season

The PAC 12 needs that one team to rise and challenge and maintain it like the ones I named have been doing since CFP

But, unfair to PAC12 is struggling when its basically 4 teams dominating the CFP
Commander Rasczak: Starship Troopers This is for all you new people. I have only one rule. Everybody fights, no one quits. If you don't do your job, I'll shoot you myself! Welcome to the Roughnecks!

The X-Man Cometh
User avatar
Posts: 2411
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 10:40 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Xenon » February 21st, 2020, 9:40 am

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -breakdown

I get it, no problems in the PAC-12... everything is just great.... The PAC-12 has all the other conferences right where they want them ..

The Pac-12 hasn't sent a team to the College Football Playoff in the past three seasons and based on preseason FPI, that trend will continue this year. It's the only Power 5 conference without a team in the top 10; USC is 13th and Oregon is 14th.


https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... ll-playoff

"It's very important. Since the advent of the playoff, the first five years, it's become clear that's become a litmus test for a lot of folks that follow the sport as to which teams make the playoff, which teams don't," Scott said. "Beyond that, we want to win a national championship sometime soon."


The College Football Playoff has generally been regarded as a success nationally.....
For the Pac-12, though, the arrival of the playoff has had the opposite effect. Exclusion breeds apathy, and it has pushed the self-proclaimed Conference of Champions down the road of irrelevance.
Scott is obviously aware of this.
"[Not being in the playoff] absolutely helped shape a perception that the conference was down," he said.


But I'm sure another year of not making the playoff will have the same comments.... No problem! Everything is just great! We're the Conference of Champions!!

The X-Man Cometh
User avatar
Posts: 2411
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 10:40 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Xenon » February 21st, 2020, 10:03 am

MikeTheTiger wrote: Otherwise, overall conference strength has been better than the Big 12 and ACC and really not that far behind the Big 10 as evidenced by the Oregon-Wisconsin, Arizona St-Michigan St, and Cal-Illinois results.


I'm interested Mike is how you think those games show that the Pac-12 is better...

Oregon was the PAC-12 Champ, the BEST in the conference ... Wisconsin was second or third place, (PSU I think was better than Wisconsin) depending on how you rank them. That sort of like when Russia used to send "semi-Professional" Basketball players to the Olympics and beat Team USA which has college kids and said "See, we're better". When the US sent our TOP players to play their TOP players, the NBA AllStars won convincingly. I think the fact the the PAC-12 Champ trailed the BigTen 2nd or 3rd place team for most of the game proves the PAC-12 is a step below. The PAC-12 Champ is roughly equal to the Runner up or third place team in the Big Ten.

I note you didn't include Utah-Texas in your list of proof that the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. PAC-12's runner up played a middle of the pack Texas from the BigXII and got KILLED. How does that prove the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. Even if you say you think Utah was maybe really the #3 or #4 team from the PAC-12, Texas was at best the #3 from the BigXII, and could arguably been something like #3 to #7 (they were all tied at 5-4 and 8-5), and Texas demolished Utah in the bowl game. So in a game that was a best "equal" and probably was "favored PAC-12", the Pac-12 got killed ... and that proves that the conference that lost is somehow better?

Cal was something like 3rd to 5th in the PAC-12, and Illinois was something more like 5th to 9th ... again, that proves that PAC-12 can beat someone much lower weaker in the other conference ... which isn't great conference strength argument.

Pac-12 was 1-3 vs the BigXII in 2019 ... Arizona beat Texas Tech ... but everyone else lost ... Utah lost to Texas, UCLA got killed by Oklahoma, Oregon state got killed by OkState.

The Artist FKA SECRules
Posts: 3021
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 12:17 pm
Location: Metro Atlanta

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby MikeTheTiger » February 21st, 2020, 12:07 pm

Xenon wrote:
MikeTheTiger wrote: Otherwise, overall conference strength has been better than the Big 12 and ACC and really not that far behind the Big 10 as evidenced by the Oregon-Wisconsin, Arizona St-Michigan St, and Cal-Illinois results.


