Introducing Pac Ten Week: The State of the League, or We For One Welcome Our Los Angelean Overlords

by SMQ on Aug 14, 2007 5:59 PM EDT in News

Rather than the usual parody, I thought it might be interesting to kick off Pac Ten Week with a look at the actual state of the conference under merciless Trojan rule. 2003 was USC's first outright conference title under Pete Carroll and the freshman campaign of this fall's fifth-year seniors (well, except Herschel Dennis):

*Pac Ten Since 2003*

	Pac 10 Win %	Avg. Margin	Avg. PS#*

Southern Cal	.909	+ 21.2	16.9
California	.697	+ 13.7	81.3

Oregon	.606	+ 2.8	76.9
UCLA	.576	– 0.2	66.4

Oregon State	.546	+ 0.7	100.1
Arizona State	.455	– 2.7	79.9

Wash. State	.424	– 2.9	152.0
Arizona	.273	– 10.7	77.8

Stanford	.273	– 12.9	93.7
Washington	.242	– 9.9	150.6

* - Starters only, according to the ratings and depth charts of Phil Steele. There are ambiguities and discrepancies in this number, and they are not significant.
- - -

The initial goal of this post was to ask whether anyone had a shot at catching USC, but that's a boring exercise on a direct path to hyperbole (the answer, of course, is a decisive no: aside from the routine three-touchdown beatings and the outrageous advantage in the crucial right hand column above, the Trojans have finished #1, #1, #2 and #4 in the AP poll in the relevant seasons and return more game experience than in any of Carroll's first six years). Southern Cal is the king and will remain the king, hail, hail, etc.

But the parity through the middle of the league is more interesting: Oregon, UCLA, Arizona State, Oregon State and even Washington State, so indistinguishable to the rest of the country, really are indistinguishable year to year, so much so that the "average" conference game for each is decided by a field goal or less.

Everybody gets a turn.
- - -

When you add Arizona (6-6 overall last year) and perpetually "improving" Washington to that group, you may be starting to get behind the initially mystifying regard for Pac Ten schedules, which steadily rank as the toughest in the country: about 80 percent of the league looks like a potential seven-game winner almost every year. Seven of Jeff Sagarin's top ten schedules at the end of last season were in the Pac Ten (all ten teams were in his top 15) and Steele's schedule rankings for the upcoming season list Pac Ten teams in the first six spots and all ten teams in the top twelve.

This is generally credited to the addition of a ninth conference game when the other power conferences are scrambling to take on I-AA fodder (only Arizona is dipping into the lower division in the Pac Ten this year, to play Northern Arizona), but those results don't begin to hold up according to opponents' win percentage, where the SEC rules without peer.

But consider that the Pac Ten hasn't put a second team in the BCS since 2002, evidence in itself of consistent intra-league sniping, and in that five-year span has sent four different runners-up to the Holiday Bowl, six different third place teams in six years to the Sun Bowl, four different programs in five years to the Las Vegas Bowl, etc. The class divisions beneath the king are too fluid for that.

Hence: no coup, no revolution. Just fighting for what you can get.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Differing Opinions

You state that the Pac-10's lack of a second BCS team since 2002 is attributed to intra-league sniping, and while I would agree in regards to the 2003 and 2006 seasons, I wonder how you can claim that for the 2004 and 2005 seasons. Cal and Oregon were both teams whose only loss was at the hands of the undefeated and national championship game bound USC Trojans. There is no way you can consider THAT to be intra-league sniping. I would posit that the cause is a lack of respect for the Pac-10 and an eastern media bias.
One might argue that those teams were not worthy of a BCS bid, but you would have a damned hard time proving it without resorting to fallacious reasoning.
Let us take the 2004 season as an example, because I am more familiar with its workings than that of the 2005 season. Without proving one's inability to understand elementary logic, can anyone provide any sort of reasoning to claim that Texas deserved the Rose Bowl bid more than Cal? If bowl results crossed your mind, then I demand that you be labeled an idiot. After the fact knowledge cannot be used as justification for the fact. Cal came within 7 yards (memory hazy due to repression) of beating the #1 team while Texas was FUCKING SHUT OUT by a team of infinitely lesser merit.
Where the hell is the intra-league sniping in that? 2005 was Oregon being passed over in favor of media darling Notre Dame.
2 of the 4 years disagree with your statement.

by Bear from Sacramento on Aug 14, 2007 8:01 PM EDT 0 recs

It's a factual statement

I see what you're saying, Bear, but the Pac 10 hasn't had a second BCS team since 2002. There's nothing to disagree with.

Now, on your actual point, I have no opinion on Cal's snub - they were worthy, but so was Texas, somebody's getting screwed - but I never bought Oregon as a BCS team.

My point from a predictive standpoint is that, over time, no team has set itself up as a plausible contender with USC. Usually there is a viable second place team, but they're hard to peg, and it's a different team every year. Cal has built a little consistency, but they also lost to Arizona last year, same as UCLA did by a huge margin back in '05. I'm trying to say that there is very little stability year to year, or even week to week.

by SMQ on Aug 14, 2007 9:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

7-6 Does Not Mean Pushover.

Lack of stability? Inconsistency? I believe what you're trying to say is "parity."

You talk as though an intraleague hierarchy is somehow a good thing. My goodness, if we could only have Vandy/Miss State/Miss/Kentucky vs. LSU games every day of the week!

