Pac-12 Roundtable: Looking Back at the First Season, Plus a Look Ahead
After Saturday night’s USC-UCLA game, we had a roundtable discussion on the state of the Pac-12 Conference and the state of USC football. Here’s our part of the roundtable, focusing on the Pac-12 Conference, with panelists Trenise Ferreira from Reign of Troy, Mark Knight from The Husky Haul, our own Derek Hart from Go Joe Bruin, and lead editor Michael Castillo.
1. How would you assess Larry Scott’s tenure as Pac-12 Commissioner so far?
Trenise: Well it’s no secret that Larry Scott is up there as “Public Enemy No. 2” on Trojan fans’ list. This man had the opportunity to show loyalty to his conference, to the ONLY team that is guaranteed TV money year in and out (because let’s face it, NO ONE cares about the Ducks outside of Eugene but EVERYONE will watch USC), and he chose to side with the treacherous NCAA folk. There was no legitimate reason to ban SC from the inaugural championship, unless he didn’t want people to watch the game. Since the game isn’t part of the post season, SC would have been eligible. But instead, Scott chose to show that he clearly hates USC, and as a result he now looks really stupid. The whole country would have tuned in for a USC/Oregon rematch, but now, NO ONE is gonna watch Oregon/UCLA. No one wants to see that beat down. I cant even rationalize how he could have decided to ban SC from the beginning, because there was the possibility that SC wouldn’t have qualified anyway. So it was a low risk, high reward situation and he didn’t take it. And the Trojans showed him who the REAL best team in the conference is, and I bet he hates that. And its not only the fact that he chose to exclude USC for no reason, its the fact that he has blatantly brought things down on USC, but no one else. Example: Matt Barkley calling ASU’s Vontaze Burfict “dirty”, and TJ McDonalds totally legal, but albeit powerful hit got a reprimand and a half game suspension, respectively. Yet Scott has YET to suspend Burfict, who is known for his flagrant late hits, EVER. That man has done nothing but let Burfict play by his own rules, and its not fair at all. So aside from the TV deal he secured, I think Larry Scott sucks. And I hope he realized how much so after Saturday’s game.
Mark: Larry Scott has been a complete asset to the conference. He has helped teams that are not called “USC” make sure they have every game on TV in basketball and football. This is a nice addition considering Washington basketball has already had 3 games this season that were not televised. Scott has fixed this- starting next year. Thank you. I understand where Trenise is coming from, because feeling slighted and targeted feels stupid. It’s almost like when a ref is controlling the game by his little yellow flag but all the penalties are one-sided. However, I don’t think this is the case for Larry Scott. He came down relatively soft on USC and how foolish would he have looked if he let USC play in the title game and they won it… then UCLA would have automatically been sent to the Rose Bowl? Or would the loser of the Pac-12 title game still get to go? Seemed easiest to just deny USC the ability to play for the title to save from the headache of figuring out who gets to play in the Rose Bowl had USC won. I like Larry Scott as the commish and think he is doing a good job. But I also don’t follow USC athletics with strong passion thus am looking on that with an outsider perspective and it seemed fair to me.
Michael: On a complete assessment, I love what Scott’s done for the conference. He’s tried to make the conference relevant on a national level. Last year he took the coaches for a media day in New York, and this year he’s began the FOX deal that has the conference playing the championship game, nationally televised on a Friday night to monopolize the television audience. That’s huge for exposure, especially since the Pac-12 can’t compete with the SEC if they’re going up against an LSU-Georgia game at the same time-slot. As for USC not playing in title game? He had to do it, like Mark said. If it was Oregon that was sanctioned, and they beat UCLA, you don’t want to send UCLA over Stanford, to make an example that’s more tangible. I do however agree, Trenise, that his suspensions and reprimands haven’t been fair across the board. But the anti-USC thing for Scott pretty much ends there. He knows what USC means for the conference. If not, he wouldn’t have had SC host the first ever Pac-12 game against Utah.
Derek: Okay, he got a great TV deal which meant much money for all the schools, though I would have liked to have seen him fight Prime Ticket / Fox Sports against games being televised at 7:00 pm.
2. How would you assess the Pac-12 Conference after its first football regular season?
Trenise: The Pac-12 has about 4 solid teams, and 3 of them are in the North. USC, Stanford, Oregon, and and UW are the only teams worth paying attention to, and even then not all the time. Adding Utah and Colorado was a complete joke, though I guess Utah wasn’t foreseeable at the time because they had put the smack down on opponents like Bama before. But, Colorado was stupid. I guess the only other good thing Larry Scott did was stack the conferences such that USC would always be in the Pac-12 championship game. I will give him that.
