|
|
Post by cbeavs1 on Dec 29, 2017 18:43:02 GMT -8
There is a lot of different factors in determining strength of conferences in college football. Even though the bowl game wins and losses is most often the result of the actual game matchup generally, it is becoming fairly clear that the Pac-12 is by far the weakest of the Power 5 conferences imho. I don't know exactly why the Pac-12 has fallen off in quality so much lately, but something needs to happen to get the Pac-12 back to at or near the top. What are the reasons you/others see for this decline? Just curious. I have some theories but they are definitely kind of out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Dec 29, 2017 19:21:54 GMT -8
spit ballin here
emphasis on the offenses on speed. Chip created a monster. So the D's had to adapt. Defenses got smaller to keep up with the offenses. We are giving up 40+ in our bowl games.
WAG
(plus Darnold sucks donkey balls. Top of the broadcast Huard says something like If he decides to go he could be top pick in the draft. LOL. 3 TO's later....)
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Dec 29, 2017 20:15:44 GMT -8
I think it's a bit of coaching, as well. The Pac 12 is chalk full of good, but not great, coaches. --Helton? He's good, maybe just pretty good. SC's getting good season out of him, but they get the talent to be in the stratosphere. They are not going to be a consistent world-beater under Helton. --Shaw? Good, not great. It's starting to look like he doesn't evaluate and/or develop QBS very well. --Peterson? Excellent. Great? Along with Meyer, Saban et al? Probably a notch below. But I think the jury is still out and he may turn out to be a top-level coach. --Leach? Good. Limited by WSU or just not quite good enough to push them over the top? --Rodriguez? Graham? Willingham? McIntyre? Wilcox? Mora? Those guys appear to be anywhere from not gettin' the job done (as evidenced by a couple of ousters) to pretty good. Jury may be out on Wilcox.
No one in the Pac 12 over the past year have been good enough to classify in the top tier of coaches in the country. Maybe Peterson, but no one else, at least not from what they proven in the Power 5 level. Chip Kelly's back, and that's a real threat, but we'll see.
I also think that the Pac 10/12 has always been fairly weak on the lines compared to other conferences. We just don't have the beef in the west that the Midwest and south have. Every year, the Pac's top 1-2 teams may have solid line play that can compete with the rest of the country, but the rest by and large get pushed around the field to at least some degree by the other Power 5 conferences. Sometimes they can hide it with speed, but not always.
This year the Pac is really showing its weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 29, 2017 20:44:47 GMT -8
I think it's a bit of coaching, as well. The Pac 12 is chalk full of good, but not great, coaches. --Helton? He's good, maybe just pretty good. SC's getting good season out of him, but they get the talent to be in the stratosphere. They are not going to be a consistent world-beater under Helton. --Shaw? Good, not great. It's starting to look like he doesn't evaluate and/or develop QBS very well. --Peterson? Excellent. Great? Along with Meyer, Saban et al? Probably a notch below. But I think the jury is still out and he may turn out to be a top-level coach. --Leach? Good. Limited by WSU or just not quite good enough to push them over the top? --Rodriguez? Graham? Willingham? McIntyre? Wilcox? Mora? Those guys appear to be anywhere from not gettin' the job done (as evidenced by a couple of ousters) to pretty good. Jury may be out on Wilcox.
No one in the Pac 12 over the past year have been good enough to classify in the top tier of coaches in the country. Maybe Peterson, but no one else, at least not from what they proven in the Power 5 level. Chip Kelly's back, and that's a real threat, but we'll see.
I also think that the Pac 10/12 has always been fairly weak on the lines compared to other conferences. We just don't have the beef in the west that the Midwest and south have. Every year, the Pac's top 1-2 teams may have solid line play that can compete with the rest of the country, but the rest by and large get pushed around the field to at least some degree by the other Power 5 conferences. Sometimes they can hide it with speed, but not always.
