Who Wins the PAC-10 First?

Thoughts?

kitic77 wrote:
Thoughts?

Yes. BYU plays Washington September 4th.....

I think if it's not UCLA it's solely through gross incompetence. There is a huge LA void to fill right now, and they are the logical place to fill it up.

Bad question. Nobody wins in the PAC-10.

Well, Washington wins it before either of these clowns, but we are talking about 7+ years. Stanford, Cal, and Oregon take it until USC gets back in charge of things.



My apologies to the clowns, for comparing a Puke to them. Apologies.

I think Washington wins it by 2012. Their recruiting reminds me of us-good young guys. UCLA will come close, Utah might be close, but neither will be able to win the road games to do it. Especially Utah. They suck tailpipe away from RES v. PAC teams.

did you mean 2012, as in, next year?

BlueIsBetter wrote:
did you mean 2012, as in, next year?

No, UW wins in 2012, as in 2 season after 2010. 2010 USC will win. 2011, Stanford, unless Harbaugh goes to Michigan by then.

I picked UCLA. Slick Rick is a good enough coach/cheater that he will win it since he has a head start on Sark at WA. (Just reread the way I stated that sentance, I am not implying that Sark is a cheater in anyway)

Cougy_Monster wrote:

Bad question. Nobody wins in the PAC-10.

What a thought-provoking point.....



I must say I agree.



Maybe it would be better worded as "Who will be the first to not lose the Pac-12?"



"Winning" suggests you accomplished something. "Not losing" more appropriately describes the events as simply escaping from more losses than the next sucky team.

I just mean that if you're in the PAC-10/12, you could win every game, but you're still on the Left Coast in a state with huge budgetary and social issues OR you're Utah. Take your pick. Either way, you're destined to be spanked by BYU next time you play them.

UCLA. The Bruins already have the athletes and will be the main benefactor from the USC fiasco.



2010 is actually Washington's best shot for the next couple of years, as it loses Locker to the NFL after this season. However, there's too much competition with USC, UCLA, California, Oregon, and Oregon State this year to vote for the Huskies, who have been mediocre at best under Locker. Sark will make Washington competitive in the PAC 12, but UCLA definitely has the inside lane.



Utah will do "fine" in the PAC 12, but I don't see them winning more than 3 out of 4 PAC 12 road game a year(at best), so they would have to win the conference with a 7-1 record. In 2004 and 2008, the same Utah teams would have had AT LEAST two losses in the PAC 12. In both undefeated seasons, the Utes benefits from pedestrian non-conference schedules and with both BYU and TCU at home. In 2008, Michigan (5-7, 1-7 in Big Ten) was down and Utes squeaked out a 2 point victory. They also beat Oregon State (8-5, 6-3 in PAC 10) at HOME by 3 on the last second Beaver mishap....should have lost. 2004 was actually a better year (other than the bowl game) - the Utes had convincing home wins over Texas A&M (6-7, 3-5 in Big XII) and North Carolina (8-5, 4-4 in ACC) and good road win over Arizona (8-5, 6-3 in Pac 10).

YNOT, the year Utah beat Arizona in Tuscon, the Cats were like 4-8. Not 8-5.

Lawboy,



I stand corrected. Arizona went 3-8 in 2004...2-6 in the PAC...I was looking at the wrong stats....I still think the Utes will do OK in the PAC 12...just a long shot to be a serious contender for the conference title.



YNOT

Another interesting consideration related to this topic is divisional alignment. How will PAC 12 division alignment affect your thoughts on who wins the PAC 12 first?



If Utah and Colorado are put in a NW Division with the Oregon and Washington schools, I think the road for both Utah and Washington is easier than UCLA's road. The Utes would just need to finish ahead of UW, the Oregon schools, and Colorado (easy) and Washington State (laugh). Then, it just becomes a one-game hurdle to win the conference title.



If Utah is put into a division with any combination of USC, UCLA, Stanford, or California, the task will prove too tough...just to get to the conference championship game.

I go with UCLA. Rick has had a head start and has some great recruiting classes that he and Chow will finally do something with. UW has Locker this year, then he's gone. :utard:, really now.

I've gotta go with UCLA too. They have a pretty good QB in Prince who will be around for awhile. UW and Locker won't win it this year with Stanford in the picture and I just really don't think the Montana kid is the answer for them at QB in the future. But I do think that Sark will have that program on the cusp a lot over the coming years and could eventually win a conference title. I just don't think it'll happen before UCLA.

UCLA. Programs as huge, rich, and prestigious as UCLA do not stay down for long.