Pac 10 suckage (only for the Big East to suck more)

mormonrasta wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:
The bowl result doesn't erase an entire season. Arizona beat more teams that finished with a winning record (5) than Oklahoma and Air Force combined.

Yeah, but how many of those 5 were weak PAC-10 teams?

None. You can't be weak in the Pac-10 and finish with a winning record.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah right!

mormonrasta wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:
The bowl result doesn't erase an entire season. Arizona beat more teams that finished with a winning record (5) than Oklahoma and Air Force combined.

Yeah, but how many of those 5 were weak PAC-10 teams?

None. You can't be weak in the Pac-10 and finish with a winning record.

UCLA?

mormonrasta wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:
The bowl result doesn't erase an entire season. Arizona beat more teams that finished with a winning record (5) than Oklahoma and Air Force combined.

Yeah, but how many of those 5 were weak PAC-10 teams?

None. You can't be weak in the Pac-10 and finish with a winning record.



Here's an interesting note:



The Pac-10 is 8-10 in nonconference play against division 1 teams that finished with a winning record this year (including bowl games). The MWC is also 8-10 with the TCU-BSU game left to play.



The Big East had the best nonconference record against winning teams 13-8.

You completely discount how many of those non-con games were at home vs how many the MWC played at home...



Interesting that no Pac 10 impressed this bowl season, NOT ONE....



The Pac 10 is sub .500 in non con road/neutral games (and sub. 400 if you figure in the bowl games) in spite of the fact that only 1 team in the Pac 10 (USC) played more than 1 non-con road game. Every other Pac 10 team played 1 non-con roadie. (only 1?)



The WAC and MWC don't have the benefit or ability to routinely schedule home and aways with BCS teams like the Pac 10 and this muddles the entire picture. When you consider the fact that coaches and ADs have the ability to pick and chose when and where they want those games, it muddies the water even more.



The schedule makes a big difference in the regular season result and the big boys have more power in making a schedule they like (if they don't like it, they get out of it ala UW and ASU)



The true test of a neutral field where the schools don't get to outright decide their opponent are these bowl games and the Big East and Pac 10 have been exposed this year; no different than how Notre Dame has been exposed the last 20 years in bowl games.



The Pac 10 teams that actually won?

USC didn't look great vs an unranked and mediocre BC team with major quarterback issues

UCLA was losing big to a poor Temple team and came back to win that.



The others:

Arizona got undressed by Nebraska (who lost 31-10 in Lincoln to Texas Tech and 9-7 to Iowa State)

Stanford lost to Oklahoma

Oregon State was rolled by us

Cal got throttled by Utah

Oregon lost to an Ohio State in a snoozer of a game chock full of mistakes by both teams



How can you argue for a conference that played in total 11 non-con road games. lost over half of them, and then when asked to play opponents that they didn't schedule (bowls) go 2 for 7?



I realize that bowls aren't the end all and a season needs to be defined by more than that, but their failures during bowl season have to be duly noted when votes go in.



If the phrase, "you're only as good as your last game" means anything, (I'm not saying it does) then the Pac 10 fell flat on their faces and I maintain that no one but Oregon deserves to be ranked when the final polls comes out. (I'm not saying that they won't be, that AF or Oklahoma will be (their seasons don't show they deserved it either, BUT AF and Oklahoma sent the biggest message in the most important game and none of the Pac 10 teams impressed... not one.....)



Bowl season is the one time of year where you can't pick and choose a match (or even duck them) and if that's the case, then the Pac 10 and the Big East have royally failed to impress and certainly have not made an argument that they deserve the respect that some Pac 10 homers believe they should get.....



What can you learn from a conference that beats each other up, but goes sub .300 in bowl games and sub .500 in non con roadies, in spite of playing 11 (yes 11 non con road games for the entire conference...?)



Despite having one less team, the MWC played 17 road games...the WAC played 20...

There is some value to being a BCS big boy and having the power to schedule home games and avoid noncon roadies.



You can't discount what we learned from the bowl games... the MWC went 5-0 the Pac 10 is 2-5

One of these conferences is overrated... hard to spin that any other way

mormonrasta wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:
The bowl result doesn't erase an entire season. Arizona beat more teams that finished with a winning record (5) than Oklahoma and Air Force combined.

Yeah, but how many of those 5 were weak PAC-10 teams?

None. You can't be weak in the Pac-10 and finish with a winning record.



Here's an interesting note:



The Pac-10 is 8-10 in nonconference play against division 1 teams that finished with a winning record this year (including bowl games). The MWC is also 8-10 with the TCU-BSU game left to play.



The Big East had the best nonconference record against winning teams 13-8.

So your argument is that the Pac none is just as good as the MWC? (by citing OOC games)

My how the tables have turned...



How did we do head to head against the Pac-none this year?

Based on how bad the Pac 10 performed in the bowl games, how likely is it that Oregon will actually fall behind us in the polls? I assume they will end up ranked one spot in front of us.

craigoscarson wrote:

Mars wrote:

The bowl result doesn't erase an entire season. Arizona beat more teams that finished with a winning record (5) than Oklahoma and Air Force combined.

Yeah, but how many of those 5 were weak PAC-10 teams?

None. You can't be weak in the Pac-10 and finish with a winning record.



Here's an interesting note:



The Pac-10 is 8-10 in nonconference play against division 1 teams that finished with a winning record this year (including bowl games). The MWC is also 8-10 with the TCU-BSU game left to play.



