Seems like all the focus around here is about the "disadvantage" the Big 12 has in terms of making the playoffs versus the other P5.
But, seems to me that the PAC deserves at least as much scrutiny. In fact, so far, the PAC has actually struggled more than the Big 12. Here's why:
1) Like the Big 12, the PAC is 1-1 in terms of getting a team in the playoffs. The other three power leagues are all 2-0.
2) In terms of getting schools in the lucrative, high-profile NY6 games (including playoffs), the conferences are ranked like this over the first two years:
SEC & B1G ... 5
ACC & B12 ... 4
PAC ............. 3
The Big 12 has actually managed to put two teams in the NY6 both years, but the PAC is the only conference to place only one team in the NY6 in either year of the CFP.
And this year doesn't look very promising. Basically, all the chips are on Washington, if they win out they will make the playoffs, but one stumble and the PAC may very well end up with just a single team in the NY6 again.
So why does the PAC get a pass? Maybe it's because having 12 teams doesn't guarantee anything, which runs counter to the "Big 12 must expand" doctrine?
I think Baylor's horrid ooc schedule taints the B12. You can't be the standard bearer with such rank ooc games. You can be the conference chump just fine.
(10-25-2016 12:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]I think Baylor's horrid ooc schedule taints the B12. You can't be the standard bearer with such rank ooc games. You can be the conference chump just fine.
Baylor's win over SMU looks better this week. Plus Washington played Rutgers, Portland State and Idaho....
I think because the Big 12 has been losing teams, the Pac 12 has been gaining teams. That is not just a "psychological disadvantage."
Developing a scoring system for college playoff like your P5 W/L, could be something like this:
2 pts for a playoff spot
1 pt for a NY6 spot
0.5 boost for #1 seed
SEC: 9.5 = 4+5+0.5
BIG: 9 = 4+5
ACC: 8.5 = 4+4+0.5
B12: 8 = 4+4
P12: 7 = 4+3
Not a lot of data to go on, and the numbers are fairly close. Apparently, the B12 spent a lot of money on consultants that said a championship game with a 12 team conference and an 8 game schedule gave them the best chance to get in the playoff. We know how that went down.
On another note, having lived in Pac 12 territory, they have bad fan support for a P5 conference. Blew my mind to see the people leaving the stadium in the 3rd quarter of a winnable conference game. Crazy. Maybe because they don't have the rabid fan support, you don't have people bringing it up all the time.
I believe it's a time zone thing. Overall, I would say the PAC and XII are fairly equal. This is why I expect the PAC to be pick up a few XII schools. Expand the market and talent of the conference.
(10-25-2016 12:22 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2016 12:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]I think Baylor's horrid ooc schedule taints the B12. You can't be the standard bearer with such rank ooc games. You can be the conference chump just fine.
Baylor's win over SMU looks better this week. Plus Washington played Rutgers, Portland State and Idaho....
Oregon was the standard bearer for the P12 until this year. This year would not matter so much but I see the problem as cumulative.
12 - SMU/ULM/Sam Houston
13 - Wofford/Buffalo/ULM
14 - SMU/NW State/Buffalo
15 - SMU/Lamar/Rice
16 - NW State/SMU/Lamar
I think the B12 is penalized for that scheduling. Now if Baylor was playing the role of Kansas this last half decade it would not matter. Or another way of putting it, it doesn't matter who Indiana, Purdue, Wake Forest, NC State, BC, Kansas, Arizona, MSU, Ole Miss, or Vandy play but it does matter at the standard bearer level so it matters for Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, USC, Stanford, and Oregon, etc. It's the SEC west that gets the full pass, and as long as Bama can beat anyone in the playoff's they will keep that pass.
In what sense do you observe the PAC getting a pass?
One thing, for this board, is that I think many people look at the Big 12 like a starving person looks at Big Mac. They want to carve it up and send various teams off to different places.
Another thing, now - and for me this is true, is that this botched circus of expansion has turned people off to the conference. I'm actively rooting against them now, in retaliation.
The PAC 12 is a better, deeper conference
A 9 team round robin doesn't mean much when one of those teams is basically a bye in Kansas
The Big Xii is by far the weakest conference right now...Navy would probably plow through it
It may be a deeper conference, but it's not producing a playoff team....
1st 2 years- they've gotten 1 team in playoffs and 2 in outside of the playoffs in the NY6. So 2 points for the playoff team, 2 points for the 2 other teams. 4 points.
Big 12 got 1 team in playoffs and 3 outside the playoffs. Same scale 5 points.
And the thing is, Big 12 has a great shot to get 2 teams in again this year, whereas the Pac 12 is dangerously close to only getting 1 in. If Washington loses, the Pac 12 only will get in 1 team almost guaranteed- and even there, just the Rose Bowl.
(10-25-2016 01:43 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 is a better, deeper conference
A 9 team round robin doesn't mean much when one of those teams is basically a bye in Kansas
The Big Xii is by far the weakest conference right now...Navy would probably plow through it
2 byes with ISU.
(10-25-2016 01:53 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It may be a deeper conference, but it's not producing a playoff team....
1st 2 years- they've gotten 1 team in playoffs and 2 in outside of the playoffs in the NY6. So 2 points for the playoff team, 2 points for the 2 other teams. 4 points.
