Presented w/o comment.....

Comments
-
All of them need to kill themselves.salemcoog said: -
You must be a Premium Member to access this content
Sign up to access all premium content & benefits – It’s the best way to stay up-to-date with your team. -
Aubbie with USC, UW and UCLA at 1,2,3
It must be August -
I wish he still posted here.RaceBannon said:Aubbie with USC, UW and UCLA at 1,2,3
It must be August -
That thread has AIDS
-
When jsmdogs has to attempt to be the voice of reason, you may have some problems.Peterman said:That thread has AIDS
-
You must be a Premium Member to access this content
Sign up to access all premium content & benefits – It’s the best way to stay up-to-date with your team.
SIGN UP FOR PREMIUM
No, thanks. Please tell me about signing up for free
PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Benefits
All Basic Membership Benefits
Exclusive Recruiting, Player and Game stories
Access to Premium stories across the Scout Network
Ad-free Scout videos for Annual Members
Exclusive Premium Forums
Premium Fantasy “Cheat Sheet” content and advice
10% off All Tickets – Save $100’s
Already a member?
Sign in -
Great Your access to this site's forums has been revoked as always.
-
If someone taught me how to Screenshart from Windows 95, I could post it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Great Your access to this site's forums has been revoked as always.
-
Auburndawg
Auburndawg's Pre-Camp PAC-12 Power Rankings!
Yesterday at 9:26 AM
Welcome to another great year of college football!
These rankings are based on what we know today about each of these teams. Things can change dramatically based on developments, such as injuries, during training camp, and then again when we see all the new players, particularly all the new QBs around the league, actually play a game.
A definite talent gap has developed in recent years in the PAC-12. The LA schools, Stanford, Oregon, UW, and lately ASU. recruit at a consistently higher level than the other five teams.
1. USC. Yes, they have rookie a QB and have to replace about half the defense. But everyone other than the QB is back on offense. All that 5 star talent, and now they may finally have a competent coach.
2. Washington. Dawgs have fewer question marks than any of the other upper division programs. Virtually the entire defense is back, and the D will be dominant. The problem last year was too many rookies on offense. Time has solved that problem, as experienced players return at every position. And we get John Ross back. Jake Browning 2016 will be a major upgrade over Jake Browning 2015. And in year three this is 100% a Chris Petersen team, which is a very good thing.
3. UCLA. The Bruins return most of their defense, and their QB. But they lose most of their O-line and receivers. Based having a returning QB, and strong overall talent, I start them out just ahead of Oregon and Stanford.
4. Stanford. I understand the respect for Stanford's program, but they lose just about their entire offense, other than McCaffrey, and half their defense. With that number of question marks you have to assume they take at least one step back this year.
5. Oregon. The only thing that kept Oregon from being mediocre last year was Vernon Adams. He is gone, and so is their entire defensive front 7. Yes, there is a lot of talent in this program, but just like Stanford, you have to assume they fall back a bit.
6. WSU. Cougs lose a few key guys on defense, but other than that they have few question marks. They will be dangerous as long as Falk stays healthy. Will he make it to the Apple Cup this year?
7. Arizona. This team returns their QB and virtually everyone else, other than Scooby Wright.
8. ASU. New QB. New offensive line. New D coordinator. 6 new starters on defense. ASU takes a step back.
9. Utah. New QB. No Devontae Booker. Utes are well coached, but that only goes so far.
10. Cal. No Goff. All the WRs are gone.
11. Colorado
12. Oregon State.
-
Obligatory Cal is too high.RaceBannon said:
Auburndawg
Auburndawg's Pre-Camp PAC-12 Power Rankings!
Yesterday at 9:26 AM
Welcome to another great year of college football!
These rankings are based on what we know today about each of these teams. Things can change dramatically based on developments, such as injuries, during training camp, and then again when we see all the new players, particularly all the new QBs around the league, actually play a game.
A definite talent gap has developed in recent years in the PAC-12. The LA schools, Stanford, Oregon, UW, and lately ASU. recruit at a consistently higher level than the other five teams.
1. USC. Yes, they have rookie a QB and have to replace about half the defense. But everyone other than the QB is back on offense. All that 5 star talent, and now they may finally have a competent coach.
2. Washington. Dawgs have fewer question marks than any of the other upper division programs. Virtually the entire defense is back, and the D will be dominant. The problem last year was too many rookies on offense. Time has solved that problem, as experienced players return at every position. And we get John Ross back. Jake Browning 2016 will be a major upgrade over Jake Browning 2015. And in year three this is 100% a Chris Petersen team, which is a very good thing.
3. UCLA. The Bruins return most of their defense, and their QB. But they lose most of their O-line and receivers. Based having a returning QB, and strong overall talent, I start them out just ahead of Oregon and Stanford.
4. Stanford. I understand the respect for Stanford's program, but they lose just about their entire offense, other than McCaffrey, and half their defense. With that number of question marks you have to assume they take at least one step back this year.
5. Oregon. The only thing that kept Oregon from being mediocre last year was Vernon Adams. He is gone, and so is their entire defensive front 7. Yes, there is a lot of talent in this program, but just like Stanford, you have to assume they fall back a bit.
6. WSU. Cougs lose a few key guys on defense, but other than that they have few question marks. They will be dangerous as long as Falk stays healthy. Will he make it to the Apple Cup this year?
