Okay, I’ll be honest. Before you keep reading, you should know something: I did not watch the Stanford vs Oregon State game. I had better things to do. If you were a college kid, would you rather stay in for a football game between two bad teams or party? You’d choose the latter just as I did, so I’m going to take this time to write about being a successful football program.
Did you know the PAC-12 has the most quarterbacks represented in the NFL?
I’ll break them down by tier.
1st tier: Andrew Luck (yes, I still include him), Aaron Rodgers, Jared Goff (don’t scoff at me for including him, he made a Super Bowl.)
2nd tier: Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Marcus Mariota
3rd tier: Gardner Minshew, Luke Falk, Matt Barkley, Brett Hundley, Cody Kessler, Kevin Hogan
The PAC-12 has been loaded with quarterback talent yet hasn’t sniffed a CFP national championship. And don’t tell me Oregon came close because they never stood a chance against Ohio State’s third-string quarterback. What’s the issue for the PAC-12? It’s the lack of legendary coaches.
USC, led by Pete Carroll, was the last team to win a national championship. That was 15 years ago. When Stanford and Oregon were at the forefront of college football, they were led by Jim Harbaugh and Chip Kelly. David Shaw continued the success of Harbaugh while Kelly’s heir, Mark Helfrich, did not last long.
The teams that dominate today’s college football scene are, well, two teams: Alabama and Clemson. They are led by Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney, whose resumes speak for themselves. Both teams pay a heavy price for their coaches who make a combined $167 million. Other consistent playoff teams have some pretty coaches, too. Oklahoma has Lincoln Riley, a quarterback guru and a constant fixture in the NFL rumor mill. Georgia is led by Kirby Smart, a disciple of Saban. Notre Dame has Brian Kelly, who Stanford fans should know all about. And lastly, Ohio State had Urban Meyer, who is currently a coaching free agent...
Notice a trend? Teams who win have great coaches, and they pay big bucks for it. It’s the cost of winning. It’s the cost of getting recruits. When Alabama’s Nick Saban comes to LA and visits with a top recruit, you’re not going to tell him, “Thanks Mr. Saban, but I’d rather play for Clay Helton at USC.” Just this week, former USC commit, and California’s fourth best prospect, quarterback Bryce Young left the Trojans for Alabama. California’s second best prospect, five-star quarterback DJ Uiagalelei, is committed to Clemson.
Uiagalelei’s teammate, Kourt Williams, is also leaving home.
“I just feel like I have a better opportunity making it to the next level playing in a Big 10, SEC-type schools than the Pac-12,” Williams said before committing to Ohio State. “They can prepare me better.”
The LA Times documented plenty of examples of local players leaving. and so has Jon Wilner at the San Jose Mercury News.
The PAC-12 needs to address their coaching issues by spending the money it takes to compete with the best. Bringing back Chip Kelly looked like a step in the right direction for UCLA. For USC, Colin Cowherd once suggested that they should hire Sean McVay for $10 million a year. Instead, USC needs to fire Clay Helton and get Urban Meyer before someone else scoops him up. This solution indirectly helps the rest of the PAC-12.
With Meyer in the picture, USC will suddenly be back in the national title picture. As much as I hate to say it, a successful USC sets the bar for a successful PAC-12. A top dog to unseat is attractive to recruits who want to make a name for themselves. It’s also attractive to fans, creating a passionate league. I mean look at the SEC. Alabama’s domination has allowed rivalries to flourish, and other SEC teams have risen to the top of college football as a result.
Remember the last time USC was at the top of their game? Stanford and Oregon both rose to heights we never thought we’d see.
Comments
Definitely
The Pac-12 is mired in a severe crisis in terms of its football programs.
There are many factors at play here, as many have noted in other discussions of this issue, ranging from the TV situation debacle to the difference in lfestyle/interest of the geographical footprint (as compared with the upper midwest, deep south, and Texas+surrounds), to the preponderance of metropolitan areas in the footprint as well as professional sports teams, and so on. However, one main factor for the conference’s slide back from the other Power 5 conferences is the noticeable lack of a flagship/anchor team.
Yes, yes, we have "parity", and we puff ourselves up and pound our chests and say that this makes us a stronger league overall, with better, competitive/entertaining games and yadda yadda. Fine. It’s true that, top to bottom, the Pac-12 is likely better as a conference than the ACC is. But the simple fact is that in the College Football Playoff era, conferences are primarily evaluated by producing teams that qualify for the playoff, and, beyond that, teams that progress to the championship game and win said championship game. Yes, there’s the concept of the "New Year’s Six", but that’s pretty hollow — the entire focus in today’s CFB is on the playoff, as was to be expected when a playoff system was adopted. This isn’t the BCS era where you had a set group of the ten best teams in premier bowls, and one of them a championship game — that system allowed somewhat more leeway for a conference like ours, and in fact we did have numerous teams in various BCS bowls, including our own team in two of them. That participation garnered prestige for the conference based on regular appearances in the designated "prestige bowls" that were the BCS. This, however, is a different era — this is an era where you need to generate a top 4 team to be considered in the same league with the conferences that do so — and the Pac-12 is failing spectacularly at this. We can wag our collective fingers all we like, and place our hands smugly on our hips dismissively all we wish at the system and the rest of the country, but at the end of the day our conference is steadily falling behind the others year after year in this sport.
