2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

Husky stadium was LOUD yesterday. Big win for the Huskies.

Overall, Pac 10 looks pretty good this year.

b

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

SEC > PAC 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

EDIT to add:

I was quite impressed with Cal a week ago and Oregon this week. Also, Washington under Willingham is looking solid so far, and I expect big things from ASU under Erickson in the coming years. The future is bright for you guys IMO.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not serious.

I hope.

If not, I agree, wow.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not serious.

I hope.

If not, I agree, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a huge Big East hater, and have no interest in the Pac 10.
SEC has looked hugely disappointing so far. Florida has played creampuffs, so its impossible to judge them. Tennessee looks like garbage. Auburn looks horrible. Vandy is Vandy. UK has played creampuffs and is UK, so no need to give them any credit yet. SC struggles with La-La, but beats UGA at home. UGA looks great one week but like ass the next. Bama looks decent but not great. Arkansas has played 1 game against Troy, too early to tell. Ole Miss and MSU- LOL.

So basically the SEC has been disappointing.

Big East looks real good deep. UofL and WV are probably overrated. Cincinnati, USF, Rutgers all look pretty damn good. Uconn looks respectable. Pitt has played no one, but hasn't disappointed yet. Syracuse blows big time.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

I was extremely impressed with Washington's young QB. It is nice to see the program coming back. During the glory years in the early 90's, Washington might have had the biggest home field advantage of any team in college football.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think a Buckeyes fan, of all people, would have respect for the SEC.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think a Buckeyes fan, of all people, would have respect for the SEC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because last year means the SEC is barely worse than the NFL. This is dumb beyond belief. The Big 10 was crap last year, but Wisconsin and Penn State beat supposedly awesome SEC teams.

When Tennessee beats Cal, or Auburn beats USF at home, I'll give the SEC credit.

In any case, Pac-10 owns.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think a Buckeyes fan, of all people, would have respect for the SEC.

[/ QUOTE ]
PAC 10 guys, PAC 10. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think a Buckeyes fan, of all people, would have respect for the SEC.

[/ QUOTE ]
PAC 10 guys, PAC 10. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Back on topic... I do think that the Pac 10 is the one major conference that has exceeded expectations thus far.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread EDIT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough -- at least you outlined your argument. I still totally disagree that they are a better conference, but this is a PAC 10 thread, so I won't take it any farther. Perhaps you should x post this in the SEC thread.


************************************************** *******
I will be very impressed if USC manages to run the table this year. I'm also looking forward to catching the Cal-Oregon game, which should be awesome (hopefully it will be nationally televised).

I would not be surprised to see UW pull off some upsets this year. They might be top 25 worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an tOSU fan, UW scares the hell out of me for next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think a Buckeyes fan, of all people, would have respect for the SEC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because last year means the SEC is barely worse than the NFL. This is dumb beyond belief. The Big 10 was crap last year, but Wisconsin and Penn State beat supposedly awesome SEC teams.

When Tennessee beats Cal, or Auburn beats USF at home, I'll give the SEC credit.

In any case, Pac-10 owns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can give credit to UT for travelling to Cal. Even though they lost, that's more than the other big SEC teams travel or have travelled in quite some time.

Pac 10 (and every other conference) doesn't seem to mind travelling.

It did brighten my day a bit seeing Auburn and Georgia go down. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Florida? Nothing to brag about in beating Troy. I mean, SEC would give absolutely no credit to USC if they beat Troy, would they?

EDIT: I can also give credit to Spurrier for going to a bad school and building them.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Miami getting the crap kicked out of them along with ND. What a great day in CFB!

b

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was extremely impressed with Washington's young QB. It is nice to see the program coming back. During the glory years in the early 90's, Washington might have had the biggest home field advantage of any team in college football.

[/ QUOTE ]

They look so much better than last year. Playing alot more together. There'll be some bad games this year as the talent is still a little lacking, but it's getting there.

Ty has really brought this team a long ways from the team that he had when he took over.

Thank you, ND, for canning him. We now see the direction you wanted to take ND in. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

b

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

Based on the on-the-field results so far


Pac10>>>>>>>>>> Big East > SEC >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>whatever else

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem delusional at all if one watched the games played thus far

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem delusional at all if one watched the games played thus far

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just ask Middle Tennessee State University.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem delusional at all if one watched the games played thus far

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what has the Big East done so far this year except struggle against supposedly far inferior competition? That was a nice win by USF, but Auburn isn't exactly looking all that great this year.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

I'm as big a Pac-10 homer as there is, and I've come to grips with the idea that the SEC is probably the top conference overall. That said, the Pac-10 has been mighty impressive over the first 2 weeks. Let's take a look...

