Big Ten bottom vs PAC-12 bottom

[Dokey]

Colorado beat Wisconsin by 17 in a game that wasn’t close. The PAC-12 is best conference in country top to bottom.

 

[Shades]

Wisconsin is never prominent. Wouldn’t gauge too much on that.

 

[willtalk]

The comparison was made in respect to the bottom teams. That was the point.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

As someone with rooting interest in both conferences, I get that Colorado just hasn't had it together for a very long time. But I don't think I get the Wisconsin lack-of-success. I thought some (not all) of their coaching hires have seemed wise on the face of it, years and years ago we saw Rutgers play there and (weather aside) it seemed like a nice campus and facility, and I just don't get why they can never get better.

 

[TerpWomenFan]

Wisconsin and Illinois have constantly been the bottom two teams since Rutgers and Maryland joined. They need to get better players but the Big 10 usually is very good in the middle of the pack. Usually Maryland and another team or two are in the top tier (OSU, Iowa, MSU) but the middle group of teams usually beat each other up because they are so evenly matched. Wisconsin and Illinois hasn't reached that level yet so they're bottom feeders.

 

[Shades]

How do you know who is the bottom this season? Last season, Utah was one of the better Pac-12 teams. This season they’re starting out 0-2 against poor competition. They might be the bottom this year.

Anyway it makes more sense to judge a conference with what happens at the top.

ND is supposed to be the team to beat in the ACC, but they’ve already been beaten by a typically middlin’ team from the SEC and a typically middlin’ team from the Big Ten.

Maryland is supposed to be the team to beat in the Big Ten, but they been beaten by a SEC team that has underachieved the last couple of years.

How is the SEC not touted as the best conference based on the early results?

 

[UConnCat]

How do you know who is the bottom this season? Last season, Utah was one of the better Pac-12 teams. This season they’re starting out 0-2 against poor competition. They might be the bottom this year.

Anyway it makes more sense to judge a conference with what happens at the top.

ND is supposed to be the team to beat in the ACC, but they’ve already been beaten by a typically middlin’ team from the SEC and a typically middlin’ team from the Big Ten.

Maryland is supposed to be the team to beat in the Big Ten, but they been beaten by a SEC team that has underachieved the last couple of years.

How is the SEC not touted as the best conference based on the early results?

ND is not the team to beat in the ACC and I don’t think anyone has said that they are.

 

[DaBball]

How do you know who is the bottom this season? Last season, Utah was one of the better Pac-12 teams. This season they’re starting out 0-2 against poor competition. They might be the bottom this year.

Anyway it makes more sense to judge a conference with what happens at the top.

ND is supposed to be the team to beat in the ACC, but they’ve already been beaten by a typically middlin’ team from the SEC and a typically middlin’ team from the Big Ten.

Maryland is supposed to be the team to beat in the Big Ten, but they been beaten by a SEC team that has underachieved the last couple of years.

How is the SEC not touted as the best conference based on the early results?

Notre Dame was not thought to be the team to beat. They were picked to finish fourth and fifth by the media and head coaches respectively.

 

[TheFarmFan]

How is the SEC not touted as the best conference based on the early results?

Uh, you're forgetting how Oregon just beat the US National Team. And according to the ESPNW poll of commentators, everyone picked the SEC to be the second best conference, so it's not like the SEC is being overlooked. But when you have Oregon, Stanford, OSU, and UCLA all in the Top 10-11 teams, and even programs like Washington looking better than anticipated in the pre-season, hard to pick against the PAC for best conference. And it should be noted: Utah lost their three best players to graduation (Huff and Provo) and transfer (Edwards), so I have no idea why the PAC-12 media poll picked them 7th. I would have picked them 10th or 11th.

 

[Dokey]

Part of the reason why I compared the bottom teams of both conferences is to show strength of schedule. It is really difficult to go undefeated in conference play in Pac-12. Last year, even with their best player in a decade out with an injury, Colorado led Stanford for most of the game. The CU team beat ranked teams and nearly beat Miami and was nationally ranked until entering conference play and before injuries led to a lengthy losing streak. And, yes, Wisconsin has long been a doormat but they showed a we won’t give up grit even as they fell behind by 26 and spent most of the game down 20 or more. True, Colorado was in foul trouble in 4th quarter when Wisconsin narrowed the score. And, true, preseason predictions aren’t always reliable. Colorado played with a couple of first year players who turned out to be nothing short of sensational.

 

[j66kicker]

ND is supposed to be the team to beat in the ACC, but they’ve already been beaten by a typically middlin’ team from the SEC and a typically middlin’ team from the Big Ten.

Maryland is supposed to be the team to beat in the Big Ten, but they been beaten by a SEC team that has underachieved the last couple of years.

How is the SEC not touted as the best conference based on the early results?

Love your "typically middlin' team from the SEC" description - sort of a wake-up call to 2019 reality. Nice ring to it!

 

[willtalk]

I personally don't know why the better teams schedule so many other leagues bottom-dwelling teams. There is just something not right about getting joy out of beating someone else's bottom.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I personally don't know why the better teams schedule so many other leagues bottom-dwelling teams. There is just something not right about getting joy out of beating someone else's bottom.

Cute. I'll even give you a "very cute"

As to the first (semi-serious) part - assuming beater and beaten are both from a Power 5 conference - and the beater knew they were the better team and did the schedule planning - it is rule #2? or so for gaming the RPI. For a decent team, Wisconsin, Colorado, usually Clemson, lately Vanderbilt, you get the drift - are rather appealing opponents from an RPI point of view. They will (typically) have an "ok" win percentage from their OOC, not damaging, they give you a win, and from their opponents you get all the positive vibes from their conference. It isn't foolproof, but it is definitely in the over-all "game the RPI" playbook. One of the other rules is play the best team in a weak conference. They tend to have good won-loss records, although you probably gain little in factor #3.

 

[sivad40]

I personally don't know why the better teams schedule so many other leagues bottom-dwelling teams. There is just something not right about getting joy out of beating someone else's bottom.

Do you believe it's better for them to play top mid majors like Princeton, Green Bay, the Dakota schools, etc?

 

[willtalk]

Do you believe it's better for them to play top mid majors like Princeton, Green Bay, the Dakota schools, etc?

The post was not meant to be serious, rather it was mostly a vehicle for the double entendre. I realize that there are many factors that enter into setting up schedules that can not always predict how good any match up will be at any time in the future. I know the programs that scheduled ND had no idea that they would not be a top ten program.