[OutsiderFan]

Pac-12 conference football strength is like a Rorschach test.  Some can look at it and say the conference is down.  Others can look at it and see just how incredibly strong it is from top to bottom.  The only team that truly stinks out loud is Oregon State.  Even Colorado nearly beat USC and UCLA.

What other conference offers as much of a challenge to its teams?  While Iowa was playing 4-5 Minnesota and Oklahoma State was playing 3-6 Iowa State, Stanford was playing 6-3 Oregon and UCLA 6-3 WSU. And look. 

Stanford will end the season having played NINE games against teams that won at least 6 games, and if Ca.l and UA beat ASU it will be 7 games.  If UW wins its next two, it will also have 6 wins, and Stanford will have played TEN games against teams that won at least 6 games.

Moreover, it's possible Stanford will have played nine teams that were at one time ranked in the Top 25 this year: Northwestern, UDFG, USC, UCLA, Washington State, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Ca.l.

To me, it screams that the Pac-12 is much stronger than the Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12, on par with the SEC, and it's as tough to go through the Pac-12 with 2-losses as the ACC or Big 12 with one.  What do y'all think?

[OutsiderFan]

Pac-12 conference football strength is like a Rorschach test.  Some can look at it and say the conference is down.  Others can look at it and see just how incredibly strong it is from top to bottom.  The only team that truly stinks out loud is Oregon State.  Even Colorado nearly beat USC and UCLA.

What other conference offers as much of a challenge to its teams?  While Iowa was playing 4-5 Minnesota and Oklahoma State was playing 3-6 Iowa State, Stanford was playing 6-3 Oregon and UCLA 6-3 WSU. And look. 

Stanford will end the season having played NINE games against teams that won at least 6 games, and if Ca.l and UA beat ASU it will be 7 games.  If UW wins its next two, it will also have 6 wins, and Stanford will have played TEN games against teams that won at least 6 games.

Moreover, it's possible Stanford will have played nine teams that were at one time ranked in the Top 25 this year: Northwestern, UDFG, USC, UCLA, Washington State, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Ca.l.

To me, it screams that the Pac-12 is much stronger than the Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12, on par with the SEC, and it's as tough to go through the Pac-12 with 2-losses as the ACC or Big 12 with one.  What do y'all think?

[stupac2]

I think that it's mostly that the Pac-12 doesn't have any truly elite teams. We're good, but this defense is just not good enough to get it done every week. No one ever believed in Utah as elite, UCLA was too banged up, Oregon forgot how to defense (remember, we don't make a bunch of horrible mistakes and we put up 45+ and win that game), and USC can't seem to find a coach that can use their talent.

It's also probably going to be the same story next year. Maybe USC makes a great hire, but how many coaches figure it all out in year 1? UCLA loses some of their best injured talent anyway, Oregon is going to need another rent-a-QB, and we're losing half our already terrible DL depth (plus Hogan, though our backfield might be loaded enough for Chryst to be good). Maybe someone puts it together, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Pac-12 misses the playoff next year too.

[stupac2]

I think that it's mostly that the Pac-12 doesn't have any truly elite teams. We're good, but this defense is just not good enough to get it done every week. No one ever believed in Utah as elite, UCLA was too banged up, Oregon forgot how to defense (remember, we don't make a bunch of horrible mistakes and we put up 45+ and win that game), and USC can't seem to find a coach that can use their talent.

It's also probably going to be the same story next year. Maybe USC makes a great hire, but how many coaches figure it all out in year 1? UCLA loses some of their best injured talent anyway, Oregon is going to need another rent-a-QB, and we're losing half our already terrible DL depth (plus Hogan, though our backfield might be loaded enough for Chryst to be good). Maybe someone puts it together, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Pac-12 misses the playoff next year too.

[washingtonismoney]

For next year:

Defensively, we lose our best players (Harris, Shittu, Martinez). That's not a surprise. Older players are generally better than young players, and (duh) they're also more likely to graduate. I feel reasonably confident about replacing the production of Shittu (with Thomas), and Harris (with Holder). Martinez has, at this moment, no obvious replacement -- Perez was victimized again last night. Palma gets the job done but I'm not sure how much more he can give. Perhaps Barton or Branch can step up.

The issue, defensively, has been the Shaw regime's careless burning of redshirts. Neither Shittu nor Martinez contributed all that much their freshmen year. They should be coming back for a fifth year and anchoring a defense with real prospects. Instead we're crossing our fingers for a defense that's roughly as good as this year's. (My guess is we improve at one safety spot with Reid...)

Offensively, the foundation of the unit is the versatility and depth of its skill position players. If Hooper returns, then the only departing skill position players are Cajuste and Wright. Meanwhile we can probably expect improvement from Love and Irwin; potential contributions from C. Scarlett and Arcega-Whiteside; and ________? from the incoming recruiting class.

The question is, how good is Chryst as a replacement for Hogan? Hogan is like, say, Kyle Korver in basketball. He doesn't, in of himself, manufacture opportunities; he's a very good converter of the opportunities presented to him. My guess is that this type of player is easier to replace than an Andrew Luck, who created his own "shots." This is perhaps suggested by Football Outsiders' ranking our offense 69th in passing downs.

Meanwhile the offensive line loses Murphy and Garnett. No insight into how good the replacements will be.

So the offense could still be quite good even if Chryst is a slight dropoff from Hogan. His pre-college accolades suggest he could be better (though he haven't heard any buzz to that effect; so I doubt that this will occur). The problem is that, in order to stay at this level -- or even improve -- we need to see something new, some improvement. This is probably recency bias speaking, but I don't know where that's coming from.

