#3 Clemson TORCHES UVa in the ACC-CG by 45 points

[chipdouglas]

The PAC is really struggling this year and clearly some distance from sniffing best conference. We rightly take heat for it.

Meanwhile, that 4-OOC game buster-ass ACC conference gets UVa in the title game (UVa was #23, and ranked only because they beat VT) and Clemson stomps a new mudhole in their ass, beating them by an insane 45 points in the conference CG.

I do not believe the PAC is the best conference over time, or that it will be. But outside of Oregon State, there is scarcely a team in the PAC that has not made a real run at some point in the last 20 years. By contrast, the B10 and ACC are packed with teams who have been a guaranteed win on every respectable team's schedule since Dana was doing Bush 41 on SNL. Wake Forest, Syracuse Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Georgia Tech, Pitt UNC, Louisville, UVa, NC State, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern... are you kidding me?

That is all.

 

[Brent H.]

UVA gets to play in the orange bowl now. We’ll have 11-2 team in maybe the holiday bowl. Not getting a team in the playoff is killer to the conference.

 

[royhobbs2]

east coast media bias helps acc, as far as Clemson, I haven't seen them play much-they may be better than most people think. LSU and OSU seem like the title game matchup but it wouldn't surprise me that much if Clemson knocks off someone.

 

[BiggsCoug]

If the conference isnt getting into the playoff and no one watches the games past Colorado..... just cancel all the non con games but 1.... play all 11 teams in the league.... focus on having a great West Coast product and getting butts in seats with great schedules.

 

[OrangeGravy]

If the conference isnt getting into the playoff and no one watches the games past Colorado..... just cancel all the non con games but 1.... play all 11 teams in the league.... focus on having a great West Coast product and getting butts in seats with great schedules.

I could get down with that. It would have been perfect if the B10/Pac10 told the BCS to shove it up their ass and stayed out of the new system with the Rose Bowl

 

[OrangeGravy]

And Virginia was ranked with 3 losses only to make sure Clemson's schedule wasn't completely embarrassing

 

[Glad Cougar]

The PAC is really struggling this year and clearly some distance from sniffing best conference. We rightly take heat for it.

Meanwhile, that 4-OOC game buster-ass ACC conference gets UVa in the title game (UVa was #23, and ranked only because they beat VT) and Clemson stomps a new mudhole in their ass, beating them by an insane 45 points in the conference CG.

I do not believe the PAC is the best conference over time, or that it will be. But outside of Oregon State, there is scarcely a team in the PAC that has not made a real run at some point in the last 20 years. By contrast, the B10 and ACC are packed with teams who have been a guaranteed win on every respectable team's schedule since Dana was doing Bush 41 on SNL. Wake Forest, Syracuse Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Georgia Tech, Pitt UNC, Louisville, UVa, NC State, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern... are you kidding me?

That is all.

Not sure what you mean by a real run, but even OSU has had some excellent years in that 20 year time frame. Right on the edge of that span, in 2000, old Denny Erickson won the conference title and the Beavs finished 11-1 on the season. Mike Riley had three consecutive years of winning at least 9 games.

I agree the ACC is weak, weak, weak. Don't agree the Big-10 falls in that same category. At least this year, Indiana and Illinois have been no more of a guaranteed win than Cal and Arizona State. Northwestern has won 10 games three times in the last 7 years (& 9 games once). I'll grant you that Purdue & Maryland haven't done much in recent years. But it's still tough for a Big-10 team to get through the season unscathed when there's always an Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State (usually, not this year) or Minnesota (this year) on the schedule. That's a lot of good teams, many more of them than what we see in the Pac-12.

Glad Cougar

 

[425cougfan]

If the conference isnt getting into the playoff and no one watches the games past Colorado..... just cancel all the non con games but 1.... play all 11 teams in the league.... focus on having a great West Coast product and getting butts in seats with great schedules.

Sure ... either option A: that ridiculous plan, which would never work anyway (west coast fans are fickle, would become all the more so without any ostensible national relevance, and would get sick of their teams playing the same conference teams), which wouldn't work with TV deals in the short, medium, or long terms, and would basically establish the Pac-12 as a second-tier minor league ... or Option B, which is working to have programs take additional steps to become nationally relevant. Could have been as simple as USC hiring Urban, and I'm not completely convinced Chip won't get there in a few years if he survives. Oregon and Utah might be in a position to get there in future years too. Even could have happened this year if Oregon did a few things differently against Auburn.

