The difference between the Pac-10 and everybody else.

#1
milohimself

milohimself

RIP CITY
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
48,891
Likes
30
#1
I was listening to Colin Cowherd this morning, and he brought up a story from Berkeley...

University of Florida wins a national championship and gets $30m for a new athletics facility. Jeff Tedford is doing great things with the Cal program (considering they were roughly at Duke's level before he arrived), but instead of getting money for a new athletics faciliy, some idiots in trees end up stopping it.

At Cal, building a winning team is easier than building a gym - NCAA Football - Yahoo! Sports

Never really thought about it before... Building a serious program in the Pac-10 is about the toughest head coaching job anywhere in college football. Cal, for instance, is resentful of the fact that they have a good football team. The University prides itself so much on its academics that they'd rather the football team not be good, so it doesn't eclipse the actual school.

Similar things can be said for a lot of the rest of the Pac-10. Wazzu is in the middle of nowhere, Oregon produces next to no in-state high school talent, Stanford has impossibly high academic standards, Cal tries to prevent its football program from succeeding, UCLA just doesn't care about their football team, same goes for Zona. ASU and UDub are both at least semi-serious about building a football program. And of course there is USC, we all know that situation.

Nowhere else in the country is it like this. Kind of interesting to see what happens when an entire region doesn't care that much about the game.

Just some ruminating, and a chance to laugh at how much hippies suck.
 
#3
#3
good info milo, I used to love the pippen, mighty mouse, steve smith, wallace, sabonis led Blazers till that whole thing blew up. how do you feel about them these days after all the problems? I'm still trying to figure out how they didn't win a title. Love their unis too, have a pair of game shorts.
 
#4
#4
tidwell said:
Sounds like an excuse 7 months prior to kickoff to me...

:p
Click to expand...
My pick is that Tennessee wins again, at least by 7 points. We all know that Cal has clearly demonstrated it's not yet a step-up program. Tedford has made great strides with Cal, but with only one signature win, it's clear they're not a national program yet. It's tough though, they not only have to fight USC, but their own university.
 
#5
#5
JZVOL said:
good info milo, I used to love the pippen, mighty mouse, steve smith, wallace, sabonis led Blazers till that whole thing blew up. how do you feel about them these days after all the problems? I'm still trying to figure out how they didn't win a title. Love their unis too, have a pair of game shorts.
Click to expand...
Those were the days. I was heart broken after they never managed to win the West with that team. But, I also realize that the Lakers from the same era was one of the best teams of all-time.

When Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire and the rest got in trouble, and the team earned the moniker "Jail Blazers" I actually stopped rooting for them. I couldn't bring myself to pull for a team that had that kind of behavior, so I started rooting for the Mavericks instead.

But the house has been cleaned out. Started with Bob Whitsitt getting canned, and the rest of the old personalities are out. Got a promising young team developing here.
 
#6
#6
milohimself said:
Nowhere else in the country is it like this. Kind of interesting to see what happens when an entire region doesn't care that much about the game.
Click to expand...

Actually, your post got me thinking that it is alot like that almost everywhere else in the country. While the political situation may be extreme at Berkely, there are "down with the jocks" factions at plenty of schools in big name conferences, including my own alma mater, which actually took it's athletic program under academics and has repeatedly undermined it's own attempts at athletic success under the guise of academic purity. I would guess you could find similar stories of anguish at Wake, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown, and many of the other schools that consider themselves academically superior to their state-run rivals while trying unsuccessfully to regularly compete with them on athletic fields (with the notable exception of Duke basketball.)

All of the major conferences save the Big 12 have at least a school with academic standards and selectivity comparable to Stanford, and nearly all include schools based in states with recruiting bases comparable to Oregon (see, for example, Connecticut, West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, or my own state of residence, Kentucky.) The above list, plus anywhere in Alabama or Mississippi, could also meet your middle of nowhere criteria.

I'm not trying to excuse the lunacy at Cal, just playing the bit of devil's advocate in trying to show that it is pretty tough to build a serious program anywhere, not just on the left coast.
 