EDIT: of course this is a statement of the real Stanford football problem: the timing paradox. We don't seem to recruit talent in sufficient quality to be a well-rounded team all the time. Put the 2012 defense with the 2011 offense and that's a national championship team. Pair the 2014 defense with the 2015 offense and the same. It's like a romantic comedy meet-cute that never quite comes off.

[washingtonismoney]

For next year:

Defensively, we lose our best players (Harris, Shittu, Martinez). That's not a surprise. Older players are generally better than young players, and (duh) they're also more likely to graduate. I feel reasonably confident about replacing the production of Shittu (with Thomas), and Harris (with Holder). Martinez has, at this moment, no obvious replacement -- Perez was victimized again last night. Palma gets the job done but I'm not sure how much more he can give. Perhaps Barton or Branch can step up.

The issue, defensively, has been the Shaw regime's careless burning of redshirts. Neither Shittu nor Martinez contributed all that much their freshmen year. They should be coming back for a fifth year and anchoring a defense with real prospects. Instead we're crossing our fingers for a defense that's roughly as good as this year's. (My guess is we improve at one safety spot with Reid...)

Offensively, the foundation of the unit is the versatility and depth of its skill position players. If Hooper returns, then the only departing skill position players are Cajuste and Wright. Meanwhile we can probably expect improvement from Love and Irwin; potential contributions from C. Scarlett and Arcega-Whiteside; and ________? from the incoming recruiting class.

The question is, how good is Chryst as a replacement for Hogan? Hogan is like, say, Kyle Korver in basketball. He doesn't, in of himself, manufacture opportunities; he's a very good converter of the opportunities presented to him. My guess is that this type of player is easier to replace than an Andrew Luck, who created his own "shots." This is perhaps suggested by Football Outsiders' ranking our offense 69th in passing downs.

Meanwhile the offensive line loses Murphy and Garnett. No insight into how good the replacements will be.

So the offense could still be quite good even if Chryst is a slight dropoff from Hogan. His pre-college accolades suggest he could be better (though he haven't heard any buzz to that effect; so I doubt that this will occur). The problem is that, in order to stay at this level -- or even improve -- we need to see something new, some improvement. This is probably recency bias speaking, but I don't know where that's coming from.

EDIT: of course this is a statement of the real Stanford football problem: the timing paradox. We don't seem to recruit talent in sufficient quality to be a well-rounded team all the time. Put the 2012 defense with the 2011 offense and that's a national championship team. Pair the 2014 defense with the 2015 offense and the same. It's like a romantic comedy meet-cute that never quite comes off.

[OutsiderFan]

This is kind of my point.  How do we know these other teams are "elite" if they don't play as many teams capable of winning games and they don't challenge themselves with as many conference games or tough OOC games as the Pac-12 does?

We know one team in the bottom six of the Big 12 has beat one team in the top four (Texas over OU).  We also know in the Pac-12 there are two teams at the bottom (OSU and CU) who can't beat anyone in the Top 10, but the Top 10 can all beat each other.  Makes for a much more competitive league from top to bottom, which makes having an elite team difficult.

[OutsiderFan]

This is kind of my point.  How do we know these other teams are "elite" if they don't play as many teams capable of winning games and they don't challenge themselves with as many conference games or tough OOC games as the Pac-12 does?

We know one team in the bottom six of the Big 12 has beat one team in the top four (Texas over OU).  We also know in the Pac-12 there are two teams at the bottom (OSU and CU) who can't beat anyone in the Top 10, but the Top 10 can all beat each other.  Makes for a much more competitive league from top to bottom, which makes having an elite team difficult.

[donkey687]

I don't think the Pac12 can complain about being left out of the play-offs. No Pac12 team is one of the top 4 teams, and I think Stanford is a top 10 team and will prove it by winning Pac12 beating ND and winning the Rose Bowl to finish 5th in the country as long as we don't fumble two snaps in the fourth quarter again.

[donkey687]

I don't think the Pac12 can complain about being left out of the play-offs. No Pac12 team is one of the top 4 teams, and I think Stanford is a top 10 team and will prove it by winning Pac12 beating ND and winning the Rose Bowl to finish 5th in the country as long as we don't fumble two snaps in the fourth quarter again.

[yvonne]

One trophy at a time:

• the Stanford Axe
  
• the Legends Trophy (yes, such a thing exists)
  
• the Pac-12 championship
  
• the Rose Bowl
  

Every week from here on out, there's hardware on the line.

[yvonne]

One trophy at a time:

• the Stanford Axe
  
• the Legends Trophy (yes, such a thing exists)
  
• the Pac-12 championship
  
• the Rose Bowl
  

Every week from here on out, there's hardware on the line.

[terry]

The Pac-12 is just a tough conference. It's really hard to go undefeated in conference games. In the last 10 seasons (2006-15), only one Pac-12 team has gone undefeated in conference play (Oregon in 2010). Nobody has gone undefeated in conference games since the conference expanded to 12 teams in 2011. If we can beat C.al this week, we will be 8-1 in the conference, which is really quite good.

[terry]

The Pac-12 is just a tough conference. It's really hard to go undefeated in conference games. In the last 10 seasons (2006-15), only one Pac-12 team has gone undefeated in conference play (Oregon in 2010). Nobody has gone undefeated in conference games since the conference expanded to 12 teams in 2011. If we can beat C.al this week, we will be 8-1 in the conference, which is really quite good.

[French Rage]

By definition there is more parity if you play 9 games instead of 8.

[French Rage]

By definition there is more parity if you play 9 games instead of 8.