as difficult as it is for us to stomach, the PAC-12 is better when USC is good ...

[Scorcho]

Clearly Oregon and Stanford have been the class of the league for the past few seasons, but both of those teams added together don’t have the cache of USC’s Program. When you think of great college football programs in the west, you probably think Oklahoma, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Washington and BYU were in the mix for a period of time, but those teams have faded. Nobody else in the West has been able to sustain success over long periods of time like USC. Oregon appears to be on their way, but I suspect many believe they are a fad that won’t last long term, especially for those older football decision makers (who are important to influence when playoffs are just around the corner).

It’s crazy to fathom that USC was ranked #1 in one of the pre-season major polls and then preceded to fall further than almost any other #1 in recent memory. From what I recall they were fairly loaded last year, great skill players (as always) and a 4th year QB starter. I suspect Kiffen is gone if major improvements aren’t made this year. USC needs to rebound (and quickly) so the PAC-12 can be adequately represented when the 4 team playoff rolls out.

[sancho]

Clearly Oregon and Stanford have been the class of the league for the past few seasons, but both of those teams added together don’t have the cache of USC’s Program.

If Utah can't win the division, I would rather have USC win it over anyone else. In a division of 6 teams, there is room for only 1-2 powerhouse programs. The south currently has one powerhouse program - USC - that isn't going anywhere. It is better for Utah that we remain at only 1 powerhouse program (unless, of course, we take the second spot somehow). I don't want UCLA or ASU creeping up to powerhouse status.

The Big12 has two power programs. How often will someone other than OU or UT win that thing? The Big10 east will have OSU and Michigan. How often will someone else from that division make it to the title game? The ACC Atlantic is the model we favor. They just have FSU. So most years, FSU will win that division, but in off years pretty much anyone could sneak in.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

If Utah can't win the division, I would rather have USC win it over anyone else. In a division of 6 teams, there is room for only 1-2 powerhouse programs. The south currently has one powerhouse program - USC - that isn't going anywhere. It is better for Utah that we remain at only 1 powerhouse program (unless, of course, we take the second spot somehow). I don't want UCLA or ASU creeping up to powerhouse status.

The Big12 has two power programs. How often will someone other than OU or UT win that thing? The Big10 east will have OSU and Michigan. How often will someone else from that division make it to the title game? The ACC Atlantic is the model we favor. They just have FSU. So most years, FSU will win that division, but in off years pretty much anyone could sneak in.

If Utah can't win the South, then I would prefer someone different win it each year without a clear power house.

[sancho]

If Utah can't win the South, then I would prefer someone different win it each year without a clear power house.

Ok, fine, but there is already a clear powerhouse. USC aint going away.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Ok, fine, but there is already a clear powerhouse. USC aint going away.

I'm not sure I'd declare them a powerhouse in the past few years. I'm all for them continuing doing what they've done recently. I'm not saying they aren't going to come back with a vengeance, but recently, they've been anything but a "powerhouse."

[U-Ute]

I'm not sure I'd declare them a powerhouse in the past few years. I'm all for them continuing doing what they've done recently. I'm not saying they aren't going to come back with a vengeance, but recently, they've been anything but a "powerhouse."

The sanctions have hurt their depth. They'll be back.

[Sullyute]

The sanctions have hurt their depth. They'll be back.

You are probably right, but I doubt it is with Kiffin as their coach.

[U-Ute]

You are probably right, but I doubt it is with Kiffin as their coach.

:rofl:

Fair enough. I can agree with that.

[Hot Lunch]

Clearly Oregon and Stanford have been the class of the league for the past few seasons, but both of those teams added together don’t have the cache of USC’s Program. When you think of great college football programs in the west, you probably think Oklahoma, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Washington and BYU were in the mix for a period of time, but those teams have faded. Nobody else in the West has been able to sustain success over long periods of time like USC. Oregon appears to be on their way, but I suspect many believe they are a fad that won’t last long term, especially for those older football decision makers (who are important to influence when playoffs are just around the corner).

It’s crazy to fathom that USC was ranked #1 in one of the pre-season major polls and then preceded to fall further than almost any other #1 in recent memory. From what I recall they were fairly loaded last year, great skill players (as always) and a 4th year QB starter. I suspect Kiffen is gone if major improvements aren’t made this year. USC needs to rebound (and quickly) so the PAC-12 can be adequately represented when the 4 team playoff rolls out.

