2022/23 PAC-12 Power Rankings (Week 5)

[Kachina]

Here is Week 4's Power Rankings

2022/23 PAC-12 Power Rankings

After 4 weeks, I think this is something we can confidently put together. ---WEEK 4 POWER RANKINGS--- 1. USC (4-0, 2-0) 2. Washinton (4-0, 1-0) 3. Utah (3-1, 1-0) 4. Oregon (3-1, 1-0) 5. Washington State (3-1, 0-1) 6. Oregon State (3-1, 0-1) 7. UCLA (4-0, 1-0) 8. California (3-1, 1-0) 9...

hooplanation.com

---WEEK 5 POWER RANKINGS---
1. USC (5-0, 3-0)
2. UCLA (5-0, 2-0)
3. Utah (4-1, 2-0)
4. Oregon (4-1, 2-0)
5. Washington (4-1, 1-1)
6. Washington State (4-1, 2-0)
7. Oregon State (3-2, 0-2)
8. California (3-2, 1-1)
9. Arizona (3-2, 1-1)
10. Arizona State (1-4, 0-2)
11. Stanford (1-3, 0-3)
12. Colorado (0-5, 0-2)

---WEEK 6 SCHEDULE---
#12 Utah at UCLA
#15 Washington at Arizona State
Washington State at #6 USC
#13 Oregon at Arizona
Oregon State at Stanford

---NOTES---
USC remains at #1, despite them being unable to dominate a really, really bad ASU team.

UCLA moves all the way up the #2. Not only are they undefeated, but they looked really good against Washington. I was thoroughly impressed with their size, as they looked like bigger than a good Washington team.

Utah and Oregon both took care of business, so I kept them as neighbors in the rankings.

Washington drops from #2 to #5, as the score makes the game appear closer than I thought it was. Huskies just couldn't tackle and as I mentioned above, appeared to struggle with the size of UCLA.

Down at the bottom, it's really going to be between Stanford and Colorado. Colorado's freshman QB, Owen McCown (yes, the son of Josh McCown), looked really good at times. The problem is that he is surrounded by crap. ASU looked the best they have all year against USC, but that 1-4 record is a eye sore for a team that considered themselves New Year's Bowl capable.

 

[trojanfan12]

Still wouldn't have USC #1.

While they have remained unbeaten, the last 2 weeks have shown that they aren't completely gelled yet. They also need to address the slow starts by the defense.

 

[OlyDuck]

still wondering why Utah over Oregon. they are ranked higher in coaches and AP
do they have better wins? no
is their loss better or worse? they didnt lose as bad to a worse team than Oregon did?

 

[Volbound1700]

I am fine with these rankings but we need more big matchups to figure out top 4. We will find out how good Oregon, UCLA, USC, Utah, etc. are in the coming weeks.

Tennessee is in same boat with SEC. Still a lot of games to play to see how good we really are. I feel like Tennessee and USC are a like in that I am questioning whether both are really this good based on the fact that both don't have multiple recruiting classes but all they need to do is keep winning. (I would pick USC over Tennessee personally).

 

[Red_Alert]

still wondering why Utah over Oregon. they are ranked higher in coaches and AP
do they have better wins? no
is their loss better or worse? they didnt lose as bad to a worse team than Oregon did?

Because Utah spanked duck ass twice last season.

People have short memories, but not that short.

 

[Red_Alert]

Utah's loss was not a bad loss, and Florida's losses aren't bad losses.

Oregon's 49-3 loss to Georgia was a bad loss, and Georgia damn near gave one away to a Missouri team that lost 40-12 to Kansas St, who lost to Tulane.

 

[Red_Alert]

Washington and Oregon (both @ home) beat Stanford by 18 pts.

One could easily put Washington at 4 and Oregon at 5.

 

[OlyDuck]

Because Utah spanked duck ass twice last season.

People have short memories, but not that short.

here i fixed it for you
FYI Utah lost to both San Diego State and Oregon State last year too. how did all that go?

 

[Red_Alert]

here i fixed it for you
FYI Utah lost to both San Diego State and Oregon State last year too. how did all that go?

Well there's some mental gymnastics. You didn't "fix" anything.

It doesn't matter who Utah lost to when they beat Oregon 38-7 (31 pts) and 38-10 (28 pts) respectively.

Especially when a rematch tends to favor the team that lost the first game.
But that "favor" only works when teams are closely matched.
In this case the two teams obviously weren't closely matched.

