USC should drop in the rankings after this performance

[SoCalTrjn]

27-6 to Washington State. This is Pete Carrolls worst team since his first and its not even close.

[Q, West Coast Style]

I think Wazzu fan was more excited about the result than was Trojan fan. Hell, the Cougs played close to even with Troy for the last 3 quarters. Paul Wulff was wise to burn Jeff Tuel's redshirt.

[Dinsdale]

Wazzu actually putting points on the board is reason to celebrate.

[Van]

The one TD WSU scored was garbage time smoke and mirrors. WSU effectively got shut out.

USC's offensive performance though, from the time they took the 20-0 lead, that was pure garbage. They mailed in the rest of the game, secure in the knowledge that there was no way in hell they were ever going to be threatened.

The level of sloppiness they displayed was just plain frightening.

[Dinsdale]

Even a garbage-time TD for Wazzu is a moral-victory.


That team is just plain baaaaaaaaad.

[Van]

They really are. The Pac 10 should drop them from football. They simply aren't on that level anymore, all the way down to their stadium and other facilities.

WSU should be in a reconstituted WAC, which would be comprised of the best of the combined WAC and MWC, after Boise St, Utah and BYU replace WSU in the Pac 10 to create a much more competitive Pac 12.

Boise St would obviously only be a football school in that scenario, similar to the way ND is in the Big East for basketball, but not football.

[Dinsdale]

They really are. The Pac 10 should drop them from football.

Uhm... haven't they played more Rose Bowls in the last decade than any other PAC team not named USC?

[Van]

Do you foresee them ever returning to that status, what with Washington returning, Oregon continually growing, Cal Tedford-ing and UCLA and Stanford both coming hard?

What we're seeing now from Washington St is going to be the norm for them, for the foreseeable future. Along the way it's not like WSU adds much to the conference in any other revenue generating sport either, or even academically.

They're a boat anchor. Their mere existence in the conference hurts every other team in the conference. BYU would be a much stronger addition to the conference, all across the board, and so would Utah. Boise St doesn't fit the mold, but we need to add three teams if WSU is dropped, and Boise St would be the natural fit for football.

[Dinsdale]

Just to play devil's advocate to your PAC-expansion project...

Sure, it would take a while to make the jump, but...

What about Montana joining up?

Do they need to do the WAC first?

Would they be interested? Is it better for them to spend a decade flailing in D1A, or to continue to dominate 1AA at such a nasty clip?

Maybe Portland State could get their shit together and fill in the WAC for BSU? No excuse for Portland St to not utterly and completely dominate 1AA every freaking year -- probably the largest 1AA in the country (bigger school than Oregon or OS), large numbers of wealthy alums (crazy bastards spend their donation money on education... puh-leez), and a bitchin urban campus, downtown, with some serious night-life going on to tempt recruits. But Portland St., even with a big-name coaching hire, just can't get that shit together. Ponderous.


Anyhoo... just discussion food-for-thought (since it's 5 days until Game Day).

[Killian]

Boise State would tell the Pac 10 to go fuck themselves if they only wanted football. The ND/Big East deal was beneficial for both parties at the time. ND got their olympic sports conferece affiliation, while the Big East got to use ND's name and drawing power to keep some of the second teir bowl games tied to their conference. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. And WSU is essentialy the Pac10's version of IU, except with more recent football success.

[Q, West Coast Style]

They really are. The Pac 10 should drop them from football.

Uhm... haven't they played more Rose Bowls in the last decade than any other PAC team not named USC?

Yes.

And they've been pretty good in basketball over the last 3 years too.

Every time the Cougs get bad in a sport there's people who suggest that they will never be good again, and should be demoted. It's just because they are a rural campus. Arizona has NEVER played in a Rose Bowl. Cal and Oregon State haven't played in one in forever. Before last year, Arizona went nearly a decade without playing in any bowl whatsover. Between 1997 and 2003 WSU had 4 ten win seasons and went to two Rose Bowls. WSU has beaten UW 3 of the last 4 years, even while been bad. WSU has beaten UCLA 6 out of the last 8 and 9 of the last 13 seasons.

They will get back. This down cycle has been longer and deeper than other down cylces over the past few decades, bot like those other periods, it will end and they will compete again. They are about to begin Phase III of a 3 phase stadium and facility upgrade that will bring their facilities up with the rest of teh conference (except Oregon, of course).

[Van]

Montana is a non-starter. They don't have the D1 results, name recongnition, stadium or facilities to make a go of it in the Pac 10. Montana trying to recruit against the likes of USC, Nike U, Neuweasel and USC North up there in Seattle, it'd just be a joke.

They'd also stand no chance at being competitive in the other sports, not unless the Pac 10 adds rodeo, quail shooting, fly fishing, cow tipping and avoiding black people as championship sports.

