Charles Fischer Administrator No. 1 Share Posted December 7 Yes, I know the B1G has a couple of tough teams at the top each year, but it seems that in the Pac-12 we faced a killers-row of quarterbacks. Each week was a tough defensive assignment, while the B1G QBs are....meh. One of the "best" wins on the schedule, Illinois who finished No. 21 had a very pedestrian QB compared to what we faced in the Pac, from even the bottom third of the league. It just feels like the B1G is top-heavy, but the middle and bottom third are not as good as the Pac was in the same segments. Now don't get me wrong; I don't want to go back to being unseen by the majority of the country, and I want our AD to have the double the media revenues in the first year compared to what the Pac/Apple offered us. I love the exposure and being part of a Super-Conference, but I believe that label was supported by their bluster that was simply the time zone, and the number of eyes watching. We will do just fine in this conference, IMHO. Now that we've gone through the conference...what are your thoughts? 1 1 2 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Author Administrator No. 2 Share Posted December 7 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuackyQuack No. 3 Share Posted December 7 (edited) Fully agree with everything you mentioned Charles. The rest of the Country won’t agree but that’s ok. During media day DL was asked “how will you adjust to the Big 10?” and his response was “they’ve got to adjust to us”. Ain’t that the truth! No more leather helmet playing style teams will be winning the big games. Edited December 7 by QuackyQuack 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 4 Share Posted December 7 No question. Michigan's QB should be better next year. But, if Wisconsin's QB had been better than average, OBD would have been in serious trouble. Mayland's WR was picked the best in the B1G, with a QB that was far from the best. No matter which teams played in the Pac-12, the QB battle was intense. Last place Pac-12 team would have given first place a much tougher game than the 15th best in the B1G would give the best. Power Ranking the Pac-12 actually took some consideration, after the top 4 in the B1G it didn't matter. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 No. 5 Share Posted December 7 Thanks for bringing this up. I was thinking about this during the recent discussion of coach Day and his win percentage. Add in the SEC parity this year and it looks a lot like the PAC-12 with a lot of teams that can knock off just about anyone in the conference. This doesn't mean that the conference was weak but just the opposite making it very difficult for there to be a dominant team. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PittDuck No. 6 Share Posted December 7 I don’t feel the PAC was tougher than the B1G, I think this year’s edition of OBD IS tougher than any Duck team we have ever seen. This team would have run the table in the PAC in any given year, just as they have this year in the B1G. 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 7 Share Posted December 7 Yes, the Pac-12 was harder. Not from a premier big game perspective but from a week to week one. Is the B1G Easier than the Pac-12? | FishDuck FISHDUCK.COM In any sort of competitive gaming, whether it is sports, cards, board games or even video games, there is... The Pac-12 meta game was dynamic and at times a headache. No one wanted to take on WSU and then travel to Arizona. The difference in how teams played is what made it hard. Penn State is basically Michigan but with a better QB this year. Illinois was Michigan but with a slightly better QB. Wisconsin was Michigan but with the same level level of QB but lower quality players overall. We'll see how Penn State matches up against our Ducks today. Ohio State has typically been a bit off meta by being a more pass heavy offense. Maryland wants to be WSU it feels like but bad at it. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikethehiker No. 8 Share Posted December 7 In the PAC 12, every team had an offensive pulse and when you can put points on the board, then there’s always a chance. Teams were “frisky” every week and there was no respect for decorum. In the B1G, there is always a clear pecking order and inferior teams are not allowed to cross those lines and they don’t seem to try. If we had joined the B1G last year, it would have looked even worse for them. Oregon, Washington, USC could have all been Top 5 and Michigan would not have finished unbeaten. 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kamikaze Kid Moderator No. 9 Share Posted December 7 WSU winning a home and away series with Wisconsin is all you need to know. 1 2 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anyotherduck No. 10 Share Posted December 7 Meanwhile, the best of the BIG12 means ASU dominating ISU. Too bad some of our former PAC12 brethren didn't make it to the SEC, if the SEC would've even allowed it (they wouldn't!). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Moderator No. 11 Share Posted December 7 The BIG will probably consistently have 2 to 3 elite teams, and a few others that are dangerous to play on the road. The schedule could literally have you play all the elite teams, or none. I think for the foreseeable future ( based on recruiting), Oregon, tOSU, Michigan, and Penn State will be amongst the elite, and the dangerous teams will change from year to year. It does seem that once you get up by two scores on some teams in the BIG, the game is pretty much over. Probably, because of our defense this year, but in the PAC 12, a two possession lead didn’t seem that comfortable. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cacker Guy No. 12 Share Posted December 7 I fully agree with you, Charles. I have maintained this for years. The B1G had osu2, UM and PSU but after that nothing really. Further I would submit that the SEC was never what ESPN and everyone else said it was. Clearly UGA and Bama were elite. After that, who? LSU had one good year. Hearing that the SEC was the best conference always really bothered me. Yes they had two of the top 5 teams but they also had Vandy, Kentucky, Miss St., Auburn, Arkansas, TAMU and Mizzou which were not good teams most of the last decade. And Tennessee, Ole Miss, and USC East are only very recently good. So the "SEC is the best" narrative doesn't sit well with me. It depends on how you measure "best." Number of national championships isn't the only metric. I think you should consider the whole conference top to bottom. No doubt that Geogia and Bama have been dominant. But who else in the last 15 years except LSU in 2019? 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 13 Share Posted December 8 The variety of offenses, QB play and offensive execution in the PAC were head and shoulders above the B1G and every other major conferences. Stanford wanted to play power football and run the ball down your throat with Toby Gerhart, Christian McCaffrey, et al. WSU ran the air raid and other pass heavy offenses. Oregon ran the spread option under CK and has returned to a more dynamic, explosive offensive under DL. USC, Cal, et al ran pro style offenses with better QBs and skilled positions than most of the B1G teams. It was much harder to go undefeated because the PAC offenses could put up points. It was hard for DCs to adjust week to week and to recruit defensive players to go up against all of the different styles they saw through the season. Do you beef up to stop Stanford or get faster, more athletic to match up against the spread teams? The B1G had better offensive and defensive line play but Oregon just ran around and past them when we played B1G teams. The only team that has given Oregon trouble from the B1G over the past decade was Ohio State. Thankfully, they hired Day. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Perkins No. 14 Share Posted December 8 Charles!!! It's not bad quarterback play or crappy offenses in the traditional B1G, it's "physicality." !!!! LOL.... I totally agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar No. 15 Share Posted December 8 I was a major proponent of the idea that B1G defenses were good because their offenses are bad. In hindsight I believe it's both. No way this Ducks team doesn't get to 45+ points multiple times in the old PAC 12. At the same time, no way does our defense have the numbers they did this year against PAC12 offenses. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Dawg No. 16 Share Posted December 8 I 100% agree with Charles's premise and was essentially sayin this last year before the PAC-12 collapsed. Anybody who has followed my posts may remember that I argued the B1G and its predecessor has, for the past quarter century, been the most overrated conference of them all for both of them all for both football and basketball. Think about how shockingly few men's title the conference has won in the past 25 years in either sport, and don't count the PAC-12 successes in this total because THEY WERE NOT IN THE LEAGUE BACK THEN!! IMHO, there is no question that the addition of the four Pacific schools represents a massive upgrade for the B1G. But at the moment I still think it is clearly overrated. Get rid of about 8 of the weak sisters and you have something--addition by subtraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Author Administrator No. 17 Share Posted December 8 On 12/8/2024 at 2:44 PM, Nevada Dawg said: Get rid of about 8 of the weak sisters and you have something--addition by subtraction. And lose the CANNON FODDER? 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
