• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2009 Pac Ten Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
A look at the Quack Attack in '09. They deserve credit for the non-conf games, including a Thursday night season opener on the Blue Turf.

CFN.Oregon.Preview

CFN.Duck.Offense

CFN.Duck.Defense

CFN.Nike.Depth.Chart

09/03 at Boise State
09/12 Purdue
09/19 Utah
09/26 California
10/03 Washington State
10/10 at UCLA
10/17 OPEN DATE
10/24 at Washington
10/31 USC
11/07 at Stanford
11/14 Arizona State
11/21 at Arizona
11/28 OPEN DATE
12/03 Oregon State
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1495659; said:
A look at the Quack Attack in '09. They deserve credit for the non-conf games, including a Thursday night season opener on the Blue Turf.

CFN.Oregon.Preview

CFN.Duck.Offense

CFN.Duck.Defense

CFN.Nike.Depth.Chart
Click to expand...

Yeah they do. No cross country traditional powerhouses on there, but I don't imagine any other team in CFB this year has two teams on its schedule that have won BCS games recently(BSU and Utah both winning against Oklahoma and Bama). Purdue being their 3rd non-con game isn't a gimme either. Cross country BCS conference team, a lot of teams don't even schedule one of those(all of the sec - georgia/bama?)
 
Upvote 0
Magua;1496239; said:
Yeah they do. No cross country traditional powerhouses on there, but I don't imagine any other team in CFB this year has two teams on its schedule that have won BCS games recently(BSU and Utah both winning against Oklahoma and Bama). Purdue being their 3rd non-con game isn't a gimme either. Cross country BCS conference team, a lot of teams don't even schedule one of those(all of the sec - georgia/bama?)
Click to expand...

I'll save Big Woof the trouble.

I don't think UGA deserves grief right now. They played at Ariz. State last year, and they play at Okie St this year.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1496246; said:
I'll save Big Woof the trouble.

I don't think UGA deserves grief right now. They played at Ariz. State last year, and they play at Okie St this year.
Click to expand...


yeah thats why I put georgia and bama in parenthesis. sorry if it was confuing but the - is a minus :P meaning everyone in the SEC minus georgia and bama.
 
Upvote 0
The CFN guys weigh in on the Pac 10.

CFN

Q: 5 Thoughts on the Pac 10.

A: The Pac 10 can't seem to get a second team into the BCS, and why? Because few are taking the league seriously enough, and before the bowl season, there was no reason to think the league deserved much more than second-tier status.

Yeah, the league went 5-0 in the bowls, but does that erase the lousy non-conference season? For every big win, like USC throttling Ohio State, there were close calls against the mediocre, like Oregon vs. Purdue, ugly blowouts, like Fresno State and BYU over UCLA, and the Mountain West's year overall against the Pac 10. Throw in Penn State's blowout over Oregon State, Georgia's win over Arizona State, and Maryland's win over Cal, and the conference didn't exactly take the college football world by storm.

And then there were the bottom feeders. Washington and Washington State were among the worst teams in America, UCLA was an unmitigated disaster, and Arizona State was a major disappointment. However, because USC is so good and so consistent, all is not lost. Now it's time for everyone else to pick up the slack.

Cont'd ,,,
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
An interview with the new Pac-10 commish.

SI.com

Q&A with Larry Scott

Q: Where do you think the Pac-10 stands in college football?

Scott: The one thing that surprised me, I guess, is I had this perception from what I heard and read before I took the job that the Pac-10 was not seen amongst the No. 1 or 2 football conferences. I guess as I've gotten here and seen some of the stats I've been surprised in a positive way. The perception seems to be off with the reality, from what I can tell.
What I mean by that is since 2000, the better part of this decade, our conference has a winning record against every single BCS conference. And we're tied with the SEC for the best bowl record. So in terms of interconference play, where we stack up against each other, no one's got a better record than the Pac-10. That's certainly different than the perception I've had when I've been reading the media and listening to people talk.

The other thing that's surprised me is ... just how tough a (nonconference) schedule the Pac-10's got. I see a lot of dialogue about some of the 'laydown' teams the other guys have. ... That's the disconnect for me. The Pac-10 doesn't appear to be getting the credit it deserves for its schedule on one hand, and its track record and pedigree on the other. These are things that, as a newcomer, aren't being reflected in the national debate.

That's part of what I'm going to focus on and try to dissect and understand, because there's a disconnect. The Pac-10 is a hell of a lot stronger [than the perception].
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1507781; said:
An interview with the new Pac-10 commish.

SI.com

Larry Scott said:
...What I mean by that is since 2000, the better part of this decade, our conference has a winning record against every single BCS conference. And we're tied with the SEC for the best bowl record. So in terms of interconference play, where we stack up against each other, no one's got a better record than the Pac-10. That's certainly different than the perception I've had when I've been reading the media and listening to people talk...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how about if you take out USC?

With USC vs Without USC

If you take USC out of the equation, the PAC 10 is better than .500 against only the Big Ten (0.537 :( ) and Big East (0.600). The Big XII (0.486), ACC (0.375), and SEC all (0.462) have winning records against the rest of the Pac 10. That's not good. The numbers match perception: USC is carrying the conference. Period. He puts a nice spin on the numbers, but the fact of the matter is that the Pac 10 consists of USC and a lot of mid-tier teams that occasionally rise up and have a good year. We should know: the Big Ten is fairly similar.
 
Upvote 0
TheIronColonel;1513021; said:
Yeah, but how about if you take out USC?

With USC vs Without USC

If you take USC out of the equation, the PAC 10 is better than .500 against only the Big Ten (0.537 :( ) and Big East (0.600). The Big XII (0.486), ACC (0.375), and SEC all (0.462) have winning records against the rest of the Pac 10. That's not good. The numbers match perception: USC is carrying the conference. Period. He puts a nice spin on the numbers, but the fact of the matter is that the Pac 10 consists of USC and a lot of mid-tier teams that occasionally rise up and have a good year. We should know: the Big Ten is fairly similar.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to argue that USC rules the Pac-10, but then you need to compare apples to apples and remove the best team from the opposite conference to have any validity to your argument. That's not a very fair comparison to remove the Pac's best team and then compare the remaining record to an entire conference including their best teams.
 
Upvote 0
I agree that it's a precarious argument to make, but I don't think your criticism is necessarily a good one. Yeah, removing USC is cherry-picking the best team. If you removed OSU from the Big Ten or Oklahoma from the Big XII, it would hurt their apparent conference record, too. On the other hand, removing that single team completely reverses the 'commish's argument. I think that speaks volumes: his argument is essentially entirely predicated upon the success of USC - the rest of the conference is effectively an anchor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
TheIronColonel;1513099; said:
I agree that it's a precarious argument to make, but I don't think your criticism is necessarily a good one. Yeah, removing USC is cherry-picking the best team If you removed OSU from the Big Ten or Oklahoma from the Big XII, it would hurt their apparent conference record, too. On the other hand, removing that single team completely reverses the 'commish's argument. I think that speaks volumes: his argument is essentially entirely predicated upon the success of USC - the rest of the conference is effectively an anchor.
Click to expand...


But USC isn't going to get removed from the Pac-10, so the record is the record. I don't think the commish is going to base his numbers off of removing the best team from his conference so his argument is valid.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top