(08-14-2020 08:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USC and UCLA still hold serious brand value and cachet. Stanford the sort of school you like to class up the joint and while ESPN is King in CFB, Nike is the prince and all in on Oregon

Yes, IMO the notion that the PAC is on a permanent downward trajectory does not resonate. The PAC utterly owns California, which would be like the 8th richest country in the world if it was its own country, and has a strong stake in other western states.

IMO, the PAC's current malaise is a result of poor leadership at the top, not something deeply fundamental. As you say, schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal have all the institutional power and respect in the world, and some great athletic traditions. Arizona State is a monster in Phoenix, and Washington is a growing state.

The PAC is just a couple good coaching hires away from having multiple football teams in the Top 10 again.

Agreed. Let Southern Cal hire an Urban Meyer and lets see where the Trojans would be three years later.

(I am NOT advocating they do so, lol)

They'd get there quicker with Tressel or Petrino.

(08-14-2020 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USC and UCLA still hold serious brand value and cachet. Stanford the sort of school you like to class up the joint and while ESPN is King in CFB, Nike is the prince and all in on Oregon

Yes, IMO the notion that the PAC is on a permanent downward trajectory does not resonate. The PAC utterly owns California, which would be like the 8th richest country in the world if it was its own country, and has a strong stake in other western states.

IMO, the PAC's current malaise is a result of poor leadership at the top, not something deeply fundamental. As you say, schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal have all the institutional power and respect in the world, and some great athletic traditions. Arizona State is a monster in Phoenix, and Washington is a growing state.

The PAC is just a couple good coaching hires away from having multiple football teams in the Top 10 again.

Agreed. Let Southern Cal hire an Urban Meyer and lets see where the Trojans would be three years later.

(I am NOT advocating they do so, lol)

They'd get there quicker with Tressel or Petrino.

They all are tainted.
But any of the three would have the Trojans back in the top ten within two or three years.

(08-14-2020 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USC and UCLA still hold serious brand value and cachet. Stanford the sort of school you like to class up the joint and while ESPN is King in CFB, Nike is the prince and all in on Oregon

Yes, IMO the notion that the PAC is on a permanent downward trajectory does not resonate. The PAC utterly owns California, which would be like the 8th richest country in the world if it was its own country, and has a strong stake in other western states.

IMO, the PAC's current malaise is a result of poor leadership at the top, not something deeply fundamental. As you say, schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal have all the institutional power and respect in the world, and some great athletic traditions. Arizona State is a monster in Phoenix, and Washington is a growing state.

The PAC is just a couple good coaching hires away from having multiple football teams in the Top 10 again.

I totally disagree. The left coast culture has infected the PAC's recruiting grounds and the decisions their universities make regarding athletics. I think logical people would agree that PAC football is suffering from it. Politics are impacting how high school players practice, and the left coast high schools are falling behind. California's high schools have not produced a Heisman Trophy winner in 16 years (Matt Leinart in 2004). For comparison, Texas high schools have produced 2 of the last 3 winners. I know this isn't supposed to be a political thread, but the political culture of the PAC's region can't be ignored as a major factor in their decline.

Here’s is something that kinda relates to the OP.



  01C73D85-FA99-4C13-BE9A-BFE475B6AE45.jpeg (Size: 245.69 KB / Downloads: 8)

(08-14-2020 08:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  When it comes to basketball, the PAC isn't even the most popular conference in CA:


Most popular college basketball team by county:



Scroll to the bottom of this link to click the map:
https://www.vividseats.com/blog/most-pop...-teams-map

Nevada (gray) is the most popular in greater Sacramento most of the rural Northern parts of the state. USF (yellow) is the most popular in the city of San Francisco. St. Mary's owns 5 counties (it's confusing because they're the same color as Cal). Fresno (Red) has the whole Tulare Valley and shares the San Joaquin Valley with Pacific (Orange). SDSU owns two counties with 3.5 million people.


Stanford only has 4 counties, while Cal has just Oakland and the Northern suburbs of SF.

The map has a glaring weakness: St. Mary's and the Cal Bears are the same color.