USC: (1-0), nothing to talk about here yet
Oregon: (2-0), lol@michigan
UCLA: (2-0), solid win over tough BYU team
Cal: (2-0), big win over top SEC team
ASU: (2-0), nice win vs Colorado
Washington: (2-0), big win over Boise St, this team is much improved... still, huck the fuskies
Arizona: (1-1), meh, lost to tough BYU team
OSU: (1-1), meh, laid an egg vs Cincinnati, nice win vs Utah though
Stanford: (0-1), :stanford:
WSU: (1-1), tough loss at Wisconsin

My team is WSU... seen both of their games live (@Wisc, vs SDSU). This team is gonna be in some shootouts this year. QB threw for 470 yds and 5 TDs yesterday. Defense is terrible.

SEC definitely has a strong conference, but I think the gap over the Pac-10 is nowhere near as wide as the "experts" would suggest...

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem delusional at all if one watched the games played thus far

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what has the Big East done so far this year except struggle against supposedly far inferior competition? That was a nice win by USF, but Auburn isn't exactly looking all that great this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cincinnati absolutely crushing Oregon State.
Rutgers beating down a decent Navy team.
South Florida (probably the 5th best team in the BE going to Auburn and beating them).

WV is stacked, LV has a crazy offense (but no D).

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Pac deserves their own thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PAC 10 > Big East >>>>>>> SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know college football is at least partially about delusional homerism, but this is just, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't seem delusional at all if one watched the games played thus far

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what has the Big East done so far this year except struggle against supposedly far inferior competition? That was a nice win by USF, but Auburn isn't exactly looking all that great this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cincinnati absolutely crushing Oregon State.
Rutgers beating down a decent Navy team.
South Florida (probably the 5th best team in the BE going to Auburn and beating them).

WV is stacked, LV has a crazy offense (but no D).

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you totally ignore WV and Lousville barely winning. Not terribly impressive for the two best teams in the league. And wow, beating Navy is a HUGE accomplishment. Congrats Rutgers. Check back in a couple of months and see what the Big Least is up to.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

Are you stupid? Did you totally miss my earlier post in this thread?

[ QUOTE ]
UofL and WV are probably overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beating Navy in itself doesn't mean much, but Rutgers pwned them.

WV won by 25... that's barely winning? Give me a break.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you stupid? Did you totally miss my earlier post in this thread?

[ QUOTE ]
UofL and WV are probably overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beating Navy in itself doesn't mean much, but Rutgers pwned them.

WV won by 25... that's barely winning? Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised in the least that you can't refrain from petty name calling, even when talking about something as trivial as sports.

Just because you admit that UL and WV are overrated doesn't mean you can then ignore that fact when rating the conference. Right now the Big East is full of decent but unspectacular teams. WV is the only legit top 15 team in that conference.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

when did West Virginia barely win?

I know I had a bet on Marshall +24 and W Mich +20 something, but I don't remember collecting on either of them

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
when did West Virginia join the Pac 10?


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

I think Washington will probably be the most interesting team. They beat Syracuse, who are probably pretty terrible, by a large margin and put a solid win over Boise State. I don't know much about Boise State this season, but I wonder if their ranking and prestige is just from the amazing win in the Fiesta Bowl.

So I think Washington could be anywhere from great to not terrible but not good. They clearly won't be bad as they were a few years ago, but I'm honestly not sure what their wins so far say about them.

Naturally I'm biased against them as a Duck fan. Oregon should play a lot of high scoring games. The defense isn't great by any stretch but the O is looking good obviously. The defense let Houston stay in the game far too long and in the first half didn't do a great job at stopping Michigan. They put up only 7 but there was a pick in the endzone, a missed field goal, and they punted once or twice from inside the 50. There were times early where I thought we were in trouble because Michigan had some runs where monstrous holes opened up. Should be entertaining if nothing else.

Overall I think the Pac 10 should be interesting after the top team. USC is IMO solidly better than Cal, who is a bit better than 3 or 4 teams all of which are good teams overall. So the competition to win the conference shouldn't be that great barring an upset or two but there should be some great games and the fighting over the last few bowl spots should be better than usual.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

did the Ducks get rid of those hideous yellow uniforms? Back a few years ago, they had the dark green uni's and they were decent. I can't imagine a recruit wanting to wear these things.

