The CardBoard
PAC12 Bowl Update - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: PAC12 Bowl Update (/thread-11177.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - stupac2 - 01-01-2016

(12-31-2015, 08:58 PM)terry link Wrote:Alabama vs. Clemson? Boring....

Especially because Alabama is probably just going to wipe the floor with Clemson and win YET ANOTHER championship. Sure would be nice if they could suck for a couple decades and let someone else have a shot...

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - BostonCard - 01-01-2016

Not Pac-12 teams, but our former opponents haven't started out so well...

Northwestern is down 17-6 to Tennessee
UND is down 14-0 to tOSU, but Joey Bossa got ejected for a questionable targeting call:

https://twitter.com/CBSSports/status/682993500460310528

BC

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 01-01-2016

I wonder if Barry is watching Oklahoma State have absolutely zero run game tonight and seeing an opportunity.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - 82 Card - 01-03-2016

With the exception of one stellar result, the PAC12 Bowl results do not look good. In descending order of margin:

Stanford 45, Iowa (Big 10) 16
C.al 55, Air Force (Mountain West )36
Washington 44, Southern Miss. (CUSA) 31
Utah 36, BYU (independent) 28
Arizona 45, New Mexico (Mountain West) 37
Washington State 20, Miami (ACC) 14

West Virginia (Big 12) 43, Arizona State 42
Wisconsin 23 (Big 10), USC 21
TCU 47 (Big 12), Oregon 41
Nebraska 37 (Big 10), UCLA 29

Record against Power 5: 2-4
ACC:  1-0
BIG 10:  1-2
BIG 12:  0-2
SEC:  NA


Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Farm93 - 01-03-2016

82Card,

That's a fun way to list the results.  My first impression is that the four at the bottom were living large as preseason possible CFP teams.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - winflop - 01-03-2016

Thanks P12 South.  The supposed power division not only disappointed through the season but laid some big eggs in bowl games.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - stupac2 - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 08:57 AM)winflop link Wrote:Thanks P12 South.  The supposed power division not only disappointed through the season but laid some big eggs in bowl games.

The biggest egg was laid by Oregon, easily. I know that without Adams it's a different team, but you should be able to get a couple first downs and some points with the backup in after posting 31 in the first half. That loss is all on the coaching staff, and if I were an Oregon fan I'd be sweating bullets for next year.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - French Rage - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:31 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14163.msg150745#msg150745 date=1451836670]
Thanks P12 South.  The supposed power division not only disappointed through the season but laid some big eggs in bowl games.

The biggest egg was laid by Oregon, easily. I know that without Adams it's a different team, but you should be able to get a couple first downs and some points with the backup in after posting 31 in the first half. That loss is all on the coaching staff, and if I were an Oregon fan I'd be sweating bullets for next year.
[/quote]

I can even understand not scoring in the 2nd half, but giving up 31?

Last night really hurt the postseason numbers.  Had a chance to go 8-2, 2-0 in the NY6 and 4-2 against Power5, and instead blew those last 2.  Well, we did our job.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Rally - 01-03-2016

Wanna bet we STILL aren't picked to win the conference pre-season by the writers?

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - French Rage - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:38 AM)ferrari link Wrote:Wanna bet we STILL aren't picked to win the conference pre-season by the writers?

Well, losing Hogan isn't nothing.  CMac will get a lot more Ds focusing on him; that said, it certainly hasn't hurt him in the last couple of games against top competition.  Anything below #2 or #3 would be crazy, though, given our recent track record and who we do get back, and I will agree to pick anyone over us I would need to see their reasoning.  Plus, I'd prefer playing with a chip on our shoulders.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Rally - 01-03-2016

My point isn't that we shouldn't be the favorite but rather that we won't be.  My guess?  Oregon, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State.  The narrative will be that our losses are too much to overcome.  They will be wrong, but then they have been wrong since the beginning of time.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Mick - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:44 AM)French Rage link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14163.msg150776#msg150776 date=1451842699]
Wanna bet we STILL aren't picked to win the conference pre-season by the writers?

Well, losing Hogan isn't nothing.  CMac will get a lot more Ds focusing on him; that said, it certainly hasn't hurt him in the last couple of games against top competition.  Anything below #2 or #3 would be crazy, though, given our recent track record and who we do get back, and I will agree to pick anyone over us I would need to see their reasoning.  Plus, I'd prefer playing with a chip on our shoulders.
[/quote]


I think Keller will turn out to be a better runner than Hogan, and I suspect a better passer.  Decision maker/defense reader will be the keys for him.  Kansas State, bye, USC, at UCLA...  Pretty good early schedule, i think.  Play against a bad Kansas State team, have a week to analyze everything and prepare for a home game against perpetually-disappointing SoCal school, then an away game against not-ready-for-prime-time SoCal school.  Big confidence builders coming...

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - CrazedZooChimp - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:38 AM)ferrari link Wrote:Wanna bet we STILL aren't picked to win the conference pre-season by the writers?

