The Pac-12’s postseason Top 25 is complete. But judging from some of the mailbag questions Ted got last week and I’ll be tackling later on Tuesday, the debate has just begun.
Now’s your chance to grade the Pac-12 reporters. We posted our annual Take 2 earlier on Tuesday, where we shared our thought process and how some of the debating went down. Moving on with that insight of how the sausage is made, now it’s your turn to cast a vote.
And don’t forget to submit your own Top 25 player list (I see you, Coach Neuheisel). We’ll publish some of the highlights later this week.
How would you grade the Pac-12 postseason Top 25?
A: As close to perfection as you could probably come with a list like this. All 25 players who were listed deserved to be there and they are in the right spot -- give or take one or two places. Kevin and Ted's combined Pac-12 knowledge is surpassed only by their rugged good looks.
B: Not too shabby. Most of the players on the Top 25 deserve to be there and the rankings are, for the most part, pretty fair. I have a couple of gripes, but nothing worth getting too upset over. Overall, a solid list and a solid representation.
C: Some good, some bad. There were too many players left off the list or put on the list who didn’t deserve to be there, and the rankings were kind of screwy. It’s not the worst list ever. But I’ve seen better. Blame the new guy, Kyle.
D: Too many deserving players were left off the list for guys who didn’t deserve to be there. The rankings were also borderline horrendous. Blame the new guy, Kyle.
F: “What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” (Also, blame the new guy, Kyle).
Here's the complete list again for reference.