You've missed a key point about the Pac 10. All the major conferences have 2-4 cupcakes. As of 2006 (not prior!), the Pac 10 has just one, Stanford.

This is why the Pac 10 is the strongest CONFERENCE. They do NOT, as has been pointed out many times, have the best teams, that honor goes to the SEC. But top to bottom this is the toughest conference. Check out the Pac-10's record against the Big 10 and Big 12 over the past 2 years.

by Bay Area Bear on Aug 16, 2007 2:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

I understand, and agree with the premise

I was disagreeing with the reasoning as to why the Pac-10 has not had multiple BCS teams. I do not happen to think Oregon deserved that BCS bid, but I am positive that ND did not deserve it.

No second team has managed to definitively remove themselves from the pack although I might be willing to argue that Cal has, but I would not have any hard evidence to support such assertions. It is worth mentioning that Cal's recruiting of Quarterbacks has been successful as of late which should prevent any 2005 scenarios from repeating (that team would have been a force had Rodgers stayed for his senior year). How often do teams lose their starting QBs to a season ending injury, then learn that their prized JC transfer back-up cannot "handle the mental aspects of being a starter at the D-1A level"?

Why did you have to mention the Arizona game? I had almost repressed all memories of that game, and then you bring it up. Murphy decided to take part in the outcome of that game which is not to absolve the team of the blame they deserve for the lackadaisical attitude in which that game was played.

When Cal wins the lawsuit against the city of Berkeley, and if Karl Dorrell manages to keep his job, then I am sure you will see Cal distance themselves from the rest of the muddled middle.

by Bear from Sacramento on Aug 14, 2007 10:09 PM EDT 0 recs

Not quite right

(only Arizona is dipping into the lower division in the Pac Ten this year, to play Northern Arizona)

Well, except for Oregon State hosting Idaho State on September 15th.

Turns out that despite everybody's fawning over the Pac 10's non-conference schedule, on average an SEC team plays more BCS NC opponents than a Pac 10 team (1.17 to 1.10)

by JPK on Aug 14, 2007 10:26 PM EDT 0 recs

How Disingenuous of you

Pac-10 teams happen to only play 3 OOC games while SEC teams play 4. Yes, you could mention that they play more BCS OOC, but you would be misrepresenting the facts. According to your numbers, Pac-10 teams play a higher percentage of BCS teams, and that is a lot more relevant.
Oh, and Pac-10 teams happen to play 9 conference games which is more than the SEC.

by Bear from Sacramento on Aug 14, 2007 10:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

How un-ingenuous of you

All I pointed out was that if you take out Stanford (irrelevant) there are three teams in the Pac 10 with respectable OOC schedules, and one of them is Cal 'cause they host Tennessee in a return engagement.

Heck, the fact that they play 9 conference games is counterproductive. That gives 'em five easy wins with less opportunity to play somebody good.

by JPK on Aug 14, 2007 11:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

Continued Southern Idiocy

Determining a conference champion beyond a reasonable doubt is counter productive? Only an idiot would say that they get five easy wins, because they also get five losses. I would guess that the balance actually harms the conference, because they win more than 50% of all OOC games.
Has the SEC used the added game as an opportunity to play more quality opponents? HELL NO. The Conference has used it to increase their winning percentage and the number of bowl eligible teams by scheduling patsies. The louts who follow the various conference teams then tout their conference winning percentages. The conference decided to make money at the expense of fair play or correctly determining a champion.

by Bear from Sacramento on Aug 14, 2007 11:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Awesome

I've never seen a Pac-10/SEC OOC schedule debate before.

by jonathantu on Aug 15, 2007 9:14 PM EDT 0 recs

it's what we do

We're all about breaking new ground here at SMQ, Tu.

by SMQ on Aug 15, 2007 10:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well spoken, SMQ

Tomorrow I expect to see a lively debate centered on whether college football should keep the BCS as is or - and bear with me here - a playoff of some sort.

On the flip side my commentators usually offered me Cialis, so... hey... Cialis.

by jonathantu on Aug 16, 2007 1:09 AM EDT 0 recs

Why is it SEC/Pac-10 getting into it so often?

It's funny that these 2 conferences seem to snipe at each other all the time, considering the distance from, say, UDub to UF is as far as any 2 D-1 schools in the country. I've never gotten into a debate about conference superiority with a Big 10/Big 12/ACC fan in my entire life, but for some reason bringing up the Pac-10 when there are SEC fans around, or vice versa, and it's like you crossed the streams or something. SEC fans won't rest until they've proven the left coast hippies play powder puff football, and Pac-10ers will bludgeon the arrogance of the neanderthal hicks in the south till we're blue in the face. What gives?

by Beatuofa on Aug 16, 2007 3:42 PM EDT 0 recs

or

I think Hawaii to Boston College is probably further.

by Bay Area Bear on Aug 16, 2007 11:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

The SEC has been exposed.

USC's dominance of late has exposed the SEC as a dowager conference trying to live off of past laurels. Yearly there are too many soft games in and outside of the SEC conference.

If it weren't for the Bruin upset of Troy last year those guys in cardinal gold would be sporting some nice gator shoes.

by BruinBrujo on Aug 21, 2007 6:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I beg to differ

I think if USC had beaten UCLA the Trojans would be wearing buckeye loafers, which, altogether, are thoroughly uncomfortable given that nuts don't make ergonomic footwear as a general rule. Excluding the obvious case of pistachios, natch.

by jonathantu on Aug 21, 2007 8:44 PM EDT 0 recs