Oregon will get their chance to right the ship against Utah on Nov 19th.

At this point (with even records) and Oregon's massive 49-3 loss to Georgia, you've got to have Utah higher until Oregon proves otherwise. Especially given Georgia's narrow escape with Missouri.

 

[duckboy33]

Are we trying to place teams where they should be ranked based on resume? Or based on how good we think the teams are?

 

[Red_Alert]

Are we trying to place teams where they should be ranked based on resume? Or based on how good we think the teams are?

Can you multi-task?

 

[OlyDuck]

Are we trying to place teams where they should be ranked based on resume? Or based on how good we think the teams are?

neither we apparently are basing THIS years rankings on LAST years results.

 

[OlyDuck]

Well there's some mental gymnastics. You didn't "fix" anything.

It doesn't matter who Utah lost to when they beat Oregon 38-7 (31 pts) and 38-10 (28 pts) respectively.

Especially when a rematch tends to favor the team that lost the first game.
But that "favor" only works when teams are closely matched.
In this case the two teams obviously weren't closely matched.

Oregon will get their chance to right the ship against Utah on Nov 19th.

At this point (with even records) and Oregon's massive 49-3 loss to Georgia, you've got to have Utah higher until Oregon proves otherwise. Especially given Georgia's narrow escape with Missouri.

you miss the point. Yes Utah beat Oregon last year 2 times. different players different coaches different year.
basing this years current standings on last years results isnt how this should be done.
Utah wins so far are not better than Oregons.
San Diego State----then 12 BYU adv Oregon
Arizona State ---Stanford adv Utah
Oregon State---- WSU adv Oregon

utahs loss was to an unranked team by a closer margin than Oregons loss to the #3 team (then) by a larger margin.

 

[Red_Alert]

neither we apparently are basing THIS years rankings on LAST years results.

Isn't that what the AP and Coaches do when developing pre-season rankings?

 

[Red_Alert]

you miss the point. Yes Utah beat Oregon last year 2 times. different players different coaches different year.
basing this years current standings on last years results isnt how this should be done.
Utah wins so far are not better than Oregons.
San Diego State----then 12 BYU adv Oregon
Arizona State ---Stanford adv Utah
Oregon State---- WSU adv Oregon

utahs loss was to an unranked team by a closer margin than Oregons loss to the #3 team (then) by a larger margin.

Oregon got destroyed 49-3 by a team that played a close one to Missouri, who got destroyed by Kansas St, who lost to Tulane.

Florida trailed Utah with under two minutes to play and won by 3 pts.

That's THIS year.

If last seasons Utah/Oregon games had even been somewhat close you'd have a bit of an argument, but they weren't.
Utah spanked that duck ass twice.

 

[OlyDuck]

Isn't that what the AP and Coaches do when developing pre-season rankings?

we arent in the preseason now

 

[Kachina]

Are we trying to place teams where they should be ranked based on resume? Or based on how good we think the teams are?

I'm doing it based solely on how good I think the teams are today, based on performances and with hint of potential since PAC 12 play just started.

 

[Red_Alert]

we arent in the preseason now

Correct. But we still aren't even halfway into the season.

What about Oregon's 49-3 loss to Georgia, who needed a TD with 4 minutes to play to beat Missouri, who lost 40-12 to Kansas St, who lost in Manhattan to Tulane, makes you think Oregon is better than Utah?

 

[Kachina]

Correct. But we still aren't even halfway into the season.

What about Oregon's 49-3 loss to Georgia, who needed a TD with 4 minutes to play to beat Missouri, who lost 40-12 to Kansas St, who lost in Manhattan to Tulane, makes you think Oregon is better than Utah?

I hate this line of thinking, as we are discussing 18 year old guys who can play like Pro Bowlers one weekend, and then pee wees the next.

Okay, so that's extreme, but every team in the history of college football has had off weeks. The real question is IF they win during an off week, and how they learn and recover.

 

[Red_Alert]

I hate this line of thinking, as we are discussing 18 year old guys who can play like Pro Bowlers one weekend, and then pee wees the next.

Okay, so that's extreme, but every team in the history of college football has had off weeks. The real question is IF they win during an off week, and how they learn and recover.

49-3 is an egregious "off week"

That's an ass kicking both offensively and defensively.

We were told Lanning knew Georgia like the back of his hand and that was Oregon's advantage, were we not?