They're about the only one I'd say that could, good call.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
How would you rate the PAC 12 as a football conference in 2016?
- Thread starter BlackNGold
- Start date
The latest metro area growth statistics have been released. In 2040, the Pac 12 is projected to continue to have 7 of the top 20 metros within its footprint (if you include San Diego). Where things get really interesting is the rate of change - the West is quite high (besides LA), and the same can be said for Texas and the Southeast. No where else even comes close.
Project this forward, and you ultimately see:
1) Big 10 is screwed
2) Big 12 has nothing outside of Texas
3) ACC is positioned well, but a couple of their northern markets are going to lag badly
4) SEC and Pac 12 are in a great position for long term growth
I should add that as of now, the Southeast is the only really contested market with the ACC and SEC having substantial overlap in the growth areas. You might argue Texas is contested now that the SEC has Texas A&M. The Pac 12 clearly has its markets locked up.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2016/10/11/projectionsdatabase.html
Project this forward, and you ultimately see:
1) Big 10 is screwed
2) Big 12 has nothing outside of Texas
3) ACC is positioned well, but a couple of their northern markets are going to lag badly
4) SEC and Pac 12 are in a great position for long term growth
I should add that as of now, the Southeast is the only really contested market with the ACC and SEC having substantial overlap in the growth areas. You might argue Texas is contested now that the SEC has Texas A&M. The Pac 12 clearly has its markets locked up.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2016/10/11/projectionsdatabase.html
Last edited:
I guess it would require swapping a couple Pac 12 tie in games that are either based in AZ and NV (Las Vegas Bowl or Cactus Bowl) with two that are based in the south, but other than those two, all the P12 tie in Bowls are CA or TX based.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
You didn't account for the meteor that will hit Texas in 2034. That will totally change the college football landscape.
I'd agree with putting the ACC at #2 ahead of the Big 10 because the ACC doesn't have a big dropoff after their top 3 or 4 teams, whereas in the B10 after Michigan, OSU, and Wiscy you've got maybe a good Nebraska team, 2 okay teams in Iowa and PSU, and then a big dropoff. Maryland's schedule has been nothing short of a joke so ignore the 4-1 record.
In the ACC Clemson and Louisville are elite and Louisville has a real shot at making the playoff if Clemson wins the conference, then a handful of very good teams in FSU, VT, and Miami, and good Wake and UNC teams. The only real dregs in the conference are Syracuse and BC, although UVA could very well be done winning games this season given their schedule the rest of the way.
The one thing the Pac12 has going for it is the lack of any really bad teams at the bottom. Oregon State and Arizona are probably the worst of the bunch but neither are terrible teams by any means. It's the lack of quality at the top keeps the Pac12 from being in the top 3 conferences. Stanford has fallen apart and will lose in South Bend this coming Saturday, Arizona State is a mirage of a 5-1 team, and Utah has a minimum of 2 more losses on their schedule, more likely 3 or 4. I still think USC is the best and most talented team in this conference but they're already lost 2 games in conference. Even so I think USC ends up winning the South.
In the ACC Clemson and Louisville are elite and Louisville has a real shot at making the playoff if Clemson wins the conference, then a handful of very good teams in FSU, VT, and Miami, and good Wake and UNC teams. The only real dregs in the conference are Syracuse and BC, although UVA could very well be done winning games this season given their schedule the rest of the way.
The one thing the Pac12 has going for it is the lack of any really bad teams at the bottom. Oregon State and Arizona are probably the worst of the bunch but neither are terrible teams by any means. It's the lack of quality at the top keeps the Pac12 from being in the top 3 conferences. Stanford has fallen apart and will lose in South Bend this coming Saturday, Arizona State is a mirage of a 5-1 team, and Utah has a minimum of 2 more losses on their schedule, more likely 3 or 4. I still think USC is the best and most talented team in this conference but they're already lost 2 games in conference. Even so I think USC ends up winning the South.
A 14 team conference playing 8 conference games a year is as dumb as can be.
Might as well make it two separate conferences with a loose affiliation to each other.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Think Wake is our Maryland. Sure, they went to Indiana and won but WF has been feasting on a weak schedule and will continue to do so. It's the type of schedule that would never happen in the Pac, in part because of the 4th OOC game the ACC has (Wake chose 4 cupcakes) and because they had the stars align to face each of the bottom 4 ACC teams. They may very well get 7 or even 8 wins, but they're still the team that beat Tulane 7-3.
I think the Pac12 South is similar to the ACC Coastal, but the South is stronger. Coastal has 5 decent teams but there's no denying the bottom two aren't good and probably both worse than Arizona.
Completely agree, it's ridiculous that a 14-team conference is only playing 8 conference games. Same with the ACC, which recently voted against adding a 9th conference game. The Big 10 is playing a 9-game conference schedule
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
About to do 'Tini's mom soft
Conference Averages from F/+:
SEC 21.6
ACC 17.5
Pac12 16.1
BigTen 12.7
Big12 11.8
AAC -1.8
MWC -18.9
MAC -19
Sunbelt -23.1
ConfUSA -24.6
And If you're interested in how the top half of each conf grades out:
SEC 44.4
ACC 37.4
BigTen 33
Pac12 26.9
Big12 24.1
AAC 13.2
MWC -3.4
MAC -3.9
ConfUSA -7.8
Sunbelt -10.4
The MW Conf has really fallen. It's basically on par with the MAC now.
SEC 21.6
ACC 17.5
Pac12 16.1
BigTen 12.7
Big12 11.8
AAC -1.8
MWC -18.9
MAC -19
Sunbelt -23.1
ConfUSA -24.6
And If you're interested in how the top half of each conf grades out:
SEC 44.4
ACC 37.4
BigTen 33
Pac12 26.9
Big12 24.1
AAC 13.2
MWC -3.4
MAC -3.9
ConfUSA -7.8
Sunbelt -10.4
The MW Conf has really fallen. It's basically on par with the MAC now.
Yeah, these days if you take Boise State out of the MW it's pretty hard to see much difference from the MAC.
If you take Boise St out, the Mac IS the superior conference.
#MACtion!!