THE PAC 12 THREAD v.5

[WABLTY]

Cougs and buffs both shit down their own legs. Damn people. At least pretend you want to be there.

Mediocre teams rose because the talented teams fucked up. UW is excellent. USC and Furd wound up being pretty good. WSU, Colorado and Utah rose because teams that have previously been pretty good took a downward turn. Since the Pac 12 was formed and prior to this year, the teams with the most conference wins went as follows:

Oregon: 38
Stanford: 36
USC: 30
UCLA: 28
ASU: 27
Washington: 23

Oregon, UCLA and ASU shit the bed despite recruiting fairly well. It allowed some fairly experienced teams of iffy talent to push up in the standings and now we're seeing how they fare against broader, better competition. You can just look at the records vs. ranked teams. UW and USC were the only ones who didn't have a losing record against ranked teams and they each only played 4 of them. In up years (say, '13 and '14), the conference's best teams might have played 7 or 8 ranked teams and had among the toughest SOS's in the country.

While Bama is a nasty draw and I suspect you all have an L coming your way, I do think the level of dominance UW has shown this year would indicate they're one of the better teams the Pac 12 has seen and would be contenders in any season, even the ones that were good. Washington is IMO an exception.

 

[WizardHawk]

Mediocre teams rose because the talented teams fucked up. UW is excellent. USC wound up being pretty good. WSU, Colorado and Utah rose because teams that have previously been pretty good took a downward turn. Since the Pac 12 was formed and prior to this year, the teams with the most conference wins went as followed:

Oregon: 38
Stanford: 36
USC: 30
UCLA: 28
ASU: 27
Washington: 23

Stanford was okay, USC was good and Oregon, UCLA and ASU shit the bed despite recruiting fairly well. It allowed some fairly experienced teams of iffy talent to push up in the standings and now we're seeing how they fare against broader, better competition. You can just look at the records vs. ranked teams. UW and USC were the only ones who didn't have a losing record against ranked teams and they each only played 4 of them. In up years (say, '13 and '14), the conference's best teams might have played 7 or 8 ranked teams and had among the toughest SOS's in the country.

While Bama is a nasty draw, I do think the level of dominance UW has shown this year would indicate they're one of the better teams the Pac 12 has seen and would be contenders in any season, even the ones that were good. Washington is IMO an exception.

I said clearly before this season that there were going to be more down teams than normal because only 4 of 12 had returning starting QB's. I've never seen that much turnover at QB at the same time in all of my years of following this conference.

It's really not possible to know if UW can line up with Bama until they do. Sure, some try to suggest USC was proof or some other thing that still isn't proof either, but we will find out tomorrow.

Bama has depth. Their 2's at most spots will play on sundays. Probably quite a few of their 3's. They can rotate their D line in ways we can only dream about until Petersen also has full program depth. UW might not be able to play in the trenches, or maybe they can. Obviously the game will be won more on that than anything else. Your big boys being as athletic as theirs.

I wasn't overly impressed with either WSU or Colorado when we played them. Some teams get better and more focused at the end of the season and others fall apart. Both dropped off quite a bit from where they were while USC improved and got really hot at the end.

There is no greater message to this season than there was too much turnover in skill positions on too many teams, particularly QB. A couple of good ones emerged, but too late to make a run at the playoffs.

Next year like half the conf will have solid returning QB's? Or at least guys with significant playing time. A few teams that got beat up with injuries this year might have better luck next season while others get that bad luck. We don't know and won't know until fall camp at least.

 

[WizardHawk]

And BTW, those 4 teams that had returning QB's of substance were UW, WSU, Colorado, and UCLA. Kind of add Zona and put them and UCLA together in that neither had their veteran play more than half a season.

Utah did ok because they had a pretty good defense to offset a terrible QB. Stanford was up and down with theirs. SC became much better when they made a change at that slot. Ducks young QB gave them something, but they had way too many issues around the rest of the team by the time they made that switch including a historically fucking terrible defense.

 

[WABLTY]

And BTW, those 4 teams that had returning QB's of substance were UW, WSU, Colorado, and UCLA. Kind of add Zona and put them and UCLA together in that neither had their veteran play more than half a season.

Utah did ok because they had a pretty good defense to offset a terrible QB. Stanford was up and down with theirs. SC became much better when they made a change at that slot. Ducks young QB gave them something, but they had way too many issues around the rest of the team by the time they made that switch including a historically fucking terrible defense.

Good point and goes hand in hand with what I was getting at. Colorado, WSU and Utah probably have much different seasons if they're getting the normal throttling they would have received from Oregon, ASU and UCLA. Good on them for capitalizing on opportunity, but they had stable, experienced and competent if not particularly great rosters at just the right time to capitalize on some teams being down and/or inconsistent. They were not good teams and in other years might have been of the 6 or 7 win, Meineke Who Gives a Fuck Bowl variety.

