Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Pac 12 vs Big 12

Better conference?

  • Pac 10(12)

    Votes: 27 51.9%

  • Big 12

    Votes: 18 34.6%

  • Who gives a ****?

    Votes: 6 11.5%

  • It don't make a ****.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    52
Quattro

Quattro

Banned
BANNED
Which conference in your opinion, has had a tougher conference?

IMO, I would have to say the Big 12, especially as of late. This past year, the Big 12 had 4 10 win teams, and one team short of 10 wins. Looking at the Pac 10, it is usually a two horse race, with USC winning the battle. Oregon may stay on top for a while, but Stanford is screwed after Luck leaves, and I don't think they'll win 10 games with the majority of their O line leaving this year. USC of course will be back on top. With that said, the Big 12 usually has 4 teams that are competitive (OU, UT, NU, and one of the north teams). Just my lowly opinion though.
 
In football, I'd say the conferences are remarkably similar. One or two elite teams at the top, 4-5 decent teams in the middle, and some bottom feeders.
 
Darian3Hagan said:
Nah We moved from one of the conferences above to the other and you are the first start a thread on which one is best.
Click to expand...
Well I'm in the middle of an arguement on ESPN with a guy and wanted to see what you ****ers thought. I hate the Big 12 and can't wait till June.
 
sackman said:
In football, I'd say the conferences are remarkably similar. One or two elite teams at the top, 4-5 decent teams in the middle, and some bottom feeders.
Click to expand...


+1

OU = USC
UT = Oregon
Okie State = Cal or Stanford
ISU = WSU
ATM = ASU/U of A
KSU = UCLA
-- not exact but its really the same type of conference. Two big dogs followed by a two or three decent to middle of the road teams and the rest usually stink
 
I'd have to argue that the Pac 10 usually has one good team (USC) and a bunch of middle of the road teams (OSU, ASU, UA) and then terrible teams (WSU) where as the Big 12 has the top teams usually (OU, UT, NU) middle of the road teams (CU, KSU, aTm, Tech).
 
tgruenler said:
I'd have to argue that the Pac 10 usually has one good team (USC) and a bunch of middle of the road teams (OSU, ASU, UA) and then terrible teams (WSU) where as the Big 12 has the top teams usually (OU, UT, NU) middle of the road teams (CU, KSU, aTm, Tech).
Click to expand...

NU hasn't been an elite team in over 10 years. Really not since the Tommy Frazier days. They got their asses kicked by UDub in the Holiday Bowl.
 
sackman said:
NU hasn't been an elite team in over 10 years. Really not since the Tommy Frazier days. They got their asses kicked by UDub in the Holiday Bowl.
Click to expand...
That's true but they still won 10 games, albeit with a couple high school teams.
 
Stanford is not screwed once Luck leaves.

The Pac-12 will be no cake walk, just as the Big 12 was not. The biggest question mark going forward will be how USC does in the wake of scholarship reductions.
 
Boulder Buff said:
Stanford is not screwed once Luck leaves.

The Pac-12 will be no cake walk, just as the Big 12 was not. The biggest question mark going forward will be how USC does in the wake of scholarship reductions.
Click to expand...
The QB is one of the most vital positions and without him I don't see Stanford being as good.

But judging from USC's last recruiting class, it won't affect them much.
 
tgruenler said:
The QB is one of the most vital positions and without him I don't see Stanford being as good.

But judging from USC's last recruiting class, it won't affect them much.
Click to expand...

Sigh... do you understand the difference between "not as good" and "screwed"? Stanford has got athletes all over the place, including at QB. They are not going away anytime soon, even after Luck leaves.

USC (if they lose their appeal, as expected) will have to start taking reductions over the next three classes.
 
