Reflections on the awfulness of the Pac 12

[calicoug]

I agree with all your "talking points" except a few that I hestitate to bring up in an otherwise excellent post. Arkansas does not fit into the "Great" category. A better argument can be made for Auburn and Georgia. Auburn has a recent national championship and another undefeated season. Georgia has been to three BCS bowls since 2000 to Arkansas' one. In my view Arkansas fits into the "Good" category. Here's some data from 2000-2011 from the top SEC programs:

It's hard to debate whether the PAC-12 is better than the Big 12 because of all the changes that have occurred in the Big 12. Agree that losing Nebraska and Missouri hurt but also losing Texas A&M hurt. I think the "old" Big-12 was easily better than the PAC-10 but now I have my doubts. Time will tell.

I also take exception to the comment that the PAC-12 is better than the Big 10. The PAC-12 was better in 2011 but not since 2000. Here is the data from the past 12 seasons (2000-2011) since I think 150 games is sufficient.
*Note: I listed Colorado and Nebraska as if they were in the PAC-12 and Big Ten the entire period. I feel it is an accurate picture because they competed in a similar BCS conference. However, Utah's data is skewed since I don't feel they have a similar degree of success playing a a BCS conference as opposed to the MWC.

So the Pac 12 was 3 games away from having half of the conference finish with sub-.500 records over the past 10 years?

Really solid.

[Paperback Writer]

So the Pac 12 was 3 games away from having half of the conference finish with sub-.500 records over the past 10 years?

Really solid.

Or as CMBF stated, it shows a Bell curve. What it really shows is that many of the PAC-12 teams have been somewhat inconsistent and that there is a lot of competitive balance in the conference. USC has been the only consistent winner in the past 10 years. Oregon has been consistent for the past 5 years. Stanford is now on a consistency run but four seasons ago and beyond they had losing seasons except for 2001. UCLA, Cal, and ASU have been consistently average and I think Washington has reached the average plateau after having 5 pretty bad years in a row. Oregon St. was a surprise to me - the Beavers fared much better than I had anticipated (8/12 winning seasons). Arizona and Washinton St. have struggled but they both have new coaches. All the data shows is that USC and Oregon have excelled and Arizona has struggled. There's a good solid middle-ground in the PAC-12.

The Big Ten was dominated by Ohio St. similar to how USC has dominated the PAC-12. Only the Big Ten has a much stronger second Tier with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, and Penn St. Several of these are "legacy" programs in Nebraska, Michigan, and Penn St. They will not be down for long - both Nebraska and Michigan have had to rebound from poor fits with coaching hires. Penn St. is about to enter a "down" period because of sanctions.

I've only made the case that this second Tier of programs in the Big Ten makes it a stronger conference.

Top Tier: USC, Oregon, Ohio St., Michigan
Second Tier: Stanford, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Penn St (will probably drop to average)
Average: Utah (may get to 2nd Tier), UCLA, ASU, Cal, Oregon St., Michigan St. (may get to 2nd Tier), Purdue, Northwestern
Below Average: Washington (on the verge of being average), Washington St., Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois
Cellar: Indiana

[TripletDaddy]

Or as CMBF stated, it shows a Bell curve. What it really shows is that many of the PAC-12 teams have been somewhat inconsistent and that there is a lot of competitive balance in the conference. USC has been the only consistent winner in the past 10 years. Oregon has been consistent for the past 5 years. Stanford is now on a consistency run but four seasons ago and beyond they had losing seasons except for 2001. UCLA, Cal, and ASU have been consistently average and I think Washington has reached the average plateau after having 5 pretty bad years in a row. Oregon St. was a surprise to me - the Beavers fared much better than I had anticipated (8/12 winning seasons). Arizona and Washinton St. have struggled but they both have new coaches. All the data shows is that USC and Oregon have excelled and Arizona has struggled. There's a good solid middle-ground in the PAC-12.

The Big Ten was dominated by Ohio St. similar to how USC has dominated the PAC-12. Only the Big Ten has a much stronger second Tier with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, and Penn St. Several of these are "legacy" programs in Nebraska, Michigan, and Penn St. They will not be down for long - both Nebraska and Michigan have had to rebound from poor fits with coaching hires. Penn St. is about to enter a "down" period because of sanctions.

I've only made the case that this second Tier of programs in the Big Ten makes it a stronger conference.

Top Tier: USC, Oregon, Ohio St., Michigan
Second Tier: Stanford, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Penn St (will probably drop to average)
Average: Utah (may get to 2nd Tier), UCLA, ASU, Cal, Oregon St., Michigan St. (may get to 2nd Tier), Purdue, Northwestern
Below Average: Washington (on the verge of being average), Washington St., Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois
Cellar: Indiana

uh oh. Here comes Top Ute!