 

[WizardHawk]

Good point and goes hand in hand with what I was getting at. Colorado, WSU and Utah probably have much different seasons if they're getting the normal throttling they would have received from Oregon, ASU and UCLA. Good on them for capitalizing on opportunity, but they had stable, experienced and competent if not particularly great rosters at just the right time to capitalize on some teams being down and/or inconsistent. They were not good teams and in other years might have been of the 6 or 7 win, Meineke Who Gives a Fuck Bowl variety.

Glass half full/empty.

They had more experienced and competent QB play which made them more legit at the same time other teams were far more in rebuilding mode. It is the mix of the two in varying degrees.

Next year? We will find out a lot more after LOI day and spring ball, but quite a few teams didn't look like they left the end of the year with much to build on. Colorado is sort of a mystery maybe more than the others. Their coach really did a great job of keeping them grounded and their backup QB got quite a bit of play and looks like a promising thrower. WSU has faulk back, but loses a few skill players. Ducks are a total tear down and start over, Cal seems like Cal, Beavs made some strides, but have a long way to go. And Stanford loses their main weapon, but always have talent. UW only graduates a total of 1 starter off offense and 3 off defense I believe and will also have probably at least two coming out early, but return an awful lot of talent and now have this experience to add to it.

Both zona schools are always so damned hard to predict other than both always seem to come up short of whatever expectation you want to have in fall camp. UCLA can't seem to ever keep enough players upright and get a groove on. Utah still doesn't have a QB and I'm not sure, but I think SC does graduate quite a few skill players or have others coming out early.

 

[socaljim242]

Good point and goes hand in hand with what I was getting at. Colorado, WSU and Utah probably have much different seasons if they're getting the normal throttling they would have received from Oregon, ASU and UCLA. Good on them for capitalizing on opportunity, but they had stable, experienced and competent if not particularly great rosters at just the right time to capitalize on some teams being down and/or inconsistent. They were not good teams and in other years might have been of the 6 or 7 win, Meineke Who Gives a Fuck Bowl variety.

Very true. After watching them ( colorado and Utah) in their bowls you can see they were just ok at best and only had those records because the south was pretty bad this year. I don't see how Mora can still be the coach at UCLA. He's wasted four years of a handcuffed USC.

 

[socaljim242]

Glass half full/empty.

They had more experienced and competent QB play which made them more legit at the same time other teams were far more in rebuilding mode. It is the mix of the two in varying degrees.

Next year? We will find out a lot more after LOI day and spring ball, but quite a few teams didn't look like they left the end of the year with much to build on. Colorado is sort of a mystery maybe more than the others. Their coach really did a great job of keeping them grounded and their backup QB got quite a bit of play and looks like a promising thrower. WSU has faulk back, but loses a few skill players. Ducks are a total tear down and start over, Cal seems like Cal, Beavs made some strides, but have a long way to go. And Stanford loses their main weapon, but always have talent. UW only graduates a total of 1 starter off offense and 3 off defense I believe and will also have probably at least two coming out early, but return an awful lot of talent and now have this experience to add to it.

Both zona schools are always so damned hard to predict other than both always seem to come up short of whatever expectation you want to have in fall camp. UCLA can't seem to ever keep enough players upright and get a groove on. Utah still doesn't have a QB and I'm not sure, but I think SC does graduate quite a few skill players or have others coming out early.

Still possible that Juju and Adoree stay. If they go USC starts off in the 12 range if they stay USC is pre season in the top 3 imo.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yeah, the point if I wasn't clear is in the way too early look at next year it still feels like UW and SC have the edge in talent going into next season. UW's OOC is still crap again so their path looks nearly as easy.

How they play vs Bama will have as much impact on the preseason rankings as anything else in the off season. But they are still going to be fairly highly ranked because of all the skill guys coming back and easier schedule.

 

[socaljim242]

Yeah, the point if I wasn't clear is in the way too early look at next year it still feels like UW and SC have the edge in talent going into next season. UW's OOC is still crap again so their path looks nearly as easy.

How they play vs Bama will have as much impact on the preseason rankings as anything else in the off season. But they are still going to be fairly highly ranked because of all the skill guys coming back and easier schedule.

Washington will still be the top team coming in to next year. Too many players coming back not to expect them to be as good or better. USC does lose players like Zack Banner whos the left tackle and Chad wheeler making two spots on the O line to replace. If JuJu ans Adoree leave it makes the team less explosive. But should be favored to win the south.

 

[WizardHawk]

Hard to say yet. UW does lose some key players and might lose Ross III, Baker, and Jones. Sure, they have some bad ass kids waiting to get on in that secondary, but King, Baker, and Jones were huge this year. And of course losing Victor still hurts.

