re: Arizona and Arizona State football

When you talk about tradition, facilities, money, etc. this is how I'd rank the conference.

1. USC: Old money, tons of championships, they play in a dump but that dump has lots of memories

2. Oregon: The nouveau riche, but their impact and facilities cannot be denied

3. UCLA: Rose Bowl, SoCal, even if you get USC's rejects you're still getting elite players

4. Washington: Huge school, big market, beautiful stadium, popular place to live

5. Stanford: Elite private school education draw, still riding Jim Harbaugh's coattails

6. Arizona State: Washington with warmer weather but crappier stadium

7. Arizona: Arizona State without a big city and a winning tradition

8. Colorado: There is NO excuse for this program to be that inept

9-12: Irrelevant for now

quote:

---

ASU should be top 10 in every major sport. No excuse not to if you can use this recruiting pitch.

---

Someone like Urban Meyer would have them in the NCAA Playoffs every single year.

It may be sexist, but they need to fins some way to get a sizable percentage of the female student hard bodies to come to the games in force. Then, they start selling alcohol in their stadium. This will give them the raucus, party atmosphere at their games that their university is already known for. This will positively impact recruitment as well as convince other fans to come to the games to see the hard bodies. Dudes follow the hot white girls every time.

quote:

---

Arizona is a highly populated state...roughly around 7 million.



3.4% black population

---

Oregon does well with 4 million people and 2% black. Az. State has built in recruiting advantages over Oregon.

quote:

---

State has built in recruiting advantages over Oregon.

---

Oregon beats Arizona State in:









All of which matter to the kids. And I hate Oregon and I'm saying this.

quote:

---

These schools are more likely to recruit in No. Cal than So. Cal.

---

I am aware of that. I just used Los Angeles as an example because it is a larger metro area and consistently produces about as much talent as any metropolis in the country.

quote:

---

I just assume that it wouldn't be hard to sway recruits to these schools. Not every recruit can go to USC, UCLA, etc,

---

True, that's why many of them go to Seattle, Eugene (liberal school with Nike money), Boulder, Salt Lake City, Boise, Las Vegas, etc. But I do understand your point.

There are other situations comparable to the southern California/Arizona predicament. For example, the Washington D.C. metro and coastal Virginia is one of the most talent-rich regions in the country outside of the big 6 (L.A., New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas). Yet why is it that schools such as Maryland, Virginia, and Rutgers (for the most part) have been historical underachievers?

Virginia and Rutgers can point to academics as a handicap, but I think that is less of an issue than people think. North Carolina, Stanford, Michigan, Notre Dame, and USC, just to name a few, are some of the most reputable non-Ivy League colleges in the country. All have difficult admission standards, but they have also achieved some noteworthy success during their program's history.

Some schools just aren't successful. Plain and simple. It's a combination of numerous circumstances. Apathy, geography, financial resources, facilities, administration, coaching, demographics, etc.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be shocked to see the Cats win the Pac12 within a few years

---

I would, particularly with USC no longer under sanctions.

The two schools really need to market having the hottest coeds of any other colleges in the nation.

Oregon without Nike is.....well......Oregon State