Big 12 got 1 team in playoffs and 3 outside the playoffs. Same scale 5 points.
And the thing is, Big 12 has a great shot to get 2 teams in again this year, whereas the Pac 12 is dangerously close to only getting 1 in. If Washington loses, the Pac 12 only will get in 1 team almost guaranteed- and even there, just the Rose Bowl.
Your "in playoff" argument is valid, but the "in NY6" one is weak. A big factor for the non-playoff NY6 bowls is a**es in seats, and they know a Pac12 school's fans aren't traveling across the country to see their 2nd place team play another conference's 2nd place team in a bowl.
Attendance/travel distance will always make it hard for the Pac12 to get a 2nd team into any non-playoff bowl other than the Fiesta.
Because the PAC teams beat each other up, pretty much.
Last year you had Stanford 11-2 ranked #6. Then nothing until Oregon 9-3 ranked #15, Utah 9-3 ranked #22. (CFP final week)
2014 you had Oregon 12-1 #2. Then Arizona 10-3 #10, UCLA 9-3 #14, AZ St 9-3 #15.
Big 12:
2015 had OU 11-1 #4, TCU 10-2 #11, OK St 10-2 #16
2014 had Baylor 11-1 #5, TCU 11-1 #6, K St 9-3 #11
So, quite a bit fewer losses, which I'm guessing were mostly (all?) conf losses.
(10-25-2016 02:02 PM)krup Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2016 01:53 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It may be a deeper conference, but it's not producing a playoff team....
1st 2 years- they've gotten 1 team in playoffs and 2 in outside of the playoffs in the NY6. So 2 points for the playoff team, 2 points for the 2 other teams. 4 points.
Big 12 got 1 team in playoffs and 3 outside the playoffs. Same scale 5 points.
And the thing is, Big 12 has a great shot to get 2 teams in again this year, whereas the Pac 12 is dangerously close to only getting 1 in. If Washington loses, the Pac 12 only will get in 1 team almost guaranteed- and even there, just the Rose Bowl.
Your "in playoff" argument is valid, but the "in NY6" one is weak. A big factor for the non-playoff NY6 bowls is a**es in seats, and they know a Pac12 school's fans aren't traveling across the country to see their 2nd place team play another conference's 2nd place team in a bowl.
Attendance/travel distance will always make it hard for the Pac12 to get a 2nd team into any non-playoff bowl other than the Fiesta.
NY6 selection is done by ranking, not by popularity. Like last year- Pac 12 wound up with Stanford at 6, but the next team was Oregon all the way down at #15. So Oregon wasn't close to getting selected.
Unless or until USC returns to glory and unless or until UCLA lives up to potential, the PAC will continue to have little at the top or bottom and a lot in the middle. It's intrinsically set up to be a conference of parity with only two schools that one would expect to have permanent little brother status (OSU and WSU).
The style of play (predominantly pass heavy) also lends itself to more upsets or unexpected results. Add in a 9 game conference schedule, and the odds of producing two undefeated or one loss teams drops further. It's not a great formula for NY6 placement.
Isn't the Pac 12 3-0 vs the Big 12 in 2016. Sure seems like the Pac12 is stronger.; they play 9 conference games AND a conference championship. They also, for the most part, schedule tougher and perform better in the OOC than the Big12.
It's not "P5" anymore; it should be P4, with the big 12 and their two byes and three "byes" (Kansas, Iowa state, Texas tech) on the outside looking in
Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and West Virginia who are were part of the Big 12 are not blue blood schools like Washington in football. They get a pass, but not those schools.
The Navigate data the Big 12 gathered showed all things equal a 14 team league makes the playoff roughly 87% of the time, a 12 team 75% and a 10 team 63%. IOW, over an 8 year period 14 makes it 7 times, 12 makes it 6 times and 10 5 times. Obviously how top heavy a league is, overall strength make a difference year to year.
The Pac 12's problem is that they like right now only have 4 teams with fewer than 3 losses. With 2 of them with 2 losses. At the conclusion of this weekend- conference will either have 2 1 loss and 2 2 loss teams, or 1 0 loss and 3 2 loss teams. If Washington St goes 3-1 next 4 games- Oregon St, Arizona, Cal, Colorado- the last game of the year would be for the division title- at home for WSU.
I do feel like the Pac 12 is much better than the Big 12 as a conference. BUT- end of the day, it's the top teams in the conference that are measured, not the conference. I mean, last year, the ACC wasn't stronger than the Pac 12, but Clemson was much stronger than Stanford.
PAC is rock solid safe thanks to geography.
L10 is Poland. Surrounded on all sides by bigger powers
(10-26-2016 10:42 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]PAC is rock solid safe thanks to geography.
L10 is Poland. Surrounded on all sides by bigger powers
P12 is safe. But it's got limitations that will be real difficult to navigate. They have challenges much more so than the other 3 conferences outside the Big 12.....
And the way the CFP system is right now, Big 12 is extremely safe. If Texas and Oklahoma stay put, they aren't going anywhere. The question will be- does Texas and Oklahoma feel long term that they have an easier go of things in a weaker Big 12 than they do in a much stronger SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac 12?