The PAC12 is a dead man walking.
Maybe. But you are conflating some issues here.
The PAC12 is a dead man walking.
As much as I hate to say it, we need USC to get stupid good, we need Chip Kelly to get UCLA to a level where most of his Oregon teams were, and we need major rebounds by Stanford and Washington. CU getting back to 8+ wins/year wouldn’t hurt either.
Obviously, but the traditional powers who consistently recruit in the top 10-15 need to step up for the conference to become relevant again.Personally, I am all for CU being stupid good, but whatever makes you happy.
Washington carrying the conference in football can’t be the norm. Need USC to be a mainstay in the CFP conversation.The most alarming issue is that recruiting doesn’t appear to be a huge issue just like with basketball. There are four pac 12 teams in the top 20 and 5 in the top 30 which is about where the conference should be (everyone is lagging way behind the SEC). The main difference is the lack of money from the TV deal, boosters and game day revenue is limiting the conference in terms of coaching salaries, support staff, facilities and probably nutrition to a certain extent. The pac 12 recruits really well in basketball and still can’t do **** on the court.
USC getting back to a top 10/5 program will certainly help but only so much. Cal should be recruiting in the top 30. CU in the top 35. This won’t change as much on the field as people think though.
Washington carrying the conference in football can’t be the norm. Need USC to be a mainstay in the CFP conversation.
Yeah but usc won the conference last year and won the rose bowl the year before and it didn’t help as much as we all thought. I agree they need to be a national player just like UCLA needs to be in basketball but there are more issues than that and I think those other issues are more important.Washington carrying the conference in football can’t be the norm. Need USC to be a mainstay in the CFP conversation.
Yeah but usc won the conference last year and won the rose bowl the year before and it didn’t help as much as we all thought. I agree they need to be a national player just like UCLA needs to be in basketball but there are more issues than that and I think those other issues are more important.
For example the ACC is not in good shape right now, their major programs in Miami and Florida State are really struggling and Clemson doing what they are hides some of those things but there are still some big underlying issues there,
That’s because the Rose Bowl, when not part of the CFP, is completely meaningless. We can’t keep having 2 and 3 loss conference champs. Your Point about Clemson and ACC is right on, but nobody seems to care. They have one of two NC contenders year in, year out. We need at least one team to be dominantYeah but usc won the conference last year and won the rose bowl the year before and it didn’t help as much as we all thought. I agree they need to be a national player just like UCLA needs to be in basketball but there are more issues than that and I think those other issues are more important.
For example the ACC is not in good shape right now, their major programs in Miami and Florida State are really struggling and Clemson doing what they are hides some of those things but there are still some big underlying issues there,
That’s because the Rose Bowl, when not part of the CFP, is completely meaningless. We can’t keep having 2 and 3 loss conference champs. Your Point about Clemson and ACC is right on, but nobody seems to care. They have one of two NC contenders year in, year out. We need at least one team to be dominant
Yeah but usc won the conference last year and won the rose bowl the year before and it didn’t help as much as we all thought. I agree they need to be a national player just like UCLA needs to be in basketball but there are more issues than that and I think those other issues are more important.
For example the ACC is not in good shape right now, their major programs in Miami and Florida State are really struggling and Clemson doing what they are hides some of those things but there are still some big underlying issues there,
Limiting beliefs is what has hurt this program for too long. HCMT is of the top five mindset. The past is not a reflection of the future unless you believe it so.The most alarming issue is that recruiting doesn’t appear to be a huge issue just like with basketball. There are four pac 12 teams in the top 20 and 5 in the top 30 which is about where the conference should be (everyone is lagging way behind the SEC). The main difference is the lack of money from the TV deal, boosters and game day revenue is limiting the conference in terms of coaching salaries, support staff, facilities and probably nutrition to a certain extent. The pac 12 recruits really well in basketball and still can’t do **** on the court.
USC getting back to a top 10/5 program will certainly help but only so much. Cal should be recruiting in the top 30. CU in the top 35. This won’t change as much on the field as people think though.
As it pertains to the national landscape and prestige of the conference, I don’t think it matters anymore. Pac 12 gets an auto bid into it. Right or wrong, all that’s being discussed is the 1 game the Pac 12 has won in the CFP’s history.The Rose Bowl is completely meaningless? Come on.
It is consistently the most viewed game on New Year's Day.
I’m just pointing out that USC was a top 10 program for two years but it didn’t help the rest of the conference like we all thought it would. Revenues are becoming an huge issue for all programs outside of USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. The conference could be okay without usc being a top 10 program if it wasn’t in such terrible shape for those other programs, which was my larger point.The rose bowl feels like an eternity ago now though, but yes that was a plus. But winning the conference doesn’t mean much. ESPN/Fox love to talk about how bad we are and how great the big10/SEC are. So USC winning the conference is more like, “well they suck so it’s not impressive.”