You tell me which of these is more feasible or desirable.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Sure ... either option A: that ridiculous plan, which would never work anyway (west coast fans are fickle, would become all the more so without any ostensible national relevance, and would get sick of their teams playing the same conference teams), which wouldn't work with TV deals in the short, medium, or long terms, and would basically establish the Pac-12 as a second-tier minor league ... or Option B, which is working to have programs take additional steps to become nationally relevant. Could have been as simple as USC hiring Urban, and I'm not completely convinced Chip won't get there in a few years if he survives. Oregon and Utah might be in a position to get there in future years too. Even could have happened this year if Oregon did a few things differently against Auburn.

You tell me which of these is more feasible or desirable.

That requires something that only Oregon is willing to do. Spend a shit load of money on football

 

[chipdouglas]

Not sure what you mean by a real run, but even OSU has had some excellent years in that 20 year time frame. Right on the edge of that span, in 2000, old Denny Erickson won the conference title and the Beavs finished 11-1 on the season. Mike Riley had three consecutive years of winning at least 9 games.

I agree the ACC is weak, weak, weak. Don't agree the Big-10 falls in that same category. At least this year, Indiana and Illinois have been no more of a guaranteed win than Cal and Arizona State. Northwestern has won 10 games three times in the last 7 years (& 9 games once). I'll grant you that Purdue & Maryland haven't done much in recent years. But it's still tough for a Big-10 team to get through the season unscathed when there's always an Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State (usually, not this year) or Minnesota (this year) on the schedule. That's a lot of good teams, many more of them than what we see in the Pac-12.

Glad Cougar

Fairly contrarian post there. Oregon State is not on any non-PAC fan's radar.

You and I don't need to agree on every single team. Basic premise is that there are P5 conferences out there where the level of competition in some divisions is not even worthy of the P5 designation. Here are some interesting facts:

• Only 2 teams (Clemson, FSU) have won conference titles in the ACC in the last decade (B10 & P12 each have 4)
• 58% of the B10's 10+ win seasons are "owned" by the Top 3 teams (ACC 53%, P12 40%)

This speaks to a total lack of parity in these conferences that you don't see in the PAC.

What's really scandalous about these conference's ongoing mediocrity at the bottom and the middle is that most teams play a 4-game OOC schedule and they are STILL turning in junior college work (B10 switched to 9 game conference schedule in 2015-16). PAC has always played straightup.

Regarding the B10, I challenge you to find me the same quantity of teams in the P12 that are as consistently down as Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland & Rutgers. There are 5 teams right there which are just turtle food for the heavyweights every single year. Over the same period, all but 1 or 2 in the PAC are upwardly mobile at least for a year or so over any 5-10 year span.

Did you know that 5 teams in the B10 have failed to achieve multiple 10+ win seasons since 2000? By contrast, NO TEAM in the P12 is guilty of this. WSU is a traditional bottom feeder but even we would be a midrange team in the B10 looking at W/L records. Can you imagine what we could have done with an extra OOC win in any of our 4x 10+ win seasons over the last couple of decades?

 

[425cougfan]

I could get down with that. It would have been perfect if the B10/Pac10 told the BCS to shove it up their ass and stayed out of the new system with the Rose Bowl

I'm trying to be as little of a homer as possible.

Fairly contrarian post there. Oregon State is not on any non-PAC fan's radar.

You and I don't need to agree on every single team. Basic premise is that there are P5 conferences out there where the level of competition in some divisions is not even worthy of the P5 designation. Here are some interesting facts:

• Only 2 teams (Clemson, FSU) have won conference titles in the ACC in the last decade (B10 & P12 each have 4)
• 58% of the B10's 10+ win seasons are "owned" by the Top 3 teams (ACC 53%, P12 40%)

This speaks to a total lack of parity in these conferences that you don't see in the PAC.

What's really scandalous about these conference's ongoing mediocrity at the bottom and the middle is that most teams play a 4-game OOC schedule and they are STILL turning in junior college work (B10 switched to 9 game conference schedule in 2015-16). PAC has always played straightup.

Regarding the B10, I challenge you to find me the same quantity of teams in the P12 that are as consistently down as Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland & Rutgers. There are 5 teams right there which are just turtle food for the heavyweights. Did you know that 5 teams in the B10 have failed to achieve multiple 10+ win seasons since 2000? By contrast, NO TEAM in the P12 is guilty of this. WSU is a traditional bottom feeder but even we would be a midrange team in the B10 looking at W/L records. Can you imagine what we could have done with an extra OOC win in any of our 4x 10+ win seasons over the last couple of decades?

1. OS having been good in 2000 just bolsters your point, of course. Even they have been relevant within 20 years, finishing #4 in that 2000 season, and they had a bit of talent (e.g., Ochocinco). That's pretty solid. They opened in the top 10 the next year, too, before falling apart. Not saying OS is nationally relevant in the big scheme of things, just that your point could, at the risk of straining credulity a little, even include them.

