Bear Down Wildcats

ANGCatFan wrote:
After 2 weeks it is shocking how far both the Washington schools have fallen from preseason predictions. I blame the state's new recreational marijuana laws.

ANGCatFan wrote:After 2 weeks we now have a little to work with. Here is how the PAC 12 Blog ranks the conference:

My only big complaint with their ranking is putting AssU ahead of Stanford.

After 2 weeks it is shocking how far both the Washington schools have fallen from preseason predictions. I blame the state's new recreational marijuana laws.

azthrillhouse wrote:

ANGCatFan wrote:After 2 weeks we now have a little to work with. Here is how the PAC 12 Blog ranks the conference:

My only big complaint with their ranking is putting AssU ahead of Stanford.

After 2 weeks it is shocking how far both the Washington schools have fallen from preseason predictions. I blame the state's new recreational marijuana laws.

Still definitely room for debate, but I would have it:

Oregon
USC
Stanford
UCLA
ASU
Arizona
Utah
Oregon St
UW
Cal
Colorado
WSU

Cal and Utah likely paper tigers, ESPN has them too high (along w/ ASU.). UCLA looks shaky but I think they'll get it sorted out (though I hope not).

azgreg wrote:Week 1 power rankings.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... s-week-1-3

1. Oregon Ducks
2. UCLA Bruins
3. USC Trojans
4. Arizona Wildcats: The Wildcats move down only because the Bruins moved up. Arizona looked fantastic offensively with the Anu Solomon-Nick Wilson backfield clicking. And Johnny Jackson had a great game with eight catches for 101 yards and a score. DaVonte' Neal (11 tackles) looks at home on defense. Given the schedule, the Cats should be able to ride things out while Scooby Wright III recovers from injury.
5. Utah Utes
6. California Golden Bears
7. Washington Huskies
8. Arizona State Sun Devils
9. Oregon State Beavers
10. Stanford Cardinal
11. Colorado Buffaloes
12. Washington State Cougars

azcat49 wrote:Not sure how they are looking at this? Last weeks performance or just projecting out the teams. If on performance I would go:

1) UCLA
2) USC
3) Oregon
4) Utah
5) AZ
6) Cal
7) UDub
8) ASSU
9) Furd
10) OSU
11) CU
12) Wazzu

I think UCLA was very impressive in its win over a power 5 team and Rosen should just get better. I think USC's defense gives it the nod over Oregon and Utah beating Michigan and Harbaugh was more impressive than our win against UTSA

scumdevils86 wrote:15/25 ranked teams are SEC or Pac 12

scumdevils86 wrote:whoops meant 14. thanks asu!

Gilbertcat wrote:My thoughts:

I feel that AZ in the 19-20 range is about right for now. And holy reaction to T A&M. They are ok, but not that good. BSU didnt look like a top 25 team on Friday and I know Stanford was getting over hyped but playing at 9am is hard; they already had a bad offense so it just made it look worse.

azgreg wrote:Week 1 power rankings.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... s-week-1-3

1. Oregon Ducks
2. UCLA Bruins
3. USC Trojans
4. Arizona Wildcats: The Wildcats move down only because the Bruins moved up. Arizona looked fantastic offensively with the Anu Solomon-Nick Wilson backfield clicking. And Johnny Jackson had a great game with eight catches for 101 yards and a score. DaVonte' Neal (11 tackles) looks at home on defense. Given the schedule, the Cats should be able to ride things out while Scooby Wright III recovers from injury.
5. Utah Utes
6. California Golden Bears
7. Washington Huskies
8. Arizona State Sun Devils
9. Oregon State Beavers
10. Stanford Cardinal
11. Colorado Buffaloes
12. Washington State Cougars

Gilbertcat wrote:My thoughts:

I feel that AZ in the 19-20 range is about right for now. And holy reaction to T A&M. They are ok, but not that good. BSU didnt look like a top 25 team on Friday and I know Stanford was getting over hyped but playing at 9am is hard; they already had a bad offense so it just made it look worse.

MrMeow wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:My thoughts:

I feel that AZ in the 19-20 range is about right for now. And holy reaction to T A&M. They are ok, but not that good. BSU didnt look like a top 25 team on Friday and I know Stanford was getting over hyped but playing at 9am is hard; they already had a bad offense so it just made it look worse.

