[BostonCard]

@ #5 8-1 Oregon
@ #8 7-1 Notre Dame
@#11 7-1 Arizona State
vs. 6-3 USC (also receiving votes, would be #27)

I'd love that USC game back, given how much we shot ourselves in the foot.  But the combined record of the four teams that beat us is 28-6; they carry an 82% winning percentage.  "Brutal" is a good descriptor of our schedule to date.

BC

[BostonCard]

@ #5 8-1 Oregon
@ #8 7-1 Notre Dame
@#11 7-1 Arizona State
vs. 6-3 USC (also receiving votes, would be #27)

I'd love that USC game back, given how much we shot ourselves in the foot.  But the combined record of the four teams that beat us is 28-6; they carry an 82% winning percentage.  "Brutal" is a good descriptor of our schedule to date.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

[washingtonismoney]

More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

[StanFan88]

More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.

[StanFan88]

More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.

[DC]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11052.msg104281#msg104281 date=1414991765]
More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.
[/quote]

We have been winning and losing close games for the last couple of years.  This year though we are starting to get blown out.

[DC]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11052.msg104281#msg104281 date=1414991765]
More troubling than the losses is that two of them were in the decisive-to-blowout range. That suggests a decline in quality that's problematic.

(Between the 2012 Fiesta Bowl and the 2014 N.D. game, all losses were close affairs.)

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.
[/quote]

We have been winning and losing close games for the last couple of years.  This year though we are starting to get blown out.

[washingtonismoney]

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.

Not really. I care about performance. Generally close games are indicative of a better performance. Getting outclassed in a game indicates you're a much worse team and portends much worse things for the future.

[washingtonismoney]

Actually what frustrates me more is the two close losses because those were both winnable games.  When they got blown out you simply tip your hat to the team on the other sideline because they were just better.

Not really. I care about performance. Generally close games are indicative of a better performance. Getting outclassed in a game indicates you're a much worse team and portends much worse things for the future.

[stupac2]

Also, close games require more luck to win, so if you're in it until the end against a good team it's more likely for random chance to swing it your way. Not so much with a 16+ point loss.

Anyway, the way I look at it is like this: Any sane prediction before the year had us going somewhere between 7-5 and 10-2, depending on how a few things came together and how lucky we got. We didn't get lucky in a couple games and the things we needed to come together didn't, so we're staring at the low side of that prediction. But you know what? That happens. Some years you're not going to get lucky, and your prospects won't pan out. I think it's important not to overreact to one season.

What's interesting to me is all the backward comparisons to previous years, because the PAC has gotten a lot better as a whole since then. How many teams in 2011 were legitimate challengers to us or Oregon? USC? Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. It's not too surprising that we're losing more games as the teams around us have stopped sucking.

[stupac2]

Also, close games require more luck to win, so if you're in it until the end against a good team it's more likely for random chance to swing it your way. Not so much with a 16+ point loss.

Anyway, the way I look at it is like this: Any sane prediction before the year had us going somewhere between 7-5 and 10-2, depending on how a few things came together and how lucky we got. We didn't get lucky in a couple games and the things we needed to come together didn't, so we're staring at the low side of that prediction. But you know what? That happens. Some years you're not going to get lucky, and your prospects won't pan out. I think it's important not to overreact to one season.

What's interesting to me is all the backward comparisons to previous years, because the PAC has gotten a lot better as a whole since then. How many teams in 2011 were legitimate challengers to us or Oregon? USC? Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. It's not too surprising that we're losing more games as the teams around us have stopped sucking.

[needle]

Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. 

Tell that to Utah, which lost to Wazzou.

A few teams in the Pac have a loss against a team they would be favored against today.

AZState's loss to UCLA
Oregon's loss to Utah

[needle]

Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. 

Tell that to Utah, which lost to Wazzou.

A few teams in the Pac have a loss against a team they would be favored against today.

AZState's loss to UCLA
Oregon's loss to Utah

[stupac2]

Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. 

Tell that to Utah, which lost to Wazzou.

A few teams in the Pac have a loss against a team they would be favored against today.

AZState's loss to UCLA
Oregon's loss to Utah

I assume you meant Arizona. And I guess that's true about Utah, but I'm not really sure where they are in the PAC-12 lineup yet. Our game will be instructive. (I fully expect them to get clobbered by Oregon, maybe even worse than we did.)

[stupac2]

Now Colorado and WSU are the only real sure outs. 

Tell that to Utah, which lost to Wazzou.

A few teams in the Pac have a loss against a team they would be favored against today.

AZState's loss to UCLA
Oregon's loss to Utah

I assume you meant Arizona. And I guess that's true about Utah, but I'm not really sure where they are in the PAC-12 lineup yet. Our game will be instructive. (I fully expect them to get clobbered by Oregon, maybe even worse than we did.)