No, it's not ridiculous. Ridiculous is being asked why Arizona would be a significant favorite and replying by only citing their hard schedule, as if that alone puts them above anyone. I still haven't seen a good reason why those teams would be significant favorites over WSU on a neutral field. The first reasons you offered up were really weak, particularly on the Arizona front.

Granted that WSU would be closer to Arizona than Utah, but when your team has won 5 games in 3 years the burden is on you to prove why 3 wins over cupcakes should vault your team up to a tie for 7th. Furthermore including Utah in the tied ranking illegitimizes any argument you might have that WSU is in the tied grouping.

I'm going to continue to point to the opponents for Arizona. You are always talking about WSU's passing attack, but AZ has been just as good through the air against a whole different universe of opponents. Arizona is better at the one thing that it appears WSU does well. Furthermore, I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that their D is not as bad as it looks, because of the teams they have played. Pretty simple thesis.

You endorse the "we don't know enough yet" when it favors your argument (WSU and AZ), but you were staunchly against that exact same reasoning when applied two weeks ago to an 0-2 OSU team.

Yes. We're arguing about a loltrollhomer's power rankings in which he quietly tries to slip in that WSU is "basically even" with Utah, Arizona, UCLA.
Right, and you won't get any of that yet, because the on the field arguments that you seem to favor are completely invalid right now. WSU's schedule has been ludicrously soft while Arizona's has been insanely tough. Those of us that bet sports are trying to tell you that even though we can't point to any of these results and say, "see, because of this, we can know that arizona is better than WSU," we can still judge the various lines that we see and know that in a hypothetical Arizona vs. WSU neutral site matchup, Arizona would be favored. My guess is that they'd be favored a little more than a FG.

WTF? 0-2 including a home loss to Sacramento State tells us plenty, actually.

Anyway, at some point you should stop talking as if Utah's high level of quality is self-evident. It isn't.

By your sole point of comparison, we are "basically even" with UCLA, yes? I mean, the market putting us half a point apart is pretty much that verbatim.

So tell me, do you think UCLA is considerably worse than Utah and Arizona?

Both Feelnothing and I are arguing that you can pretty clearly delineate 7,8,9, and 10. And no, it would not surprise me at all to see arizona favored by a TD when they host UCLA.

Last week the argument was how to rank Colorado, WSU, and OSU. This week you're trying to turn it into WSU vs. UCLA, Utah, and Arizona. And this after WSu came within one dropped pass of losing (as expected) @Colorado. Its delusional.

Hahaha, why the hell do you keep acting like it's some great compliment that I would put my team in the same ballpark as UCLA? It isn't.

Anyway, there was no legitimate argument involving Oregon State last week...I know there was some blather going on, but it was unreasonable. As to WSU and Colorado, I don't know how much jostling there was either since we knew we were about to see it settled on the field. Thankfully the OSU weirdness has been put to rest and there's no argument available to put Colorado above WSU either, so obviously the conversation shifts a bit. Let's not be so shocked.

Wow this thread got ugly fast. Probably for the best that we can't poach Texas+Oklahoma yet.

huh. The Cal-Colorado game doesn't count as an in-conference game. Both those teams play 10 conference opponents, but that game doesn't count.

Yeah, it was scheduled before we took Colorado in so that's just kind of a quirky thing that happened. Its primary utility is just to help in our power rankings IMO.

Doesn't make a big difference whether it's in-conference or not though, since it's all the same for bowl eligibility and since neither team will have a say in the conference title race. I guess it could hurt Cal in terms of which bowl they go to, assuming they make it to one.

Bowl eligibility could get ugly for the pac12 again this year.

"Locks":
1. Stanford
2. Oregon
3. ASU
4. Washington

"probables":
5. Cal - 3-0 out of conference, still have Utah, UCLA, WSU, OSU left on their schedule.

"possibles":
6. Utah - 2-0 OOC, but 0-2 in conference. Still has bottom 4 teams on their schedule.
7. WSU - 2-1 OOC, but one of those is a FCS win. I think those wins don't count if there are other 6-6 teams that would be locked out of bowls. Also, doubts as to how good WSU is. Still have OSU and UCLA on their schedule, but they'll be a dog in every other game.

USC is ineligible of course, and the other 4 teams have lost too much. Long shots, all. I don't think WSU will get to 6 wins, and I've doubts about Utah. Cal could lose too many as well.

A team is allowed one FCS win per season to count toward bowl eligibility. It counts regardless of other teams' situations; once you get to 6 wins, you're eligible but not guaranteed anything. When WSU was 6-6 in 2006, they were one of eight bowl-eligible teams in the conference and didn't make it (all six wins were over FBS schools). There were fewer bowl tie-ins than bowl-eligible teams, so we were left hoping on an at-large bid that never materialized.

However, there are seven conference tie-ins these days for the Pac, so for the reasons you laid out, 6-6 would likely get us in. If we got to that record then the only way we'd get shut out of a bowl is if seven or more other teams were eligible.

Ehh...

OSU looked slightly not 100% terrible Saturday and I think Colorado looked very bad. I think it's close enough that both choices are defensible. Colorado was handed 10 points by WSU to make that game close, and should have come a lot closer to winning it if they didn't make several terrible (blown timeouts, passes when they had to run to eat clock) calls.