I'm interested Mike is how you think those games show that the Pac-12 is better...


How does "not far behind the Big 10" translate to "better"?

Xenon wrote:Oregon was the PAC-12 Champ, the BEST in the conference ... Wisconsin was second or third place, (PSU I think was better than Wisconsin) depending on how you rank them. That sort of like when Russia used to send "semi-Professional" Basketball players to the Olympics and beat Team USA which has college kids and said "See, we're better". When the US sent our TOP players to play their TOP players, the NBA AllStars won convincingly. I think the fact the the PAC-12 Champ trailed the BigTen 2nd or 3rd place team for most of the game proves the PAC-12 is a step below. The PAC-12 Champ is roughly equal to the Runner up or third place team in the Big Ten.


This was consistent with my prior comment that the problem for the Pac-12 is that they do not have an Ohio St, Oklahoma or Clemson. It is what puts the Pac-12 behind the Big 10, but it's not light years behind as you seem to be arguing.

Xenon wrote:I note you didn't include Utah-Texas in your list of proof that the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. PAC-12's runner up played a middle of the pack Texas from the BigXII and got KILLED. How does that prove the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. Even if you say you think Utah was maybe really the #3 or #4 team from the PAC-12, Texas was at best the #3 from the BigXII, and could arguably been something like #3 to #7 (they were all tied at 5-4 and 8-5), and Texas demolished Utah in the bowl game. So in a game that was a best "equal" and probably was "favored PAC-12", the Pac-12 got killed ... and that proves that the conference that lost is somehow better?


I wasn't comparing the Pac-12 to the Big 12 at that point (because the comparison really isn't that close), so that was not a data point that I was focusing on. It wasn't intended as an all-encompassing analysis. I also didn't bring up the Big 10's results against other conferences, just as you are now not bringing up the Big 12's debacle in the bowls apart from that one game. In fact, that one win is pretty much the beginning and the end of the quality results for the Big 12 in their non-conference slate. It's their only win over a major conference team with a winning record. If you want a more exhaustive comparison, here you go. The Pac-12 was 3-11 against major conference teams with winning records (plus other ranked opponents) vs. 1-7 for the Big 12. If you add other major bowl teams, the Pac-12 improves to 5-11 vs. 2-7 for the Big 12. If you add other bowl teams in the Top 60, the Pac-12 was 8-14 vs 2-8 for the Big 12. Against other major teams, the Pac-12 was 4-0 vs. 5-2 for the Big 12. The Big 12 also had a loss to a minor conference team outside the Top 60. As you can see, the Pac-12 was FAR more competitive than the Big 12 this season. If you do the same thing for the ACC, it is even worse. And yet, you are holding out the Pac-12 as being singularly bad amongst the major conferences. That's not even close to being accurate.

Xenon wrote:Cal was something like 3rd to 5th in the PAC-12, and Illinois was something more like 5th to 9th ... again, that proves that PAC-12 can beat someone much lower weaker in the other conference ... which isn't great conference strength argument.


Cal is the 6th highest rated Pac-12 team and went 4-5 in conference. Illinois also went 4-5 in conference, but I agree they were further down the conference pecking order at #9 or #10. Again, I'm not trying to suggest that the Pac-12 was better than or even as good as the Big 10. My point was that they are not light years behind. If the Pac-12 were really that bad, their 4-5 team should not beat the Big 10's 4-5 team. 4-5 Arizona St should not beat 4-5 Michigan St. The SEC was a clear #1 and the Big 10 was a clear #2 this year. I'm not suggesting otherwise. All I'm suggesting is that the Pac-12 was #3 and that the chasm from #2 to #3 is not nearly as wide as you are making it out to be.

The Postmaster General
User avatar
Posts: 9907
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 1:08 pm
Location: Suwanee, GA

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Dubby » February 21st, 2020, 12:36 pm

MikeTheTiger wrote:
Xenon wrote:
MikeTheTiger wrote: Otherwise, overall conference strength has been better than the Big 12 and ACC and really not that far behind the Big 10 as evidenced by the Oregon-Wisconsin, Arizona St-Michigan St, and Cal-Illinois results.