I'm not comfortable with adding Boise St, since they'd be a one sport only team, but who else is there? Hawaii? Not a chance. Nevada, or UNLV? Nope. No way. Fresno St would be the logical pick, and they're the only other viable option.

So, okay, who would you choose there, Boise St for one sport, or Fresneck for all sports?

Would the Pac 10 really want to add an academic turd like that? A state school for meth heads? Fresneck also has no natural rivals in the Pac 10, whereas Boise St does have some natural rivals - at least in theory - in Utah, BYU, Washington and now, especially, Oregon.

[Q, West Coast Style]

or even academically

In the latest US News and World Report rankings, WSU is ranked just behind Ariozna, and just ahead of Oregon, and ahead of Oregon State and Arizona State.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... ngs/page+5

Boise State is not on the same level as WSU academically. WSU is a major research institution, as is every Pac-10 school. It's proabably conferences major requirment for membership.

[Van]

Q, I'd be fine with dropping both Arizona schools too. I'd be fine with replacing them with BYU and Utah, and letting them join a reconstituted WAC, where they seem like more of a natural and competitive fit.

Like I said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the Boise idea, in part because of the academics, and especially since it'd have to be a football only deal, which the Pac 10 doesn't do. Killian compared WSU to Indiana in the Big 10, but that comparison falls flat because for a very long time Indiana was Big 10 hoops. Indiana was long a flag bearer for the second largest revenue generating sport.

WSU has managed a few good seasons here and there, sure, but here's my case against WSU:

-Never won a Rose Bowl since being being a member of the Pac 10. Haven't won one since 1916, in fact.

-Never won a BCS bowl game.

-Only been to ten bowl games in their entire history.

-They bring very little to the table in any other sport, and they're not among the academic leaders either. They're not the Pac 10's Northwestern or Vandy.

-They've become a punchline to the rest of the nation, as a jab against the entire conference.

-How will they hope to compete in the future against the growing strength of the conference? They're not gaining, they're falling even further behind. While other programs are attracting people like Jim Harbaugh, Rick Neuheisel, Dennis Erickson and Steve Sarkisian, the Cougars try to make do with shlubs like Bill Doba and Paul Wulff; i.e., guys who would never get a sniff at any other major BTPCF HC gig.

Yeah, the Cougars occasionally have good seasons, but their highs are never that high and their lows have reached an untenable level. Their mere existence within the conference is hurting the conference. There isn't much worse one can say about a program.

[Killian]

Touche, Van. But WSU is better on all fronts than Northwestern. Each league has their bottom dweller that does nothing athletically for their conference.

[Van]

Killian, not on all fronts. Northwestern is academically stellar. They're a prestige program for the Big 10. Also, isn't Northwestern a private school, and isn't that important to the Big 10 for some sort of legal reason? I don't recall the argument - I know you and Terry will remember it - but every time the idea is mentioned about dumping Northwestern from the Big 10 the response is that it'll never happen because Northwestern is their only private school, and they need that one private school.

Washington St doesn't hold that position in the Pac 10. Washington St holds no positions of prestige within the conference.

[Q, West Coast Style]

BYU is not getting into the Pac-10. It is not a major research institution, even though it is a good school academically. Bottom line though, the presidents of the schools that make up the nation's most liberal major conference, are not letting in a school run by the LDS.

[Killian]

I'm speaking strictly in terms of athletics. I was unaware of Northwester's status as a private school having anything to do with their membership to the Big 10. Since the 1930's, Minnesota hasn't done anything except a handful of seasons where they had moderate success. Same with Baylor, South Carolina, etc.

[indyfrisco]

If a conference has a private school, it does not need to make their books/financials public. This is why all conferences have the token private school. for the PAC, thier token is basically the conference.

[Van]

That was it, Indy. Thanks.

Q, I agree with you about the Pac 10, and their rejection about the LDS rejection.

However, to play Dins' advocate, wouldn't a liberal minded collection of people feel more compelled than most to admit a whacky religion based school? I mean, hey, to turn away BYU based on religious grounds would be highly intolerant, and even downright bigoted, and we can't have that, can we?

Killian, isn't Baylor the academic flagbearer for the Big XII, as well as being their token private school? IIRC, Baylor is the Big XII's Northwestern or the SEC's Vandy.

South Carolina, yeah, they add nothing. I've always felt South Carolina belonged in the ACC, with Clemson as their natural rival. South Carolina just doesn't seem like a good fit in the SEC, and neither does Arkansas.

The team the SEC really needs to dump however is clearly Mississippi St. They are the perennial punchline of the SEC, and they bring nothing to the conference; at least nothing the conference ought to welcome, other than schedule padding.