Yeah, those early starts are a bitch. Good thing their opponent didn't have to play until later in the day. Forgive me, I couldn't help it

Harvey Specter wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:My thoughts:

I feel that AZ in the 19-20 range is about right for now. And holy reaction to T A&M. They are ok, but not that good. BSU didnt look like a top 25 team on Friday and I know Stanford was getting over hyped but playing at 9am is hard; they already had a bad offense so it just made it look worse.

Yeah, those early starts are a bitch. Good thing their opponent didn't have to play until later in the day. Forgive me, I couldn't help it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone

Gilbertcat's point is legit... Same also applied for CU at CO. Sh*t happens, and teams have to suck it up, but playing in different time zones can be challenging, esp depending on kickoff times.

Puerco wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:My thoughts:

I feel that AZ in the 19-20 range is about right for now. And holy reaction to T A&M. They are ok, but not that good. BSU didnt look like a top 25 team on Friday and I know Stanford was getting over hyped but playing at 9am is hard; they already had a bad offense so it just made it look worse.

Yeah, those early starts are a bitch. Good thing their opponent didn't have to play until later in the day. Forgive me, I couldn't help it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone

Gilbertcat's point is legit... Same also applied for CU at CO. Sh*t happens, and teams have to suck it up, but playing in different time zones can be challenging, esp depending on kickoff times.

Don't buy it. Two hours time change is nada and most teams have morning practices during camp. Like you said: suck it up.

In reality, Stanford was as overrated as A&M was under.

Bruins01 wrote: You're severely underestimating the effects of crossing time zones, especially for teams going west to east to play early morning games. There was a study a few years ago in the NFL that found that teams going from the west coast to the east coast lose 16% more of their games than they do when going on the road within their own time zone. This is a very real effect and unique to football among the major American sports as it is the only sport in which a large percentage of games are played during the day, when west coast players playing in the eastern time zone are especially far away from their circadian peak.

We discuss current knowledge on the description, impact, and underlying causes of circadian rhythmicity in sports performance. We argue that there is a wealth of information from both applied and experimental work, which, when considered together, suggests that sports performance is affected by time of day in normal entrained conditions and that the variation has at least some input from endogenous mechanisms. Nevertheless, precise information on the relative importance of endogenous and exogenous factors is lacking. No single study can answer both the applied and basic research questions that are relevant to this topic, but an appropriate mixture of real-world research on rhythm disturbances and tightly controlled experiments involving forced desynchronization protocols is needed. Important issues, which should be considered by any chronobiologist interested in sports and exercise, include how representative the study sample and the selected performance tests are, test-retest reliability, as well as overall design of the experiment.

Puerco wrote:

Bruins01 wrote: You're severely underestimating the effects of crossing time zones, especially for teams going west to east to play early morning games. There was a study a few years ago in the NFL that found that teams going from the west coast to the east coast lose 16% more of their games than they do when going on the road within their own time zone. This is a very real effect and unique to football among the major American sports as it is the only sport in which a large percentage of games are played during the day, when west coast players playing in the eastern time zone are especially far away from their circadian peak.

You'd have to account for a number of other variables before you could make a reasonably reliable link to jet lag. Not saying your study was flawed, but I'm not buying the correlation without a link. 16% is roughly 1 in 7, so if you want to pin an extra loss on a team due to time change of that magnitude it might take a decade or so -- unless you're Hawaii or Notre Dame. Arizona last played in the Eastern time zone in 2010, so it's a small data set if you go team by team.

State of the art in 2005 at least (can't find much newer):

We discuss current knowledge on the description, impact, and underlying causes of circadian rhythmicity in sports performance. We argue that there is a wealth of information from both applied and experimental work, which, when considered together, suggests that sports performance is affected by time of day in normal entrained conditions and that the variation has at least some input from endogenous mechanisms. Nevertheless, precise information on the relative importance of endogenous and exogenous factors is lacking. No single study can answer both the applied and basic research questions that are relevant to this topic, but an appropriate mixture of real-world research on rhythm disturbances and tightly controlled experiments involving forced desynchronization protocols is needed. Important issues, which should be considered by any chronobiologist interested in sports and exercise, include how representative the study sample and the selected performance tests are, test-retest reliability, as well as overall design of the experiment.

So am I severely understating the problem? Maybe, but in reality no one knows.

UAEebs86 wrote:Where's Berco?

UAEebs86 wrote:Who is UAW?

ASUHATER! wrote:Ole miss in the playoffs now