I think UW-OSU is going to be one heck of a game next week. OSU has an inexperienced QB and OL, but their defense is tough as nails. It's going to be very challenging for the young QB to shine in what will be a very LOUD Dawghouse. They've played two cupcakes so far, so that's showing nothing. They haven't played an offense with such speed in its backfield that UW has, so that will be a stiff test for them. If they want to beat UW, they'll have to contain Locker and Rankin. I don't think UW has the recievers to make too many game changing plays on a consistent basis.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
WV won by 25... that's barely winning? Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Final scores are not always indicative of the competitiveness of the game. I watched parts of that game. Marshall had the lead for most of the game. WV scored a few times late to turn a close contest into a wide final margin. I am guessing most West Virginia fans do not view that peformance as a comfortable, blow-out win, despite the final score.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
did the Ducks get rid of those hideous yellow uniforms? Back a few years ago, they had the dark green uni's and they were decent. I can't imagine a recruit wanting to wear these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they still have them. They may bust out any combination of the tops and pants.

I don't like a lot of them, I really like the white jerseys, but they say that the kids like them and it helps for recruiting.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

SEC=overrated stay at home conference

when was the last time Florida played a home and away OOC game outside the state of Florida?

and Ducks do have the ugliest uniforms of all time.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

My current rank of teams in the Pac 10, complete with thoughts. Hopefully this will provide enough discussion fodder for us to stop talking about West Virginia.

#1 - USC (1-0): They were lackluster against Idaho, so haven't really proven or disproven anything yet, but for now there's no reason not to still see them as the consensus #1 in the country, much less the conference.

#2 - Cal (2-0): Did what they needed to against Tennessee, Jackson is a monster, they certainly hold their preseason spot. Weak two definitely provided a little bit of a question mark as they struggled with Colorado State, but I can chalk that up as a hangover game, plus the game wasn't actually as close as the score would indicate. 58 points allowed in two games is something to keep an eye on though.

#3 - UCLA (2-0, 1-0): This is tentative. Ben Olson has only completed 51% of his passes this year and was 13/28 against BYU. The running game wasn't much better against the Cougars, with only 3.0 yards per carry, but they held off a tough (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here) opponent anyway. This offense will have to get quite a bit better though, or else it will be a quick fall to the bottom half of the Pac Ten. Beating Stanford was, well, beating Stanford.

#4 - Oregon (2-0): 39-7 @ Michigan. Wow, I wish I knew what this meant, but this year it may not mean as much as I'd like to think. Michigan looks both very weak overall, and very vulnerable to exactly what Oregon runs. Dixon has looked very sharp ever since halftime of the Houston game, but he looked sharp in the first two games last year too. More impressive is 300+ rushing yards in both games, the offense looks legit so far. Defensively Michigan got a lot more yards than points, and Houston moved the ball well other than their four turnovers. If the breaks start to even out this team could give up a lot of points down the road, but right now it looks like they can keep up offensively. On the other hand, beating Michigan might not mean anything right now, and there's a decent argument to be made that Houston would likely have won if the turnover margin were even.

#5 - Arizona State (2-0): Two big wins over two bad teams. The run defense has been stifling, holding both opponents under two yards per carry. This team could be 7-0 before they play Cal, @ Oregon, @ UCLA, and USC, but I'd still like to see what they do against someone with a pulse first. Carpenter has been solid, but not spectacular considering the hype and the opposition.

#6 - Washington (2-0): Syracuse looks horrendous, and Boise State looks to no longer have a capable quarterback so their run as a perennial mid-major power may be over. For this reason Washington's spectacular start has to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still been spectacular. With a true freshman at the helm the season will likely be up and down, but this team seems to be clearly on the upswing and should be a threat to everyone they play. OSU next week will tell us a lot about how good (or possibly overrated) this team is.

#7 - Washington State (1-1): Rebounded nicely against SDSU after getting pounded by Wisconsin. Rebounding against SDSU doesn't mean much though.

#8 - Arizona (1-1): The defense is good. Tuitama can be good, sometimes. It's starting to look like they may not turn the corner any time soon, though, with too much inconsistency offensively. Look for an upset or two, but no prolonged success.

#9 - Oregon State (1-1): Not only did they get destroyed by Cincinnati, but they also got outplayed by Utah until Utah's QB got hurt. Offensively Bernard is good, but can't do it all by himself. The offensive line is bad, and the QBs are worse, so points will be at a premium. Defensively the front seven is great, but the coverage is awful. Things don't look good in Corvallis right now.

