CGB Top 25 - Week 9
by ragnarok on Nov 3, 2009 5:00 AM PST
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintIt's a good thing I have two rational, reasonable cohorts to help compile this Top 25 every week; this week, their votes helped to temper my own outrageously reactionary vote: Oregon at #1.
Yes, our final ballot has Oregon at a much more reasonable #4, below three undefeated powerhouses (Florida, Alabama, Texas), but my uninhibited exuberance is the reason they're so high in the first place. Perhaps I'll rethink my vote next week, but for now, Oregon's dismantling of one of the greatest college football dynasties of our time has me completely rethinking what it means to be #1.
But wait, didn't Boise State beat Oregon already this season? And not in a flukey manner, either. Shouldn't they be above the Ducks? I disagree. Boise beat an Oregon team, but not this Oregon team. Oregon is a much, much better team over the last six weeks compared to the first three, after Jeremiah Masoli learned to throw the football and the running game opened up. I'd favor this Oregon team over Boise by at least a touchdown, maybe a good bit more. Frankly, Boise State's overall body of work (which includes not just who they've beaten but how they beat them) is just not as impressive as Oregon's run through a much tougher schedule.
And how can I rank Oregon above the other undefeateds? In particular, Florida and Alabama have played SEC schedules, and Texas has bullied its way through the Big XII. So? The Gators at least have a win at LSU (currently ranked No. 9 in the BCS standings), a 13-3 defensive struggle that only a defensive coordinator could love. Alabama's best win is over No. 23 Virginia Tech, and Texas' best wins are over Oklahoma State and a surprisingly beatable Oklahoma. Good records, worthy of the Top 5, but none of those teams has a win as good as Oregon's. Can you discount the loss to Boise? No. But I've been waiting all year for one team to really impress me, to really show that it was the #1 team in the land, and while Texas' dismantling of Oklahoma State might impress those who thought the Cowboys were really good in the first place, I submit that no performance this year has been impressive as the Ducks' win over USC. And it's not a fluke -- Oregon has looked this good for six weeks now. Had the Ducks scheduled Charleston Southern, like Florida did, or Wyoming, like Texas did, or Florida International, like Alabama did, instead of Boise State, would you then try and argue that the Ducks didn't deserve to be #1?
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida |  1 |
| 2 | Alabama |  1 |
| 3 | Texas | 1 |
| 4 | Oregon | 4 |
| 5 | Cincinnati | 2 |
A little shuffling at the top, while Cincy drops two spots to make way for the much more impressive performances put up by Texas and Oregon last weekend. I guess beating Syracuse by three touchdowns just doesn't do it anymore.
| 6 | Boise State | |
| 7 | Iowa | |
| 8 | TCU | 2 |
| 9 | LSU | |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | 1 |
In no way do I think Iowa is the 7th-best team in the country, but they somehow keep winning. Not only do they overcome 5 interceptions (and 6 total turnovers) to mount a 4th-quarter comeback to beat Indiana, but they somehow managed to cover the 17-point spread. Amazing.
| 11 | Southern Cal | 6 |
| 12 | Pittsburgh | 6 |
| 13 | Penn State | 2 |
| 14 | Miami (Florida) | 1 |
| 15 | Arizona | 2 |
The king is dead! USC tumbles after being completely pantsed by the Ducks last Saturday night, and while I wanted to drop them further, it's hard when teams like Pitt and Penn State still lack an impressive scalp amongst all those wins they've racked up. Heck, Arizona cracks our Top 15, and their best showing so far was only losing by 10 at Iowa!
| 16 | Ohio State | 6 |
| 17 | Utah | 3 |
| 18 | Houston | 1 |
| 19 | Oklahoma | |
| 20 | Brigham Young |
Oh yeah, these teams. They're better than the teams below them, I guess. Maybe. I don't know why Ohio State suddenly jumped six spots; they still have yet to impress me this year, and blanking New Mexico State doesn't prove anything.
| 21 | Oklahoma State | 7 |
| 22 | Virginia Tech | 10 |
| 23 | California | |
| 24 | Notre Dame | 1 |
| 25 | Wisconsin | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
Well, as much as I didn't want to, everyone else in CFB sucks so much that I really had no choice but to vote for our Bears. They were hardly impressive down in Tempe last weekend, but a win's a win's a win. Their best win this season? Perhaps. UCLA, Minnesota and Maryland ain't impressing anyone these days.
Dropped Out: South Carolina (#16), Central Michigan (#21), Mississippi (#23), Navy (#24).
I'm sorry I ever voted for South Carolina -- Spurrier's offense has looked putrid at times this season, and I shouldn't have drawn conclusions from the few bright spots. Ole Miss is winning the 'most overrated team' award this year, and Navy repaid our confidence in them from last week by losing to Temple. However, that's 'bowl eligible Temple', in case you missed it. Crazy.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oregon at 1
Makes sense to me. They have been playing some bone-crushing and over-powering football ever since they beat the snot out of us. And like you implied, it’s not a good game one week and a mediocre game the next. They have been just mashing other teams.
Pretty much every team after the top 5 seems to be a toss-up. Meh.
On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski
It's spelled J-etc
Oregon was the best team in the country in October, no doubt about that. And the Ducks were pretty good for most of September, too. But as long as the rules say every game counts, Boise State has to be ranked ahead of them. If the two were to meet again today, like most everyone else, I’d expect Oregon to win. But when the Ducks had their chance to dismiss the Broncos, they blew it.
There is very little that is fair about the BCS. But if a one-loss Oregon gets selected ahead of an undefeated Boise, that would be an outrageous injustice and would almost certainly land the BCS in a high-profile, anti-trust legal mess. Because I’d love nothing more than to see that spectacle, however, I guess that’s now what I’m rootin’ for. We’ve already used the Supreme Court to elect a President; why not a college-football national champion?
But why do I get the feeling Oregon is going to find some way to screw this thing up? I’d love to be in their shoes, but this is going to be one stressed-out month of anticipation for all our J-friends north of the border. May you all survive the insanity.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 3, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions
But if a one-loss Oregon gets selected ahead of an undefeated Boise, that would be an outrageous injustice and would almost certainly land the BCS in a high-profile, anti-trust legal mess.
Right. Because the BCS has never made questionable, bizarre, or otherwise irrational choices!
BCS sucks. Lets just go back to the old-school bowl tie ins and be done with this gruesome and silly experiment.
On ATQ I'm known as JSoCal Oski
It's spelled J-etc
That’s not going to happen, so let’s try something that’d be awesome: 64 team playoff!
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 3, 2009 8:18 AM PST up reply actions
But why do I get the feeling Oregon is going to find some way to screw this thing up? I’d love to be in their shoes, but this is going to be one stressed-out month of anticipation for all our J-friends north of the border. May you all survive the insanity.
You’re getting the same feeling I’m getting. They’ve played great so far, but let’s see how they play with the monkey on their back.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 3, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
The Oregon-Boise issue gets to the fundamental problem with the BCS – do we want a matchup of the two best teams or a matchup of teams that have had the best season? No one knows. If you want the teams that have had the best season, then head-to-head should be the single most important factor (Boise clearly had a better season that Oregon, because they beat them and because zero losses is always better than one-loss.). But if we want the best two teams, Oregon has a pretty strong argument for not just leaping Boise, but Iowa, TCU, Cincy, maybe even Alabama.
I generally think the system should be biased in favor of matching the two-best teams, but that is just me.
I would agree with all of this. In any case, I think teams need a much clearer path to the title, rather than the crazy hodgepodge of opinion and arbitrary rules that we have now.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Right, I would argue that there can’t be a system that works. Ultimately there just isn’t a large enough sample size that any system is going to work. 12 games, with the vast majority within conference, present too few opportunities to objectively analyze common opponents.
Boise looks great in beating Oregon – but it is just one data point. Because Boise has zero other wins that will be relevant to analyzing the season as a whole it is unclear what that win means to either Oregon or Boise. For example, if Florida had played at Boise, what would the expected outcome be. I have no idea, as they have no common opponents, and likely close to zero common opponents-of-opponents. All we are left with is our subjective impressions of Boise and of Florida.
by Tedfordisgod on Nov 3, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
Ultimately there just isn’t a large enough sample size that any system is going to work. 12 games, with the vast majority within conference, present too few opportunities to objectively analyze common opponents.
Exactly. Which is why we need a playoff to settle all this business.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 3, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
While a playoff has a neat, tidy outcome, I only support a playoff that is coupled with massive realignment of conferences, and in which only the eight (or ten, whatever) conference champions qualify for the playoff. A playoff must eliminate voting entirely to be effective.
A playoff must eliminate voting entirely to be effective.
I wonder what that makes the NCAA basketball tournament.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Personally, my ideal NCAA FB tournament (if we must have one) would be one that included all conference champions plus some minimal number of at-larges. A 16-team bracket would actually accomplish this nicely: 11 conference champs plus 5 at-large, all seeded by a committee like the one that selects March Madness, or perhaps just seeded by the BCS formula. The top seeds would get easy first-round games against Sun Belt and MAC champions, but after that it would get tough. Going strictly by BCS standings, last year’s bracket would have looked something like this:
1 Oklahoma (12-1)
16 Buffalo (8-5)
8 Penn State (11-1)
9 Boise State (12-0)
5 USC (11-1)
12 Cincinnati (11-2)
4 Alabama (12-1)
13 Virginia Tech (9-4)
6 Utah (12-0)
11 Ohio State (10-2)
3 Texas (11-1)
14 East Carolina (9-4)
7 Texas Tech (11-1)
10 TCU (11-1)
2 Florida (12-1)
15 Troy (8-4)
Problem...
I don’t see CAL in there. :(
by CaliforniaCMB on Nov 4, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
We would have made it in 2004! (Yes, I actually went back and created hypothetical brackets for the last 10 years.)
1 USC (12-0)
16 North Texas (7-4)
8 Virginia Tech (10-2)
9 Boise State (11-0)
5 California (10-1)
12 Michigan (9-2)
4 Texas (10-1)
13 Iowa (9-2)
6 Utah (11-0)
11 LSU (9-2)
3 Auburn (12-0)
14 Pittsburgh (8-3)
7 Georgia (9-2)
10 Louisville (10-1)
2 Oklahoma (12-0)
15 Toledo (9-3)
(Iowa was actually higher than Michigan in the final BCS standings, but I swapped them, assuming that the committee would give Michigan the higher seed for winning the Big 10.)
All conference champions make the NCAA tournament, so in that sense, I think that it solves the problem. Also, A 65 team football tournament would be great, but I don’t see it happening. A 32-team basketball tournament would be questionable, a 16-team tournament would suck. So, why anyone thinks a 8-team football tournament with voting would be “fair” is beyond me. 8 conferences, round-robin conference play, 8 champions, is really an 80-team tournament.
There are almost three times as many Division 1 basketball teams as there are Division IA football teams.
Perhaps the genius of the 65 team tournament is that by the time 65 teams have been picked, everyone left out has been marginalized regardless of whether or not they have a legitimate case that they’ve been wronged.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
That’s why I’d advocate a 16-team tournament with all conference champs included. No one can complain that they never got a chance because, hey, you can always just win your conference. Meanwhile, other teams like Texas/Texas Tech in 2008, Missouri/Kansas in 2007, Michigan in 2006 are virtually guaranteed to get an at-large bid. You’ve pretty much covered everybody.
Another way to do it would be to give all of the current BCS conference champs an auto-bid with 6 at-larges, with rules that mid-major teams have to be chosen if they finish in the top 12, though I think undefeated clubs like Utah or Boise State would be pretty much assured of an at-large bid anyway.
Early-round games could be played at the home site of the higher seed. Final four could be hosted at the BCS bowl sites, on a rotating basis. Bowls still exist, but they have to pick from teams that don’t make the playoff (which would still include a lot of Top 25 teams).
by sycasey on Nov 3, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
This is more or less what I’ve been wishing to see for years. Keep the playoff games at home stadiums, rather than neutral sites, and rather than integrate it with the bowls, make the tournament its own entity. There’s no reason why both can’t coexist.