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[Q, West Coast Style]

In the end, the Pac-10 is not changing. Nobody's leaving or coming in. The conference brass are happy with their set up. 10 major research institutions. 2 from Washington, 2 from Oregon, 2 NoCal, 2 SoCal, 2 Arizona schools. 5 sets of natural rivals. Perfectly symetrical. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Utah and BYU added to make 2 Utah schools, but that isn't going to happen.

[Van]

Q, I agree, none of this will happen; it's just message board discussion fodder. I also agree with the symmetry of the Pac 10, and adding the two Utah rivals wouldn't hurt that symmetry at all.

Again, therein lies my issue with adding Boise St. They're just too much of an island unto themselves within the conference, should they ever join the Pac 10.

Keeping Washington St and adding the two Utah schools would likely be the only thing I could ever see the Pac 10 doing, and even that would be highly unlikely.

Since Washington St isn't going anywhere, dammit, they need to get this shit turned around, and they need to do it it before they fall too much further behind. Watching them play USC these past two years, it was just painful. Those two teams had zero business being on the same field together, and that should never be the case in conference play.

[indyfrisco]

Again, therein lies my issue with adding Boise St. They're just too much of an island unto themselves within the conference, should they ever join the Pac 10.

I wouldn't let them in until they got rid of the blue turf.

Speaking of..when is Oregon going to put in a flourescent yellow turf? It's only a matter of time...

[Q, West Coast Style]

Since Washington St isn't going anywhere, dammit, they need to get this shit turned around, and they need to do it it before they fall too much further behind. Watching them play USC these past two years, it was just painful. Those two teams had zero business being on the same field together, and that should never be the case in conference play.

Preachin' to the choir, brother.

[Van]

Indy, I must be the only non Boise fan then who likes Boise's blue turf. Yeah, it's shocking to the eye, but I love the feel of the place, and I love that it gives them a specific identity; and really, blue isn't any uglier than green anyway.

Boise games in blizzards, those are really cool to watch.

Boise's oddball field isn't like Oregon's and Cal's attempts at separating themselves with intentionally ugly uniforms. The blue turf is simply jarring and odd, but it doesn't look bad, per se.

I just don't wanna see Wyoming or Syracuse follow suit.

[Dinsdale]

This is why all conferences have the token private school. for the PAC, thier token is basically the conference.

Except...


A) The "token" to which I'm fairly confident you refer is absolutely feeble at the #2 revenue sport...


B) There's two private schools in the PAC10

[indyfrisco]

Except...

The #2 sport in the conference's revenue is feeble compared to the #1 sport. Even the greatest CBB programs in the land (UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc.) make less than their shitty football programs.

[Van]

Hell, USC isn't even feeble in hoops anymore. FWIW they've been pretty damn good lately. They 'won' the Pac 10 last season, and other than for the North Carolina game USC sure gave Michigan St their toughest test during last season's NCAA tourney.

[M Club]

Do you foresee them ever returning to that status, what with Washington returning, Oregon continually growing, Cal Tedford-ing and UCLA and Stanford both coming hard?

you act like all those teams are going to build themselves into usc. they're not. all conferences are the same in this regard when talking about their middling teams who are 'coming hard.' stanford's going to go 5-3 ten years from now, celebrate, then go back to being a doormat. the equilibrium has a strong, strong pull, and wazzu will be decent again. i don't understand your knee-jerk advocation of dropping teams for having a bad run, or even having a bit less tradition than the school you root for.

also, there should never be a situation where one conference team doesn't belong on the field with another? that happens all the time. conferences need their cupcakes. indiana has beaten michigan once since bo was hired, and this week was the first i remember being mildly competitive. no way should iu be dropped from the big ten.

[Van]

Of course not. Indiana's hoops legacy assures them of their seat at any Big 10 table.

The problem with WSU isn't that they're at the bottom of the Pac 10. Yeah, every conference has to have teams at the bottom, and those teams change all the time. No, the problem with WSU is that they're no longer even close to being D1 competitive, much less competitive with the teams in their own league. The disparity in talent between WSU and USC has now grown so large that I doubt there is a similar disparity between two teams in any other conference. I doubt that even Florida and Mississippi St see anything like the talent disparity which currently exists between USC and Wazzou.

There were times last year and again this year where it simply wasn't right. WSU's players should not have been subjected to getting their heads kicked in like that, for such a hopeless cause.

Also, no, I don't believe a conference should have perennial cupcakes. If a team can never rise above being a cupcake, such as a Mississippi St, then they'd better offer some other compelling reason for being in the league, such as a Northwestern or Vandy. Mississippi St offers nothing to the SEC. They need to go, to be replaced by someone who can offer something to the league besides guaranteed wins.

Washington St is nearing that same point. Because they have been decent in recent history I'll back off and give them more time, but if in another five years they're still no better than a mid-level D1-AA team then they need to go.

[Van]

Okay, but they've got the token private school thing going, which Mississippi St lacks.