I'm interested Mike is how you think those games show that the Pac-12 is better...


How does "not far behind the Big 10" translate to "better"?

Xenon wrote:Oregon was the PAC-12 Champ, the BEST in the conference ... Wisconsin was second or third place, (PSU I think was better than Wisconsin) depending on how you rank them. That sort of like when Russia used to send "semi-Professional" Basketball players to the Olympics and beat Team USA which has college kids and said "See, we're better". When the US sent our TOP players to play their TOP players, the NBA AllStars won convincingly. I think the fact the the PAC-12 Champ trailed the BigTen 2nd or 3rd place team for most of the game proves the PAC-12 is a step below. The PAC-12 Champ is roughly equal to the Runner up or third place team in the Big Ten.


This was consistent with my prior comment that the problem for the Pac-12 is that they do not have an Ohio St, Oklahoma or Clemson. It is what puts the Pac-12 behind the Big 10, but it's not light years behind as you seem to be arguing.

Xenon wrote:I note you didn't include Utah-Texas in your list of proof that the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. PAC-12's runner up played a middle of the pack Texas from the BigXII and got KILLED. How does that prove the PAC-12 is better than the BigXII. Even if you say you think Utah was maybe really the #3 or #4 team from the PAC-12, Texas was at best the #3 from the BigXII, and could arguably been something like #3 to #7 (they were all tied at 5-4 and 8-5), and Texas demolished Utah in the bowl game. So in a game that was a best "equal" and probably was "favored PAC-12", the Pac-12 got killed ... and that proves that the conference that lost is somehow better?


I wasn't comparing the Pac-12 to the Big 12 at that point (because the comparison really isn't that close), so that was not a data point that I was focusing on. It wasn't intended as an all-encompassing analysis. I also didn't bring up the Big 10's results against other conferences, just as you are now not bringing up the Big 12's debacle in the bowls apart from that one game. In fact, that one win is pretty much the beginning and the end of the quality results for the Big 12 in their non-conference slate. It's their only win over a major conference team with a winning record. If you want a more exhaustive comparison, here you go. The Pac-12 was 3-11 against major conference teams with winning records (plus other ranked opponents) vs. 1-7 for the Big 12. If you add other major bowl teams, the Pac-12 improves to 5-11 vs. 2-7 for the Big 12. If you add other bowl teams in the Top 60, the Pac-12 was 8-14 vs 2-8 for the Big 12. Against other major teams, the Pac-12 was 4-0 vs. 5-2 for the Big 12. The Big 12 also had a loss to a minor conference team outside the Top 60. As you can see, the Pac-12 was FAR more competitive than the Big 12 this season. If you do the same thing for the ACC, it is even worse. And yet, you are holding out the Pac-12 as being singularly bad amongst the major conferences. That's not even close to being accurate.

Xenon wrote:Cal was something like 3rd to 5th in the PAC-12, and Illinois was something more like 5th to 9th ... again, that proves that PAC-12 can beat someone much lower weaker in the other conference ... which isn't great conference strength argument.


Cal is the 6th highest rated Pac-12 team and went 4-5 in conference. Illinois also went 4-5 in conference, but I agree they were further down the conference pecking order at #9 or #10. Again, I'm not trying to suggest that the Pac-12 was better than or even as good as the Big 10. My point was that they are not light years behind. If the Pac-12 were really that bad, their 4-5 team should not beat the Big 10's 4-5 team. 4-5 Arizona St should not beat 4-5 Michigan St. The SEC was a clear #1 and the Big 10 was a clear #2 this year. I'm not suggesting otherwise. All I'm suggesting is that the Pac-12 was #3 and that the chasm from #2 to #3 is not nearly as wide as you are making it out to be.


