Any truth to Jim Rome?

[hatvol96]

maybe in the last 15 years, but before that? I don't think so.

If you think the PAC 10 in the '60s-'80s is comparable to the SEC, you truly do need a refresher course in college football. USC was the only PAC 10 program of any national significance in that stretch, with the occasional contender from Washington.

 

[droski]

USC was the only PAC 10 program of any national significance in that stretch, with the occasional contender from Washington.

good point

 

[hatvol96]

good point

The PAC 10's problem is that they have never been able to sustain any level of depth. For the most part, SC has been very good to great. The rest of the teams have their moments, but none of them have had a 20-30 year run where they are consistently excellent. The SEC is full of programs that have historically been better than most. A string of 8-4s gets you fired at Georgia. At most of the PAC 10 schools, it gets a statue of you built. That's the difference in the two conferences.

 

[droski]

The PAC 10's problem is that they have never been able to sustain any level of depth. For the most part, SC has been very good to great. The rest of the teams have their moments, but none of them have had a 20-30 year run where they are consistently excellent. The SEC is full of programs that have historically been better than most. A string of 8-4s gets you fired at Georgia. At most of the PAC 10 schools, it gets a statue of you built. That's the difference in the two conferences.

SC is really the only school that has been commited. UW was for a while, but currently they are not commited financially. Just the fact that tedford turned them down really with no discussion tells you how far the program has fallen. UCLA has never been willing to spend the money to be a football power. Nor has Cal until the last 5 years or so. Same for stanford. Oregon has phil's money but not many div 1a recruits in state. ASU is the real sleeping giant. Good money, facilities, but they don't have a lot of local talent.