Massey college football composite ratings

[dystopiamembrane]

Massey’s CFB composite, a composite of 60+ rating systems, offers the following list of P5 conference relative strength (highest rated team and number of schools in top 25 in parenthesis).

1. SEC (1-Georgia; 5)
2. Big Ten (2-Ohio State; 7)
3. Big 12 (6-Oklahoma State; 3)
4. ACC (12-Wake Forest; 3)
5. Pac-12 (13-Oregon; 2)

Note: The Pac-12 is shown to be closer in strength to the MW and AAC than it is to the other P5 conferences.

[ProudUte]

We need the PAC12 to make some significant strides in the right direction.  As much as I hate to say it, we need USC to get back to a top-ten team.  That being said, I want Utah to remain one step ahead of them.

[krindor]

Absolutely, a conference is judged by their top teams (see Clemson single handedly keeping the ACC reputation afloat over the last half decade).

We need USC and Oregon to step it up for the good of the conference. Rising tide lifts all boats

[2008 National Champ]

USC is overblown. They have the best resources and history of all the South teams so we all assume that it is easiest for them to be a top team. It doesn’t necessarily need to be SC/Oregon on a yearly basis, but there needs to be at least two dominant teams in the conference every year.

Right now, the Pac is a bell curve with a bloated middle. It needs to have distinct tiers. Whoever the top two-four teams are in a given year can’t be losing OOC games and definitely not to the teams in the lower tiers. If those top teams only lose to each other, it increasing the national profile and you have a better chance of getting an undefeated or 1 loss team.

Parity is good for the fan bases because they feel like their team can win on any given Saturday no matter the opponent. But as long as the playoff is a beauty pageant instead of taking conference champions, having one team run the table is what is going to be recognized.

[krindor]

I do think there’s some value in having teams be consistently good. If the PAC12 has two top 10 teams every year, but it’s on a rotating basis over a 6 year cycle, that doesn’t get the same respect as Oregon and USC (or Utah) being a perennial top 10 team.

USC has the easiest path to that, but it doesn’t have to be them, agreed

[2008 National Champ]

I’m not disagreeing with your premise that the Pac needs to have dominant teams every year. But just because we’ve seen the same teams in the playoff doesn’t mean that only the same teams will get recognized.

We all get caught up in the first rankings and try to draw too many conclusions. Wake Forest isn’t out of the playoff yet, even if they weren’t getting the same consideration as the brand names have so far. Until I see a 1 loss P5 champ get left out (caveat of 2014 acknowledged but there were 6 teams that met that criteria) for a 1 loss non-P5 champ, I’m going to say that all P5’s have the same opportunity. I’m as anti-committee as anyone but that is a line that I don’t think they will cross.

If Oregon is 12-1 after the CCG, they will get in. Not because they are Oregon but because of the 1 loss. Utah would have gotten invited in 2019 for the same reason. So I’m fine with USC being a 5-7 team in perpetuity as long as someone else steps up to fill the void.

[UteFanatic]

The P12 is in major overhaul mode right now. Three HC vacancies at the moment, with several more on the hot seat.

The Covid year obviously set the conference back as well. Look at how poorly teams played at the beginning of the year. 

I think the conference rebounds and will be just fine.

 

[Author]

Posts