The media loves to talk about the PAC-12’s struggles. If USC isn’t in the top 10 and in the playoff talk we’re going to continue to see the media slam us.
Not really man, the national media absolutely loves the rose bowl and almost everyone attends. It gets a ton of exposure and has great history with the big 10 who is our strongest partner at the moment. Obviously it is best when we have a playoff team and a team in the rose bowl but it definitely isn’t meaningless.That’s because the Rose Bowl, when not part of the CFP, is completely meaningless. We can’t keep having 2 and 3 loss conference champs. Your Point about Clemson and ACC is right on, but nobody seems to care. They have one of two NC contenders year in, year out. We need at least one team to be dominant
It does nothing for the prestige of the Pac 12Not really man, the national media absolutely loves the rose bowl and almost everyone attends. It gets a ton of exposure and has great history with the big 10 who is our strongest partner at the moment. Obviously it is best when we have a playoff team and a team in the rose bowl but it definitely isn’t meaningless.
Sorry but a 3 loss pac 12 team beating the big 10 champ definitely raises the prestige of the conference.It does nothing for the prestige of the Pac 12
Sure seems like it, man.Sorry but a 3 loss pac 12 team beating the big 10 champ definitely raises the prestige of the conference.
As it pertains to the national landscape and prestige of the conference, I don’t think it matters anymore. Pac 12 gets an auto bid into it. Right or wrong, all that’s being discussed is the 1 game the Pac 12 has won in the CFP’s history.
I’m just pointing out that USC was a top 10 program for two years but it didn’t help the rest of the conference like we all thought it would. Revenues are becoming an huge issue for all programs outside of USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. The conference could be okay without usc being a top 10 program if it wasn’t in such terrible shape for those other programs, which was my larger point.
Sure seems like it, man.
National writers are the ones using the Pac 12 as a punch line, so while the Rose Bowl may be a nice game that is well covered, it just doesn’t do much for the prestige of the conference anymore.It is the most prestigious bowl game in the country and it absolutely matters. National writers would actually say the exact opposite of whatever you are trying to say here.
Some of you are going off the damn deep end with some of these takes.
No on No. 2. I went from one analogy to another. I edited it to be more clear. Mainly, I think the Championship playoffs have gotten stale. The same teams are in it every year. There is no parity in college football. The Championship playoffs have diluted the interest in the big bowl games.
National writers are the ones using the Pac 12 as a punch line, so while the Rose Bowl may be a nice game that is well covered, it just doesn’t do much for the prestige of the conference anymore.
You’re all over the place Duff. I am not blaming the Rose Bowl for anything. I’m blaming the traditional Pac 12 powers for not being able to represent for the conference on a bigger stage than the Rose Bowl (CFP). Why would I **** on the Rose Bowl if/when the Buffs get there? Winning the conference and playing in that game would be great for CU. It’s not great for the Pac 12, unless the Rose Bowl is part of the CFP that year, but would be amazing for CU.It is one the few things that has national relevance for the conference. The Rose Bowl is not to blame for everything else wrong with the conference.
I look forward to you ****ting all over the Rose Bowl when the Buffs make it.
You’re all over the place Duff. I am not blaming the Rose Bowl for anything. I’m blaming the traditional Pac 12 powers for not being able to represent for the conference on a bigger stage than the Rose Bowl (CFP). Why would I **** on the Rose Bowl if/when the Buffs get there? Winning the conference and playing in that game would be great for CU. It’s not great for the Pac 12, unless the Rose Bowl is part of the CFP that year, but would be amazing for CU.
Nobody has ever said the Rose Bowl is a problem, Duff. I said it’s meaningless relative to the CFP and how seriously the national media and CFB world takes the P12 conference. If it continues to be the biggest game of the season for the Pac 12 (unless it’s part of the CFP), year in year out, the conference is in trouble.You are all over the place.
Two years, USC finished #3 in the country and won arguably the best game of the bowl season, which made them a preseason darling for 2017 with Darnold as a trendy Heisman pick. Yet you are arguing it did nothing for the prestige of the conference, even though it put USC squarely in the CFP talk for the following year.
The Rose Bowl is not a problem in the slightest, but you are just reflexively ****ting on it because it involves the Pac-12. It is the one big thing the conference has going for it. If Washington had beaten Ohio State, it would have been noticed nationally. The Pac-12 losing the game is contributing to the national narrative, winning it more would reverse it.
Nobody has ever said the Rose Bowl is a problem, Duff. I said it’s meaningless relative to the CFP and how seriously the national media and CFB world takes the P12 conference. If it continues to be the biggest game of the season for the Pac 12 (unless it’s part of the CFP), year in year out, the conference is in trouble.