Mark: The Pac-12 is interesting to say the least. The way the divisions are aligned makes the most sense by geography and rivalry but maybe not skill level. USC should run away with the South every year for as far in the future as most can see. The teams that “competed” with them this year; UCLA, Arizona State, and Utah, 2 of those teams are firing their coaches and the other couldn’t buy a win for the first half of the season. Adding Utah made sense at the time and it still may make some sense because they ended out positive on what looked to be a disastrous year. Overall though, this conference still has a lot to prove in order to be considered up there with a SEC or Big 10 in football.
Michael: Any time the Pac-12 has three top 10 teams, I’ll consider the season a success. Especially for a conference in a transition year, with newcomers Utah and Colorado. While the conference was rather top heavy, it didn’t help that two of the teams threatening to make lots of noise at the beginning of the year, Arizona State and Washington, struggled to finish the season. For ASU, it was a typical Sun Devil story-line of getting too much hype, then collapsing. For Washington, it was the opposite of Arizona’s early season scheduling issue, as the Huskies got blown out by Stanford, Oregon and USC in three of four weeks. Again, that’s going to happen to most teams. So top to the bottom, the conference can still grow, especially in Corvallis, Westwood and Tucson.
Derek: Mediocre except for Oregon, Stanford and USC. The Pac-12 could have been more accurately called the Pac-3 this year.
3. Who should replace Rick Neuheisel at UCLA?
Trenise: I honestly have no idea who SHOULD replace Nueheisel, but I hope it’s not someone good! If UCLA gets a good coach, then that completely changes the landscape of the USC/UCLA rivalry here in LA, and as a Trojan, I very much so enjoy being able to say, “Why yes, my school IS better than yours.” But in all seriousness, whoever it is, they are going to have a hard time convincing people to play for UCLA when they can play for USC, so it should be someone who is a good recruiter and who knows what to do with the hotbed of talent in LA.
Mark: It really depends on where UCLA wants to go. Do they like the current structure of the football program, or do they want a different style? If they like what Slick Rick was doing, but not the execution of what he was doing then they may need to find a similar coach to Neuheisal. If not- the sky is the limit. The grass is green at UCLA. They have the makings of being able to be successful- they just aren’t right now. A new coach may change that.
Michael: They made the perfect hire when they hired Neuheisel. He was the absolute right guy for the job. He was the UCLA alum who had past success on the big stage and was coming home. He said all the right things. He was the man. But, he never lived up to the hype and part of that, I feel, was his fear for committing the same mistakes he did at Colorado and Washington. He ran a tight ship at UCLA and kudos to him for that. But, he didn’t butter his bread, as he failed to manage his quarterbacks in his time with the Bruins. So who can? Possibly a guy like Mike Leach. Leach had a long, consistent run in Lubbock and turned Texas Tech in a legitimate National Title contender in 2008. His offenses are predicated on the quarterback position and he recruited at junior colleges, continuously replacing guys like Kliff Kingsbury, with guys like Graham Harrell. If he can come in, he can turn around the offense quickly, especially with a proven back like Jonathan Franklin returning.
Derek: Lots of folks say Chris Petersen from Boise State, but as a UCLA alum, I say that whoever is the new coach needs to be a proven winner in a BCS conference, with West Coast ties (if not SoCal ties), and would be willing to accept less than market value since UCLA has never paid more than $1.25 million.
4. Going forward, are the Washington Huskies going to take over for Stanford as the team to press Oregon in the Pac-12 North?
Trenise: Yeah, I don’t know a whole lot about the landscape in the North, but I think that once Stanford loses its Luck–literally and figuratively–they will fade back into oblivion. Sark has the cred to sustain better seasons going forward, and I really thing Stanford is going to fall off super hard, so the Oregon/UDub dynamic will become very interesting as the conference develops.
Mark: Stanford has been good for a few years but the fan-base doesn’t support them and the recruiting isn’t as good as other teams in the Pac-12 (though the winning has helped). I think eventually they will fade a little and the Oregon/Washington Rivalry will be hot. Washington has improved every year under Steve Sarkisian. If this continues, there is no way for them not to be the top of the North.
Michael: Stanford’s window is closing, and not just because of Luck. They’re going to be losing a lot of the players that made them so good, like Griff Whalen, Coby Fleener and Chris Owusu. They’re all seniors, and Stepfan Taylor is a junior for Stanford, and only has one season left. Washington on the other hand is building a strong program that looks to be as strong as it was a decade ago, especially if they can keep getting talent like Keith Price, Chirs Polk and Sean Parker. Their recruiting makes it easier for them to last longer than the Cardinal as a threat to Oregon.
Derek: Maybe, depends on who takes over for Luck as Stanford quarterback and how Washington continues to progress.
For the rest of the roundtable, check out
.
For up-to-the-minute buzz, follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook Fan Page.