Will PAC-12 ever get as good as PAC-10 was in early 2000s

[anotherquelo]

?

[MrBug708]

Was that when Stanford went to the Rose Bowl at 7-5?

[Utefan1211]

Like life, everything changes. “Ever” is a long time.
 

I believe USC will return to their glory. They have talent but no leadership in the past 10 years.
 

 With NIL, a few schools will stay relevant. Oregon will be there as long as Nike keeps funding. 
 

 

[EastCoastFan]

--USC will once again become a five star program.  Oregon has the resources to overcome its geographical location, even after Nike.

--UCLA and Arizona are more focused on basketball, that's what moves their hearts.  They will never see football as the #1 priority.

--Stanford has the resources, but there's the question of the will.  Life goes on there just fine when football has crashed.

--ASU and Washington are football centric, and if either could get their act together, they could be a national player.

--Utah, the most consistently solid of the Pac-12 teams, is facing post-Whit questionmarks.  The future is unclear.

--Colorado talks about their glory days, but does not have the commitment in resources or interest to return to the front tier.

--Cal has huge funding problems, and probably more than anywhere else, a strong faculty anti-football bias.

--Both Oregon State and Washington State have the will to win, but location and resouces leave them only as occasional front-runners.

Bottom line: The ACC and the Big-12 have been dominated by Clemson and Oklahoma respectively, both national players.  The Pac-12 has a good shot to be doing the same in the coming years.  In contrast, the B1G (OSU, Michigan PSU, Wisconsin, and now MSU) has top tier depth and takes this much more seriously, as does the SEC (Georgia, Florida, Bama. A&M, Auburn, and now Texas and Oklahoma.)

[utenation]

On 12/1/2021 at 8:09 AM, EastCoastFan said:

--Utah, the most consistently solid of the Pac-12 teams, is facing post-Whit questionmarks.  The future is unclear.

I think all or most Ute fans agree here. I think it's safe to say, we've been doing more with less for a long time. Coaching is everything along with consistency. 

It's funny you mention KW.. There's been some mild rumors this year about KW hanging up the whistle. He just turned 62 and has been with Utah since 1994. He pretty much started down the coaching path soon after he was done playing.  His dad was a coach too. It's all he knows. On his last extension, it was worded into his contract that he has a cushy admin/advisor job waiting when he wants it.

He also just became Utah's most winning coach too a few weeks ago. There's thoughts that if he can snag a P12 title and a Rose Bowl birth, he might call it good. KW doesn't say a word in press conferences or other media. 

My personal opinion is, he goes until 65 and Morgan Scalley is the next HC. He's been groomed well and is now 42. I'm confident with our AD making the right decision but as we all know, none of these decisions are bullet proof. Good AD's make bad hires all the time. 

Utah will never land an elite established coach in the P5. But it's an attractive job with invested fans and boosters. 

[PAC MAN]

One or two coaching hires can change the trajectory of a conference.  In 1998, Texas hired Mack Brown and the following year OU hired Bob Stoops.  The Big 12 was a really good conference in the 2000s.  Nick Saban gave the SEC a good jolt when he went to LSU then to Alabama.

Better days do appear to be ahead for the Pac-12.  Gotta prove it on the field though.

[Orange]

On 12/1/2021 at 2:00 PM, Jalapeno said:

Better days do appear to be ahead for the Pac-12.  Gotta prove it on the field though.

HOT TAKE!  THIS THREAD HAS EVERYTHING!

[HLB]

Doubtful, although possible.