Not sure why some are placing the PAC-10 above the Big 12 as their only elite power (always being consider in the top 10) is USC.

Big 12 has UT, Nebraska (say what you will about them at this moment), and OU, and CU and Texas Tech are nice sleepers.

As for the original post, and Louisville giving the Big East a "top tier" score... Huh?

If I were to score it:

SEC
Big 10.5
Big 12/ACC (tied based on being able to argue one over the other)
PAC 10
Big East
C-USA
MWC/WAC (depends on Boise and FSU this year)
MAC
SBC

eldermars Wrote:

wolf pack 1 Wrote:

eldermars Wrote: Big XII title game: Nebraska over Texas Tech.

Hmm interesting pick. The pressure is on Nebraska this year but I think the sleeper will be Colorado.

Colorado State fans seem to think that Colorado will be the worst team in the Big XII this year.

Yeah I am sure that many Utah fans think BYU will be the worst team in the MWC and all that. I still think Colorado will be the team to watch for one reason or another in the Big 12 this year. I also think this is the do or die year for Callahan in Nebraska.

DAgg Wrote:Not sure why some are placing the PAC-10 above the Big 12 as their only elite power (always being consider in the top 10) is USC.

Big 12 has UT, Nebraska (say what you will about them at this moment), and OU, and CU and Texas Tech are nice sleepers.

Well because the PAC-10 has not only USC, but Oregon (ranked last year) Cal that has come on stronger, UCLA that was ranked as well, Arizona State that won their bowl. They have potential sleepers in OSU, WSU and even UW.

The Big XII last year was down. Oklahoma lost to TCU, Colorado was blown out in its last 2 games, and Texas Tech played no one of significance outside of the league. I think that they even had a losing record to the MWC. (I know it does not prove everything, but still.)

Quote:Well because the PAC-10 has not only USC, but Oregon (ranked last year) Cal that has come on stronger, UCLA that was ranked as well, Arizona State that won their bowl. They have potential sleepers in OSU, WSU and even UW.

Not sure why you use one year of data for analysis. How many times have you seen teams in the Big 12 have a back-to-back down years, conference wide?

Quote:Oklahoma lost to TCU

... but beat Oregon

I understand the question poses conference rankings for this year, which suggests considering last years records, but you cannot ignore a conference that has 3 elite programs in Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and the history they bring which can bring the conference strength back up from down years. PAC-10 only has USC as a elite program. Without USC, the PAC-10 loses a lot of strength. Without one of the three aforementioned, the Big 12-minus-one still has strength at the top.

PAC-10, at the top: Cal, USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA.

Big XII, at the top: Nebraska, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Iowa State.

Last year Utah beat Arizona, TCU beat OU, Air Force beat Washington, Colorado beat Colorado State, New Mexico beat Missouri, UCLA beat SDSU, Oregon beat Fresno, Oregon State beat Boise State, USC beat Fresno, Cal beat BYU, OU beat Oregon, and Texas beat USC. Arizona State won their bowl game against Rutgers. I think UCLA beat Northwestern in their bowl game. I think Nebraska beat Michigan and Alabama beat Texas Tech. TCU beat Iowa State.

Forget last year. This year, BYU plays Arizona, Utah plays UCLA, Boise State plays Oregon State, Fresno plays Oregon, CSU plays Colorado, New Mexico plays Missouri, TCU plays Baylor and Texas Tech. I'm missing some.

USC, Texas, OU, UCLA, and Colorado will be worse this year.
Cal, Nebraska, Arizona State, and Iowa State should be better.
Oregon and Texas Tech may be better, or worse.

DAgg Wrote:Not sure why you use one year of data for analysis. How many times have you seen teams in the Big 12 have a back-to-back down years, conference wide?

2005
3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.96 80.02 ( 2) 12
4 PAC-10 (A) = 77.92 78.65 ( 3) 10