When the NCAA basketball tournament was created, it didn’t eliminate the NIT. It did, for sure, come to severely dampen the NIT’s prestige, but that really didn’t happen until the NCAA tournament expanded its field, watering down what was left for the NIT. As long as an NCAA football tournament is limited to 16 teams, and especially if the first couple rounds of the playoffs are completed by mid-December, then all but the top four teams would be available to play in the bowls. And it wouldn’t take that much tinkering with the schedule to ensure that even the semifinals were complete before bowl season, effectively creating the exact same setup we have today: two teams in a championship game, everyone else in a bowl.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 4, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
I generally think the system should be biased in favor of matching the two-best teams, but that is just me.
Fair enough, but would you extend this preference to other sports as well? Should March Madness be replaced by, say, a 7-game series between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the country? In MLB, should we turn back the clock, eliminate the first two rounds of the playoffs, and go straight to a World Series between the regular-season champs of single-division American and National Leagues?
I don’t mean these questions to sound facetious, even if I am asking them for mostly rhetorical reasons. Why should college football championships be formulated differently than the basic model followed by other team sports? Sometimes I wonder if we should scrap the current model entirely and just go for a boxing-inspired methodology. Miscellaneous teams would play each other on occasion, with one (or more) of them deemed “champion” until they’re knocked off by another team, who would then get to wear the crown until they next lose.
Let’s just give Urban Meyer the NCAA/BCS/SEC/WBA belt(s), and the next team to beat the Gators becomes the new champion. One thing about this modest proposal is that it might actually encourage more high-profile inter-sectional showdowns. Could Florida really resist the huge pay-day of playing USC Oregon at Caesar’s Palace in Vegas?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 3, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Hilariously, that is exactly my model for the national championship. Not a better “system” but a complete lack of system, with a sanctioning body, promoters and networks coming up with the cash for games people want to see. I love the idea of the Pac-10 belt.
Just about every year, we know what games we want to see, it is just about having the flexibility to put them on.
Last year was easy – Texas v. USC and Oklahoma v. Florida, followed by the winners playing each other. Then if we really think Utah deserves a shot, and the money is there for it, why not add another game against Utah. It is simple. Not a playoff, but a series of propositions, shady businessmen, and public opinion. I think this is great.
On related questions
(1) There is a project (that I can’t find a link to) that basically used a similar formula to determine the national champion every week from like 1880 to present. The only way you become champ is by beating the current champion. For example. Cal held the crown in 1993 I think after beating UCLA and before losing to Washington.
(2) One of the big problem with the BCS is it only answers the questions were already know the answer to. The last year without controversy was 2005. Someone who had never seen a college football game could have told you USC and Texas were the two best teams. So, the system solves nothing. I think a boxing-like system is a significant improvement to this. In 2005 rather than having one USC-Texas game, why not have a best of three series?
(3) I kinda do think that playoffs themselves are overly important in American sports – but in baseballl and basketball this is countered by the 7 game series. For example in the NBA, to win the title, you need to win 16 games – that is a significant portion of your season. Baseball is terrible with 11 games in a 162 game season (not to mention the 3 starters v. 5 starters issue). I actually would argue that the wild card is pretty silly and this is obviously why there were decades of resistance. The NFL has the only do-or-die playoff which was fine in the 1960-90s were there were a few dominant teams each year. Recently, I think it has become a problem, i.e. the 2008 Patriots losing to the Giants.
You guys will like this site, then. Cal has actually been the belt champion in the early 90’s.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
But as long as the rules say every game counts,
Rules?
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I appreciate rags’s boldness at putting Oregon #1, but it illustrates why all this top 25/ranking the best teams is alwa
First of all, USC is a wounded team; I’d say they’re the weakest they’ve ever been—all the injuries and the Crystal Football of Power caught up with them. No Stafon Johnson, Anthony McCoy, Stanley Havili, Everson Griffin injured during the game, Fangupo, Tupou…literally, half their best players out.
This is the weakest USC team of the decade, even weaker than the 2006-2007 Booty squads. An okay Notre Dame team took them to the final snap. An okay Oregon State piled up 482 yards and the Trojans defense made Canfield look like Aaron Rodgers II. Just because Cal laid an egg didn’t mean we lacked the capability to beat them too. This Trojan team was ready to be knocked off.
That’s not to take anything away from Oregon. They earned this one. But #1?