The Big East had the best nonconference record against winning teams 13-8.

You completely discount how many of those non-con games were at home vs how many the MWC played at home...



Interesting that no Pac 10 impressed this bowl season, NOT ONE....



The Pac 10 is sub .500 in non con road/neutral games (and sub. 400 if you figure in the bowl games) in spite of the fact that only 1 team in the Pac 10 (USC) played more than 1 non-con road game. Every other Pac 10 team played 1 non-con roadie. (only 1?)



The WAC and MWC don't have the benefit or ability to routinely schedule home and aways with BCS teams like the Pac 10 and this muddles the entire picture. When you consider the fact that coaches and ADs have the ability to pick and chose when and where they want those games, it muddies the water even more.



The schedule makes a big difference in the regular season result and the big boys have more power in making a schedule they like (if they don't like it, they get out of it ala UW and ASU)



The true test of a neutral field where the schools don't get to outright decide their opponent are these bowl games and the Big East and Pac 10 have been exposed this year; no different than how Notre Dame has been exposed the last 20 years in bowl games.



The Pac 10 teams that actually won?

USC didn't look great vs an unranked and mediocre BC team with major quarterback issues

UCLA was losing big to a poor Temple team and came back to win that.



The others:

Arizona got undressed by Nebraska (who lost 31-10 in Lincoln to Texas Tech and 9-7 to Iowa State)

Stanford lost to Oklahoma

Oregon State was rolled by us

Cal got throttled by Utah

Oregon lost to an Ohio State in a snoozer of a game chock full of mistakes by both teams



How can you argue for a conference that played in total 11 non-con road games. lost over half of them, and then when asked to play opponents that they didn't schedule (bowls) go 2 for 7?



I realize that bowls aren't the end all and a season needs to be defined by more than that, but their failures during bowl season have to be duly noted when votes go in.



If the phrase, "you're only as good as your last game" means anything, (I'm not saying it does) then the Pac 10 fell flat on their faces and I maintain that no one but Oregon deserves to be ranked when the final polls comes out. (I'm not saying that they won't be, that AF or Oklahoma will be (their seasons don't show they deserved it either, BUT AF and Oklahoma sent the biggest message in the most important game and none of the Pac 10 teams impressed... not one.....)



Bowl season is the one time of year where you can't pick and choose a match (or even duck them) and if that's the case, then the Pac 10 and the Big East have royally failed to impress and certainly have not made an argument that they deserve the respect that some Pac 10 homers believe they should get.....



What can you learn from a conference that beats each other up, but goes sub .300 in bowl games and sub .500 in non con roadies, in spite of playing 11 (yes 11 non con road games for the entire conference...?)



Despite having one less team, the MWC played 17 road games...the WAC played 20...

There is some value to being a BCS big boy and having the power to schedule home games and avoid noncon roadies.



You can't discount what we learned from the bowl games... the MWC went 5-0 the Pac 10 is 2-5

One of these conferences is overrated... hard to spin that any other way

I completely discounted alot of things not just home vs. road ratio. Yes, the Pac-10 played two more nonconference home games against teams that finished with winning records than the MWC did (6 to 4). They also played 4 more teams that finished with 10 wins or more (10 to 6 which includes the TCU game tonight). I think that more than makes up for the slight home advantage they had in nonconference play.



The larger point is that despite the poor bowl showing the Pac-10 or the Big East cannot be judged as the WORST of the 7 major conferences. Here's some data to support that.



2009 Nonconference record vs. all FBS opponents (Home/Away/Neutral)



1. SEC 36-10 .783 (22-4/6-2/8-4)

2. Big East 26-10 .722 (12-3/10-5/4-2)

3. Big 12 30-16 .652 (20-4/5-7/5-5)

4. Big 10 26-15 .634 (18-6/4-5/4-4)

5. Pac-10 19-14 .576 (12-3/5-5/2-6)

6. MWC 19-15 .559 (8-5/6-10/5-0)

7. ACC 21-19 .525 (10-8/8-7/3-4)



2009 nonconference record vs. the current top 25 (ranked in at least 1 poll)



1. Big 10 4-3 .571 (1-1/0-2/3-0)

2. ACC 6-6 .500 (4-2/1-1/1-3)

3. SEC 5-6 .455 (1-3/1-1/3-2)

4. MWC 2-3 .400 (0-2/0-1/2-0)

5. Pac 10 3-8 .273 (2-2/1-2/0-4)

6. Big 12 2-7 .222 (0-2/0-4/2-1)

7. Big East 1-4 .200 (0-1/1-2/0-1)





2009 Nonconference record vs. FBS opponents that finished with a winning record.



1. Big East 13-8 .619 (6-2/3-4/4-2)

2. SEC 13-9 .591 (6-4/2-1/5-4)

3. ACC 16-16 .500 (8-7/5-5/3-4)

4. Big 10 10-11.476 (6-5/1-2/3-4)

5. MWC 8-10 .444 (2-3/1-7/5-0)

6. Pac 10 8-10 .444 (4-2/2-3/2-5)

7. Big 12 9-13 .409 (5-3/2-5/2-5)



For my money the Big 12 is the weakest conference. They were the worst against the good and the 2nd worst against the great. Plus, their scheduling practices rival the SEC and the Big Ten as the weakest in college football.