The thing about WSU's schedule is that nobody pretends it wasn't terrible, but they also pretty much beat the bad teams they played by as much as they possibly good, with their back-up QB. (who I think many WSU fans are grossly overrating, and we'll all be very surprised with how good the O looks once a QB with a real arm and real ability to read a D plays).

If Tuel plays next week, I have a hard time seeing UCLA put up enough offense to hang with WSU (which has looked pretty solid vs the run). If Lobster plays, I probably lean towards UCLA as I don't trust him vs their pass D. Any prediction for a WSU game also includes that caveat that our offensive coordinator is a sentient cabbage and our head coach isn't much better. (if Galvin doesn't get over 15 touches next game, I'm going to poop on Todd Sturdy's door next time I'm home).

I liked how they were mixing the run early on Saturday. Winston has a lot going for him too, and this was probably Mitz's best showing. Still, there isn't enough balance in the play-calling, and it's not by any means due to lack of personnel.

My mistake if I misread it.

Actually I claimed the initial 7 point spread was off(10 was even better, imo). And no, I don't have to bet on it as a show of conviction. I know what it takes for me to be confident enough to put a bet down on any wager, any situation. This fit the criteria.

I assume most on here would bet the way they pick on here which is why I think the 'well, if you don't literally bet on it how confident are you, really...' is a waste of time.

Better than all closing lines? No. I don't claim better predictor than all the lines as far as results. Where did I say that? I actually think most lines are pretty good. However, given what I've seen/heard/read about both teams I can reason why that line was off, especially given lack of any justification the other way, especially when the line moves 3 points away. I think the lines get more accurate the later in the season and with better known/nationally visible teams.

That said, using betting lines as sole justification, as if they are the be all, end all, and can't be wrong is a pretty shortsighted and only shows one knows how to parrot someone else's opinion. I mean, if you're going to do that, at least give their reason for setting the line the way they did.

b

1. I looked into the BYU claim prior(many did seem to bring this up) but couldn't find why it was such a huge win for Utah. I saw they(BYU) beat an SEC team, but that team isn't that great. Other than that? I don't really see where this 7, much less 10 point margin came from. Unless maybe people are really hung up on the Eastern Washington game and ignore the Nebraska showing...

b

I didn't say it was 10 points off. I just said it was off. Initially I had the game at 3, that was when the line was 7.

Perhaps you had it right but variance waved its wand.

b

Well, the final score of the Nebraska-UW game isn't very telling of the game, same as SDSU-WSU. Happens all the time for people to just quickly scan a result and go from that.

BYU beat Ole Miss by 1. Vandy also beat Ole Miss by 23. BYU hasn't shown to be particularly good at all.

Yep. I agree.

I'm not so convinced on Arizona. One reason is because I think some might be giving their close loss to USC too much credit. So, while I could see AZ at the top of the 5 team list, yes, I think there's still some questions to be answered.

One could also wonder about Cal and just how far they are above these teams. They barely beat Colorado(similar to WSU). Granted, I think Cal has more depth than WSU...

b

Well, OSU sucks. Why should they still be in the conversation? Views of those teams don't shift week to week?

Bolded: Cal came within OT of losing to Colorado.

b

Of course, other teams would've hung 80 on those teams. Not just 60...

b

first place in the north with two IN DIVISION wins. Holla. Bye week comes at the right time to get KP some rest and back to a little running in two weeks. CU comes in and gets 31 hung on them in the first half and the 2nd GOAT QB's son (KP obv GOAT) can finally come in and get some run in the second half so we don't have to show too much of what we worked on during the bye week before our college gameday 5pm ABC showdown with undefeated Stanford at the farm. Holy run on sentence. They're going to have to put out a tarp for all the jizz explosions the nerds create when they come within a 500 yard radius of Erin andrews. Going to be without a doubt the worst game day crowd of the year. 5 am west coast, non-rabid fan base, nerds. Clever signs possible though!

I'd swear I made this point in this thread, but I guess not.

Some people don't like to bet sports for any number of reasons. I just don't like the risk, however small, and I don't like adding financial risk to the emotional investment I have over the game in the first place.

That doesn't mean it's somehow invalid if I think a line's ****ty. It's really annoying with the SB crowd starts harping on that one.

Other stuff-

I'm not sure Colorado is in the UCLA/WSU/SDSU category. They were lucky to be in the WSU game and look terrible and terribly coached.

We are starting Lobster vs UCLA (which I think is dumb if Tuel can go at all, and it sounds like he can). If he throws less than 3 picks, I'll be amazed.

I really can't understand where you're coming from. UCLA has picked off two total passes in five games. It would be amazing if they don't more than double their season total this week?

I agree with you that Lobster can't hold up to Tuel at all in terms of arm strength and mobility, but you keep talking like he's a truly bad QB. He's completing almost 2 out of 3 passes so far and he's got better than a 4:1 TD-to-INT ratio. Yes, against sub-par competition, but he's done a very fine job keeping the ship afloat during Tuel's injury. I know that I expected much worse and I'm guessing it's fair to say that you did too. Most of Cougar nation did.

The difference in our QBs is the difference between a decent player and a great player...not a bad player and a great player.