Not just the Pac -12 but college football in general. Someone was talking about this on the radio the other day. Right now, all of the traditional powers of college football (Bama, Ohio St., Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas etc.) are good except for USC. Ratings and revenue are the highest it has ever been. They also talked about how much of an increase USC would add if they were able to get back to their dominate ways.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Not just the Pac -12 but college football in general. Someone was talking about this on the radio the other day. Right now, all of the traditional powers of college football (Bama, Ohio St., Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas etc.) are good except for USC. Ratings and revenue are the highest it has ever been. They also talked about how much of an increase USC would add if they were able to get back to their dominate ways.

So, we'd be better off if USC dominates the south and leaves Utah the scraps?

If USC has to dominate for college football to make a few more bucks, then count me as one that is fine without the few more bucks in revenue. I'll take parity in a strong PAC12 vs. more money and conceding championships to USC.

[sancho]

So, we'd be better off if USC dominates the south and leaves Utah the scraps?

If USC has to dominate for college football to make a few more bucks, then count me as one that is fine without the few more bucks in revenue. I'll take parity in a strong PAC12 vs. more money and conceding championships to USC.

Well, I'd take Utah becoming the new USC and winning 10 championships in a row if I had a vote.

If the possibilities are:

1) USC dominant in the south, winning the division 60-70% of the time.

or

2) USC/UCLA (or ASU) co-dominant in the south, with one of the two winning 90% of the time.

I think we'd all prefer #1.

If your scenario where everyone shares titles more or less equal is possible, that would obviously be preferable. I just don't think it's possible because I don't think USC will stop landing top 5 signing classes anytime soon. When you look at the divisions in the Big5 conferences, almost all of them are on one of the two models outlined above.

I guess all I'm saying is that I hope no one else in the south wins consistently enough to become a dominant superpower that we have to compete with.

[Hot Lunch]

So, we'd be better off if USC dominates the south and leaves Utah the scraps?

If USC has to dominate for college football to make a few more bucks, then count me as one that is fine without the few more bucks in revenue. I'll take parity in a strong PAC12 vs. more money and conceding championships to USC.

I don't know why this would leave Utah the scraps.

USC being dominate doesn't mean that is would take parity away and prevent the PAC12 from being strong overall conference. I actually think it would benefit Utah. More eyes on the Pac12 means more publicity. The more the conference gets talked about on ESPN the more it helps with the overall recruiting for all schools.

I know that we have in the past with a handful of kids, but Utah isn't going to be going head to head vs. USC often recruiting kids. Utah has really focused on recruiting Texas as well as dipping into Louisiana now. This is something that a lot of Pac-12 teams aren't doing. The more hype and publicity around the conference will only help Utah coaches get in the homes of better athletes that they want to recruit.

[LA Ute]

I don't know why this would leave Utah the scraps.

USC being dominate doesn't mean that is would take parity away and prevent the PAC12 from being strong overall conference. I actually think it would benefit Utah. More eyes on the Pac12 means more publicity. The more the conference gets talked about on ESPN the more it helps with the overall recruiting for all schools.

I know we have in the past a handful of kids, but Utah isn't going to be going head to head vs. USC often recruiting kids. Utah has really focused on recruiting Texas as well as dipping into Louisiana. This is something that a lot of Pac-12 teams are doing. The more hype and publicity around the conference will only help Utah coaches get in the homes of better athletes that they want to recruit.

Good points. Even if USC dominates we'll have a shot at upsetting them every year, and we will do it now and then. We'll still go to good bowl games if we do well, regardless of how we fare against USC. PAC-12, baby!

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Good points. Even if USC dominates we'll have a shot at upsetting them every year, and we will do it now and then. We'll still go to good bowl games if we do well, regardless of how we fare against USC. PAC-12, baby!

I guess my issue with saying that it is good for USC to dominate is that it implies they will be winning the South and playing for the conference championship almost all the time.

If that is the case, what are we playing for? Are we just resigned to the fact that Utah isn't going to win the South and play in the championship game? Isn't the point of playing football to WIN the conference?

To Hot Lunch's point, what good is recruiting and national attention if it's not winning a conference championship once in a while?

I think parity can lead to similar national attention, with the chance for any school to win the conference. Right now, USC is down, but Oregon and Stanford seem to be doing just fine for themselves and bringing national attention to the conference. Both are ranked in the top 5 to start the season.

I guess my hope is that we succeed in an NFL type model where any team can win and because of that parity, the conference is popular and gains strength vs. the NBA model where, sure, any team could theoretically win the championship, but everyone knows it's going to be one of only about 5 teams year after year after year.

[LA Ute]

I guess my issue with saying that it is good for USC to dominate is that it implies they will be winning the South and playing for the conference championship almost all the time.

If that is the case, what are we playing for? Are we just resigned to the fact that Utah isn't going to win the South and play in the championship game? Isn't the point of playing football to WIN the conference?

To Hot Lunch's point, what good is recruiting and national attention if it's not winning a conference championship once in a while?

I think parity can lead to similar national attention, with the chance for any school to win the conference. Right now, USC is down, but Oregon and Stanford seem to be doing just fine for themselves and bringing national attention to the conference. Both are ranked in the top 5 to start the season.

I guess my hope is that we succeed in an NFL type model where any team can win and because of that parity, the conference is popular and gains strength vs. the NBA model where, sure, any team could theoretically win the championship, but everyone knows it's going to be one of only about 5 teams year after year after year.

Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I don't see us annually being the team to beat for the division championship. USC has too many resources for us to displace them. I do think it is realistic for us to become an annual "team to watch" that could in any given year win the division and the conference, and occasionally dominate -- maybe a couple of seasons each decade (like 2008 and 2008 in the MWC). I'd be happy if we got to that point. Everything beyond that would be gravy.

[Utah]

Rose Bowl teams from the PAC since 1990:

USC
Washington
Oregon
USC
ASU
WSU
UCLA
Stanford

In the last 20 years, only Arizona and Oregon St haven't made it to the Rose Bowl. Oregon St did make a BCS bowl in 2001. Arizona did make the Fiesta Bowl in 1993. So, basically I am saying, that even with USC dominating the PAC-10, every dog had their day (except maybe Arizona).

With Whitt as our coach, the improving talent in Utah, the facilities, etc, I see Utah settling into a Washington-level team. Since 1990, Washington has been to the Rose Bowl 4 times or once every 5 years. I would take that running to the bank.

[Mormon Red Death]

Rose Bowl teams from the PAC since 1990:

USC
Washington
Oregon
USC
ASU
WSU
UCLA
Stanford

In the last 20 years, only Arizona and Oregon St haven't made it to the Rose Bowl. Oregon St did make a BCS bowl in 2001. Arizona did make the Fiesta Bowl in 1993. So, basically I am saying, that even with USC dominating the PAC-10, every dog had their day (except maybe Arizona).

With Whitt as our coach, the improving talent in Utah, the facilities, etc, I see Utah settling into a Washington-level team. Since 1990, Washington has been to the Rose Bowl 4 times or once every 5 years. I would take that running to the bank.

Arizona was the only PAC 10 team to never go to the Rose Bowl

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[Sullyute]

Rose Bowl teams from the PAC since 1990:

USC
Washington
Oregon
USC
ASU
WSU
UCLA
Stanford

In the last 20 years, only Arizona and Oregon St haven't made it to the Rose Bowl. Oregon St did make a BCS bowl in 2001. Arizona did make the Fiesta Bowl in 1993. So, basically I am saying, that even with USC dominating the PAC-10, every dog had their day (except maybe Arizona).

With Whitt as our coach, the improving talent in Utah, the facilities, etc, I see Utah settling into a Washington-level team. Since 1990, Washington has been to the Rose Bowl 4 times or once every 5 years. I would take that running to the bank.

You have USC on the list twice, and Cal has not been since 1990 either. Washington has a solid run in the early ninties and again in 2001 but hasn't been a contender in 10 years. But I agree that once every five years would be very good. :cheers:

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I don't see us annually being the team to beat for the division championship.

I think you are jousting with windmills or your own creation here, counselor. ;) I didn't say that I believed Utah would be the team to beat, annually, for the division championship. I simply said that I would prefer the division championship be won by different teams every year, including Utah once in a while, rather than USC dominating the south division.

I think the parity would be healthier for Utah's fan base and Utah's recruiting than USC having some stranglehold on the conference that only tangentially benefits Utah through marginally more national exposure that might occur if USC is a yearly powerhouse.

[LA Ute]

I think you are jousting with windmills or your own creation here, counselor. ;) I didn't say that I believed Utah would be the team to beat, annually, for the division championship. I simply said that I would prefer the division championship be won by different teams every year, including Utah once in a while, rather than USC dominating the south division.

I think the parity would be healthier for Utah's fan base and Utah's recruiting than USC having some stranglehold on the conference that only tangentially benefits Utah through marginally more national exposure that might occur if USC is a yearly powerhouse.

I may be wrong, but I don't think USC has dominated recently. They are just the 800-lb. gorilla in terms of resources and recruiting advantages. So I don't see a stranglehold and I agree with you that tangential spillover benefits from a great USC are not what we want!

[FountainOfUte]

Rose Bowl teams from the PAC since 1990:
Since 1990, Washington has been to the Rose Bowl 4 times or once every 5 years. I would take that running to the bank.

Oh man, who wouldn't!?

My hope is getting there once per decade (let alone winning), and I feel like I'm being greedy. I hate saying this, but I think a reasonable expectation for us is being like an ASU. Whatever they've done in the PAC is about what I think we're capable of. Not much more, and hopefully not much less.

USC is tough to beat out over the long haul. Like some here have said, I'd like to see something other than USC in the CCG every year, but realistically I don't see them falling below 3rd in the south very often. The other five of us will each take our turns on the various placings in the division.

[sancho]

I think the parity would be healthier for Utah's fan base and Utah's recruiting than USC having some stranglehold on the conference that only tangentially benefits Utah through marginally more national exposure that might occur if USC is a yearly powerhouse.

I look around, and I just don't see many divisions on this model. Wherever there is a powerhouse vacuum, it gets filled by someone. The ACC coastal might be the closest thing to what you are envisioning (though they have VaTech), and that is clearly the worst/least exciting division in the Big5. Most of the powerhouses in college football have been powerhouses for decades. Change comes slowly. All power programs have down times of a few years - that's where the other teams have opportunities.

All other divisions have clear 1's or 1-2's:

Big10 East: Michigan/OSU

Big10 West: Nebraska/Wisc

SEC East: Bama/LSU

SEC West: FLorida/UGa

Big12: Texas/Oklahoma

Pac-12 North: Oregon

Pac-12 South: USC

ACC Atlantic: FSU/Clemson

ACC Coastal: Nobody

These can, of course, change, but it takes a lot of time - either consistent success or consistent failure from a team. Our division could support a 2nd power, and UCLA is the closest to that right now. I hope the Bruins blow it as they traditionally have.

[FountainOfUte]

Our division could support a 2nd power, and UCLA is the closest to that right now.

Why not us? Might as well.

[LA Ute]

Why not us? Might as well.

I agree. For reasons I have never been able to pinpoint, UCLA has historically been unable to sustain a football tradition. ASU has, however. I see them as a bigger competitor for #2 than UCLA.

[sancho]

I will also vote for Utah. I said UCLA simply because they have the momentum for it now with back to back division championships. They also have the potential to sustain success based on recruiting. But, yeah, that spot is still up for grabs.

[FountainOfUte]

ASU has, however. I see them as a bigger competitor for #2 than UCLA.

I agree, but that also gives me some peace of mind about our prospects to claim that spot if ASU is the team we need to take down.

I think ASU is our PAC-12 doppelganger. Maybe for me it's personal having lived near Tempe for several years and seeing ASU up close, but it's nothing special. I don't see anything ASU has that Utah cannot match or exceed. Yes, there are the hot co-eds and the party scene. IMO, they are as much myth as reality at ASU, but I'd be up in the night to say those things don't matter to 17- and 18-year-old guys looking to choose a school. Conversely, those reputations also matter to parents, which works in our favor. But outside of that the U stands toe to toe with ASU academically, geographically (being in a city rather than some pissant college town), historically (yes, they had a head start on us in the PAC, but our longterm histories are more similar than not and I'd say we've had the more recent big-time success) and many other ways. Put simply: ASU doesn't scare me.

I think keeping pace with ASU is totally doable even in the near term. Once we can keep the other rocky mountain schools at bay, then we can try to figure out the SoCal problem. USC is USC. The best we can hope for are bad hires and sanctions. Even then that barely slows them down. On the other side of town, when UCLA has their crap together I almost think it's impossible to out do them unless we can build our own success and sustain it for a long time similar to a Nebraska or Oklahoma. We just have to hope UCLA continues their recent history of not having their crap together. I'm not holding my breath for that right now.