But wait, didn’t Boise State beat Oregon already this season? And not in a flukey manner, either. Shouldn’t they be above the Ducks? I disagree. Boise beat an Oregon team, but not this Oregon team. Oregon is a much, much better team over the last six weeks compared to the first three, after Jeremiah Masoli learned to throw the football and the running game opened up.
See, I disagree with this line of thinking, because it’s exactly what hosed Texas over last year when Oklahoma ran up 60 on everyone. It’s part of the reason Cal lost the overall thing to Texas in 2004, when the Bears didn’t win pretty enough and the Longhorns were crushing patsies to end their season. Do we start discounting wins the first week of the season because the team wasn’t prepared enough?
Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is we need a playoff.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
*I appreciate rags’s boldness at putting Oregon #1, but it illustrates why all this top 25/ranking the best teams is a crapshoot, and that a playoff is needed urgently.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Nov 3, 2009 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
Arizona also won at Oregon State. In fact, they are one unfortunate call away from being tied with Oregon for 1st in the Pac10. At this point, they should be top 15. You would pick Pitt over Arizona?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
I don’t see a lot of different between Pitt and Arizona right now. Winning at OSU is indeed worth something, but is it more impressive than Pitt manhandling South Florida? Is either win that impressive in the grand scheme of things?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
God, that 2008 Sun Bowl was the best game ever.
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Nov 3, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
And that was also an interesting game bc I really have no idea what to make of either team.
by sec119 on Nov 3, 2009 11:38 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
And that was also an interesting game bc I really have no idea what to make of either team.
by sec119 on Nov 3, 2009 11:39 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
It’s definitely an interesting conversation in regards to the Oregon-Boise State ranking thing. Albeit, tiresome now.
One thing that does bug me, and it could be my bias on the issue, but Oregon is getting penalized for not scheduling a cupcake. Granted, they took the gamble, and they lost it, and some repercussions should exist. But if they scheduled another home game against a team like Portland State, Central Washington, or UC-Davis instead of Boise State, the current hot discussion would be over “who should be ranked higher, Oregon or Texas?” not “Should Oregon jump Boise?”
I’m still glad that Oregon scheduled Boise State. Discussion over head-to-head will almost always introduces an Ouroboros perplex where you have to realize, head-to-head isn’t as objective as you think it is (Ref: Big XII ’08). I think saying Oregon should never jump Boise is more out of stubbornness. Oregon has proved more on the field since game 1 than Boise State has.
If Boise State’s entire body of work was blow out after blow out against their schedule, then that’s another conversation. But Boise State hasn’t been blowing out all their teams. They struggled against UC Davis.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-U-N-S-U-R-E-O-F-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
Head-to-head works if the teams’ records are similar and they have played comparable schedules. It’s part of the reason Cal should have finished the season ranked over Michigan State last year, for example. No, just because we beat them in the first game doesn’t mean that we were better than them, at least not all by itself. However, after factoring in the same record (9-4) and not finding much in the schedule to greatly separate the teams, our head-to-head victory should serve as a fair tiebreaker.
With Boise State and Oregon, it’s a bit different. Sure, Boise beat Oregon, but since then Oregon has beaten several teams much better than anyone on Boise’s schedule. At some point, the weight of the rest of the season has to overturn the single game’s result, right?
Don’t get me wrong, JShu, I’m pulling for your Ducks, and in the absence of a playoff, even one Boise loss would be enough for me to put the Ducks over the Broncos. In that case, perceived strength of schedule would trump head-to-head, if only because it was a season opener played on a ridiculous blue rug. But I just can’t envision a scenario where a one-loss Team A gets selected ahead of an undefeated Team B, when Team B is the team that gave Team A its one loss. Let me rephrase that. I can envision it happening; I just don’t think it would be right, even if my gut instinct, and that of most fans and so-called experts, is that Team A would beat Team B if they met again on a neutral field.
Furthermore, the recent track record of the WAC and the Mountain West against teams in the BCS Six demonstrates, to me at least, that the gap between those conferences and the Pac-10, SEC, et al., isn’t that large. Just how big of a handicap do these teams start with? Does Boise effectively enter each season with one loss due to its conference affiliation? Two losses? Should a 10-2 Cal, USC, or Arizona, be ranked higher than a 12-0 Boise at the end of the year?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Nov 3, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
