Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

USC's 2010 Season: What would be good for the Pac?

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I'm thinking about national perception of the conference and overall strength of its football. (This could also be read as what's best for the upcoming media negotiations.) Also, what's best for CU?

Is it better if USC is good, but not great?

Or if they limp to an awful (for them) 5 to 7 wins?

How about if they win the regular season but can't go to the Rose Bowl and an alternate is sent? Is that a disaster or does that send the message that Troy and the state of California are still the kings of college football?
 
I would think them being near or at the Top would be better overall for the conference despite their issues. If they fall hard, could hurt exposure or interest. Hell, the east coast bias is already bad enough.
 
not sure about how CU fits in, but I think if the Pac is going to stave off the need or desire to go after Texas--particularly if the SEC makes a move for ATM/OU/Clemson or whatever, it needs USC to return to being a national behemoth. on a strictly subjective level, i enjoyed the Paul Hackett years a lot. a return to that works for me if you bracket off the UT thing.

I'm still hoping UT goes to the Big 10 to be with Husker buddy.
 
I'm not so interested in what's good for the Pac. I'm interested in what's good for CU. What's good for CU is a total meltdown at SC. I'm talking 3-9 kind of records for the next 10 years. The rest of the conference will make up the difference. There are "name" programs at Washinton, Oregon, UCLA and CU that could take up the slack for a downtrodden USC. Even Cal, Stanford, UA and ASU can pick up where USC left off. I won't shed any tears if USC shats their bed this year and for the forseeable future.
 
In a perfect world I would like to see Southern Cal go 8-4 with losses to UCLA, OREGON, ARIZONA, AND WASHINGTON (Capped off with a shouting/shoving match between Kiffen and Slick Rick after the game ) - The PAC 10 needs more parity like the SEC to maximize interest. We need one of the other Big market schools to be good like Washington or Arizona schools to boost the ratings... Would like to see another team other than UCS or Oregon to take the Pac-10 Championship but USC is still the biggest draw so you don't want a total collapse right before TV negotiations -- let that happen the year after Larry Scott inks the new deal. Right now its really a 2 team league with Oregon and USC duking it out much like the Big XII is with OU and UT.

I know it won't happen but I think that would be the best for us because we need the most money possible from the new deal so we can finally stop treading water and hanging on for dear life as far as our AD finances go. Its like living paycheck to paycheck right now.
 
sackman said:
I'm not so interested in what's good for the Pac. I'm interested in what's good for CU. What's good for CU is a total meltdown at SC. I'm talking 3-9 kind of records for the next 10 years. The rest of the conference will make up the difference. There are "name" programs at Washinton, Oregon, UCLA and CU that could take up the slack for a downtrodden USC. Even Cal, Stanford, UA and ASU can pick up where USC left off. I won't shed any tears if USC shats their bed this year and for the forseeable future.
Click to expand...

what if it results in Texas coming to the Pac12?
 
Until Scott seals the deal on what should be the greatest conference TV contract ever, I'm all for whatever makes the conference look like it's the second coming of Tebow. After that, SC can fold faster than the Argentine military in '82.
 
I hate USC. Clearly one of the most pompous programs in the country. O-fer is fine with me. Only problem is that would lead to Kiffen being gone and it is fun to watch him mess everything up there.
 
What would also help would be if we were to have an unexpectedly good season and win the big 12 and for Utah to win their crappy conference.

It's the beginning of August - one can dream.
 
Daaah said:
What would also help would be if we were to have an unexpectedly good season and win the big 12 and for Utah to win their crappy conference.

It's the beginning of August - one can dream.
Click to expand...

Good point. I actually think we're good enough to win the North this year, but we've got he toughest schedule to do it. Nebraska and Missouri are the favorites and we've got to go on the road for both. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the North champion won the conference championship this year, though. I think the pendulum is swinging back a bit.

Utah's got a real good shot. TCU should win it, but Utah's right there.
 
sackman said:
I'm not so interested in what's good for the Pac. I'm interested in what's good for CU. What's good for CU is a total meltdown at SC. I'm talking 3-9 kind of records for the next 10 years. The rest of the conference will make up the difference. There are "name" programs at Washinton, Oregon, UCLA and CU that could take up the slack for a downtrodden USC. Even Cal, Stanford, UA and ASU can pick up where USC left off. I won't shed any tears if USC shats their bed this year and for the forseeable future.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting Utah, which is likely to be better than most (all) of the programs named above. I'm happy to see USC be down for a while. They are kind of like ND, even if they aren't good, they have a name and people will pay premium $ to have them on TV.
 
I think it is more important for another Pac team to be good (national title contender) than USC. USC can not play in any post season games, therefore can't get an extra revenue for the conference. So here is to a melt down at U$C and someone else taking their place and bringing money to the table from a solid bowl game.
 
Buffsoldier said:
Until Scott seals the deal on what should be the greatest conference TV contract ever, I'm all for whatever makes the conference look like it's the second coming of Tebow. After that, SC can fold faster than the Argentine military in '82.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: The Pac-12 still needs to sell itself, whether taking the coaches to New York or the top quarterbacks to Bristol. Once the television package is in place, and the dollars are there for the Buffs and the rest of the Pac-12, then USC can fold up its tents for a few years and go away (unless it leads to the rise of UCLA under Coach Rick, which in my world is an even worse scenario than a dominant USC).
 
I guess where I'm at is that I want USC to go undefeated in the non-conference but finish back in the conference standings. Be great if Oregon and Washington were both in BCS games this year and if the top 2 Heisman guys were Locker and Luck. Couple that with UCLA going bowling again along with CU back in a bowl game. Under that scenario, the conference is looking sick heading into 2011.
 
Buffnik said:
I'm thinking about national perception of the conference and overall strength of its football. (This could also be read as what's best for the upcoming media negotiations.) Also, what's best for CU?

Is it better if USC is good, but not great?

Or if they limp to an awful (for them) 5 to 7 wins?

How about if they win the regular season but can't go to the Rose Bowl and an alternate is sent? Is that a disaster or does that send the message that Troy and the state of California are still the kings of college football?
Click to expand...
Since the BCS system was put in place in 1997, 6 teams from the SEC have played for the title. Tennessee 1997, LSU 2003 - shared title with USC, Florida 2006, LSU 2007, Florida 2008, Alabama 2009. All six teams won the game. California is not the king of college football, the SEC is.
 
If USC isn't a great football team, The PAC needs someone else to step up and be a top 5 team for the sake of national perception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top