This year the Pac is really showing its weaknesses. The Pac 12 lost their last great coach when that Riley guy left for Nebraska. |
|
|
|
Post by prothro on Dec 30, 2017 6:04:49 GMT -8
spit ballin here emphasis on the offenses on speed. Chip created a monster. So the D's had to adapt. Defenses got smaller to keep up with the offenses. We are giving up 40+ in our bowl games. WAG (plus Darnold sucks donkey balls. Top of the broadcast Huard says something like If he decides to go he could be top pick in the draft. LOL. 3 TO's later....) Good point. An element of "me too" always exists when one program enjoys sustained success on a high level. Other schools hire people associated with that program or style they play thinking it will work. But more often than not, the coach hired do not match elements of charisma and ability displayed by their mentor. There is much of that going on in the SEC with programs hiring the next Saban. The end-result being a bunch brain-bereft mini-douches with defense-oriented programs running offenses that would make Dee Andros look like Don Coryell. It is natural to see the success of a particular school and system and emulate it by bringing in someone who will use it at your program. I think it works best when you find people who enjoy a true leadership role within that program and actual responsibility in creating both scheme and in-game adjustments. This is where I would trust someone from the Petersen tree more than I would someone out of the Saban coaching line. |
|
|
|
Post by gart79 on Dec 30, 2017 11:08:25 GMT -8
I agree it is the defensive lines. This year, the d-lines through out the conference were very weak compared to the rest of P5 conferences. This created the illusion that the offensive lines were better than they actually were.
Sadly, we had the worst d-line in the conference (although a case might be made for UCLA) in the worst P5 conference. Yikes.
At the time we thought our performance against Portland State was a one-off. Little did we know that was actually a precursor of what was going to entail for the rest of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 30, 2017 11:20:01 GMT -8
It's cyclical. ACC was pretty bad not too long ago. Same with Big 12. The SEC is top heavy this year, take out the top 3 and its not good. But at least they have a top 3.
But yes, the Pac 12 is awful this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Dec 30, 2017 13:04:16 GMT -8
We were the worst team in the worst of the Power 5, this was a ugly year for football, only thing to do now is go up!
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Dec 30, 2017 13:24:13 GMT -8
We were the worst team in the worst of the Power 5, this was a ugly year for football, only thing to do now is go up! Hell, based on the scores, we were the second worst team in the Big Sky this year. Yes. Please go up! |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Dec 30, 2017 14:49:34 GMT -8
There is a lot of different factors in determining strength of conferences in college football. Even though the bowl game wins and losses is most often the result of the actual game matchup generally, it is becoming fairly clear that the Pac-12 is by far the weakest of the Power 5 conferences imho. I don't know exactly why the Pac-12 has fallen off in quality so much lately, but something needs to happen to get the Pac-12 back to at or near the top. What are the reasons you/others see for this decline? Just curious. I have some theories but they are definitely kind of out there. I think that the work that Scott has done for the conference in terms of marketing, TV deals and bowl affiliations have left a lot to be desired. The lack of national exposure and competitive TV money has been a disappointment. The focus of this conference has always been the proud academic rep, and that is important, but while the SEC and Big 12 place academia light years behind athletics, and the BIG and ACC delineate clearly who the “academic institutions” are, I believe that the #1 priority for the Presidents in the PAC (with the possible exception of uo) is academics. If those leaders would be honest, the impact of exceptional athletic performance - particularly in football and hoops - has an enormously positive impact on everything else at a University. I just returned from spending Christmas with my son’s family in Florida, and there just is no comparison in terms of the emphasis. He just went off about the pathetic lack of committment of OSU’s administration. He (and his generation) can’t comprehend the relatively weak approach. Why would administrations NOT go all in to compete at the highest possible level? In the south, football is a religion, and 95% of the talent there stays there. They have personal trainers in high school, and eat, sleep and breathe football 24/7/365. The other problem for our conference that I experienced first hand was how late our games are on compared the rest of the nation. To watch the Beavs play a 7:00 PST hoops game, I had to stay up past midnight in Florida. The late football games would probably not be finished until 2 or 2:30 in the morning. Kids want to see and to be seen, and our conference is a ghost conference for most all of the talent and media outside of California. The performances of our teams has been an embarrassment and disheartening. Something has got to change, or the PAC 12 will be no more relevant down the road than it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by maximumbeaver on Dec 30, 2017 15:58:04 GMT -8