2004
2 PAC-10 (A) = 77.84 78.89 ( 1) 10
4 BIG 12 (A) = 76.42 77.08 ( 3) 12

2003
4 PAC-10 (A) = 76.37 76.79 ( 3) 10
5 BIG 12 (A) = 76.25 75.61 ( 5) 12

2002
1 BIG 12 (A) = 79.01 78.17 ( 2) 12
2 PAC-10 (A) = 78.84 79.14 ( 1) 10

2001
2 BIG 12 (A) = 79.26 78.60 ( 2) 12
3 PACIFIC-10 (A) = 78.90 78.05 ( 3) 10

2000
1 PACIFIC-10 (A) = 78.93 79.60 ( 1) 10
2 BIG 12 (A) = 77.91 77.91 ( 2) 12

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin-archive.htm

Well this myth that the PAC-10 is the second weakest BCS league is not supported by the Sagarin ratings over the past 6 years. The lowest they have ever finished below 4th (and only went that low 2 times) I really don't have time to run a 6 year average, but the PAC-10 is more than just USC. They have had teams play for the NC the past 3 years and Oregon should have in 2001 instead of Nebraska. (They finished #2.) Cal should have been BCS bound in 2004-05, but Texas got the bid instead. (Although my main gripe is Pitt being in the Fiesta Bowl.) The PAC-10 is just a league that has had a lot of parity until USC made a resurgance a couple of years ago. But this is a league that has had 8 teams win at least a share of the legue championship in the past 10 years. (Everyone but Cal and Arizona has been in a major BCS bowl since 1996.) They don't have traditional powers, they all seem to just have teams with good years and rotate.

That is why I think that they are underrated and why I put them ahead of the Big XII. I don't buy into the Nebraska hype, nor Callahan. CU is having problems, K-State just hired a new coach. Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State are wildcards, but I don't think any will overly impress. In the South Texas may take a step back, Tech I think will be about the same, Oklahoma may slightly improve, and A&M is anyone's guess. Baylor seems to be improving, but what else could they do. I just guess my thought is that they will not be a top 3 conference this year.

I understand what you're saying... I actually had this argument with someone on our Crimson Storm site and showed the top 25 and bowl history over the past 10 years of both conferences and the Big 12 showed better. Reason being... they have 3 teams that on any year can be in the top 5. That carries a lot of weight.

eldermars, sorry bud, but I tend to ignore your posts based on the bright colors and disertations you write. If you tone it down some, get to the point, we may get your point. (Don't take this as a slam, though... not intended as such).

Here's a article that gets to the gist of my point:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=...&type=lgns

DAgg Wrote:I understand what you're saying... I actually had this argument with someone on our Crimson Storm site and showed the top 25 and bowl history over the past 10 years of both conferences and the Big 12 showed better. Reason being... they have 3 teams that on any year can be in the top 5. That carries a lot of weight.

I have a hard time with the polls proving which conference is superior. The Sagarin ratings, though flawed in some ways, don't have human bias, which polls do. I don't doubt your analysis, and I'm sure that using that criteria the Big XII is superior. However, the BCS mainly uses Sagarin ratings to calculate conference strength (and TV ratings :shhh: .) That is why I think it is that the PAC-10 is an underrated league. I'm not saying it is superior to the Big XII, just that they are very comparable.

Incidentally the PAC-10 has had a team in the top 5 every year since the formation of the Big XII except 1999. (And in the Sagarin ratings.) And in 2000 they had two teams in the top 5. And while the Big XII may have 3 powers, they also have some pretty bad teams. Baylor has never had a winning record in Big XII play. Kansas has had 1 winning record (last year.) No PAC-10 has gone without a winning season in the past 10 years, and every single team has been ranked. (Most in the top 10, all but Stanford have been in the top 10 since the formation of the Big XII conference in 1996.) So the dregs of the Big XII seem to be worse than the bottom feeders in the PAC-10 IMO. (And that does seem to be the reason that they have been rated high in the Sagarin ratings.)

I just simply disagree with those who say that the other BCS conferences not named the Big East are significantly better than the PAC-10.

eldermars Wrote:
PAC-10, at the top: Cal, USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA.

Big XII, at the top: Nebraska, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Iowa State.

Last year Utah beat Arizona, TCU beat OU, Air Force beat Washington, Colorado beat Colorado State, New Mexico beat Missouri, UCLA beat SDSU, Oregon beat Fresno, Oregon State beat Boise State, USC beat Fresno, Cal beat BYU, OU beat Oregon, and Texas beat USC. Arizona State won their bowl game against Rutgers. I think UCLA beat Northwestern in their bowl game. I think Nebraska beat Michigan and Alabama beat Texas Tech. TCU beat Iowa State.

Forget last year. This year, BYU plays Arizona, Utah plays UCLA, Boise State plays Oregon State, Fresno plays Oregon, CSU plays Colorado, New Mexico plays Missouri, TCU plays Baylor and Texas Tech. I'm missing some.

USC, Texas, OU, UCLA, and Colorado will be worse this year.
Cal, Nebraska, Arizona State, and Iowa State should be better.
Oregon and Texas Tech may be better, or worse.

I don't see how you can say Texas will be worse this year. You understand they are better all around. They lost Vince which is a blow but they have a lot of young talent there and WILL win the Big XII next year pretty easy. Outside of Vince they also lost Ramonce Taylor but Jamaal Charles and their young recievers are more than talented enough to not make that matter.

Big XII at the top (how it really is): Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas Tech.

eldermars Wrote:
I won't disagree that the Emerald bowl sucks. The MWC got out for a reason.

