PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - 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: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! (/thread-14657.html)
+- 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: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! (/thread-14657.html)
PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - CornFed - 10-24-2017
In their rankings of the worst teams in the nation ESPN listed the PAC-12, in toto, as #5. This can't be good. It may be true, but it's not good.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - FarmBoy - 10-24-2017
It's bad, but I'll take it every day and twice on Saturdays over the days when Stanford, on its own, was a regular participant in the bottom 10.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - CTcard - 10-24-2017
(10-24-2017, 07:46 AM)CornFed link Wrote:In their rankings of the worst teams in the nation ESPN listed the PAC-12, in toto, as #5. This can't be good. It may be true, but it's not good.
Whether it's true or not depends upon what you mean.
The top of the Pac 12 may not be as strong as the other Power 5 (maybe), but the bottom of the conference is probably the best of the lot. I heard yesterday on the radio, though haven't confirmed, that the Pac 12 has the best inter-Power5 Conference game record in the country. I think the count was 6-4.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - stupac2 - 10-24-2017
I have no idea what exactly is being said here. The entire Pac-12, all 12 teams, was listed as the fifth-worst (ie tie for 125 or whatever) in college football? That can't possibly be true by any metric, but by their in-house FPI the lowest Pac-12 team is ORST at #103/130. So it seems like this must be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but without a link it's hard to tell.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - CTcard - 10-24-2017
(10-24-2017, 08:31 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:So it seems like this must be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but without a link it's hard to tell.
Not that hard.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - stupac2 - 10-24-2017
(10-24-2017, 08:50 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17768.msg207678#msg207678 date=1508859068]
So it seems like this must be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but without a link it's hard to tell.
Not that hard.
[/quote]
You'd be surprised the inane things that people say in earnest.
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - cctop - 10-24-2017
Link to the original story:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/bottom102317/bottom-10-pac-12-conference-losing-lot-days
The 5th spot in the Bottom 10 is always reserved for a joke.
It's not the first time they put a conference there. Back in September, for example, they put the SEC East:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/bottom092617/bottom-10-sec-east-least
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - French Rage - 10-24-2017
That writer is one outrageous dude! He's totally in my face!
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - lex24 - 10-24-2017
F-him
Re: PAC-12 rated - 5th in Bottom Ten! - BostonCard - 10-24-2017
Yeah, the 5th spot in the bottom 10 is usually reserved for a team that underperforms or is humiliated. So, for example, they might have put USC at #5 in the bottom 10 after suffering the greatest upset ever.
It's a joke.
BC