There is a lot of different factors in determining strength of conferences in college football. Even though the bowl game wins and losses is most often the result of the actual game matchup generally, it is becoming fairly clear that the Pac-12 is by far the weakest of the Power 5 conferences imho. I don't know exactly why the Pac-12 has fallen off in quality so much lately, but something needs to happen to get the Pac-12 back to at or near the top. What are the reasons you/others see for this decline? Just curious. I have some theories but they are definitely kind of out there. I think that the work that Scott has done for the conference in terms of marketing, TV deals and bowl affiliations have left a lot to be desired. The lack of national exposure and competitive TV money has been a disappointment. The focus of this conference has always been the proud academic rep, and that is important, but while the SEC and Big 12 place academia light years behind athletics, and the BIG and ACC delineate clearly who the “academic institutions” are, I believe that the #1 priority for the Presidents in the PAC (with the possible exception of uo) is academics. If those leaders would be honest, the impact of exceptional athletic performance - particularly in football and hoops - has an enormously positive impact on everything else at a University. I just returned from spending Christmas with my son’s family in Florida, and there just is no comparison in terms of the emphasis. He just went off about the pathetic lack of committment of OSU’s administration. He (and his generation) can’t comprehend the relatively weak approach. Why would administrations NOT go all in to compete at the highest possible level? In the south, football is a religion, and 95% of the talent there stays there. They have personal trainers in high school, and eat, sleep and breathe football 24/7/365. The other problem for our conference that I experienced first hand was how late our games are on compared the rest of the nation. To watch the Beavs play a 7:00 PST hoops game, I had to stay up past midnight in Florida. The late football games would probably not be finished until 2 or 2:30 in the morning. Kids want to see and to be seen, and our conference is a ghost conference for most all of the talent and media outside of California. The performances of our teams has been an embarrassment and disheartening. Something has got to change, or the PAC 12 will be no more relevant down the road than it is now. TV times might have affected recruiting for the absolute 5 star kids maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Dec 30, 2017 16:30:49 GMT -8
I think that the work that Scott has done for the conference in terms of marketing, TV deals and bowl affiliations have left a lot to be desired. The lack of national exposure and competitive TV money has been a disappointment. The focus of this conference has always been the proud academic rep, and that is important, but while the SEC and Big 12 place academia light years behind athletics, and the BIG and ACC delineate clearly who the “academic institutions” are, I believe that the #1 priority for the Presidents in the PAC (with the possible exception of uo) is academics. If those leaders would be honest, the impact of exceptional athletic performance - particularly in football and hoops - has an enormously positive impact on everything else at a University. I just returned from spending Christmas with my son’s family in Florida, and there just is no comparison in terms of the emphasis. He just went off about the pathetic lack of committment of OSU’s administration. He (and his generation) can’t comprehend the relatively weak approach. Why would administrations NOT go all in to compete at the highest possible level? In the south, football is a religion, and 95% of the talent there stays there. They have personal trainers in high school, and eat, sleep and breathe football 24/7/365. The other problem for our conference that I experienced first hand was how late our games are on compared the rest of the nation. To watch the Beavs play a 7:00 PST hoops game, I had to stay up past midnight in Florida. The late football games would probably not be finished until 2 or 2:30 in the morning. Kids want to see and to be seen, and our conference is a ghost conference for most all of the talent and media outside of California. The performances of our teams has been an embarrassment and disheartening. Something has got to change, or the PAC 12 will be no more relevant down the road than it is now. TV times might have affected recruiting for the absolute 5 star kids maybe? I do believe that unless the coach out here has deep roots in a hotbed (ie hole’s staff in Florida this past year (or the occasional 5* kid with a 140 IQ who chooses Stanford), California is it for our conference. While there is a boatload of talent in Cali, everyone west of the Rockies and north of Oklahoma stocks their rosters with those kids. That’s a lot of schools pursuing a relatively small pool of 4 and 5 star kids, particularly after the LA schools take their pick of the litter. The coaching is so meh at both of those schools right now that they aren’t helping this conference nationally. |
|
|
|
Post by nexus73 on Dec 30, 2017 16:40:25 GMT -8
Pac-12 winds up 1-8. If we were still the Pac-10 it would have been an 0-fer. This won't help the cause of getting our conference champ into the Playoffs in 2018.
|
|
