[BostonCard]

1. Stanford: Pac-12 Champion and Rose Bowl champion.  We put an exclamation point on the season, and are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, except maybe Oregon with a healthy Adams.

[chasm]

2. Washington State: now that Falk was there for their bowl game, they are back near the top.  Will be real good next year.
3. Oregon: so tough because Oregon with Adams challenges Stanford for the top spot, but Oregon without Adams is in the bottom third of the conference, and for the half that counted last week, they didn't have Adams.
4. Washington: Probably the team that improved the most over the course of the season.  I expect them to challenge for the Pac-12 North next year (and yes, 1-4 are P12N schools).

[gap]
5-8 are bunched up

5. USC: It is hard to put the P12 South winners any lower, but the gap between potential and accomplishments is enormous
6. Cal: Pains me to say it, but they are better than I thought they were going to be, and had a nice win
7. UCLA: Another team that on potential should be in the top 3, and on accomplishments has disappointed
8. Utah: Almost did an Oregon in their bowl game against BYU, but I guess they demonstrated that there is a lead big enough you can't choke.
9. Arizona: Hey, the beat New Mexico, in what was essentially a home game for UNM.  OTOH, it was New Mexico.
10. ASU: What a massive disappointment for a team that was expected to contend for the Pac-12 championship
[gap]
11. Colorado: imrpoving, slowwwwwwly
12. Oregon State: well, the year is over

[BostonCard]

1. Stanford: Pac-12 Champion and Rose Bowl champion.  We put an exclamation point on the season, and are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, except maybe Oregon with a healthy Adams.

[chasm]

2. Washington State: now that Falk was there for their bowl game, they are back near the top.  Will be real good next year.
3. Oregon: so tough because Oregon with Adams challenges Stanford for the top spot, but Oregon without Adams is in the bottom third of the conference, and for the half that counted last week, they didn't have Adams.
4. Washington: Probably the team that improved the most over the course of the season.  I expect them to challenge for the Pac-12 North next year (and yes, 1-4 are P12N schools).

[gap]
5-8 are bunched up

5. USC: It is hard to put the P12 South winners any lower, but the gap between potential and accomplishments is enormous
6. Cal: Pains me to say it, but they are better than I thought they were going to be, and had a nice win
7. UCLA: Another team that on potential should be in the top 3, and on accomplishments has disappointed
8. Utah: Almost did an Oregon in their bowl game against BYU, but I guess they demonstrated that there is a lead big enough you can't choke.
9. Arizona: Hey, the beat New Mexico, in what was essentially a home game for UNM.  OTOH, it was New Mexico.
10. ASU: What a massive disappointment for a team that was expected to contend for the Pac-12 championship
[gap]
11. Colorado: imrpoving, slowwwwwwly
12. Oregon State: well, the year is over

[BostonCard]

Random fun fact.  Conference champion game losers were 0-8 in their bowl games, with many (*cough* Iowa *cough*) not even close.  In fact, USC was the conference championship loser with the closest bowl game.

BC

[BostonCard]

Random fun fact.  Conference champion game losers were 0-8 in their bowl games, with many (*cough* Iowa *cough*) not even close.  In fact, USC was the conference championship loser with the closest bowl game.

BC

[CTcard]

The ESPN Pac 12 blog did this.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...r-rankings

Here's my try.

1. Stanford
Rather obvious.
2. Oregon
Seems appropriate to rate the with-Adams team. And they did have the second best conference record.
3. $C
Yeah, I know. But I don't know who else to put here. They did win the south.
4. Utah
They're not overly talented but are tough, particularly when they had Booker.
5. WSU
They're going to be cute choice #2 for dark horse contender next year. Don't quite buy it yet, despite their performance against us.
6. UCLA
Another impossible team to rate. Talented but soft seems to be the easy summation.
7. c.a.l.
But dropping like a stone for next year without Goff and their receivers.
8. UW
They're going to be the cute choice #1 for dark horse contender next year - in fact so much it will be hard to call it dark horse. Certainly some strong signs for what was a very young team. I kind of believe it, but they still have a remarkable string of going 5-4 in conference that actually dropped to 4-5 this year.
9. ASU
Well, they're better than those below. Under Graham they have always been a gambling defense susceptible to being beat over the top, but wow that was a hideous display of DB play in their bowl game.
10. Arizona
They made a bowl game, and squeaked by UNM, and ...
11. Colorado
Improving. At this rate they'll get to a three conference win season within a decade. With the right patsie OOC games, that could mean a bowl game.
12. OSU
I wonder if they are still celebrating getting rid of that bum Riley so they can "get to the next level"?

[CTcard]

The ESPN Pac 12 blog did this.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...r-rankings

Here's my try.