Holiday Bowl used to be the Big XII #3 against the Pac #2. many years, it was actually the Big XII #4 when the XII had two BCS teams.

i give the Big XII the advantage of late, with the emergence of Missouri and Ok State as legit 10 win teams the last half-decade. with UCLA on the skids and UW off their worst decade in my lifetime (or ever)...the Pac has been down. ATM sticks out as the classic underachiever in the XII, Tech had a nice run but i see them as a 6-8 win team under Tuberville, not a lot more.
 
In part, some of the trouble the Pac10 has had in the past is with 9 conference games.

Anyway, the Big 12 with CU + NU > Big 12-2 > Pac10 in terms of the sense of stability at the top. Over the past 20 years how many teams in the Pac10 have won a conference title that are (at least now) considered powers? With OSU, Mizzou and a re-emerging Aggy I would argue the Mack Ten's middle is stronger than the Pac10 middle. The elite teams of any conference are elite and can compete with anyone. It's everyone else that's the problem.
 
Considering the trouble the Big 12 is apparently having filling its TV slots with watchable games combined with the Bevo Network, it's going to be near impossible for any school not named Texas to win that conference given the revenue disparity.

I would say the Pac 12 will be the more competetive conference, but the Big 12 will be "tougher" to win for 9 of the 10 teams.
 
This will be interesting going forward. I was one of the few opposing moving from the Big 12 because I thought the Big 12 as it was made for a more attractive brand. But things do not remain static and with Texas being a pig and Nebraska leaving the Big 12 the landscape changed. I do not know how this will play out but I do not think the money from the PAC will be as great as some predict. CU is paying a huge penalty in switching conferences - between paying the Big 12 to exit and the loss of revenue for 2011 I think we are looking at a $15 to $17 million hit. Takes time to make up for that.

I sometimes wonder if we are trading Texas for USC with UCLA playing the role of Texas A&M - why does UCLA get a $2 million a year bonus as if they are some big draw for the conference.
 
It's the Big XII minus Nebraska and Colorado. And the Pac 12 plus Utah and Colorado. I like to look forward. It's still a comparison of a ten team league with a twelve team league, and as you'd expect, the twelve team league, over time, usually has more top teams (because it simply has more teams). And once again, we'll be in the larger league.

Actually, I could care less about the Big XII right now. The competition for the Pac 12 is another league, the traditional New Years Day foe, the Rose Bowl enemy, the Big "Ten". And a league with Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska matches up pretty well with one with UDub, U$C, PhilKnightDucks, zona1 and zona2, fUCLA, Wazzu, BYU's little brother, unshaven Berkeley, $$$tanford, and BeaverBait. As Buffs, that's where all of our heads will be in the coming years.
 
Big 12 was top heavy with Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas as Top 10 all-time programs plus Colorado and Texas A&M in the Top 25. There was also huge revenue disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots".

Pac-12 has only USC as a Top 10 all-time program with a larger group in the 2nd and 3rd tiers historically. Plus, they have a new elite program in Oregon. I think every program in the conference has had a top 10 season in the past decade or so.

On average, they're pretty much equal in football. It just depends on whether you value competitiveness and depth more or whether you value the elite programs more. Without a doubt, though, the Pac-12 is stronger than a weakened Big Tex that doesn't have Nebraska or Colorado. Probably the #2 conference in the country behind the SEC and the only conference that could challenge them due to the speed of the athletes in the primary recruiting grounds and the top-to-bottom strength of the programs that could potentially send 5 different teams to a BCS game in 5 different years and have each win.
 
tgruenler said:
Which conference in your opinion, has had a tougher conference?

IMO, I would have to say the Big 12, especially as of late. This past year, the Big 12 had 4 10 win teams, and one team short of 10 wins. Looking at the Pac 10, it is usually a two horse race, with USC winning the battle. Oregon may stay on top for a while, but Stanford is screwed after Luck leaves, and I don't think they'll win 10 games with the majority of their O line leaving this year. USC of course will be back on top. With that said, the Big 12 usually has 4 teams that are competitive (OU, UT, NU, and one of the north teams). Just my lowly opinion though.
Click to expand...