#7
#7
cotton said:
Actually, your post got me thinking that it is alot like that almost everywhere else in the country. While the political situation may be extreme at Berkely, there are "down with the jocks" factions at plenty of schools in big name conferences, including my own alma mater, which actually took it's athletic program under academics and has repeatedly undermined it's own attempts at athletic success under the guise of academic purity. I would guess you could find similar stories of anguish at Wake, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown, and many of the other schools that consider themselves academically superior to their state-run rivals while trying unsuccessfully to regularly compete with them on athletic fields (with the notable exception of Duke basketball.)

All of the major conferences save the Big 12 have at least a school with academic standards and selectivity comparable to Stanford, and nearly all include schools based in states with recruiting bases comparable to Oregon (see, for example, Connecticut, West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, or my own state of residence, Kentucky.) The above list, plus anywhere in Alabama or Mississippi, could also meet your middle of nowhere criteria.

I'm not trying to excuse the lunacy at Cal, just playing the bit of devil's advocate in trying to show that it is pretty tough to build a serious program anywhere, not just on the left coast.
Click to expand...
Stanford is good in everything but football. Georgetown has a pretty good basketball history. So does Wake.
 
#8
#8
cotton said:
Actually, your post got me thinking that it is alot like that almost everywhere else in the country. While the political situation may be extreme at Berkely, there are "down with the jocks" factions at plenty of schools in big name conferences, including my own alma mater, which actually took it's athletic program under academics and has repeatedly undermined it's own attempts at athletic success under the guise of academic purity. I would guess you could find similar stories of anguish at Wake, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown, and many of the other schools that consider themselves academically superior to their state-run rivals while trying unsuccessfully to regularly compete with them on athletic fields (with the notable exception of Duke basketball.)

All of the major conferences save the Big 12 have at least a school with academic standards and selectivity comparable to Stanford, and nearly all include schools based in states with recruiting bases comparable to Oregon (see, for example, Connecticut, West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, or my own state of residence, Kentucky.) The above list, plus anywhere in Alabama or Mississippi, could also meet your middle of nowhere criteria.

I'm not trying to excuse the lunacy at Cal, just playing the bit of devil's advocate in trying to show that it is pretty tough to build a serious program anywhere, not just on the left coast.
Click to expand...
Stanford's academic standards are on a whole 'nother level. Yeah, there are high-end schools with good football, like USC, Notre Dame, etc. But the reason Stanford sucks is the same reason why the Ivy League fell in the 50's. 99% of jocks just aren't smart enough to cut it in a school like that, no matter how good they are at football. Stanford would die to have a good football program. They keep going through coaches because of it. Their academic prestige is simply too high for most football players to succeed.

As for Alabama and Auburn... Yeah, they may be middle of nowhere, but that entire state is football-crazy, along with the rest of the south. The talent is built-in. Wazzu was isolated though, it's the only Pac-10 program that is out in the middle of nowhere. And believe me, eastern Washington is practically a barren wasteland. Very similar to eastern Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas.

Also, with the basketball reference, building a basketball program vs. a football program is entirely different. In hoops, you just need 4-5 athletes a year. Football takes much more than that, obviously.
 
#10
#10
UCLA is surrounded by a population base as large as the entire state of Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi combined!
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
UCLA is surrounded by a population base as large as the entire state of Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi combined!
Click to expand...
Which is why they don't even have to try to be good at football and still be decent. Trust me; they don't care about football any more than any other of their sports.
 
#13
#13
milohimself said:
Have Arkansas or Miss State ever been top-tier programs for any extended period of time?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider "top-tier" or "extended." Both have had periods of success in both sports, although working from memory, MSU's football program has been spotty at best, but they have a very good baseball tradition that makes up for that in some regard.

I also think you overestimate the academic standards of Stanford in comparison to Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, and Georgetown. They face basically the same issues.
 
#14
#14
cotton said:
Depends on what you consider "top-tier" or "extended." Both have had periods of success in both sports, although working from memory, MSU's football program has been spotty at best, but they have a very good baseball tradition that makes up for that in some regard.

I also think you overestimate the academic standards of Stanford in comparison to Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, and Georgetown. They face basically the same issues.
Click to expand...


California has some fine institutions. California Institute of Technology won its first basketball game since basketballs could bounce this year because they only give academic scholarships.
 
