The Pac-12 Thread....

OK, lots of friendly and not so friendly discussion about Oregon and USC and who gets there. Yet, there was a big increase of talent recruited into the Pac-12 across the board. Cal, UCLA, Washington all had good to very good recruit classes as well. There are more teams that are going to be dangerous, Washington, even Wash St. has a coach now.

I won't go as far to say that any of these other team are likely to jump the Ducks or the Trojans. However, it's not impossible and there is more than enough quality out there to bushwhack either the Ducks or the Trojans, killing any NCG aspirations.

Washington will have the offense, but have they improved enough on D?

Stanford without Luck? Who has the toughest OOC schedule? Utah better this season?

Does the a third team slip past these two?

Has the conference moved up in relation to the others conferences?

How much better is the Pac-12 than the SEC?........

Hmmm....is Wmichs franchising?

Good question. I do kinow college football is better than the Super Bowl.Rather be discussing CFB anyday.

To the Pac-12 I ask the question: Is the imporved recruiting class due to better teams/exposure of the Pac-12 or due to USC losing 10 schollies and those slots are the reason for the better class/ Follow up, does that maintain itself after the sanctions are over or does the massive USC program suck em back up?

I'd add ASU and UCLA into the mix with their new coaches and UCLA's recruiting class. Within 2 years it appears there will be no gimmies in the PAC. OSU is always able to suprise anyone (USC is a prime example). Colorado will be able to compete soon also. The  PAC 12 should be the most competitive conference in the nation be 2015.

When teams improve, the chance of you losing vs. them winning increases. You have an off game and they don't, you can be in trouble. Or they may just play out of their cockamamie heads that day and there is nothing you can do about it.  I just don't like the way the league chooses its divisional champions. Last year, Stanford should have won the north. But they and Oregon had one conference loss apiece. However, Oregon beat Stanford. But Oregon also had an OOC loss. If the adding of teams and adding the CCG was to improve a teams chance of playing for the NC, then choosing a two loss team to play in the CCG over a one-loss team, makes no sense. If Stanford had played UCLA instead of Oregon, Stanford probably has one more win and therefore a better won-loss record than Alabama. Because Alabama is in the SEC, maybe that makes no difference, but you had to know that Oregon had no shot.

nwtrucker, Iron Horse is a friend but please understand his humor. I wish you great luck in this thread. The Huskeers just finished up 3 great games with a rapidly improving Washington team and begin a home/home with a UCLA which could prove tough now that they have actually hired a coach

Switching gears temporarily:

What the heck happened to PAC-12 basketball?

There are projected to be a one bid league. Without the auto-bid, I dont think any of the teams would make the dance.

I don't think I have ever seen a year without either UCLA or Arizona being at least semi-decent.

The Bruins and Wildcats have been death and taxes for about 30 years.

I guess the commitment to football comes at a sacrafice to basketball.

wmichskers, LoL, I got it was humour. It did go right over my head. Oh well.

UCLA is a bit away yet. That's alot of new kids with new coaches. Two years at least.

Washington is restricted by their defense and lost their OC to Bama.(Maybe the SEC has gotten the idea they'd better have some offense to go with the D if they want to beat USC). Actually, that's a good hire for the Tide. Could help them a lot.

A definite improvement in the Pac-12, but to be honest, it's only a step.

In one way, I wish the Trojans had a better OOC.(understand they had to go easier with the sanctions) due to SOS issues, but in the Carroll era, they'd play tough early games, then sag in the middle of the season before reefing it up again by the end. I'm hoping that near tradition is over for the upcoming season.....

This thread should really blow up-  pretty soon all 5 Pac 12 posters will discover it.


(the 2 Duck fans and the 3 Trojan fans...) 

What the heck happened to PAC-12 basketball?

Maybe the riots had an effect.

llpapall,LMAO, get back to the off topic threads you> Did you get a weekend pass? 

Well, so far the commercials suck. I guess you have to be stoned to appreciate them. Not many Pac-12 guys on these rosters. No wonder this game isn't very good......

Trojans would beat em both....

Maybe Oregon as well....

Well, so far the commercials suck. I guess you have to be stoned to appreciate them. Not many Pac-12 guys on these rosters. No wonder this game isn't very good......

Trojans would beat em both....

Maybe Oregon as well....

I guess you missed the Clint Eastwood commercial?

Big-BoyTroy, oops. Clint Eastwood? Crap.

Guess there's no Pac-12 fans other than Trojans and Duck fans..........

I would say that the loss of scholarships for SC plus a few new coaches is the main reason for the spreading of recruits. when i think about it the bad news on USC has been good news for the conference. Oregon now being a nationally recognized team has helped also. I think that the Pac 12 is better than it is getiing credit for. What i would like to see is a conference matchup. Either the Big 12 or Big 10 cause you know you wont see the SEC doing anything like that. that would be the true test of conference supremacy if you ask me. 

USC Fight On, that makes sense to me. My question is can they hold that increased recruiting classes when USC gets the 10 back?

On one hand, one or two of the programs become regular "elites" and now draw the recruits on their own accord. On the other sag back down if the Trojans return to former glory.

I guess we'll find out in a few years. Best thing the Trojans can do is keep winning. But it looks to be a bit harder than I thought....

Troy Forever, that is cool. When was it?

To the Pac-12 I ask the question: Is the imporved recruiting class due to better teams/exposure of the Pac-12 or due to USC losing 10 schollies and those slots are the reason for the better class

I think that it is likely both. If I'm a recruit that USC had shown interest in, but ultimately did not get offered one of the 15 schollies, then I'm pissed and I would want to go to another PAC-12 school so that I could spend the next 3-4 years making USC pay for not offering me.

Also, for those who USC did offer and chose another school (especially another PAC school), we'll likely never know if the sanctions were a deciding factor or not. For example, the 2 stud o-linemen that the coaches really wanted theat chose Stanford. Were they worried about how good the team might be during their junior and senior years when the schollie reductions are just ending? Or, considering that most o-linemen would rather run block than pass block, did they like the fact that Stanford was a run first offense even with Andrew Luck? 

In the end, it's probably a little of both. What Oregon and Stanford have been able to do re: top 10 finishes, BCS bowls and Oregon making the NCG, helps to raise the profile of the PAC and let's recruits know that there is more than just USC in the PAC.

does the massive USC program suck em back up?

Ultimately, I think we get some of them back, maybe even most of them back. It will depend on what happens with the recruits that go to other schools over the course of the reductions. If the schools that benefit from the reductions, make the most of those recruits, then we will only get some of them back, if they don't, then we will get most of them back. 

How well we handle the reductions will play into it as well. If we handle them as well as most Trojan fans think we will, then that will help tremendously as recruits will see a program that can't be stopped. If they have the effect that many others think they will, then many recruits may choose to stay away until they feel we are back to our winning ways.