Pac 10 Overrated?

[Bucklion]

Of course our most straightforward way to get in is for ND to lose tomorrow, so we all need to be tree-huggers for a day and root for Stanford.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

you are forgetting that in three of those Bowl Games, the Big Ten #5 seed was matched up against the Pac Ten #3 seed, and in three of those Bowl Games, the Big Ten #6(!) seed was matched up against the Pac Ten #3... considering the disparity of the seeds, and the fact that EVERY one of those Bowl Games takes place in Pac Ten territory ('03 Orange Bowl aside), i'd say that the Big Ten has performed quite respectably... the decks are stacked against the Big Ten, yet they still are .500... that's the sign of a better conference.

This is the key for those bowl results.. The big 10 very rarely gets a fair matchup in bowl games, gives us lots of money this way, but also gives us a bad bowl record for the most part. In the old system I believe the Rose and Citrus are the only bowls were we are matched up evenly with our opponent conference. Now we are the leading conference in getting a second team into the BCS so that makes everygame one worse. Not to mention every bowl game we play is a road game for us, and over half of them are home games for the other team. That makes a HUGE difference.

 

[jwinslow]

Likewise, a mediocre bowl contains mediocre teams. If a mediocre B10 team meets a mediocre Pac10 team...why wuldn't that be a fair assessment?

The same way B10 fans view teams like NW, MSU, Purdue as solid teams that are actual threats...Pac 10 fans feel the same way about ASU, Arizona, and WSU. UCLA and Oregon both put together very solid teams on occasion...maybe not to Michigan's frequency, but still respectable programs.

just b/c there is often a wide range of "mediocre" in the non-bcs bowl teams (as lv pointed out, where a #6 team plays a #3 team). I agree that our homerism leads us to respect our scrappy teams in the big ten and not theirs.

 

[osugrad21]

LV, the pairings are not that far off and actually add to the argument that neither conference is overrated. If the Pac 10 was overrated as stated by a few folks, their #3 seed should be about equivalent to our #5 or #6 eh?

JW, Wide range of mediocrity? Well, the sky is blue. Of course there is a wide range. It works like this, if you weren't in first, challenge for first late in the season, or in the bottom two....you are mediocre. Mediocre is 60% of the teams in America. Mediocre is everyone past #7 or 8 in the top 25. Really...the top 7 or so teams could beat the mess out of each other on any given day. Then, you slide to mediocrity...anyone else just start slapping teams down in your poll when you got to about 15? Mediocrity.

Mediocre = insignificant.

However, my point as the devil's advocate in this thread, is that how can the Pac 10 be overrated when they are holding their own against our "superior" conference? Why are our teams mediocre and their's overrated?
There is a difference between being a homer and just being ignorant to reality.

 

[jwinslow]

I guess the NC factors into it as well. I recognize that while Washington used to be good, they would likely lose to Indiana these days. OSU, Michigan & Penn State have all won NC's in the last decade. USC is clearly dominant, but the only other team to win it during in the last 20-25 years is Washington... and they've slipped pretty far.

The reemeregence of PSU sort of bolsters the strength of the big ten.

I don't think the Pac-10 was a joke in the 90s at all (tho SC was). However, Nebraska can be called a joke now despite how good they were at the turn of the millenium. I'm not sure why I have to use the 90's to judge the 00's version of the conference. Michigan is not as good as the 97 team, however they have consistently fielded a good team (unlike Washington).

I don't think they are overrated (as seen by the lack of love for oregon/cal). I just don't think it is that great of a conference. I think there is plenty of parity, but not much muscle.

There is a difference between being a homer and just being ignorant to reality.

cute. it is possible to acknowledge that ASU, Oregon, even Zona/Stanford can give USC a run for their money... but still not feel they are a legitimate threat for a national championship. but if that renders me ignorant to reality, then so be it

Mediocre is 60% of the teams in America. Mediocre is everyone past #7 or 8 in the top 25.

Sounds like a good definition to judge the two conferences:

I will include the AP rankings for the last 10 years

Pac10
Big-Time: USC (obviously),
Mediocre:
Arizona St (04 #19, 97 #14, 96 #4)
UCLA (01 #19, 00 #3, 97 #18, 96 #15)
WSU (03 #9, 02 #10, 01 #10, 97 #9)
Oregon (01 #2, 00 #7, 99 #19, 95 #18)

the above guys had a few good years, but were far from consistent. lemme check the big names in B10 football to see how they compare

Big10
Big-Time: OSU (obviously ),

 

[osugrad21]

The reemeregence of PSU sort of bolsters the strength of the big ten.

