RSSBot
News Junkie
By Ted Miller
Our Pac-12 position rankings are done. You can review them here.
But now that they are done, we want to put them together and see what they reveal: How does everyone pencil out?
So, in a totally unscientific way that will have many of you slapping your foreheads over my mental midgetry, I will give each team three points for a "Great shape" two points for a "Good shape" and one point for a "We'll see."
If you're getting a sense of déjà vu, this is the same intro we did last year -- a handful of you asked to see how accurate last year's rankings were, so you can check them out here.
We are making two changes: 1. kickers and punters have been reduced in value; 2. elite quarterbacks have been increased.
So if you are in "great shape" at kicker or punter, you only get two points, and you get one point for good and zero for "we'll see." If you are in "great shape" at quarterback, you get four points. Good shape still gets two and "we'll see" one.
My thinking is "great shape" at quarterback is really valuable.
So without further adieu, here are the standings:
Oregon... 25
USC... 25
Stanford... 24
Washington... 24
Arizona... 22
Arizona State... 22
California... 21
UCLA... 21
Colorado 19
Utah... 18
Washington State... 18
Oregon State 16
Maybe we are mad at Oregon State -- they ranked No. 1 last year, one point ahead of eventual champion Oregon.
Any surprises here? USC and Washington seem a little high, Arizona State and Utah too low. Cougars fans: How does it feel to be out of the basement in something, even if it is as trivial as this?
USC is high because of strength at DT, DE, WR, TE and QB. Arizona State lags because of a lack of star-power on offense, though being the only team with a "great shape" on the O-line is meaningful.
Last year the numbers ranged from 29 to 17, and we called the conference wide-open. This year it appears things are wide opener.
Some notes:
"Great shape-We'll see" per team
Arizona 3-4
Arizona State 3-3
California 1-2
Colorado 2-5
Oregon 3-1
Oregon State 0-4
Stanford 5-4
UCLA 2-3
USC 5-3
Utah 0-4
Washington 6-3
Washington State 2-7
Pac-12 teams averaged 2.67 "great shapes" and 3.58 "we'll sees." Hmm.
Washington is the only team that got a 2-point "great shape" for kicker and punter. Arizona State, Colorado and USC got zero points for specialists.
Oregon's only "we'll see" was at receiver. Every other team had at least two. Cal didn't have many extremes. Stanford has a lot of extremes.
Oregon State and Utah aren't in "great shape" anywhere. Do you agree?
Every team has at least two "we'll sees," while no team -- other than specialist-fortified Washington -- has more than five "great shapes."
Washington State is strong at receiver and QB, questionable just about everywhere else.
Positions with the most "Great shapes": quarterback (5), running back (4), wide receiver (4)
Position with the most "We'll sees": kicker (7), punter (5), offensive line (4), tight end (4) and running back (4).
Every position had at least one great shape, though Arizona State was the only team in "great shape" on the O-line.
Every position had at least two "We'll sees."
Originally posted by ESPN.com - Pac-10 Blog
Click here to view the article.
Our Pac-12 position rankings are done. You can review them here.But now that they are done, we want to put them together and see what they reveal: How does everyone pencil out?
If you're getting a sense of déjà vu, this is the same intro we did last year -- a handful of you asked to see how accurate last year's rankings were, so you can check them out here.
We are making two changes: 1. kickers and punters have been reduced in value; 2. elite quarterbacks have been increased.
So if you are in "great shape" at kicker or punter, you only get two points, and you get one point for good and zero for "we'll see." If you are in "great shape" at quarterback, you get four points. Good shape still gets two and "we'll see" one.
My thinking is "great shape" at quarterback is really valuable.
So without further adieu, here are the standings:
Oregon... 25
USC... 25
Stanford... 24
Washington... 24
Arizona... 22
Arizona State... 22
California... 21
UCLA... 21
Colorado 19
Utah... 18
Washington State... 18
Oregon State 16
Maybe we are mad at Oregon State -- they ranked No. 1 last year, one point ahead of eventual champion Oregon.
Any surprises here? USC and Washington seem a little high, Arizona State and Utah too low. Cougars fans: How does it feel to be out of the basement in something, even if it is as trivial as this?
USC is high because of strength at DT, DE, WR, TE and QB. Arizona State lags because of a lack of star-power on offense, though being the only team with a "great shape" on the O-line is meaningful.
Last year the numbers ranged from 29 to 17, and we called the conference wide-open. This year it appears things are wide opener.
Some notes:
"Great shape-We'll see" per team
Arizona 3-4
Arizona State 3-3
California 1-2
Colorado 2-5
Oregon 3-1
Oregon State 0-4
Stanford 5-4
UCLA 2-3
USC 5-3
Utah 0-4
Washington 6-3
Washington State 2-7
Pac-12 teams averaged 2.67 "great shapes" and 3.58 "we'll sees." Hmm.
Washington is the only team that got a 2-point "great shape" for kicker and punter. Arizona State, Colorado and USC got zero points for specialists.
Oregon's only "we'll see" was at receiver. Every other team had at least two. Cal didn't have many extremes. Stanford has a lot of extremes.
Oregon State and Utah aren't in "great shape" anywhere. Do you agree?
Every team has at least two "we'll sees," while no team -- other than specialist-fortified Washington -- has more than five "great shapes."
Washington State is strong at receiver and QB, questionable just about everywhere else.
Positions with the most "Great shapes": quarterback (5), running back (4), wide receiver (4)
Position with the most "We'll sees": kicker (7), punter (5), offensive line (4), tight end (4) and running back (4).
Every position had at least one great shape, though Arizona State was the only team in "great shape" on the O-line.
Every position had at least two "We'll sees."
Originally posted by ESPN.com - Pac-10 Blog
Click here to view the article.