[Top Ute]

I agree with all your "talking points" except a few that I hestitate to bring up in an otherwise excellent post. Arkansas does not fit into the "Great" category. A better argument can be made for Auburn and Georgia. Auburn has a recent national championship and another undefeated season. Georgia has been to three BCS bowls since 2000 to Arkansas' one. In my view Arkansas fits into the "Good" category. Here's some data from 2000-2011 from the top SEC programs:

It's hard to debate whether the PAC-12 is better than the Big 12 because of all the changes that have occurred in the Big 12. Agree that losing Nebraska and Missouri hurt but also losing Texas A&M hurt. I think the "old" Big-12 was easily better than the PAC-10 but now I have my doubts. Time will tell.

I also take exception to the comment that the PAC-12 is better than the Big 10. The PAC-12 was better in 2011 but not since 2000. Here is the data from the past 12 seasons (2000-2011) since I think 150 games is sufficient.
*Note: I listed Colorado and Nebraska as if they were in the PAC-12 and Big Ten the entire period. I feel it is an accurate picture because they competed in a similar BCS conference. However, Utah's data is skewed since I don't feel they have a similar degree of success playing a a BCS conference as opposed to the MWC.

Utah went 19-12 against BCS schools from 2000-2011. That's a win rate of 61 percent, higher than the conference win rate of every "Average" school you have Utah lumped with and not terribly far from its total average of 70 percent.

Take away the 2000 season -- only three coaches removed from today's program and the most dated year in compiling your figures, and the mark rises to 19-9 and 68 percent against BCS teams.

No credible college football writer would put Northwestern and Purdue on the same level as Utah.

[Paperback Writer]

uh oh. Here comes Top Ute!

Utah needs more of a track record in the PAC-12. Utah was a great MWC team. But the Ute's 4-5 conference record and 8-5 overall point to above average to average range. Also, Stanford and Oregon were not on the Ute's schedule. In my view, Utah will be similar to UCLA, ASU, Cal, and Washington in the PAC-12. That's not a criticism; that's a reality of playing in a decent BCS conference.

[Paperback Writer]

Utah went 19-12 against BCS schools from 2000-2011. That's a win rate of 61 percent, higher than the conference win rate of every "Average" school you have Utah lumped with and not terribly far from its total average of 70 percent.

Take away the 2000 season -- only three coaches removed from today's program and the most dated year in compiling your figures, and the mark rises to 19-9 and 68 percent against BCS teams.

No credible college football writer would put Northwestern and Purdue on the same level as Utah.

How about lumping Utah in with UCLA, Washington, ASU, and Cal? That's more of an apples-to-apples comparison (BTW, three of those teams beat Utah last season). Northwestern and Purdue play in a tougher conference so perhaps that's not a good comparison.

My calculations show a Utah record of 28-18 against BCS level competition from 2001 - 2010; almost the same as the 61 percent win rate you stated. What some Utah fans may fail to grasp is that Utah played 4 to 5 teams per season that were BCS level competition while in the MWC (I put Boise St., BYU, and TCU in that category in addition to BCS teams). That now has changed to playing 9-10 teams that are BCS teams in the PAC-12. Those extra 4-5 BCS games will amount to another 2 losses per season. It's the difference between going 9-3 and 7-5 during the regular season. In short, Utah's 7-5 inaugural PAC-12 regular season is exactly what I would expect and that was with a favorable conference schedule. Fans can debate whether that degree of success equates to average or above average. But I do know that it does not equal the success of USC or Oregon. In my view, Utah will win the PAC-12 every decade or so. I'd love to be proven wrong as I'm not a big fan of USC or Oregon but I do respect what those programs have accomplished.

[Top Ute]

How about lumping Utah in with UCLA, Washington, ASU, and Cal? That's more of an apples-to-apples comparison (BTW, three of those teams beat Utah last season). Northwestern and Purdue play in a tougher conference so perhaps that's not a good comparison.

My calculations show a Utah record of 28-18 against BCS level competition from 2001 - 2010; almost the same as the 61 percent win rate you stated. What some Utah fans may fail to grasp is that Utah played 4 to 5 teams per season that were BCS level competition while in the MWC (I put Boise St., BYU, and TCU in that category in addition to BCS teams). That now has changed to playing 9-10 teams that are BCS teams in the PAC-12. Those extra 4-5 BCS games will amount to another 2 losses per season. It's the difference between going 9-3 and 7-5 during the regular season. In short, Utah's 7-5 inaugural PAC-12 regular season is exactly what I would expect and that was with a favorable conference schedule. Fans can debate whether that degree of success equates to average or above average. But I do know that it does not equal the success of USC or Oregon. In my view, Utah will win the PAC-12 every decade or so. I'd love to be proven wrong as I'm not a big fan of USC or Oregon but I do respect what those programs have accomplished.

