The CardBoard
Bad week for the Pac-12 - 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: Bad week for the Pac-12 (/thread-12539.html)


Bad week for the Pac-12 - BostonCard - 09-03-2016

So USC is getting its butt whipped by Alabama.  A loss is hardly unexpected, but USC is uncompetitive.
Eastern Washington is beating Washington state 45-35.  Even if the fighting Leaches pull it out in the end, you never want to have to come back against an FCS team.
UCLA was upset by Texas A&M, so that means two high profile losses against the SEC.  One was expected, but the other is an upset.  And UCLA did not look especially good in the loss.
Oregon State lost to Minnesota, which though not unexpected, is a Pac-12 loss to a BigTen team.
Oregon won easily, but still gave up 28 points to UC-friggin-Davis.

We beat Kansas State 26-13, which was about what was expected by the punters (British term), but it's hard to say that we looked great doing so.

There were a couple of good wins
Colorado crushed Colorado State, and though a P5 win over a G5 team is nothing to celebrate, it was an easy win, and Colorado is expected to be somewhat of a bottom dweller.
UW crushed Rutgers, and though Rutgers isn't expected to do much in the BigTen, it's a solid win over a P5 team.
Utah shut Utah State out, though it is Utah State.

Still left to go are the Arizona schools; UofA and BYU are scoreless, ASU is up on Northern Arizona 7-0.

I'd say it is probably a disappointing week for the Pac12.  Arrow way down for the two LA schools and WSU.  Arrow up for UW, Colorado, and Utah.  Arrow steady for Stanford.

BC

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - stupac2 - 09-03-2016

Is the arrow really up for UW? The spread in that game was in the 20's. Sure, they beat it, but at some point spreads become "lol u gonna lose".

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - needle - 09-03-2016

Utes beat So. Utah. Actually, Utah State is pretty good and will be competitive with SC next week.


Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - washingtonismoney - 09-03-2016

Who has, really, looked good? SEC had not one but three awful losses (Miss. State to South Alabama, Kentucky to Southern Miss, LSU to Wisconsin), and two close-shave wins (Arkansas to La Tech, Tennessee to App State)

Big 12 obviously coughed it up (Oklahoma to Houston).

The Big Ten, I suppose? Wisconsin got the best win...but then Northwestern yakked to a MAC team and Rutgers seemingly looked awful against Washington.

The ACC, maybe, by default.

One quibble with the UCLA one: it's an upset by rankings but the bettors favored A&M by 3.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - stupac2 - 09-03-2016

Also of note: it's week 1! We have no idea which teams are any good (well, except Bama). Even Clemson is taking an oddly long time to put away Auburn. We currently have ~1/12 of the information we'll have at season's end, it's impossible to draw any conclusions.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - BostonCard - 09-03-2016

I think so.  Browning looked really good out there.  Also, UW was very hyped coming into the season, but not all of us were convinced the hype was warranted.  I realize it is Rutgers, but good teams put away the teams they are supposed to put away.  They still need a marquee win, which i hope doesn't come until they play Oregon.

BC

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - BostonCard - 09-03-2016

Down goes Wazzu.

BC

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - TreesAndBirds - 09-03-2016

And while we're talking about looking bad, that idiot from USC who stomped the Ala. player in the crotch didnt reflect too well on our conference either. To me worse than what the LSU player did at the end of his game. Let's see what if anything USC does about it.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - stupac2 - 09-03-2016

What is it with people and generalizing actions by teams to conferences? We have nothing to do with the assclowns at USC except trying to deservedly beat the piss out of them every time we play! What some fool on SC does says literally nothing about any team besides his.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - 82 Card - 09-03-2016

(09-03-2016, 08:54 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:What is it with people and generalizing actions by teams to conferences? We have nothing to do with the assclowns at Unbelievably Spoiled Children except trying to deservedly beat the piss out of them every time we play! What some fool on SC does says literally nothing about any team besides his.

Logically, the crotch stomping shouldn't reflect on other schools. However, I don't think logic has all that much to do with it. Just one more reason to not bother watching.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - 82 Card - 09-03-2016

(09-03-2016, 08:51 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:And while we're talking about looking bad, that idiot from Unbelievably Spoiled Children who stomped the Ala. player in the crotch didnt reflect too well on our conference either. To me worse than what the LSU player did at the end of his game. Let's see what if anything Unbelievably Spoiled Children does about it.

That crotch stomping looked deliberate and not in the heat of battle. At what point does an assault in a game become a criminal matter?

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - Mick - 09-04-2016

(09-03-2016, 08:41 PM)needle link Wrote:Utes beat So. Utah. Actually, Utah State is pretty good and will be competitive with SC next week.


Utah State beat Weber State 45-6.  US had 428 yards rushing.  I don't care how bad a team's defense is, 428 yards is a lot.  Devante Mays rushed for 208 yards on 18 carries, and he's a load at 5'11", 230 pounds.  And they didn't fumble, not once.  They're reasonably disciplined at just 4 penalties and gave up just 245 yards.  They went to the Famous Idaho Potatl bowl last year (no kidding).

And USC lost to Alabama, 52-6.  They had 194 yards.  Alabama replaced their starter with a freshman quarterback.  How much do you think Kiffin enjoyed the score?  'Bama was ahead 44-6, then went for a TD on 4th and goal from the 2.