#10 - Stanford (0-1, 0-1): Stanford is still Stanford.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
#6 - Washington (2-0): Syracuse looks horrendous, and Boise State looks to no longer have a capable quarterback so their run as a perennial mid-major power may be over. For this reason Washington's spectacular start has to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still been spectacular. With a true freshman at the helm the season will likely be up and down, but this team seems to be clearly on the upswing and should be a threat to everyone they play. OSU next week will tell us a lot about how good (or possibly overrated) this team is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overrated?

Since when are they even rated? I wouldn't put them in the top 25 yet. Most that are doing it will likely take them right back out after next week.

They should lose to OSU next week. I'm figuring on that. Penciled that in well before the season started. But this team is head and shoulders above last years team. Last years team almost beat USC and Cal, both @USC and @Cal.

They don't have alot of 'great' players but the chemistry seems to be clicking alot more this year which may help them overachieve a little.

If you remember the team of 3-4 years ago, which was absolutely sh*tty, you'd realize just how big these 2 wins are and just how far they've come.


The Beavers started slow last year also. Then beat USC on the way to a 9-4 record.

AZ St. could be a suprise this year if Erickson gets them rolling. But that might happen next year after Erickson raids the Jr. Colleges and gets the jail parolees out for work release. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Though he tends to get thugs, he does build good teams.

Pac 10 may be quite a mess this year. Great for the competition, but bad for the rankings.

b

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
#5 - Arizona State (2-0): Two big wins over two bad teams. The run defense has been stifling, holding both opponents under two yards per carry. This team could be 7-0 before they play Cal, @ Oregon, @ UCLA, and USC, but I'd still like to see what they do against someone with a pulse first. Carpenter has been solid, but not spectacular considering the hype and the opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did kill a team at home who beat a team at home who played a team you have ranked 2nd sort of tough IIRC. Transitive property, sort of joking. Colorado may be terrible or not... I do not know. I think I'd drop UCLA after Olson looked kind of bad against BYU.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#6 - Washington (2-0): Syracuse looks horrendous, and Boise State looks to no longer have a capable quarterback so their run as a perennial mid-major power may be over. For this reason Washington's spectacular start has to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still been spectacular. With a true freshman at the helm the season will likely be up and down, but this team seems to be clearly on the upswing and should be a threat to everyone they play. OSU next week will tell us a lot about how good (or possibly overrated) this team is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overrated?

Since when are they even rated? I wouldn't put them in the top 25 yet. Most that are doing it will likely take them right back out after next week.

They should lose to OSU next week. I'm figuring on that. Penciled that in well before the season started. But this team is head and shoulders above last years team. Last years team almost beat USC and Cal, both @USC and @Cal.

They don't have alot of 'great' players but the chemistry seems to be clicking alot more this year which may help them overachieve a little.

If you remember the team of 3-4 years ago, which was absolutely sh*tty, you'd realize just how big these 2 wins are and just how far they've come.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were "overranked", I indicated that it's possible they're "overrated". If Syracuse and Boise turn out to both just be terrible (not an impossible occurence) it could turn out that Washington actually isn't that much better this year after all, in which case they would be overrated at this moment. If they lose to OSU by 40, it would suggest that perhaps this is the case, and all I was doing was pointing out that it is possible, not claiming it was likely to actually be the case.

I do understand how big those two wins are and how far they've come. Hence, my references to a "spectacular start" and a team "clearly on the upswing". Not to mention putting them sixth which I never would have done for the past couple years.

[ QUOTE ]
The Beavers started slow last year also. Then beat USC on the way to a 9-4 record.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but that doesn't mean a slow start is something to make a habit of, and it certainly doesn't mean that starting slow indicates likely success. The Beavers are 118th!!! in passing efficiency, nationally right now. Yvenson Bernard ran wild on Utah, but was held to 1.9 yards per carry by Cincinnati. Lets look at some OSU offensive ranks, nationally:
Rushing Offense - 71st
Passing Offense - 80th
Pass Efficiency - 118th
Total Offense - 86th
Scoring Offense - 106th
And since those numbers indicate a lot of three and outs, this number becomes relevant: Net Punting - 104th
Also, Turnover Margin - 116th

The defense is good, especially the front seven which is fantastic. I can give credit where it's due, they have the #3 rushing defense, are tied for 8th in sacks, 17th in tackles for loss, but are 48th in passing defense and 55th in pass efficiency defense. Not terrible, but considering the pressure they put on QBs, it doesn't say great things about their coverage or their vulnerability to big plays.