Virtually all of Chicagoland is colored Northwestern but that doesn’t pass the eye test. Circa 2005, you couldn’t walk anywhere during basketball season without seeing Illinois apparel. Sportstalk radio is obsessed with Illini basketball, with minimal talk on Northwestern.

Northwestern’s basketball fan base is limited to alums and Evanstonians, and probably 1/10th the size of their football following.

Obviously I'm going to support the idea of Chicago being more University of Illinois than Northwestern but you did say "2005" and of course that was the year they made the national championship game. Illinois SHOULD own Chicago but they've sucked on the court lately (their last NCAA men's basketball tournament appearance was 2013, even freaking Northwestern has made the Big Dance more recently than we have). Last year was the way it should have been, Illinois was NCAA Tournament worthy and Northwestern was a Big Ten bottom feeder. Damn COVID-19!

(08-14-2020 06:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  When it comes to basketball, the PAC isn't even the most popular conference in CA:


Most popular college basketball team by county:



Scroll to the bottom of this link to click the map:
https://www.vividseats.com/blog/most-pop...-teams-map

Nevada (gray) is the most popular in greater Sacramento most of the rural Northern parts of the state. USF (yellow) is the most popular in the city of San Francisco. St. Mary's owns 5 counties (it's confusing because they're the same color as Cal). Fresno (Red) has the whole Tulare Valley and shares the San Joaquin Valley with Pacific (Orange). SDSU owns two counties with 3.5 million people.


Stanford only has 4 counties, while Cal has just Oakland and the Northern suburbs of SF.

The map has a glaring weakness: St. Mary's and the Cal Bears are the same color.

Wait.. Cincinnati leads in Southwest Ohio? I have had outsiders tell UC fans for over a decade that the most popular teams down here are Xavier, Ohio State, UK, Louisville and recently I heard a claim it was Indiana. UC fans have been rebuffing it for years but the peanut galllery told us we needed to shut up and know our place. I feel vindicated.

(08-15-2020 08:34 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  When it comes to basketball, the PAC isn't even the most popular conference in CA:


Most popular college basketball team by county:



Scroll to the bottom of this link to click the map:
https://www.vividseats.com/blog/most-pop...-teams-map

Nevada (gray) is the most popular in greater Sacramento most of the rural Northern parts of the state. USF (yellow) is the most popular in the city of San Francisco. St. Mary's owns 5 counties (it's confusing because they're the same color as Cal). Fresno (Red) has the whole Tulare Valley and shares the San Joaquin Valley with Pacific (Orange). SDSU owns two counties with 3.5 million people.


Stanford only has 4 counties, while Cal has just Oakland and the Northern suburbs of SF.

The map has a glaring weakness: St. Mary's and the Cal Bears are the same color.

Virtually all of Chicagoland is colored Northwestern but that doesn’t pass the eye test. Circa 2005, you couldn’t walk anywhere during basketball season without seeing Illinois apparel. Sportstalk radio is obsessed with Illini basketball, with minimal talk on Northwestern.

Northwestern’s basketball fan base is limited to alums and Evanstonians, and probably 1/10th the size of their football following.

Obviously I'm going to support the idea of Chicago being more University of Illinois than Northwestern but you did say "2005" and of course that was the year they made the national championship game. Illinois SHOULD own Chicago but they've sucked on the court lately (their last NCAA men's basketball tournament appearance was 2013, even freaking Northwestern has made the Big Dance more recently than we have). Last year was the way it should have been, Illinois was NCAA Tournament worthy and Northwestern was a Big Ten bottom feeder. Damn COVID-19!

Admittedly I'm biased as a DePaul and Indiana fan, but I would argue DePaul should own Chicago as much as Northwestern or Illinois (with the latter, for many of the same reasons that Memphis hoops should own the city of Memphis more than Tennessee).

Having said that (and given I am not anti-Illini), Illinois is an outstanding university. As such, it should be better in men's hoops than it historically has been.

(08-14-2020 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USC and UCLA still hold serious brand value and cachet. Stanford the sort of school you like to class up the joint and while ESPN is King in CFB, Nike is the prince and all in on Oregon

Yes, IMO the notion that the PAC is on a permanent downward trajectory does not resonate. The PAC utterly owns California, which would be like the 8th richest country in the world if it was its own country, and has a strong stake in other western states.