If you look at the other Power 5’s, they all have an anchor team. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma. A team that leads the conference. It may not always win the conference, but they are always in the mix to win, always in the national conversation, and always pushing other teams in their leagues to up their game in order to compete with them. The Pac-12 has no such team, and has not had such a team since at least the Kelly Oregon teams, and that was very brief. Realistically the last team the Pac-12 had like that was the Pete Carroll SC teams, and it is SC that has clearly played the role of anchor team in the history of the conference. In my view, the Pac-12 won’t be considered on the same level as the other Power 5 conferences until it develops an anchor team, and SC is by far the most likely candidate for this given its history, its extremely strong commitment as a university/alumni community to the sport, its massive financial resources, and its location in one of the richest recruiting environments in the country (and certainly in our conference). The conference desperately needs a much better USC as its anchor team — and sooner rather than later.
I do not personally like SC. They are our rival. I dislike them as much as the rest of you do, and I enjoy seeing them in disarray. But I also know that this is very bad for the conference overall, including us, when it comes to national perception, which impacts everyone’s ability in the conference to recruit both players and coaches. We need an anchor team in the Pac-12, and USC is by far the best candidate. We should be (quietly … secretly ..) rooting for SC to right itself, return to its former greatness, and lift the rest of the conference up with it so that we can all be more competitive nationally.
By Brendan Ross on 09.30.19 7:51am
Very Well Articulated
We need USC as the top dog that we love to hate. There is even more satisfaction in beating them when they are on their game. That USC game where Toby ran power about 10 times in a row, and Harbaugh went for a two point conversion as we decimated USC was epic – and signalled that we were on top! Plus the earlier (now second most underdog win) against USC that hinted that we could make it back on top.
Hating USC fans is also fun. "Fight On" you losers……….
By hoyaparanoia on 09.30.19 8:26am
USC as the dominant Pac12-school is a thing of the past
Today it doesn’t matter who leads the conference so long as we have one team that’s able to gain public perception as a team w playoff potential. This season it is Oregon but w their loss to Auburn it does hurt their chances. Obviously however if both Oregon and Auburn are able to win the remainder of their games both will (or at least should) make the playoffs.
In regards to coaching it is nice to have a high profile coach but not necessarily needed to bring in great talent. It just needs to be someone sincere who clearly explains a players potential fit within the team.. Getting a call from Nick Saban is every high school players dream but at the end of the day Alabama can only play so many players. Athletes should focus on a D1 program where they will actually get to play and showcase their skills. The Pac12 is still a strong conference.. a lot stronger than we get credit. A couple of high profile coaches would be nice but it’s not mandatory. Besides, over the next couple of seasons (if he’s able to strengthen the defense thru recruiting which I believe he will) Coach Shaw will move into the "high profile" coaching category! #GoCardinal
By Slot_Man22 on 09.30.19 1:00pm
Actually we do have high profile coaches
Herm Edwards, Chip Kelly, David Shaw & Peterson
All above are excellent high profile coaches. Saban, Dabo and the others aren’t that great imo….they’re just able to attract more talent
By Slot_Man22 on 09.30.19 7:58pm
Careful what you wish for
As a SC lifelong hater, I would never wish that they resume "greatness." Why are so many fans obsessed with how the Pac 12 is perceived?
By gaffman on 09.30.19 3:07pm
A strong USC would be good for the Pac 12 offices... but I don't know about the Pac 12 teams
It’s not as though those Pete Carroll teams brought a huge influx of talent to the rest of the conference. During those years, the only non-USC teams to finish in the AP Top 10 were WSU (2001-03), Cal (2004), and Oregon (2008). Once that USC train got rolling, it sucked all the oxygen out of the rest of the conference.
It feels similar to how Clemson has pounded the rest of the ACC into mediocrity.
But the calculus for the Pac-12 remains the same. We need to win some big non conference games. Oregon choking against Auburn and Stanford getting smashed by UCF knocked the Pac-12 out of having any prestige this season. We also managed to cannibalize ourselves early this year and are entering October without any unbeaten teams.
By Walter100 on 09.30.19 10:27pm
A pretty good coach is coming to town this Saturday with a team that's getting a little bit better every year.
By Mike Pitzler on 10.01.19 8:36am