I would be thrilled with such a success rate, provided it includes a title-game loss or a year in which Utah is clearly W-L the second-best team, but has the misfortune of playing in the same division as the No. 1 team. I also realize many fans have higher expectations, and the idea of being like Arizona 30 years from now is laughable to them.

You have to go back McBride's first or second year to find a Utah signing class that didn't win at least a share of a conference title. I can't expect a similar rate in the Pac-12, but the divisional setup is a nice compromise, ie, winning the MWC or a Pac-12 division title (but losing in the title game) should be viewed as similar accomplishments.

Northwestern and Purdue is a bad comparison because they're inferior teams by virtually every statistical metric out there, not because they play in what you believe to be a tougher conference. The gap between Utah's accomplishments dwarfs whatever perceived superiority the Big 10 has over the Pac-12.

[Paperback Writer]

I would be thrilled with such a success rate, provided it includes a title-game loss or a year in which Utah is clearly W-L the second-best team, but has the misfortune of playing in the same division as the No. 1 team. I also realize many fans have higher expectations, and the idea of being like Arizona 30 years from now is laughable to them.

You have to go back McBride's first or second year to find a Utah signing class that didn't win at least a share of a conference title. I can't expect a similar rate in the Pac-12, but the divisional setup is a nice compromise, ie, winning the MWC or a Pac-12 division title (but losing in the title game) should be viewed as similar accomplishments.

Northwestern and Purdue is a bad comparison because they're inferior teams by virtually every statistical metric out there, not because they play in what you believe to be a tougher conference. The gap between Utah's accomplishments dwarfs whatever perceived superiority the Big 10 has over the Pac-12.

It's also a bad comparision because Purdue and Northwestern play in the Big Ten while Utah played in the MWC. But just looking at BCS win percentages, Northwestrn comes in at 45% and Purdue at 46%, well below Utah's 61%. Taking a closer look at opponents, Northwestern and Purdue were able to play .500 football or better by scheduling MAC and similar opponents. I don't think NW or Purdue achieve Utah's 70% win rate in the MWC if they also played in the MWC but it would certainly be improved. And Purdue did win the Big Ten "every decade or so" back in 2000.

[TripletDaddy]

Utah needs more of a track record in the PAC-12. Utah was a great MWC team. But the Ute's 4-5 conference record and 8-5 overall point to above average to average range. Also, Stanford and Oregon were not on the Ute's schedule.

This is actually a fair point.

Top Ute?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

This is actually a fair point.

Top Ute?

I think we can all agree Stanford was Lucky last year to avoid the Muss.

[Top Ute]

This is actually a fair point.

Top Ute?

If all Utah accomplishes over the next 5 years is 8-5/9-4 type seasons, I would be less inclined to think of it as a better program than I'm currently insisting.

Additionally, it's not like Big 10 teams don't get breaks in conference scheduling. Since Penn State joined the league, Big 10 teams missed two conference opponents every year. Northwestern, for example, has missed playing Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State four times each since 2000.

I'm not an advocate of the current 9-game schedule in the Pac-12, but let's not pretend that setup hasn't adversely affected the W-L of the entire conference.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I'm not an advocate of the current 9-game schedule in the Pac-12, but let's not pretend that setup hasn't adversely affected the W-L of the entire conference.

Probably the smartest thing you have ever written here. The 9 game schedule is dumb as hell.

[Paperback Writer]

Probably the smartest thing you have ever written here. The 9 game schedule is dumb as hell.

Which is why the Big Ten appears to have dropped it. But is was also due to Michigan, Purdue, and Michigan St. having Notre Dame on their schedule and also wanting to have Big Ten teams play an OOC game against a PAC-12 team. Nine game conference schedules is a way for a conference to get more money by having an additional conference game as opposed to another OOC game. Individaul schools benefit because OOC opponents have begun charging more for one-and-done scheduling.

A nine game schedule does make sense for the Big 12 because they are at 10 teams and allows for a round robin schedule. I think it was NMD that pointed out that this was perhaps the most effective way of determing a conference champion since everyone plays each other.

[UtahJazzFan88]

Colorado losing to Sacramento State at half. Wazzu only up by 7 with a minute left in the half over Eastern Washington. Cal has been struggling with SUU.

[Coach McGuirk]

Colorado losing to Sacramento State at half. Wazzu only up by 7 with a minute left in the half over Eastern Washington. Cal has been struggling with SUU.

Good weekend to get that network on tv!