So here's what I wonder...They say the greatest improvement is from game 1 to game 2 in college football.  I think we all agree that Stanford has room to improve, though I daresay not as much as USC.  What will matter more, Stanford's two weeks off in which numerous starters were rested throughout the game, versus USC playing two straight games, presumably improving through both, but having the wear and tear against two straight challenging opponents?

I'm assuming USC will win a close game against Utah State, or they could pull a Washington State.  It will be interesting to see the opening line of both the USC v. Utah State and USC v. Stanford games.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - stupac2 - 09-04-2016

USC looked bad after the first quarter, which makes me think some combination of:

1) They're not mentally tough.
2) They're not well conditioned.
3) They're not deep in the trenches.

During the game the announcers mentioned a couple injuries along the lines, anyone know the status of those? I suppose WiM will fill us in when info is available.

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - BostonCard - 09-04-2016

(09-04-2016, 06:09 AM)Mick link Wrote:I'm assuming Unbelievably Spoiled Children will win a close game against Unbelievably Spoiled Children

USC has a habit of beating themselves.

BC

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - fullmetal - 09-04-2016

Stanford will gladly lend a helping hand with that in two weeks  ;D

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - ColoradoTree - 09-04-2016

A disappointing weekend.  As a good friend constantly reminds me, Stanford just needs to worry about itself and focus on winning each game, because an undefeated Stanford team obviously makes the playoff.  Yet I can't help being frustrated by UCLA's messy performance (where is that promised toughness, Mora??) and SC's complete no-show, because when it inevitably comes time to decide between 1-loss or 2-loss champs from different conferences, perception of conference quality matters, and SC and UCLA had the biggest opportunities to show off how good the teams in the Pac-12 are.  Losing to a FCS team is unforgivable, even if Wazzu has made a habit of it in recent years (and it didn't seem to matter to them by the end of the year when they were red hot, but losing that first game last year put a stink on Wazzu so bad that it took several weeks to wash off).  BYU is no slouch, but Arizona just didn't seem to show up. 

I'll give Oregon State a pass on losing to a decent and experienced Minnesota team on the road, and by only a TD.  That game was in the balance until the very end, and I wasn't expecting an OSU win. 

That said, I'll give Colorado more credit for beating CSU than others might.  That's a brobdingnagian rivalry in these parts, and it's usually a very competitive game, even when the talent levels aren't the same.  They'd split the last four matchups, CSU has been to 3 straight bowl games, and this was the biggest win in the series since 1956.  Not sure how well that will translate for CU in conference play, but maybe--just maybe--CU is finally making the same leap into a respectable Power 5 team that Utah was from the moment it joined the conference.

But in the final analysis, we'll be judged by our games against other Power 5 teams.  And that record in Week 1 wasn't great: 2-3 or 2-4, depending on how one counts BYU (obviously not a member of a Power 5 conference, but the playoff treats them as Power 5-caliber for evaluating schedule strength).  1-0 versus the Big 12; 1-1 versus the Big Ten; and 0-2 versus the SEC.  That SEC number won't change, but next week gives us a couple more opportunities: Arizona State hosts Texas Tech and Oregon hosts Virginia, both games the home team should win.  And in Week 3, Colorado goes to Michigan (which feels like playing with house money, frankly--keep it somewhat close and it's a moral victory), Oregon goes to Nebraska, and C.al hosts Texas.  I'd love a 3-0 Pac-12 record vs. Big 12 teams come playoff time.

Of course, it was a mixed bag everywhere else, too. 

* The Big Ten was 2-1 in its 3 Power 5 non-conference games (not counting Northwestern's home loss to Western Michigan), but Wisconsin beating LSU is a big perception boost.
* The ACC was 1-1 in its 2 Power 5 non-conference games, with UNC losing to Georgia and Clemson narrowly beating Auburn (FSU plays Ole Miss on Monday evening). 
* The SEC was 3-3 in its 5 Power 5 non-conference games, with A&M beating UCLA, Alabama beating SC, Georgia beating UNC, LSU losing to Wisconsin, Auburn losing to Clemson, and Mizzou losing to West Virginia (Ole Miss plays FSU Monday evening).  Doesn't factor in Tennessee almost losing to Appalachian State (Appy HAD those guys) or Mississippi State losing to South Alabama.  6 SEC teams took a loss in Week 1. 
* The Big 12 was 1-1 in its two Power 5 non-conference games, with WVU beating Mizzou (which doesn't count Oklahoma losing to Houston).  Big 12 scheduling continues to underwhelm.  TCU struggled against South Dakota State.  We'll see how Texas does hosting ND this evening. 

Re: Bad week for the Pac-12 - larkinforever - 09-04-2016

Another way to look at Week 1 scheduling:
-ACC had 3 (counting Ole Miss) Power 5 out of conference games (3 of 14)
-SEC had 7 (counting FSU) P5 OOC games (7 of 14)
-Big Ten had 3 P5 OOC games (3 of 14)
-Big 12 had 3 (counting ND) P5 OOC games (3 of 10)
-Pac 12 had 6 (counting BYU) P5 OOC games (6 of 12)

At first it appears the Pac 12 and SEC are head and shoulders above the other three as far as playing P5 opponents, until remembering the SEC's games only equate to a 9th P5 game during the season. Here's hoping (against hope) the Playoff Committee takes full account of the impact on records of playing more P5 teams (not just of teams in contention for playoff berths but also the strength of teams they play in-conference and how the records of those teams are also impacted)...