Reflections on the awfulness of the Pac 12

[calicoug]

The Pac 12 has become an embarrassment. I was thinking about the conference today after BYU's lovely win last night.

Separate the major conferences into groups. Let's use "great," "good," "average," "below average," and "awful."

Where would you put Pac 12 teams over, say, a 10 year basis?

I'd go like this:

Great: USC, Oregon
Good: Cal, Utah
Average: OSU, ASU, Stanford
Below Average: UCLA
Awful: Arizona, Washington, Washington State, Colorado

Now how about over a 5 year basis?

Great: USC, Oregon
Good: Stanford, Cal, Utah
Average: OSU, Arizona, ASU
Below Average:
Awful: Washington, WSU, Colorado, UCLA

And on a 2 year basis?

Great: Oregon, Stanford
Good: Utah, USC
Average: Washington
Below Average: Cal, ASU
Awful: Arizona, UCLA, Colorado, Washington State, OSU

Conclusion: The Pac 12 seems to be trending worse. In the past 2 years, over half of the Pac 12 I think would be either below average or awful (with 5 of 7 being awful). It's just a bad conference. Colorado certainly isn't helping anything. Utah is.

[TripletDaddy]

I lasted one line into your hypothesis and had to stop.

I'd like to hear more about Oregon being great over the last 10 years. I'm interested specifically in your analysis of 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, or in other words, 40% of the last ten years.

I'm not picking on Oregon as much as questioning your premise. In the last decade, the PAC has sent 2 different teams to the national championship game. That puts it behind the SEC, tied with the B12, and ahead of the B1G, the Big East, and the ACC. And they do this while playing difficult OOC matchups. USC and Oregon both have lead from the front on this.

I think the PAC could be doing better, but it isn't as bad as you say, IMO.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I lasted one line into your hypothesis and had to stop.

I'd like to hear more about Oregon being great over the last 10 years. I'm interested specifically in your analysis of 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, or in other words, 40% of the last ten years.

I would rather not hear that analysis, I will fondly remember the 2004 season with the week 1 bye and week 2 loss to Indiana as greatness!

I think you are just angry that your team was only good not great last year by finishing ranked in the top 10.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This would be a great time to buy PAC-12 stock. Price is low, but it will most certainly come back.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

This would be a great time to buy PAC-12 stock. Price is low, but it will most certainly come back.

Did you offload all your BYU-Big12 stock to Viking already?

[TripletDaddy]

I would rather not hear that analysis, I will fondly remember the 2004 season with the week 1 bye and week 2 loss to Indiana as greatness!

I think you are just angry that your team was only good not great last year by finishing ranked in the top 10.

Also a loss to Utah somewhere around there. My Ute uncle called us after that game at RES and excitedly declared it to be possibly the biggest win in Ute history.

My point above is that Oregons meteoric upward trend in the past 5 or 6 years is proof that the PAC is not in a historical decline. A team that 10 years ago wasn't really on the map has since gone to the title game, now has Heisman candidates every season, wins its bowl game. Oregon is doing its part for the PAC.

I blame the majority of the PACs stagnation on two programs....fucla and the Dogs. There is no excuse for either of those programs to not be competitive year in and year out. although fucla beat rice so now they are claiming to be "back."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did you offload all your BYU-Big12 stock to Viking already?

I made a K.I.L.L.I.N.G. on that stock. That sucker bought everything I had.

[pelagius]

I don't think there is much objective evidence to support this hypothesis. It certainly isn't true in the averages. During the last 10 years the PAC-10/12 has bounced around between the 2-4 best based on Average Sagarin rating. In 2010, they had the best average rating and last year they fell to 4. It's a little too early to declare a trend:

2002 2
2003 4
2004 2
2005 4
2006 3
2007 2
2008 4
2009 3
2010 1
2011 4

Now, it could be a certain part of the distribution has declined (maybe the 20th percentile has decreased or the 80th isn't as good) but based on one reasonable measure there hasn't been any noticeable decline in the last few years.

