PAC 12 seems like an afterthought

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Having a very late start has put the Pac in the rear view mirror media wise. Need a host of solid games to get them talking Pac football this year.

 

[The Derski]

The sooner Larry Scott bites the dust the better. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

So tonight. Taking with buddy watching Oregon vs. WSU. Topic of Chip Kelly came up. Took a few minutes to remember what he’s doing now after failing at the Eagles in the NFL. OH YEAH!!! He went to coach UCLA. Barely if ever even hear his name mentioned after taking that job. Just more forgetfulness of anything PAC.

 

[DieSonneTeufeln]

So tonight. Taking with buddy watching Oregon vs. WSU. Topic of Chip Kelly came up. Took a few minutes to remember what he’s doing now after failing at the Eagles in the NFL. OH YEAH!!! He went to coach UCLA. Barely if ever even hear his name mentioned after taking that job. Just more forgetfulness of anything PAC.

I heard ASU mentioned more times today during the Masters than during college football so at least I have that going for me!

 

[bamagrad75]

So tonight. Taking with buddy watching Oregon vs. WSU. Topic of Chip Kelly came up. Took a few minutes to remember what he’s doing now after failing at the Eagles in the NFL. OH YEAH!!! He went to coach UCLA. Barely if ever even hear his name mentioned after taking that job. Just more forgetfulness of anything PAC.

Maybe we should do a Where Are They Now thread on former "hot" coaches.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not sure when it all changed but when I was young kid then teen in the 80's and 90's in TX.. There was always a PAC games going on.. From UCLA, SC, UW and ASU, that were aired every weekend and seemed like a pretty big deal.

When SC had it's Carroll era, it was talked about a lot as well.. but since then.. There was Oregon but for whatever reasons it seemed that the media wrote them off the same way Leach had been written off at Tech for years til he had his shiny season in 2008.

I don't buy the narrative of the time difference being the reason why they aren't getting the attention like the other conferences. To me, they just need a program to emerge from the rest and put whippings on during the conference schedule... and is it too much to ask for them to actually win a big OOC game at the beginning of the season?

The time difference is actually bigger than you think. The reason USC got the attention they did under Pete Carroll was because they truly practiced what they preached and would "play anyone, anytime, anywhere".

They would travel back East to play teams, they went into SEC country and played SEC teams and they were beating all of those teams, usually pretty handily. You become hard to ignore when you do that.

The problem was that other PAC teams weren't doing that and on the rare occasion that one did, it was usually one of the lower tier teams and they usually lost. Because of that and the fact that PAC teams weren't being seen otherwise, the PAC was considered USC and their 9 (at that time) little brothers.

So, when USC would occasionally lose to a conference opponent, it was consider a "bad loss" and would be held against them when it came down to them and another 1 loss team. Can't tell you how many times I heard commentators, etc. saying "USC just has to go unbeaten" even though other teams weren't held to that same standard. USC made 2 NCG's, but it probably should have been more like 4. 3 at the least. I read an article a while back that suggested, based on their records, if the CFP existed at that time, every one of Pete Carroll's teams would likely have made it except his first season and his last season.

The lack of tv exposure was also why, when USC got hit with the sanctions, everyone but PAC teams and fans were surprised when Oregon made was able to step in. We'd been watching them build that program into what it became for nearly 10 years.

Obviously, it's not just the time difference. There have been some terrible decisions made by the commissioner (like bringing in Utah and Colorado), USC hasn't completely gotten their shit together yet, Oregon dropped off and hasn't really gotten back yet and no one stepped in. It looked like Washington might, but other than 1 CFP appearance, they never really got to the level that USC and then Oregon did.

 

[olympicoscar]

They're playing them again this weekend?

Yes they are. Oregon and USC won a couple of good games.

 

[Duckboy33]

PAC 12 has been down the last couple of years, that's the biggest problem they've had. USC's Pete Carroll teams were always contenders. Oregon and Stanford were top 10 programs from 2010-2014, which helped the PAC when USC declined. Then Oregon tanked, Stanford slowly declined. UW rose up for a few years but they were only a top 10 team once.

Oregon looks like they are getting back to where they need to be. Washington/Utah are still solid. However, USC has their same problems, Stanford is still in decline and UCLA is a disaster. That's tough for the PAC to deal with perception wise.

 

[NolePride]

Your numbers are wrong. Without even looking it up you have 3 losses to ASU and Oregon alone.

Our first lost to ASU was when they were in the WAC

 

[wazzu31]

The time difference is actually bigger than you think. The reason USC got the attention they did under Pete Carroll was because they truly practiced what they preached and would "play anyone, anytime, anywhere".

They would travel back East to play teams, they went into SEC country and played SEC teams and they were beating all of those teams, usually pretty handily. You become hard to ignore when you do that.

The problem was that other PAC teams weren't doing that and on the rare occasion that one did, it was usually one of the lower tier teams and they usually lost. Because of that and the fact that PAC teams weren't being seen otherwise, the PAC was considered USC and their 9 (at that time) little brothers.

So, when USC would occasionally lose to a conference opponent, it was consider a "bad loss" and would be held against them when it came down to them and another 1 loss team. Can't tell you how many times I heard commentators, etc. saying "USC just has to go unbeaten" even though other teams weren't held to that same standard. USC made 2 NCG's, but it probably should have been more like 4. 3 at the least. I read an article a while back that suggested, based on their records, if the CFP existed at that time, every one of Pete Carroll's teams would likely have made it except his first season and his last season.

The lack of tv exposure was also why, when USC got hit with the sanctions, everyone but PAC teams and fans were surprised when Oregon made was able to step in. We'd been watching them build that program into what it became for nearly 10 years.

Obviously, it's not just the time difference. There have been some terrible decisions made by the commissioner (like bringing in Utah and Colorado), USC hasn't completely gotten their shit together yet, Oregon dropped off and hasn't really gotten back yet and no one stepped in. It looked like Washington might, but other than 1 CFP appearance, they never really got to the level that USC and then Oregon did.

Well for sure he wouldn’t have in 2002 since he lost to the Pac 12 champions and lucked out that the Rose Bowl went all dickheads and chose Oklahoma over Iowa thus costing us a top 4 ranking