IMO, the PAC's current malaise is a result of poor leadership at the top, not something deeply fundamental. As you say, schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal have all the institutional power and respect in the world, and some great athletic traditions. Arizona State is a monster in Phoenix, and Washington is a growing state.

The PAC is just a couple good coaching hires away from having multiple football teams in the Top 10 again.

Actually CA would be 5th.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparis...tes_by_GDP

That map is garbage

The Great Split was in 1978.

(08-14-2020 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  USC and UCLA still hold serious brand value and cachet. Stanford the sort of school you like to class up the joint and while ESPN is King in CFB, Nike is the prince and all in on Oregon

Yes, IMO the notion that the PAC is on a permanent downward trajectory does not resonate. The PAC utterly owns California, which would be like the 8th richest country in the world if it was its own country, and has a strong stake in other western states.

IMO, the PAC's current malaise is a result of poor leadership at the top, not something deeply fundamental. As you say, schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal have all the institutional power and respect in the world, and some great athletic traditions. Arizona State is a monster in Phoenix, and Washington is a growing state.

The PAC is just a couple good coaching hires away from having multiple football teams in the Top 10 again.

One problem that has plagued the PAC 12, quo, is that they are viewed as snobby, elitist institutions of higher learning, not unlike the Ivy League, which I discussed in an earlier post.
If the Cal State institutions ever got some real backing behind them, ie. governor & legislature directing massive funding towards the Cal State institutions, you would really see them take off in enrollment and athletics, while the PAC 12 UC system would slowly go into decline.

(08-14-2020 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 04:00 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It breaks strictly long the cultural lines where college football is dominant and where it is merely an option for sports entertainment.

It's blue states and red states. The blue state conferences shut it down based on advice from medical professionals and public health experts.

It does follow those lines but we aren't discussing politics on this board. What I was alluding to is that the divisions culturally were already there over football. The PAC and Big 10 have already voted against things for instance that would have helped the ACC with its scheduling. Everyone knows the demographics and the cultural stress upon football in the Southeast and Southwest was impacting the competitive dynamics of the game. We'll see what comes of it, but the division, in spite of politics, already existed.

Big 10 and ACC are both pretty mixed red/blue states. I do think this may well cause some conferences to merge operations. And I think it brings the "Old ACC" (MD south) closer to the SEC.

It will be interesting if it creates stress within the ACC.

I guess that depends upon whom you consider to be the bluer of the ACC states. I think things have changed and my analysis would be perhaps North Carolina south rather than Maryland south. Virginia is fairly blue these days. North Carolina is the one which is still probably closer to Southern roots. That said there are only two AAU schools from the ACC in blue states: Virginia & Pittsburgh. So I don't see a big impetus for movement based along those lines.

I still believe eventually the two schools most likely to be desirous of connections that permit them to play a more southerly set of road games would be Ohio State and Penn State. If Nebraska wants that they will look to the Big 12. If Iowa wants that they will do the same. Perhaps the school it would help the most recruiting wise would be Indiana. But those would be my guesses. I don't think politics is driving this as much as emphasis upon playing competitive football. I would hardly call Notre Dame a conservative leaning school, but they value their football identity and were already aware of their need for Southern exposure to keep that going.

You can add Michigan to that list. Michigan fans I know at work are not very pleased with their higher-ups and want a more SEC-like culture. Plus, even though Michigan has been a blue state for years, I've noticed that it has been voting more red recently. Even Harbaugh criticized the Big Ten's decision not to play.

I remember when Colin Cowherd complained that the parity in college football was gone and it was the Pac-10 and SEC and everyone else. Those were the days of Pete Carrol, Jim Harbaugh, and Chip Kelly all being in the Pac at once.

Programs periodically rise and fall and most of the time it has to do with coaching. Even programs at the top of the coaching salary food chain often don't get the coaches that can win national titles.

Traditionally conferences run in cycles but there is so much money involved at this point that the PAC is struggling compared to the SEC.