Again I'll agree with MTT and like I said

The CFP has been Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and tOhio St

The PAC 12 has sent 2 teams to the CFP compared to the B10 4 teams

All the PAC 12 is missing is a dominate team like Alabama, Clemson or Oklahoma

The PAC-12 is not far behind the B10 in CFP nor is the conference in any trouble of imploding
Commander Rasczak: Starship Troopers This is for all you new people. I have only one rule. Everybody fights, no one quits. If you don't do your job, I'll shoot you myself! Welcome to the Roughnecks!

The X-Man Cometh
User avatar
Posts: 2411
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 10:40 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Xenon » February 21st, 2020, 9:34 pm

Does it look to you like the PAC-12 is going to fix that "one" difference this year?

Oregon gets tOSU in week Two. That will be the test. Oregon is bringing back alot on Defense, but replacing alot on Offense. So I think there is 50/50 chance (probably worse, but lets give Oregon the benefit of the doubt since the game is in Eugene) that Oregon has one loss two weeks into the season. My contention is, and maybe I'm wrong, that the PAC-12 champ if they have 1 loss, has to pray for at least 1 other major Power Conference to have TWO loses for them to get into the CFP.

Oklahoma with one loss will probably get in over Oregon with one loss ... at least for the last few years that has been the case, and I see no reason to believe that will change.
Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan (ok that is NOT happening, but just completing the list), Wisconsin with 1 loss will all get in over 1 loss Oregon because they will have better SOS. (NOTE, next year, if Oregon beats tOSU, and then loses to say ASU, then if 1 loss Oregon was compared to 1 loss tOSU they would get in over tOSU ... but that is a specific case, and I'm talking general trends)
ANYONE from the SEC with 1 loss will get in before 1 loss Oregon.
Now, I'll probably agree that 1 loss Oregon would get in over 1 loss ACC as long as it's not Clemson, but I think 1 loss Clemson would probably get in over a 1 loss Oregon. They probably shouldn't, but everyone gives them the benefit of the doubt.

So, in week two, the PAC-12 might very well be eliminated from the CFP AGAIN next year.

Now MAYBE they can justify being the Conference of Champs because they are just as good as the all the also-rans in all the other P5 conferences as long as you don't include the top 5 to 8 teams at the top of those conferences.

BUT, not going to the CFP for year after year means they get less money. Their TV contract gets them less money. Their coaches are leaving to take jobs anywhere else in college football. Somehow that doesn't sound like "we're just a little tiny bit behind the other P5 conferences". They are WAY BEHIND in Tv Revenue, they are behind in CFP appearances, they are behind in NCAA men's basketball tourney appearances (although that does seem to be getting better) and so behind on that money as well.

Maybe they are just a little bit behind on the field, maybe they are more than just a little bit behind ... BUT when you couple being a little behind on the field, a little behind on the court, a lot behind on the TV revenue, a lot behind on the coaching pecking order, etc etc etc I think the PAC-12 has some real problems....

BUT, College Football attention spans being relatively short, if Oregon does beat tOSU, then POOF all is right with the world again.

The X-Man Cometh
User avatar
Posts: 2411
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 10:40 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby Xenon » February 21st, 2020, 9:39 pm

Just one other thought on this ...

https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2020/02/r ... d-out.html

Ohio State is playing the BEST TEAM in the PAC-12 on the road next year ... and it's not considered tOSU toughest game of the season....

(But putting Michigan as the third toughest games seems a bit delusional as well ... so maybe they aren't really estimating the toughness of the games correctly)

The Artist FKA SECRules
Posts: 3021
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 12:17 pm
Location: Metro Atlanta

Re: Pac-12's mediocrity on full display

Postby MikeTheTiger » February 22nd, 2020, 10:57 pm

Xenon, what did the Big 12 do to convince you they performed better on the field than the Pac-12? Apart from Clemson, how is the ACC better? No, the Pac-12 isn’t the SEC and they have fallen behind the Big 10, but you’re dead wrong picking on the Pac-12 amongst the other 3.

Previous

Return to Everything About College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests