Pac-10 near consensus on new divisions

#26
#26
droski said:
i really dont' understand how it's uneven since all the northwest schools have both been more recently successful than stanford and cal. even WSU won the pac-10 in 2001. i dont' see any noticable difference between colorado and utah and ua and asu either.
Click to expand...

Think TV contracts and recruiting. That about sums it up.

I really don't see why you're so upset?
 
#27
#27
Bumi said:
Think TV contracts and recruiting. That about sums it up.

I really don't see why you're so upset?
Click to expand...

neither of which have helped stanford or cal do better than any of the northwest schools.

because cal has to play usc and ucla (likely the top dogs most years) every year and then play them again in the championship game to win the pac-10
 
#28
#28
droski said:
neither of which have helped stanford or cal do better than any of the northwest schools.

because cal has to play usc and ucla (likely the top dogs most years) every year and then play them again in the championship game to win the pac-10
Click to expand...

When has UCLA been the top dog?
 
#30
#30
Even with UCLA conceded, the way its shaping up, he's right. Cal would have to play USC twice a season if they hoped to contend for a Pac-10 title.
 
#31
#31
The Bruins are currently in their longest-ever conference title drought, and one really has to question whether or not that administration is really committed to winning in football.
 
#32
#32
milohimself said:
The Bruins are currently in their longest-ever conference title drought, and one really has to question whether or not that administration is really committed to winning in football.
Click to expand...

they obviously aren't committed, but one good hire can change that quickly. donahue, as an example, had a well paid staff. why? he was winning. similar thing happened after tedford got hired at cal.
 
#36
#36
Bumi said:
So this statement...



Was pretty far off correct?
Click to expand...

no. either USC or UCLA will likely be the top dogs most years. meaning cal will likely have to play the #1 team in the conference twice to win the pac-10 most years.
 
#37
#37
droski said:
no. either USC or UCLA will likely be the top dogs most years. meaning cal will likely have to play the #1 team in the conference twice to win the pac-10 most years.
Click to expand...

Again, when was the last time UCLA was the "top dog"?
 
#41
#41
what about USC OR UCLA will be the top dog most years is so difficult to understand? did i say both will be great?
 
#42
#42
droski said:
what about USC OR UCLA will be the top dog most years is so difficult to understand? did i say both will be great?
Click to expand...

It's actually very difficult for me to understand how being good 16 years ago translates into "being the top dog most years".

You should've left it at USC, and only USC, because UCLA sucks.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
my guess is you are fairly young. when i was growing up it was common for the ucla/usc game to be for the rose bowl. this has happened something like 30 times in pac-10 history.
 
#44
#44
droski said:
my guess is you are fairly young. when i was growing up it was common for the ucla/usc game to be for the rose bowl. this has happened something like 30 times in pac-10 history.
Click to expand...

UCLA is the past, and that is where they'll remain. Being good 20 years ago has no bearing in today.
 
#45
#45
Bumi said:
Being good 20 years ago has no bearing in today.
Click to expand...

it does when your campus is less than 15 miles from 80% of the top recruits on the west coast. this is kind of like arguing that florida state will always suck.
 
#46
#46
UCLA has had the #2 class in the Pac-10 four out of the last five years, USC having the top class every year. They literally land top 10/15 classes annually without even trying.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
it does when your campus is less than 15 miles from 80% of the top recruits on the west coast. this is kind of like arguing that florida state will always suck.
Click to expand...

There's far more talent in Florida and the surrounding states than there is in California.

And FSU has been much better than UCLA.
 
#48
#48
Bumi said:
There's far more talent in Florida and the surrounding states than there is in California.
Click to expand...
Completely false. Number of 3*4*5* recruits, NFL players, Division I starters are virtually identical between California and Florida.
 
#49
#49
droski said:
once again they were very good in the 90s. Very rarely in pac-10 history have both sucked.
Click to expand...
Tennessee played UCLA several times in the '90s. None of those teams were "very good." Other than '98, when the two best teams they played beat them by physically mauling them, nothing about UCLA was very good in the '90s. The only reason they looked anything more than mediocre was the PAC 10 was pitiful for the decade.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top