You're missing a couple of things.

Pac10 played a 9 game, round robin conference schedule. Big 12 played an 8 game conference schedule, with a lot of cupcakes in the 4 other slots. So that's nine more conference losses for the PAC overall. Not to mention the non-conference opponents.

Just to skim the surface of that, let's take a look at the "premier" schools in each conference and their non-conference schedules:

TEXAS: Rice, Wyoming, UCLA, Florida Atlantic
USC: Hawaii, Virginia, Minnesota, Notre Dame (they had an extra game, for a total of 13, due to an NCAA rule that allows teams playing Hawaii to play an extra game. They still played 9 conf games).

The rest of the PAC schedules similarly (1 easy-ish game like Virginia, and 2 real BCS conference teams. The Big 12 does not.

The PAC is much deeper than people who don't watch a lot of the games give it credit for. I would say Big 12 and Pac 10 are comparable at the top of the conference, but the middle and bottom of the PAC would stomp the middle and bottom of the Big 12. As happened last year when UCLA beat Texas and Cal beat Colorado.
 
Cal only beat CU because we were on the road. Hawkins had no idea how to prepare a team for a road game and it showed. The CU team that the Pac 10 sees was the Cal game when in reality they were a decent team with a terrible coach. Also, I don't get the big deal with 9 conference games.
 
tgruenler said:
Cal only beat CU because we were on the road. Hawkins had no idea how to prepare a team for a road game and it showed. The CU team that the Pac 10 sees was the Cal game when in reality they were a decent team with a terrible coach. Also, I don't get the big deal with 9 conference games.
Click to expand...

Slow your role son. I was there. We lost for a lot of reasons that day. Rome was not built in a day.
 
Mick Ronson said:
Holiday Bowl used to be the Big XII #3 against the Pac #2. many years, it was actually the Big XII #4 when the XII had two BCS teams.

i give the Big XII the advantage of late, with the emergence of Missouri and Ok State as legit 10 win teams the last half-decade. with UCLA on the skids and UW off their worst decade in my lifetime (or ever)...the Pac has been down. ATM sticks out as the classic underachiever in the XII, Tech had a nice run but i see them as a 6-8 win team under Tuberville, not a lot more.
Click to expand...

Lots of wins, but you've all read the article about how the Mack10 are having a hard time filling a tv schedule, partly because of the weak OOC schedule. And the teams at the historical top are the worst offenders.
 
zbuff said:
Lots of wins, but you've all read the article about how the Mack10 are having a hard time filling a tv schedule, partly because of the weak OOC schedule. And the teams at the historical top are the worst offenders.
Click to expand...

The former SWC teams have been the worst. OU and Okie State schedule pretty tough
 
For "elite" programs (traditional Top 20) the old BigXII wins (OU, NU and UT with CU)...

The Pac has USC, UW and UCLA? as traditional powers...

Oregon has only known football since 2000, but with Nike's funding they have been on the radar nationally as of late and they are probably a program here to stay...

If you look at competitiveness, the Pac has had more different teams winning the conference title (depth) over the Old BigXII since their inception hands down.

I think moving forward, with UW rebuilding and CU rebuilding, and Oregon as the newbie with USC as the power the Pac will be a much more competitive conference as far as weekly contests then the BigXII was. The Pac doesn't have as many patsies as the BigXII traditionally has...., and 9 conference games is no joke.
 
Big 12 is the stronger conference...no debate necessary.

In the years 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009 saw a Big 12 team in the BCS title game. The PAC-10 saw three trips in the same span. One of USC's titles isn't without reading about Reggie Bush. The SEC had six berths compared to the Big 12's seven berths.
 
But the P12 beats the B12 in the quality dept. I don't want to upset our new conference mates but look at how many times the B12 had a shot at the MNC in the last decade compared to the SEC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top