It's funny how MWC fans like to spin things their way, the real reason the MWC got out of the Emerald bowl was because it was kicked out of it. The Emerald bowl decided to go with the ACC #7 to play the PAC #5 team. The ACC #7 team seemed more attractive to them than a MWC #2/#3 team. "The MWC got out for a reason." LOL, yeah right, you should of said: the MWC got out and the reason was because the Emerald didn't want them anymore, not because they wanted to get out. lmfao

erdaaggie, I verified each years ending polls with bowl wins and losses.

Juice752 Wrote:

eldermars Wrote:
PAC-10, at the top: Cal, USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA.

Big XII, at the top: Nebraska, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Iowa State.

Last year Utah beat Arizona, TCU beat OU, Air Force beat Washington, Colorado beat Colorado State, New Mexico beat Missouri, UCLA beat SDSU, Oregon beat Fresno, Oregon State beat Boise State, USC beat Fresno, Cal beat BYU, OU beat Oregon, and Texas beat USC. Arizona State won their bowl game against Rutgers. I think UCLA beat Northwestern in their bowl game. I think Nebraska beat Michigan and Alabama beat Texas Tech. TCU beat Iowa State.

Forget last year. This year, BYU plays Arizona, Utah plays UCLA, Boise State plays Oregon State, Fresno plays Oregon, CSU plays Colorado, New Mexico plays Missouri, TCU plays Baylor and Texas Tech. I'm missing some.

USC, Texas, OU, UCLA, and Colorado will be worse this year.
Cal, Nebraska, Arizona State, and Iowa State should be better.
Oregon and Texas Tech may be better, or worse.

I don't see how you can say Texas will be worse this year. You understand they are better all around. They lost Vince which is a blow but they have a lot of young talent there and WILL win the Big XII next year pretty easy. Outside of Vince they also lost Ramonce Taylor but Jamaal Charles and their young recievers are more than talented enough to not make that matter.

Big XII at the top (how it really is): Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas Tech.

I don't know about having Nebraska that high. However I think this will be the year they ahve to do something big on their side. However I think if Texas A&M can get their heads on right they could be up there fighting this year.

eldermars Wrote: This was the way the conferences finished in 2005 according to Sagarin. I doubt it will change much in 2006.

2005 Overall Conference Rankings
1 Big 10 Conference (11) 80.6
2 Big 12 Conference (12) 80.0
3 Pacific 10 Conference (10) 78.7
4 Atlantic Coast Conf. (12) 78.3
5 Southeastern Conference (12) 74.9
6 Big East Conference (8) 72.4
7 Mountain West Conf. (9) 69.6
8 Conference USA (12) 64.7
9 Mid-American Conf. (13) 62.3
10 Western Athletic Conf. (9) 61.5
11 Sunbelt Conference (8) 54.2

2006 Sagarin Week 4
CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 PAC-10 (A) = 79.26 79.41 ( 1) 10
2 BIG TEN (A) = 77.84 77.22 ( 2) 11
3 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 77.45 77.05 ( 4) 12
4 BIG 12 (A) = 77.18 77.12 ( 3) 12
5 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.31 75.28 ( 6) 12
6 BIG EAST (A) = 75.01 75.60 ( 5) 8
- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
- I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 71.60 71.47 ( 8) 3
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 71.09 71.80 ( 7) 9
- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
8 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 65.20 65.69 ( 9) 9
9 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 64.93 64.95 ( 10) 12
10 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 61.95 61.61 ( 11) 13
11 GREAT WEST (AA)= 60.78 59.58 ( 12) 5
-- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
12 SUN BELT (A) = 57.18 57.37 ( 14) 8


#7 (not including Indys) MWC is closer to #5 ACC than to #8 WAC. As usual.

1. SEC -- much improved over last year
2. Big 10 -- Teams are dominating
---------
3. Pac-10 -- Pretty solid top to bottom, except for Washington...
4. Big East -- L-ville and WVU -- 'nuff said
----------
5. Big-XII -- North is really bad, and TCU is beating up the South
6. ACC -- By far, worst BCS conference this year. Maybe it's not coincidence that they had the most draft picks last year. Major talent depletion.
7. MWC -- Sucky start, but still better than other non-BCS
8. WAC -- Impressive showing against MWC teams last week.
----------
9. C-USA -- Some bright spots, but overall pretty weak. BYU crushed their champ.
10. MAC -- CMU and Akron did well against BCS, but there are 10 other teams.
--------
11. Sun Belt -- Rename the bodybag conference as that's all it is for southern BCS schools. Only dif between this and a mid-level I-AA league is games against teams from this league count as I-A games for bowl eligibility.