[calicoug]

I lasted one line into your hypothesis and had to stop.

I'd like to hear more about Oregon being great over the last 10 years. I'm interested specifically in your analysis of 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, or in other words, 40% of the last ten years.

I'm not picking on Oregon as much as questioning your premise. In the last decade, the PAC has sent 2 different teams to the national championship game. That puts it behind the SEC, tied with the B12, and ahead of the B1G, the Big East, and the ACC. And they do this while playing difficult OOC matchups. USC and Oregon both have lead from the front on this.

I think the PAC could be doing better, but it isn't as bad as you say, IMO.

Over a 10 year period, Oregon's overall winning percentage ranks 15th.

That's not bad. Utah's is actually even higher than that (11th), but I put them below Oregon due to overall quality of competition in that time frame.

I'm not suggesting the Pac 12 is totally awful. I thought that was clear by noting some teams are in the "great" category. I am saying top to bottom, the conference stinks. They do have some very good teams at the top. That success has not filtered through to the rest of the conference and they have a surprising number of teams in the "awful" category.

[calicoug]

I don't think there is much objective evidence to support this hypothesis. It certainly isn't true in the averages. During the last 10 years the PAC-10/12 has bounced around between the 2-4 best based on Average Sagarin rating. In 2010, they had the best average rating and last year they fell to 4. It's a little too early to declare a trend:

2002 2
2003 4
2004 2
2005 4
2006 3
2007 2
2008 4
2009 3
2010 1
2011 4

Now, it could be a certain part of the distribution has declined (maybe the 20th percentile has decreased or the 80th isn't as good) but based on one reasonable measure there hasn't been any noticeable decline in the last few years.

And that would be my argument. That the distribution has declined and the Pac 12 Sagarin rating has been buoyed by a handful of very good teams.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

And that would be my argument. That the distribution has declined and the Pac 12 Sagarin rating has been buoyed by a handful of very good teams.

You make Paul Ryan sound like a fact checker.

[pelagius]

That the distribution has declined

If the distribution "declined" it would show up in the average. So you don't want to argue that because it isn't true. (And your later sentence suggests that's not what you really mean)

[Top Ute]

The Pac 12 has become an embarrassment. I was thinking about the conference today after BYU's lovely win last night.

Separate the major conferences into groups. Let's use "great," "good," "average," "below average," and "awful."

Where would you put Pac 12 teams over, say, a 10 year basis?

I'd go like this:

Great: USC, Oregon
Good: Cal, Utah
Average: OSU, ASU, Stanford
Below Average: UCLA
Awful: Arizona, Washington, Washington State, Colorado

Now how about over a 5 year basis?

Great: USC, Oregon
Good: Stanford, Cal, Utah
Average: OSU, Arizona, ASU
Below Average:
Awful: Washington, WSU, Colorado, UCLA

And on a 2 year basis?

Great: Oregon, Stanford
Good: Utah, USC
Average: Washington
Below Average: Cal, ASU
Awful: Arizona, UCLA, Colorado, Washington State, OSU

Conclusion: The Pac 12 seems to be trending worse. In the past 2 years, over half of the Pac 12 I think would be either below average or awful (with 5 of 7 being awful). It's just a bad conference. Colorado certainly isn't helping anything. Utah is.

Only a total moran would rate Cal and Utah as equals over the last decade, over any time period. Take this shit over to CB.

[calicoug]

If the distribution "declined" it would show up in the average. So you don't want to argue that because it isn't true. (And your later sentence suggests that's not what you really mean)

Forgive this non-statistician. I thought that's what you were suggesting was meant by "distribution decline." I haven't come across that phrase before.

[calicoug]

Only a total moran would rate Cal and Utah as equals over the last decade, over any time period. Take this shit over to CB.

Equal? No. Within groups there are obviously layers too. I'd put them both in the same category over 10 years but Utah with an edge. Neither of them move into the "great" category in my opinion though.