[UBlender]

Let's not forget that USC has had some serious "down" stretches in our lifetimes. Without looking up records, I don't recall them being all that during the '80s. As I started to follow college football in the '90s there were just okay. (I remember Utah playing USC in the Freedom Bowl when they had Keyshawn Johnson--they were nothing special at all). Utah beat USC in Pete Carroll's first or second year there in 2001 in the Vegas Bowl. They got really good soon after that and had a great run that lasted most of the '00s. Now they've had sanctions and they have merely been good the last couple of years.

They may well bounce back to their glory years very soon. But if Kiffin gets fired and they whiff on their next hire they could get into another rut like they were before Carroll.

[LA Ute]

On the other side of town, when UCLA has their crap together I almost think it's impossible to out do them unless we can build our own success and sustain it for a long time similar to a Nebraska or Oklahoma. We just have to hope UCLA continues their recent history of not having their crap together. I'm not holding my breath for that right now.

A thought: But isn't it nice to be in a position where accomplishing this is a real possibility?

[sancho]

I think keeping pace with ASU is totally doable even in the near term.

I agree with pretty much everything, but I would say that before we can talk about keeping pace, we have to catch up. The south power rankings right now (power rankings in terms of perception?):

1) USC
2) UCLA
3) ASU
4) Zona
5) Utah
6) CU

We have to catch up a little. Right now, we worry about the USC, Stanford, Oregon games, but really it's the Arizona teams that should have a target on their back for us.

[Dawminator]

I think in order for Utah to be a "powerhouse" even within the PAC 12 two things have to happen.

1. Recruiting has to continue to improve. Utah has an edge over many schools. We are becoming (if we aren't already) the premier destination for Poly athletes. We need to continue that tradition. Braden Fehoko and Osa Masina would go a long way. We need to fend off Stanford, Wisconsin, and Michigan for instate guys like Mone, Shultz, and Barton. On top of that we need to tap into California and Texas in a big way. I think this is very possible and we are seeing it happen to some extent.

2. BYU has to tank to one degree or another. Independence has to fail and kill their fanbase. The state of Utah is not big enough for two great or even good football teams. In my opinion BYU losing significantly helps Utah take the state and the intermountain west for that matter. Fans, recruits, and the media must see Utah as the only legitimate game in town. This is much more difficult then point 1 I think. Utah has to continue to beat BYU. BYU has to do its part by losing to teams like Virginia. I think it is possible, but I think it will take a long period of time. This season may be the most important in recent memory for the sake of the Utah and BYU programs.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree with pretty much everything, but I would say that before we can talk about keeping pace, we have to catch up. The south power rankings right now (power rankings in terms of perception?):

1) USC
2) UCLA
3) ASU
4) Zona
5) Utah
6) CU

We have to catch up a little. Right now, we worry about the USC, Stanford, Oregon games, but really it's the Arizona teams that should have a target on their back for us.


If you are ranking the teams this year, I can't argue. But if you are viewing things through a 10-15 year prism, we are miles ahead of Arizona.

[sancho]

If you are ranking the teams this year, I can't argue. But if you are viewing things through a 10-15 year prism, we are miles ahead of Arizona.

What if you are ranking since the start of the Pac-12?

Or what if you are ranking based on public/media expectations over the next few years?

[Jarid in Cedar]

What if you are ranking since the start of the Pac-12?

Or what if you are ranking based on public/media expectations over the next few years?


For the first 2 years of the Pac-12, I would go:

1. USC
2. UCLA
3. ASU
4. Utah
5. Arizona
6. Colorado

We are 13-12 and 7-11 in conference. Arizona is 12-13 and 6-12 in conference. 1-1 head to head with each team winning on the road. If the top 3 don't change, then the winner of the Utah-Arizona game this year will have the edge in perception/expectations moving forward.

[LA Ute]

FWIW, from the USC newsletter that I get:


Haden's outlook for the 2013 football season...

If you told me all 67 of our currently healthy and eligible scholarship guys will remain healthy, we could have a really good season. Injuries will happen, as they do in football, so depth is going to be the biggest question for us. I am optimistic though. I think our defense is really going to be a lot better from what I have seen. When I evaluated last season, everyone talks about offensive issues, but it was really defense. We lost games scoring 51 and 36 points. New defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast has a different style, and with an influx of impact freshman on defense, I expect us to improve on that side of the ball.

[sancho]

FWIW, from the USC newsletter that I get:

It works out alright for us, but relative to other schools, USC really got hosed on their sanctions.