1. Stanford
Rather obvious.
2. Oregon
Seems appropriate to rate the with-Adams team. And they did have the second best conference record.
3. $C
Yeah, I know. But I don't know who else to put here. They did win the south.
4. Utah
They're not overly talented but are tough, particularly when they had Booker.
5. WSU
They're going to be cute choice #2 for dark horse contender next year. Don't quite buy it yet, despite their performance against us.
6. UCLA
Another impossible team to rate. Talented but soft seems to be the easy summation.
7. c.a.l.
But dropping like a stone for next year without Goff and their receivers.
8. UW
They're going to be the cute choice #1 for dark horse contender next year - in fact so much it will be hard to call it dark horse. Certainly some strong signs for what was a very young team. I kind of believe it, but they still have a remarkable string of going 5-4 in conference that actually dropped to 4-5 this year.
9. ASU
Well, they're better than those below. Under Graham they have always been a gambling defense susceptible to being beat over the top, but wow that was a hideous display of DB play in their bowl game.
10. Arizona
They made a bowl game, and squeaked by UNM, and ...
11. Colorado
Improving. At this rate they'll get to a three conference win season within a decade. With the right patsie OOC games, that could mean a bowl game.
12. OSU
I wonder if they are still celebrating getting rid of that bum Riley so they can "get to the next level"?

[Rally]

Is Falk define try coming back?

[Rally]

Is Falk define try coming back?

[BostonCard]

The Adams-ful vs. Adams-less Oregon teams are so divergent that it makes them almost impossible to quantify.  My reason for ranking them lower was that a) they ended the season without Adams, as he got injured in the first half of the bowl game and b) a team that is so dependent on one player (almost disproportionately so) that they are a top-10 team with him and a below-average team without him doesn't deserve to be considered a top-team.  We would not be as good a team if we lost Hogan or McCaffrey, but to reach the level of futility that Oregon showed against TCU, we'd have to lose BOTH Hogan and McCaffrey (and probably Chryst and Sanders and Wright to boot).  How a team with Royce Freeman on the roster goes for 18 yards in the second half of a game is ridiculous.

For USC, it was really hard for me to take a team that ended the season losing to us decisively and then to Wisconsin (3rd in the weak Big10 West) as the third best team in the conference.

The only things I was confident in was that Stanford was the best team, and Colorado and OSU were 11 and 12, respectively.  Maybe add that the two Arizona teams were next worst.

BC

[BostonCard]

The Adams-ful vs. Adams-less Oregon teams are so divergent that it makes them almost impossible to quantify.  My reason for ranking them lower was that a) they ended the season without Adams, as he got injured in the first half of the bowl game and b) a team that is so dependent on one player (almost disproportionately so) that they are a top-10 team with him and a below-average team without him doesn't deserve to be considered a top-team.  We would not be as good a team if we lost Hogan or McCaffrey, but to reach the level of futility that Oregon showed against TCU, we'd have to lose BOTH Hogan and McCaffrey (and probably Chryst and Sanders and Wright to boot).  How a team with Royce Freeman on the roster goes for 18 yards in the second half of a game is ridiculous.

For USC, it was really hard for me to take a team that ended the season losing to us decisively and then to Wisconsin (3rd in the weak Big10 West) as the third best team in the conference.

The only things I was confident in was that Stanford was the best team, and Colorado and OSU were 11 and 12, respectively.  Maybe add that the two Arizona teams were next worst.

BC

[Rally]

It's interesting how things turned out.  Preseason it was all P12S, with U.SC and UCLA national title contenders, P12N also rand and Stanford 2nd or 3rd there.  Then we bombed in the first game, proving everyone right, and Utah soared to #3!  Then Sark got drunk (again,) UCLA was decimated by defensive injury, and we found our mojo.  Then the conference cannibalized itself, as predicted, and then belly-flop, for the most part, in bowl season.  From all I'm reading we could be even better next year than this year, but I ain't predicting nuthin.  Except most of our games will be night games.

[Rally]

It's interesting how things turned out.  Preseason it was all P12S, with U.SC and UCLA national title contenders, P12N also rand and Stanford 2nd or 3rd there.  Then we bombed in the first game, proving everyone right, and Utah soared to #3!  Then Sark got drunk (again,) UCLA was decimated by defensive injury, and we found our mojo.  Then the conference cannibalized itself, as predicted, and then belly-flop, for the most part, in bowl season.  From all I'm reading we could be even better next year than this year, but I ain't predicting nuthin.  Except most of our games will be night games.

[Extra Point]

...but I ain't predicting nuthin.  Except most of our games will be night games.

I am not so sure of that. Wildcaf will draw a lot of viewers now. I expect ESPN and Fox to showcase him in afternoon games.

[Extra Point]

...but I ain't predicting nuthin.  Except most of our games will be night games.

I am not so sure of that. Wildcaf will draw a lot of viewers now. I expect ESPN and Fox to showcase him in afternoon games.

[Hulk01]

I like CT's calls.  The apparent momentum of the Washington schools--is another basically 7-5 Washington team really rising?--will make them popular choices, but Washington loses some brobdingnagian guys in their defense and Browning was serviceable but hardly spectacular, and he loses his best receiver--and maybe three of his top four.