My point is, I've watched both of their games, and I think it's an understatement to call it a "slow start", and from what I've seen of the rest of the Pac Ten, only Stanford looks worse right now. It's not like Cincinnati and Utah are powerhouses, there is no excuse for offensive numbers that bad.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

As a USC fan, the PAC10 scares me this year. Running the table is going to be tough, and having watched Booty in every game he has played, I don't buy the fact he is the next leinart or palmer.

And as a huge PAC10 homer, I am glad that the conference is finally getting some respect.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#5 - Arizona State (2-0): Two big wins over two bad teams. The run defense has been stifling, holding both opponents under two yards per carry. This team could be 7-0 before they play Cal, @ Oregon, @ UCLA, and USC, but I'd still like to see what they do against someone with a pulse first. Carpenter has been solid, but not spectacular considering the hype and the opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did kill a team at home who beat a team at home who played a team you have ranked 2nd sort of tough IIRC. Transitive property, sort of joking. Colorado may be terrible or not... I do not know. I think I'd drop UCLA after Olson looked kind of bad against BYU.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought about dropping UCLA, but couldn't justify if for lack of anyone to elevate. Oregon still worries me too much, specifically defensively. You could argue that being 97th in total defense (106 vs. the run, 70 vs. the pass) but tied for 29th in scoring defense indicates a "bend but not break" defense, but I see it as disaster waiting to happen. Clearly it's due mostly to turnovers, (#3 turnover margin nationally) and those seem more likely to be good fortune than something to expect to continue. Eventually someone will convert those yards into points.

Beating Michigan is of questionable value, given how solidly they are down on the mat right now, and getting outplayed by Houston in the first half looked ugly. I can't quite justify moving the Ducks ahead of UCLA *yet*.

As for ASU, like I said, they haven't proven anything. UCLA's position is definitely tentative, and Oregon could take it with a good performance against Fresno, ASU could take it eventually (though it will be hard to prove much against SDSU), and Washington has a shot to grab the spot if they look good enough against OSU. Right now though I just can't *quite* justify anyone leapfrogging the Bruins... check back next week.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

Exciting start for us Ducks fans. I don't care what people say, the Michigan win was huge for us. But now, looking at the Pac10 schedule, I'm terrified.

Washington, Oregon, Cal, USC, and UCLA all have the potential to beat any team in the Pac10 any given week. For the Ducks, I'm excited we get both Cal and USC at home (we have to win one of those games). But now I'm worried about the road game at Washington. A one loss season for any team in this conference should guarantee a BCS.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#5 - Arizona State (2-0): Two big wins over two bad teams. The run defense has been stifling, holding both opponents under two yards per carry. This team could be 7-0 before they play Cal, @ Oregon, @ UCLA, and USC, but I'd still like to see what they do against someone with a pulse first. Carpenter has been solid, but not spectacular considering the hype and the opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did kill a team at home who beat a team at home who played a team you have ranked 2nd sort of tough IIRC. Transitive property, sort of joking. Colorado may be terrible or not... I do not know.

[/ QUOTE ]
As for your transitive property, that's one of the perils of week two analysis. Does Colorado State beat Houston in two weeks, while Cal returns to form and blows out LA Tech next Saturday? If so, maybe Colorado's OT win isn't a huge black mark, and ASU's win over the Buffaloes is valuable. Colorado vs. Florida State will also help decipher the situation. ASU can definitely gain a lot more ground in my mind through OTHER teams winning than they can by winning themselves next week. For the moment, though, I'm going to look at the fact that Cal was up 34-14 before CSU scored twice in the last four minutes, and continue to assume both Colorado schools suck until proven otherwise.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exciting start for us Ducks fans. I don't care what people say, the Michigan win was huge for us. But now, looking at the Pac10 schedule, I'm terrified.

Washington, Oregon, Cal, USC, and UCLA all have the potential to beat any team in the Pac10 any given week. For the Ducks, I'm excited we get both Cal and USC at home (we have to win one of those games). But now I'm worried about the road game at Washington. A one loss season for any team in this conference should guarantee a BCS.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely huge. I'm born and raised in Eugene, and could not have possibly been happier watching that on Saturday. The Pac Ten is scary top to bottom (well, top to ninth) this year, though, like you say. The last few seasons have taught me my lesson about getting too excited about early success, and I've seen a lot of weaknesses in those first two games that I'm worried about. If Dixon's inconsistency shows back up... *shudder*. Here's hoping they can keep it up, GO DUCKS!!!
</homerism> I'm trying to be objective on this thread.