#15
#15
cotton said:
Depends on what you consider "top-tier" or "extended." Both have had periods of success in both sports, although working from memory, MSU's football program has been spotty at best, but they have a very good baseball tradition that makes up for that in some regard.

I also think you overestimate the academic standards of Stanford in comparison to Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, and Georgetown. They face basically the same issues.
Click to expand...
Wazzu is basically in the same boat. Every few years, you see them crack the top 25 for a season or maybe even make the Rose Bowl, but success comes only in short spurts when the stars align and a great player like Bledsoe or McFadden comes through, or things just happen right.

I've got a good number of extremely bright friends who attempted to get into most of those schools you listed, in addition to Stanford... Trust me, Stanford's tougher get into. Definitley the toughest academic standards of any school in D-IA. It's honestly on the same plane as the Ivy League. Duke's really the only other one in D-IA like it, and they also have a tough time fielding a decent football team because of it. Northwestern could field a good football team, and actually did up until the recent tragic death of their head coach. As far as G'Town goes, like I said, putting a basketball team is easier. You're usually tracking down 1/5 the total number of recruits. Not to mention basketball players tend to be smarter, a lot of them come from places like Oak Hill, Hargrave, etc.
 
#16
#16
milohimself said:
Wazzu is basically in the same boat. Every few years, you see them crack the top 25 for a season or maybe even make the Rose Bowl, but success comes only in short spurts when the stars align and a great player like Bledsoe or McFadden comes through, or things just happen right.

I've got a good number of extremely bright friends who attempted to get into most of those schools you listed, in addition to Stanford... Trust me, Stanford's tougher get into. Definitley the toughest academic standards of any school in D-IA. It's honestly on the same plane as the Ivy League. Duke's really the only other one in D-IA like it, and they also have a tough time fielding a decent football team because of it. Northwestern could field a good football team, and actually did up until the recent tragic death of their head coach. As far as G'Town goes, like I said, putting a basketball team is easier. You're usually tracking down 1/5 the total number of recruits. Not to mention basketball players tend to be smarter, a lot of them come from places like Oak Hill, Hargrave, etc.
Click to expand...



Oak Hill and Hargrave aren't for smarter players.
 
#17
#17
Hm. That's what I thought. Out here, star basketball players on the whole seem to be quite a bit smarter than star football players.
 
#19
#19
Why's that?

I may boast from time to time that the Pac-10 has the overall finest academic institutions of any D-IA conference, but it doesn't mean people out here are any smarter than anywhere else.
 
#20
#20
milohimself said:
Why's that?

I may boast from time to time that the Pac-10 has the overall finest academic institutions of any D-IA conference, but it doesn't mean people out here are any smarter than anywhere else.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about the Pac 10. I'm talking about people in general. Yeah, I know there are smart people everywhere and dumber than smart people everywhere.
 
#21
#21
The story about Cal is similar to one about Bear Bryant while at KY. The difference is, Bryant was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and left Lexington.
 
#22
#22
Cowherd was saying the same thing about Tedford. As overrated as Cal can get, I think deep down we all recognize Tedford is a good coach. But why put up with what he has to? Why doesn't he leave for greener pastures?
 
#24
#24
Or possibly that invested with the program... I have a hard time believing he won't get fed up at some point. The odds are next to impossible that the bay area schools in the Pac-10 will ever return to a level of national prominence again.
 
#25
#25
milohimself said:
I've got a good number of extremely bright friends who attempted to get into most of those schools you listed, in addition to Stanford... Trust me, Stanford's tougher get into.
Click to expand...

I attended one of those schools, had a teammate that played basketball at Stanford, a friend that played golf at Northwestern, and a teammate whose brother played at Duke (although "occupied a spot on the roster" might be a better characterization.) I do not know your friends' situations, but from my experience, this was not the case. In fact, based on an unscientific study of Vandy students during my residency, Duke was the most difficult ticket to punch.

Jasongivm6 said:
[/b]


Oak Hill and Hargrave aren't for smarter players.
Click to expand...

Although academic success is clearly not one of the major criteria for getting into Oak Hill, my understanding is that they do a pretty good job of educating kids. Their graduating players are eligible for the next level, at the very least.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top