Looking around the Pac
(Written by kencraw)
Now that the traditional non-conference weeks of the season is over I’m going to start up a weekly item on the state of the Pac-10.
- The two frauds of the conference, albeit at different levels, were both exposed to be frauds. Of course no one expected Arizona to be one of the best in the conference, but there were a number who put them as the top of the 2nd tier teams. After their loses to BYU and more distressingly New Mexico AT HOME, they’re clearly back at the bottom of the barrel. If Arizona doesn’t turn it around before September is done, Stoops will need to buy stock in HP for all the resumes he’ll be printing up. Arizona’s boosters aren’t going to be satisfied with another November run that barely gets Arizona bowl eligible.
- The other fraud is of course UCLA. Their ranking leading up to this week was inexplicable. Just about every pundit admitted that UCLA was over-rated, but it never seemed to matter in the actual rankings. Everyone knew but didn’t want to admit it to themselves. Of course their drop from number 11 to number 30 after their 44-6 beat-down from winless Utah is proof that the voters knew but didn’t want to admit it.
- The positive surprise of the conference, at least to me, is Washington, even after the loss at home to Ohio State. Nobody expected Washington to amount to anything and it was only overly optimistic thoughts that led people to think they could upset Ohio State, so I don’t see that loss as a disappointment. Before the season began people thought they’d likely start the season, 1-6 and even that one win wasn’t a guarantee. They’ve already got 2 wins under their belt and there’s good reason they can win 2 of the next 4 and have the worst part of their schedule behind them. With the exception of the Cal game, there’s not reason to think they couldn’t win everyone of the rest of their 6 games.
- Oregon looks to be good, but they’re still a wildcard in my book. I’ve always thought highly of them and their talent, but they’ve had consistency problems. The fact that they beat an emotionally devestated Michigan and a usually stout but suspect Fresno State doesn’t impress me… yet. Of course it’s definitely looking like the Cal vs. Oregon game in two weeks is going to be a very important game. Just don’t be surprised if Cal comes away with just as convincing a win as they did last year. Oregon hasn’t proven themselves to me yet.
- Arizona State is the other big wildcard in my book. The difference to me is that ASU doesn’t have the hype that Oregon does. They could be every bit as good as Cal and Oregon or they could be weaker than Washington and OSU. Unfortunately they play all the worst teams in the conference first so unless they proof themselves to be as much of a fraud as UCLA by losing early, we won’t know anything about them until they play Cal at the end of October.
- Will the real Oregon State stand up please? So which team is the “real” OSU? Is it the team that handled the same Utah team that destroyed UCLA or is the team that got hanlded by a middle of the road Cincinati team? Or perhaps their win of I-AA Idaho State, despite a score in the 60’s, doesn’t mean anything. So far they look like the standard Oregon State: Strong enough to beat just about anyone in the conference when the chips fall right (and they love the spoiler role) but not good enough to win on a consistant basis.
- Washington State seems to be similar to Oregon State although a notch lower on the totem pole. I expect them to come up with one signature win and that’s about the end of it. Let’s put it this way, I’m glad Cal has them at home, just like with Oregon State. That said, I’m not expecting them to play in a bowl, although they just might sneak into bowl eligibility with a 6-6 record.
- Wrapping up the last couple teams, USC continues to be the team to beat. I don’t know if they have what it takes to go undefeated this year, particularly with how many strong or dangerous teams there are in the Pac-10, but they’re still the favorites to win the Pac-10 until/unless Oregon, Cal or potentially ASU upset them (the rest of the teams, even if they can pull the upset, couldn’t win the Pac-10).
- Finally, Stanford… has Arizona gotten so bad to lift Stanford out of the basement? It’s hard to tell because from all appearances, San Jose State stinks and one can’t determine much from Stanford’s “lauded” victory over them. All I can say is that they’re not good. I’m not sure that they’re 1-11 bad, but I still see a 3-4 win ceiling for them. The trees will consider 4 wins a success.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Rankings are arbitrary; they never make much sense until the end, since there’s so much turnover in the first few weeks. Teams are overrated until they’re beaten and underrated until they upset someone. Rankings are just water cooler talk that means nothing until you get to Week 8 or 9.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I fear Oregon and Dixon more than ever now that our D line is banged up. If our offense doesn’t get on track we will have serious problems keeping up with UO in Autzen.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:44 am
I disagree about the rankings, sure if you lose you will fall, but if you are up high and you don’t lose, you will not fall. If you go into the season ranked 15-25 it’s almost impossible to get to 1 or 2. That’s why some teams play cupcakes in their non.conf. games and they play them at home.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:52 am
bar20, I assume you were disagreeing with Avinash? (Because no one ever dares to disagree with me 😉 ).
The way I’ve always thought of it is that early season rankings are the tie-breaker of the end of the season. If you look at the end of seaons rankings, generally the undefeated teams are on top, the one loss teams are the next group, etc. It’s actually suprisingly scary low little overlap there is between the beginning of the 2 loss and the end of the 1 loss.
Point being, if you can get through the end of the season with only 1 loss, no matter where you started, you’re going to be ranked above most 2 loss teams. However, where you finished amongst the 1 loss teams very much seems to be determined by where you were ranked early in the season. In other words, it’s the tie-breaker amongst 1 loss teams. The same logic applies for 2, 3 and 4 loss teams (which is generally the floor of being ranked in the top-25).