7. Arizona. This team returns their QB and virtually everyone else, other than Scooby Wright.
8. ASU. New QB. New offensive line. New D coordinator. 6 new starters on defense. ASU takes a step back.
9. Utah. New QB. No Devontae Booker. Utes are well coached, but that only goes so far.
10. Cal. No Goff. All the WRs are gone.
11. Colorado
12. Oregon State. -
Waiting for his (her?) Colorado and OSU analysis.
-
They suckTheGlove said:Waiting for his (her?) Colorado and OSU analysis.
-
I am lighting the dong signal even though Race already took care of things. Because I like wagging dong. Fuck off.
-
This football team does not suck
-
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
-
-
They suck tooBaseman said:
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
-
I'm still going to believe that sark's stinch still resides on this team for another year at least. Guys he recruited went there for a reason and just don't quit partying and being jackass's.
I'll believe the normal usc bullshit when they actually do something -
Shit arguement Boobs.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They suck tooBaseman said:
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
going into 2015, Stanford had .792 WP against ranked opponents and proceeded to go 5-1 against ranked opponents in '15, running their record against the same to 24-6 (80%)
That's an elite fucking squad - so lick my love pump.
Post 2014: How Pac-12 teams have fared against ranked teams since 2009, according to StatsPass.com.
1. Stanford: 19-5, .792
2. Oregon: 17-7, .708
3. USC: 7-10, .412
4. UCLA: 8-14, .364
5. Washington: 8-18, .308
6. Arizona State: 5-13, .278
7. Arizona: 4-12, .250
8. Utah: 3-10, .231
9. Oregon State: 5-17. .227
10. California: 3-17, .150
11. Colorado: 1-15, .063
12. Washington State: 1-19, .053 -
What an awful conference. Fuck me.
-
They scored SIX FUCKING POINTS at Northwestern last year and lost to Helfrich at home.Baseman said:
Shit arguement Boobs.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They suck tooBaseman said:
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
going into 2015, Stanford had .792 WP against ranked opponents and proceeded to go 5-1 against ranked opponents in '15, running their record against the same to 24-6 (80%)
That's an elite fucking squad - so lick my love pump.
Post 2014: How Pac-12 teams have fared against ranked teams since 2009, according to StatsPass.com.
1. Stanford: 19-5, .792
2. Oregon: 17-7, .708
3. USC: 7-10, .412
4. UCLA: 8-14, .364
5. Washington: 8-18, .308
6. Arizona State: 5-13, .278
7. Arizona: 4-12, .250
8. Utah: 3-10, .231
9. Oregon State: 5-17. .227
10. California: 3-17, .150
11. Colorado: 1-15, .063
12. Washington State: 1-19, .053 -
Because we're 8 and 18?
-
You act like @Owen12 didn't happen.RaceBannon said:Because we're 8 and 18?
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They scored SIX FUCKING POINTS at Northwestern last year and lost to Helfrich at home.Baseman said:
Shit arguement Boobs.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They suck tooBaseman said:
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
going into 2015, Stanford had .792 WP against ranked opponents and proceeded to go 5-1 against ranked opponents in '15, running their record against the same to 24-6 (80%)
That's an elite fucking squad - so lick my love pump.
Post 2014: How Pac-12 teams have fared against ranked teams since 2009, according to StatsPass.com.
1. Stanford: 19-5, .792
2. Oregon: 17-7, .708
3. USC: 7-10, .412
4. UCLA: 8-14, .364
5. Washington: 8-18, .308
6. Arizona State: 5-13, .278
7. Arizona: 4-12, .250
8. Utah: 3-10, .231
9. Oregon State: 5-17. .227
10. California: 3-17, .150
11. Colorado: 1-15, .063
12. Washington State: 1-19, .053
(NT)
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/2/29/11125594/ncaa-football-best-teams-decades-history-alabama-fsu-nebraska-oklahoma-michigan
-
Playing Pac-12 retards helps.Baseman said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They scored SIX FUCKING POINTS at Northwestern last year and lost to Helfrich at home.Baseman said:
Shit arguement Boobs.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
They suck tooBaseman said:
Wrong on all except Stanford.CuntWaffle said:This football team does not suck
going into 2015, Stanford had .792 WP against ranked opponents and proceeded to go 5-1 against ranked opponents in '15, running their record against the same to 24-6 (80%)
That's an elite fucking squad - so lick my love pump.
Post 2014: How Pac-12 teams have fared against ranked teams since 2009, according to StatsPass.com.
1. Stanford: 19-5, .792
2. Oregon: 17-7, .708
3. USC: 7-10, .412
4. UCLA: 8-14, .364
5. Washington: 8-18, .308
6. Arizona State: 5-13, .278
7. Arizona: 4-12, .250
8. Utah: 3-10, .231
9. Oregon State: 5-17. .227
10. California: 3-17, .150
11. Colorado: 1-15, .063
12. Washington State: 1-19, .053
(NT)
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/2/29/11125594/ncaa-football-best-teams-decades-history-alabama-fsu-nebraska-oklahoma-michigan
Wake me when Stanford makes the CFP. Until then, losers lose. -
Boobs hates facts
See the Tug -
I openly admit that Stanford is a dwarf among midgets.RaceBannon said:Boobs hates facts
See the Tug
NDSU is the best team this decade if quality of opponent doesn't matter. -
When it takes multiple poasts to explain your shit arguement you're a shit poaster.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I openly admit that Stanford is a dwarf among midgets.RaceBannon said:Boobs hates facts
See the Tug
NDSU is the best team this decade if quality of opponent doesn't matter. -
I wonder if boobs knows how dumb he looks and just goes with it or he's oblivious