Couldn't the same be said for UCLA? Wouldn't ASU be their Purdue...expected to be contenders but turned out as pretenders? Washington = Illinois. Indiana and Arizona are both improved and on their way.

The simplest way to look at it imo:

Matter

B10--tOSU, scUM, PSU

Pac10--USC, UCLA, Oregon

Doesn't Matter

B10--Illinois, Indiana
Pac10--Washington, WSU, (Arizona)

Mediocre--

B10 -- Minny, Purdue, MSU, Iowa, Northwestern, Wisky
Pac10--Cal, ASU, Stanford, Oregon State, (Arizona)

I put Arizona in mediocre and doesn't matter because they are a dangerous team even if the record doesn't reflect that. In a few years, after Stoops gets some depth, Zona will be challenging for the Pac 10 imo.

Anyway, look at those three categories...some pretty even matchups in there. Hard to call one conference overrated without degrading the other.

cute. it is possible to acknowledge that ASU, Oregon, even Zona/Stanford can give USC a run for their money... but still not feel they are a legitimate threat for a national championship. but if that renders me ignorant to reality, then so be it

Washington 1991...the bottom of the barrel won one in the 90's. Not every conference has 3 traditional powerhouses at the top of the conference. However, many of those conferences are capable of putting together teams that can make a run in any given year.

 

[jwinslow]

OSU - USC (USC wins, but both are clearly elite)
Wisky - Oregon (fairly comparable in polls)
Cal - MSU (both top10 once)
Iowa - WSU (3 year streak of #8-10, comparable)
Penn St - Arizona St (PSU better overall)

That leaves michigan with no peer (UCLA being ranked 4 times, with only one really good year, is not much of a peer)

Pac10
Big-Time: USC (obviously elite)
Mediocre:
Arizona St (04 #19, 97 #14, 96 #4) missed the polls 7 years
UCLA (01 #19, 00 #3, 97 #18, 96 #15) missed 6 years
WSU (03 #9, 02 #10, 01 #10, 97 #9) missed 6 years
Oregon (01 #2, 00 #7, 99 #19, 95 #18) missed 6 years
Cal (04 #9) missed 9 years

the above guys had a few good years, but were far from consistent. lemme check the big names in B10 football to see how they compare

Big10
Big-Time: OSU (obviously )
Michigan (#14, #6, #9, #20, #11, #5, #12, #1, #20, #17) never missed a year
Mediocre:
PennSt (02 #16, 99 #11, 98 #17, 97 #16, 96 #7) missed 5 times...
Iowa (04 #8, 03 #8, 02 #8, 96 #18, 95 #25) missed 5 times
Purdue (03 #18, 00 #13, 99 #25, 98 #24, 97 #15) missed 5 times
Wisconsin (04 #17, 00 #23, 99 #4, 98 #6) missed 6 times
Michigan St (99 #7)

Washington 1991...the bottom of the barrel won one in the 90's. Not every conference has 3 traditional powerhouses at the top of the conference. However, many of those conferences are capable of putting together teams that can make a run in any given year.

very true, I guess this is where our perceptions differ. I realize that Pac10 teams are no pushover in bowl games, I just tend to give them less respect for not having many powerhouse programs.

 

[osugrad21]

So basically, the two conferences are very similar...

Michigan/tOSU can be interchanged in any elite conversation. The Buckeyes have been on top lately, but the roles were reversed 5 years ago. Cal is a program that has made a push lately, while UCLA is a traditional top team that has been down for the past decade or so. However, the Bruins are showing signs of life and could be coming back into the spotlight.

Again, how is one conference overrated and the other is not?

 

[jwinslow]

So basically, the two conferences are very similar...

Michigan/tOSU can be interchanged in any elite conversation. The Buckeyes have been on top lately, but the roles were reversed 5 years ago. Cal is a program that has made a push lately, while UCLA is a traditional top team that has been down for the past decade or so. However, the Bruins are showing signs of life and could be coming back into the spotlight.

OSU-USC, PSU-UCLA (waking giants), Cal-MSU (see chart, both have been ranked once). Michigan and OSU can't be interchanged, b/c they still have been a pretty good team lately. The fact that there are two teams is of significance, even if they aren't as good as during the Woodson era. Cal and ASU do not come close to comparing to Michigan.

Again, how is one conference overrated and the other is not?

I don't think they are overrated (as seen by the lack of love for oregon/cal). I just don't think it is that great of a conference. I think there is plenty of parity, but not much muscle.