Big deal, Washington State.  A QB like that will beat some soft teams, of which the conference had no shortage this year.  But let's be realistic; you can only go so far with that little talent.

There could be a brobdingnagian gap between Stanford and the field next year.  UCLA looked like they might have something but their two junior OLs have fled, and Clay was the heart of their defense.  And losing Payton and Perkins is brobdingnagian.  Duarte is good, and they'll win at least seven games, but is ten at all realistic?

We're the favorite going in.  I

[Hulk01]

I like CT's calls.  The apparent momentum of the Washington schools--is another basically 7-5 Washington team really rising?--will make them popular choices, but Washington loses some brobdingnagian guys in their defense and Browning was serviceable but hardly spectacular, and he loses his best receiver--and maybe three of his top four.

Big deal, Washington State.  A QB like that will beat some soft teams, of which the conference had no shortage this year.  But let's be realistic; you can only go so far with that little talent.

There could be a brobdingnagian gap between Stanford and the field next year.  UCLA looked like they might have something but their two junior OLs have fled, and Clay was the heart of their defense.  And losing Payton and Perkins is brobdingnagian.  Duarte is good, and they'll win at least seven games, but is ten at all realistic?

We're the favorite going in.  I

[BostonCard]

Well, the logic for UW is it's not just Browning, but Browning, Gaskin, and their left tackle who all started as true freshmen.  I'd argue that Browning was about as good as Rosen was, maybe even better, and certainly didn't enjoy the weapons that Rosen did.  Their defense might have some large losses, but considering their losses last year, and how they performed this year, I would be cautious before dismissing that D.

Washington State is also a relatively young team, so that's the reason the arrow was up on them.

Here's how I'd predict the P12N next year:

1) Stanford: the big question is at QB, we have major losses at receiver, and defensive line is still thin, but we have fewer questions than most, our defense will be better, and McCaffrey will make the transition to a new QB much smoother.

I think 2-4 are pretty close

2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

3) Washington: 7-6 with a freshman QB, running back, and left tackle is pretty good.  I think they could be dangerous, and we have to travel to Seattle.

4) Washington State: Falk and their receivers could keep them in the game against anybody, but I still think that without a running game or a good defense (they were better, but still not good), WSu is going to struggle to win the tough games.

5) Cal: If this was as good as Dykes could do with Goff, it's hard to believe that he would do better without.  I expect them to regress.

6) OSU: Until they can prove they can win, they will be in the basement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, the logic for UW is it's not just Browning, but Browning, Gaskin, and their left tackle who all started as true freshmen.  I'd argue that Browning was about as good as Rosen was, maybe even better, and certainly didn't enjoy the weapons that Rosen did.  Their defense might have some large losses, but considering their losses last year, and how they performed this year, I would be cautious before dismissing that D.

Washington State is also a relatively young team, so that's the reason the arrow was up on them.

Here's how I'd predict the P12N next year:

1) Stanford: the big question is at QB, we have major losses at receiver, and defensive line is still thin, but we have fewer questions than most, our defense will be better, and McCaffrey will make the transition to a new QB much smoother.

I think 2-4 are pretty close

2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

3) Washington: 7-6 with a freshman QB, running back, and left tackle is pretty good.  I think they could be dangerous, and we have to travel to Seattle.

4) Washington State: Falk and their receivers could keep them in the game against anybody, but I still think that without a running game or a good defense (they were better, but still not good), WSu is going to struggle to win the tough games.

5) Cal: If this was as good as Dykes could do with Goff, it's hard to believe that he would do better without.  I expect them to regress.

6) OSU: Until they can prove they can win, they will be in the basement.

BC

[ChicagoCard]

Speaking of Washington, I believe they will have their wide receiver John Ross, back from missing 2015 with an injury. Seemed to be a very fleet, play-making receiver.

[ChicagoCard]

Speaking of Washington, I believe they will have their wide receiver John Ross, back from missing 2015 with an injury. Seemed to be a very fleet, play-making receiver.

[CTcard]

2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

Their FCS QB has already enrolled.

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.

[CTcard]

2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

Their FCS QB has already enrolled.

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14313.msg151399#msg151399 date=1452048540]
2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

Their FCS QB has already enrolled.

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.
[/quote]

It didn't look like TCU was playing against a front 7 in the second half of the Alamo Bowl.  Almost tempting to say that it could hardly be worse than this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14313.msg151399#msg151399 date=1452048540]
2) Oregon: tempted to put Washington in their with their returning talent, but with another FCS QB (and one who could enroll in the spring) and Royce Freeman, they should be very good on offense.  Defense, after losing Bukner is going to be a gigantic question mark, though.

Their FCS QB has already enrolled.

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.
[/quote]

It didn't look like TCU was playing against a front 7 in the second half of the Alamo Bowl.  Almost tempting to say that it could hardly be worse than this year.

BC

[CowboyIndian]

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.

That could be a positive.

[CowboyIndian]

Their defense loses more than Buckner, they lose 6 of their front 7 starters from the Alamo Bowl.

That could be a positive.