Really? What would it take to be considered competitive in your opinion? Seems to me, with a few exceptions, most PAC12 games have been pretty close the last year and a half.
Macintyre's conference records are: 1-8, 0-9, 1-4. I am not ready to roll out the red carpet just yet. This enthusiasm seems to be all stemming from a game in which
lost last week. A game that we led for a small fraction of one quarter. A game with a predictable ending.
Put differently, and since you say the last year and a half, let's take the last 5 conference games of last year: we are 1-9 in these last games. In order for the outcome we've seen, which is 1-9, to be about the median result, our winning probability in a given game would need to be about 16%. Is that what you call competitive? It's not what I call competitive. Some of our losses this year are within a single score, but some of them aren't.
There has clearly been progress. That's undeniable. IMO, this team has come up short in critical moments in the AZ game, the Oregon game, and UCLA game. If this happens consistently, it is hard to call it random (small sample size notwithstanding. I'm sure we can find some moments from last year, but frankly I don't remember the games that well). I am not usually into armchair sports psychology, but I think that there might be something to it here. That needs to be corrected. There isn't a column in the standings for "almost wins", and I hope that there isn't with the team, the players, or the AD leadership.
If the team goes out and gets their asses kicked next week in a "let down game", no one is going to be impressed that they almost beat UCLA. If they win, then I'm board with the turning point narrative. But not until then.