2. The Wilners of the world want the Pac-12 to be more like these other conferences, where Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona go something from 3-9 to 6-6 every year and allow the anointed "relevant" teams, generally those in the biggest media markets, to rack up the wins and national recognition. Yeah, the parity in the Pac-12 has its downsides, but as a WSU fan, I appreciate having had WSU win the title within that window and be in the mix for a conference title on multiple other occasions in that span.

 

[chipdouglas]

2. The Wilners of the world want the Pac-12 to be more like these other conferences, where Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona go something from 3-9 to 6-6 every year and allow the anointed "relevant" teams, generally those in the biggest media markets, to rack up the wins and national recognition. Yeah, the parity in the Pac-12 has its downsides, but as a WSU fan, I appreciate having had WSU win the title within that window and be in the mix for a conference title on multiple other occasions in that span.

I agree! What fun is it to be Purdue and to know you are fish food for every team on your schedule every year? What kind of student game culture is that? What a different experience that would have been as a student.

To come back to a point often covered, it is totally criminal that the 8-game schedule was allowed at any time in the last 20 years, or that conferences were - and still are - otherwise playing by different rules.

I say everybody plays 1 tuneup game, 2x P5 noncons selected by lottery (1 road/1 home), and 8x conference games with most in division. This gives you 10 P5 games plus a tuneup. Then expand the playoffs - but the shorter season ensures the champion isn't playing 15+ games a year.

It's just totally insane that we have a subjective committee deciding rankings on a razor thin basis every week when everybody's playing by their own set of rules.

 

[COUGinNCW]

I agree! What fun is it to be Purdue and to know you are fish food for every team on your schedule every year? What kind of student game culture is that? What a different experience that would have been as a student.

To come back to a point often covered, it is totally criminal that the 8-game schedule was allowed at any time in the last 20 years, or that conferences were - and still are - otherwise playing by different rules.

I say everybody plays 1 tuneup game, 2x P5 noncons selected by lottery (1 road/1 home), and 8x conference games with most in division. This gives you 10 P5 games plus a tuneup. Then expand the playoffs - but the shorter season ensures the champion isn't playing 15+ games a year.

It's just totally insane that we have a subjective committee deciding rankings on a razor thin basis every week when everybody's playing by their own set of rules.

I like it. Play the AC/Rivalry games the week before Thanksgiving, conference champion ships the week after and the 1st round of playoffs the next week before a break for finals.
The 9 conference games is not all brutal vs conferences that play 8 but half the teams play an extra road conference.

Playoffs= 5 Conference Champ, 1 Group of 5, 2 at large.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Fairly contrarian post there. Oregon State is not on any non-PAC fan's radar.

You and I don't need to agree on every single team. Basic premise is that there are P5 conferences out there where the level of competition in some divisions is not even worthy of the P5 designation. Here are some interesting facts:

• Only 2 teams (Clemson, FSU) have won conference titles in the ACC in the last decade (B10 & P12 each have 4)
• 58% of the B10's 10+ win seasons are "owned" by the Top 3 teams (ACC 53%, P12 40%)

This speaks to a total lack of parity in these conferences that you don't see in the PAC.

What's really scandalous about these conference's ongoing mediocrity at the bottom and the middle is that most teams play a 4-game OOC schedule and they are STILL turning in junior college work (B10 switched to 9 game conference schedule in 2015-16). PAC has always played straightup.

Regarding the B10, I challenge you to find me the same quantity of teams in the P12 that are as consistently down as Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland & Rutgers. There are 5 teams right there which are just turtle food for the heavyweights every single year. Over the same period, all but 1 or 2 in the PAC are upwardly mobile at least for a year or so over any 5-10 year span.

Did you know that 5 teams in the B10 have failed to achieve multiple 10+ win seasons since 2000? By contrast, NO TEAM in the P12 is guilty of this. WSU is a traditional bottom feeder but even we would be a midrange team in the B10 looking at W/L records. Can you imagine what we could have done with an extra OOC win in any of our 4x 10+ win seasons over the last couple of decades?

I guess there can be a difference of opinion on what makes a better conference: Parity (Pac-12) or a higher number of consistently very good programs (Big-10). In any given year, the Pac-12 usually has a few teams that are at the level of the lower-tier Big-10 teams. It may not always be the same team in the Pac-12, but there is normally a couple of fairly poor teams each year. It isn't 5 teams, like you reference in the Big-10....but in a given year, not all of those consistently down teams you listed are bad (i.e., Illinois & Indiana are bowl teams this year). To me, the difference has been in the top half of the two conferences. There are generally more very good teams in the Big-10 each year (Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Iowa). I don't think the Pac-12 can match that number in most years....and it goes beyond the scheduling. They are just more consistently better programs, IMO. You certainly can't lump the Big-10 with the ACC, which is the thing that got me to respond in the first place.

Glad Cougar