Started By
Message

re: Arizona and Arizona State football

Posted on 4/9/15 at 11:41 am to
Posted by Forkbeard3777
Chicago
Member since Apr 2013
3841 posts
Posted on 4/9/15 at 11:41 am to
quote:

This may come off as slightly racist, but it shouldn't if you have any sort of common sense, but the lack of elite success also might have to do with population demographics.

Blacks make up only 5% of Arizona's total population. By comparison, look how the majority of the states in the South stack up:


That's a good theory. I wasn't aware of Arizona's demographics. Also, I doubt they are reaching into New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, or Nevada for recruits. However, given the location of Tempe and Tuscon to Los Angeles and San Diego (under an 8 hour drive), I just assume that it wouldn't be hard to sway recruits to these schools. Not every recruit can go to USC, UCLA, etc,
Posted by Jack Bauer7
Member since Jun 2012
5040 posts
Posted on 4/9/15 at 11:46 am to
ASU is more concerned with partying and anal sex
Posted by lsutigers1992
Member since Mar 2006
25317 posts
Posted on 4/9/15 at 11:53 am to
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
Posted by saint amant steve
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2008
5695 posts
Posted on 4/9/15 at 12:41 pm to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram