by virtue of ucla's win over arizona.....the tiebreaker went to ucla.....to say arizona even tied for the pac-12 south title would be a stretch because the tie was broken.....ucla played oregon in the title game, so......
cuyahoga falls eer.....love ya man, but arizona was not 2014 pac-10 south champ.....ucla was......
- Thread starter john in california
- Start date
Back up, John. You're getting confused.
Arizona won the Pac-12 South outright at 7-2 in conference play. UCLA was part of a three-way tie at 6-3.
Remember all the talk prior to the title game about Arizona handing Oregon its only loss to that point, and how the Ducks now had a chance to avenge the defeat?
Well, THIS shows Arizona 7-2 in 2014 to 6-3 for UCLA. That's where I Googled my information. It has Arizona 7-2 to UCLA's 6-3, although UCLA at 10-3 had a better overall record than Rich's 10-4. But even that may be wrong. The other John would know better than me since it's his turf out thataway.
To be frank, all I looked at was the names and not the W-L. Who the hell puts the second place team at the top of the division standings? Get those Westerners to get their act together and I'll try to do the same with my act.
Thanks, John in Cal. You might find out who put those standings together and tell them to put UCLA above Arizona in the 2014 Pac South standings. It confuses old farts!
STANDINGS CONFERENCE OVERALL
Pac 12 - North W-L PF PA W-L PF PA STRK
Oregon 8-1 395 225 13-2 681 354 L1
Stanford 5-4 214 175 8-5 353 213 W3
Washington 4-5 236 216 8-6 423 347 L1
California 3-6 338 397 5-7 459 477 L3
Washington State 2-7 272 377 3-9 382 463 L2
Oregon State 2-7 213 328 5-7 308 379 L2
Pac 12 - South W-L PF PA W-L PF PA STRK
Arizona 7-2 321 242 10-4 483 395 L2
UCLA 6-3 305 258 10-3 435 365 W1
Arizona State 6-3 286 264 10-3 480 363 W1
USC 6-3 289 221 9-4 466 327 W2
Utah 5-4 221 263 9-4 407 324 W2
Colorado 0-9 263 387 2-10 342 468 L8
To be frank, all I looked at was the names and not the W-L. Who the hell puts the second place team at the top of the division standings? Get those Westerners to get their act together and I'll try to do the same with my act.
Thanks, John in Cal. You might find out who put those standings together and tell them to put UCLA above Arizona in the 2014 Pac South standings. It confuses old farts!
STANDINGS CONFERENCE OVERALL
Pac 12 - North W-L PF PA W-L PF PA STRK
Oregon 8-1 395 225 13-2 681 354 L1
Stanford 5-4 214 175 8-5 353 213 W3
Washington 4-5 236 216 8-6 423 347 L1
California 3-6 338 397 5-7 459 477 L3
Washington State 2-7 272 377 3-9 382 463 L2
Oregon State 2-7 213 328 5-7 308 379 L2
Pac 12 - South W-L PF PA W-L PF PA STRK
Arizona 7-2 321 242 10-4 483 395 L2
UCLA 6-3 305 258 10-3 435 365 W1
Arizona State 6-3 286 264 10-3 480 363 W1
USC 6-3 289 221 9-4 466 327 W2
Utah 5-4 221 263 9-4 407 324 W2
Colorado 0-9 263 387 2-10 342 468 L8
Last edited:
I checked again. It's ESPN that has it wrong. Can't those guys get anything right? UCLA should sue ESPN and we could call it The Alphabet Lawsuit.
In my 13 years of being paid to cover sports, I've NEVER seen a second place team listed atop the standings, and, I'm guessing, neither has John In CA. I don't follow the Pac-12 that well, obviously, other than Rich, whose tenure at WVU I'm grateful for (till he bad-mouthed WVU in Michigan to try unsuccessfully to save a few million). I'll take the blame for my senility by not checking the W-L and not following the Pac-12 in more than a cursory manner because my focus is on my alma mater and the Big 12. But someone at ESPN needs to be taken to the woodshed, too, and told that you don't put the No. 2 team in the No. 1 spot in the standings. It confuses octogenerians! :flushed:
The Pac-12 championship game was a rematch & meeting of the divisional winners: 7 Arizona vs 2 Oregon.
Oregon won big in the title game, reversing the outcome when Ariz beat them at Oregon.
An interesting, not often talked about facet of the 'playoff' -- had Ariz beat Ore again, they would've made a very strong case for the No. 4 slot.
Would've been the lone 2-loss playoff team, but no one else would have had 2 top 2 Ws that I know of, along with 2 other top 17 Ws. One of Ariz's 2 losses was a fluke against USC that they had chances to get, but the kicker didn't come through.
Hate or tolerate him, Rod came close close to making the first playoff. That with a freshman QB & RB.
Oregon won big in the title game, reversing the outcome when Ariz beat them at Oregon.
An interesting, not often talked about facet of the 'playoff' -- had Ariz beat Ore again, they would've made a very strong case for the No. 4 slot.
Would've been the lone 2-loss playoff team, but no one else would have had 2 top 2 Ws that I know of, along with 2 other top 17 Ws. One of Ariz's 2 losses was a fluke against USC that they had chances to get, but the kicker didn't come through.
Hate or tolerate him, Rod came close close to making the first playoff. That with a freshman QB & RB.
oops.....i was confused.....my bad.....arizona got blown out by oregon in the pac-12 championship game.....it was something like 51-13......
arizona also won some games last year they should have lost, including a hail mary pass against coloradif i remember correctly and a fortunate fumble by oregon state i think it was late in the game to give arizona the ball back for the winning drive.....just sayin......
I read this post. Its easy on the eyes. One would think a newspaper man would have better sense that to use the big bold red. Just sayin....
When you're 82, you don't worry about what other people think of you. Anyway, it's the information that counts. As we all should know by now, color is the least important thing about a person.
When you're 82, you don't worry about what other people think of you. Anyway, it's the information that counts. As we all should know by now, color is the least important thing about a person.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM West Virginia defense will be multiple in many ways under Alley
- Latest: MountaineerGuy
-