I'm actually really curious who gets picked.  $C?  With no Kessler?  Seems unlikely.  Orego, with breaking in another FCS QB when it's clear the rest of their QB pipeline (and defense) is trash?  That'd be hard to bet on.  UCLA with Rosen coming back?  Didn't half their team just declare?  Stanford?  Maybe with CMac back, but replacing Hogan, Garnett, Murphy, 2/3 DL and Martinez?  I mean, I think we'll win, but how much money would I put on it?  Is WSU the best choice?  But, I mean, it's WSU!

Next year could be really fun in this conference for independent observers...

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2016

Maybe...Washington? Washington offers a pretty solid combination of performance and talent returning.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - stupac2 - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:34 AM)French Rage link Wrote:2-0 in the NY6

Hmm? We went 1-0 in the NY6 bowls.

(01-03-2016, 10:47 AM)ferrari link Wrote:My point isn't that we shouldn't be the favorite but rather that we won't be.  My guess?  Oregon, UCLA, Unbelievably Spoiled Children, Washington, Washington State.  The narrative will be that our losses are too much to overcome.  They will be wrong, but then they have been wrong since the beginning of time.

I think there's 0 chance that Washington is ranked over us by the media. They do look dangerous but the media tends not to project based on that, but rather picking the names. I wouldn't be surprised if we're picked to win the north, and maybe to win it all. Let's look at the competition in the North:

1) Oregon: Defense was terrible, didn't improve much over the season, losing their best player. Offense mostly returns, but was terrible without Adams and they have no one of his quality coming back (Prukop is demonstrably worse at his FCS school). Maybe they put it together, but given the spectacularly terrible end to the season, I doubt they're picked.

2) Washington: They'll be dangerous, but to pick them over us you have to project a lot of things. Maybe they put it all together, but so far Petersen hasn't been able to, so I don't see why you'd expect him to. Maybe someone more familiar with the roster will say this is wrong, but I have a hard time imagining them higher than #2, and that's only if Oregon really is collapsing.

3) WSU: Losing Falk, and they're not going to get any credit from anyone until they sustain success.

4/5) Cal/OSU: LOL. These teams might end up winning 5 conference games combined next year.


Now in the South:

1) UCLA: They might get the nod for winning the conference, since they have the shiny QB toy, but they are losing a ton of talent and Mora has never shown an ability to get them over the hump and win when they need to.

2) USC: Replacing their QB, the backups have talent but are otherwise completely unproven. Skill players are talented, as always, but so far Helton has shown 0 ability to get anything out of it. Based on the results from this season he might actually be worse than Sark.

3) Utah: They might actually be bad next year. No QB, no Booker, no offense at all.

4) ASU: I can't imagine why they'd improve with a new QB and Todd "I don't understand how to coach game situations at all" Graham at the helm.

5) Arizona: Don't know enough about them, but Wright is gone and without him they were pretty bad.

6) Colorado: Nope.



I honestly think that we will be the favorite. We'll have the early Voldemort favorite, a story of getting better throughout the year, and our losses are either at places we can afford to take the hit (OL, kinda DL) or players that no one outside of our fanbase thinks are good (Hogan). We're the only contender to play a real opponent in a bowl game and smash them, and it takes the least amount of guesswork to see how we're a really good team.

So of course we'll be picked to finish fourth.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - terry - 01-03-2016

Falk has two years of eligibility remaining. Did he declare for the draft?

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Spiny_Norman - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 11:00 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I honestly think that we will be the favorite. We'll have the early F Stanford award favorite, a story of getting better throughout the year, and our losses are either at places we can afford to take the hit (OL, kinda DL) or players that no one outside of our fanbase thinks are good (Hogan). We're the only contender to play a real opponent in a bowl game and smash them, and it takes the least amount of guesswork to see how we're a really good team.

So of course we'll be picked to finish fourth.

I hope that other schools are predicted to win the conference in 2016.  Stanford seems to play better with the extra motivation of feeling overlooked and having to prove themselves.

Perhaps the biggest factor in Stanford's offseason - will the coaching staff once again experience minimal or no turnover?  Staff stability has had a major impact on Stanford's success over the past few years. 

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - Mick - 01-03-2016

We have a ton of returning starters, a Heismann favorite, our two deep is the envy of the league, a great incoming class and a very highly ranked quarterback (coming out of high school, anyway)...we'll be the favorite.  We absolutely SHOULD be the favorite.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - stupac2 - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 11:20 AM)terry link Wrote:Falk has two years of eligibility remaining. Did he declare for the draft?

I had read that he was leaving (I think on the Pac-12 blog), maybe that was wrong.

Re: PAC12 Bowl Update - ChicagoCard - 01-03-2016

(01-03-2016, 10:34 AM)French Rage link Wrote:Last night really hurt the postseason numbers.  Had a chance to go 8-2, 2-0 in the NY6 and 4-2 against Power5, and instead blew those last 2.  Well, we did our job.

One quibble, don't mean to come across as pedantic... The New Year's Six consists of: Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach. The Pac-12 only one had team in the New Year's Six this year.