 

[osugrad21]

Michigan and OSU can't be interchanged, b/c they still have been a pretty good team lately.

That makes no sense. If the teams are equal, as they usually are, why couldn't they be interchanged?

I don't think they are overrated (as seen by the lack of love for oregon/cal). I just don't think it is that great of a conference. I think there is plenty of parity, but not much muscle.

So the Big 10 is not a very good conference either? That is my point here...how can one be a good conference and the other a not so strong conference if they are so similar? Homerism is a bad excuse.

 

[jwinslow]

That makes no sense. If the teams are equal, as they usually are, why couldn't they be interchanged?

because we are using the big ten's best to compare to the pac10's best. I was merely stating that they need to have separate comparisons in the pac10, since there are two teams. Both would be chosen at times to be "the elite team" versus USC, so who can dream of comparing to the runner up?

So the Big 10 is not a very good conference either? That is my point here...how can one be a good conference and the other a not so strong conference if they are so similar? Homerism is a bad excuse.

because we define good conference different ways. I recognize that A&M, TxTech and Baylor are capable of upsets in a bowl game. That doesn't make me respect the Big12 like the SEC or Big10. Likewise, I know that ASU, Oregon, UCLA and Cal are all capable of beating most teams this year... just as Minnesota, Northwestern, and others can surprise people who haven't followed the big10.

I'm looking for consistent success, and I don't see it anywhere besides USC, and they were pretty mediocre in the 90's (tho that was a much better conference then). I see consistent success at a high level from OSU & UM... and Iowa has been #8 for three years. UCLA may be awakening, but so is PSU. I don't see anyone to live up to the Big Ten's #2 team (whther that be OSU or scUM).

 

[osugrad21]

because we are using the big ten's best to compare to the pac10's best.

And on any given year, either team can be used. Based on the head to head tiebreaker, you better place PSU in that slot this year. Oregon wouldn't give scUM a game this year?

I'm looking for consistent success, and I don't see it anywhere besides USC, and they were pretty mediocre in the 90's (tho that was a much better conference then). I see consistent success at a high level from OSU & scUM... and Iowa has been #8 for three years. UCLA may be awakening, but so is PSU. I don't see anyone to live up to the Big Ten's #2 team (whther that be OSU or scUM).

tOSU was pretty mediocre in the mid to late 80's...scUM has had 3 losses for how many years...3 years does not make a national powerhouse out of Iowa.

Seems like you have two sets of standards for the conferences when assessing success.

 

[jwinslow]

Rather than critiquing my opinion, do you disagree with this?
OSU - USC
PSU - UCLA
Is Oregon = Michigan? I don't think so. I think they've had some good flashes in the pan, but then been nothing the other half of the last ten years.

And on any given year, either team can be used. Based on the head to head tiebreaker, you better place PSU in that slot this year. Oregon wouldn't give scUM a game this year?

I was talking about overall elitism as a program, not merely this year. are you reading my posts? this was in the same post which brought out that comment

I know that ASU, Oregon, UCLA and Cal are all capable of beating most teams this year

3 years does not make a national powerhouse out of Iowa.

I compared Iowa to WSU, NOT a national powerhouse.

 

[osugrad21]

Rather than beating up my statements, do you disagree with this?
OSU - USC
PSU - UCLA
Is Oregon = Michigan? I think they've had some good flashes in the pan, but then been nothing the other half of the last ten years.

I think tOSU/PSU can be interchanged this year and usually tOSU/Michigan. Other than that, yes.

I was talking about overall elitism as a program, not merely this year. are you reading my posts?
I compared Iowa to WSU, NOT a national powerhouse.

If we are discussing overall elitism, you consider Iowa a national powerhouse? Where did your consistency argument go?

As for reading your posts, I am tryiing, but you bounce from argument to argument without much reason and therefore it is difficult. Try sticking with one form of assessment for everyone and one solid argument for once...might help.

How about this, we agree to disagree...we are simply wired differently when it comes to football and competition.

 

[Sloopy45]

Is this conversation regarding perennial status, or 2005 status?

Perennial-ly (don't know if that's a word), its not even close:

Big Ten

Elite Programs:
Ohio State, scUM, Penn State

Middle of the Pack:
Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Illinois

Just Below that:
Minnesota

Bottom of the Barrell:
Northwestern, Indiana

Pac 10

Elite Program:
USC

Middle of the pack:
UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, ASU.

Just Below that:
Cal, Oregon State, Wazu

Bottom:
Stanford

The B10 is much more top heavy than the Pac 10. No question.