If Bama blows us out and SC's class looks bad ass they could still get ranked higher. Anything close and they should be top 5.

 

[wazzu31]

Timeout, what throttlings of WSU by UCLA and Oregon that you speak of?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Shane paukhoa, Jason chorak are on there as well, and Lincoln Kennedy I think?

I'm working on getting Warren Moon in there as well.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't see how Mora can still be the coach at UCLA. He's wasted four years of a handcuffed USC.

I don't know about him being fired after one bad season.

On one hand, prior to this season he was 37-16, won the PAC South once and went to a bowl game every year. Some of the blame for this season's record can be put on losing Rosen.

On the other hand, he hasn't done better than 6-3 in conference and definitely looks to have missed the window of opportunity he had while USC was handcuffed.

If UCLA placed the same emphasis on football that they do on basketball, he'd probably be getting fired. But they don't, so he'll likely get another season or 2 to show that this year was an anomaly.

 

[socaljim242]

I don't know about him being fired after one bad season.

On one hand, prior to this season he was 37-16, won the PAC South once and went to a bowl game every year. Some of the blame for this season's record can be put on losing Rosen.

On the other hand, he hasn't done better than 6-3 in conference and definitely looks to have missed the window of opportunity he had while USC was handcuffed.

If UCLA placed the same emphasis on football that they do on basketball, he'd probably be getting fired. But they don't, so he'll likely get another season or 2 to show that this year was an anomaly.

You're right ,that they don't put the same emphasis on football as they do basketball. But they must see that he's just spinning his wheels there. After five years , two bowl wins , two loses and not even close when playing for PAC titles. Not a sniff at a Rose Bowl. Heck that one year they only went to the PAC championship because USC wasn't allowed to go after having a better conference record. It's just such a waste of opportunity. There's no reason UCLA can't have top ten recruiting classes every year. The campus , the proximity to one of the best recruiting areas and then USC being under sanctions. And it's not like they don't get talent , they do . But it's a QB but no receivers , a D line but no secondary. It's like he doesn't have a plan. Rosen being out this year did mess things up for them but they really didnt have much around him to begin with.

 

[trojanfan12]

You're right ,that they don't put the same emphasis on football as they do basketball. But they must see that he's just spinning his wheels there. After five years , two bowl wins , two loses and not even close when playing for PAC titles. Not a sniff at a Rose Bowl. Heck that one year they only went to the PAC championship because USC wasn't allowed to go after having a better conference record. It's just such a waste of opportunity. There's no reason UCLA can't have top ten recruiting classes every year. The campus , the proximity to one of the best recruiting areas and then USC being under sanctions. And it's not like they don't get talent , they do . But it's a QB but no receivers , a D line but no secondary. It's like he doesn't have a plan. Rosen being out this year did mess things up for them but they really didnt have much around him to begin with.

I honestly think it's about them being a "basketball school." What you're describing for their football team sounds a lot like our basketball team. Smack dab in the middle of a basketball talent hotbed, but being a "football school" trying to recruit against a "basketball school."

If you're a stud football player, why go to UCLA when you can go to USC? Same if you're a stud basketball player. Why go to USC when you can go to UCLA?

 

[mrwallace2ku]

It's "nice" that the Huskies are playing today at noon…now go finish the job w/ no complaints.

 

[socaljim242]

I honestly think it's about them being a "basketball school." What you're describing for their football team sounds a lot like our basketball team. Smack dab in the middle of a basketball talent hotbed, but being a "football school" trying to recruit against a "basketball school."

If you're a stud football player, why go to UCLA when you can go to USC? Same if you're a stud basketball player. Why go to USC when you can go to UCLA?

Well only 25 can go to USC and USC gets about four to five from out of state each year. I'm not saying UCLA should be up there with USC in recruiting but if they just got the left overs that should be good enough for a top ten - fourteen class. Look at the players on the Washington roster. Wrs John Ross and Petis , Mcintosh, Azeem Victor, Jake Browning, Sidney Jones and King, All stars on the team and from Cali. In fact somthing like 47 players from Cali on that team.

 

[socaljim242]

Well. That was the most probable outcome. The Washington defense played with heart. The offense just didn't have the talent to do anything against the Bama defense. Just like most thought. Great season Huskies.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

L@@KS like me Beaverz will B the first Natty Champs from the PAC North…


congratz men>

 

[RegentDenali]

Washington will still be the top team coming in to next year. Too many players coming back not to expect them to be as good or better. USC does lose players like Zack Banner whos the left tackle and Chad wheeler making two spots on the O line to replace. If JuJu ans Adoree leave it makes the team less explosive. But should be favored to win the south.

Huskies are losing a lot on the defensive side of the ball, especially DB positions. The offense will have to improve to make up for that. We'll be given some love the first week ranking, but we'll have to work even harder to win the north and PAC next year.