Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Iron Laws today
Auburndawg
Member Posts: 362
Obligatory for a new generation
The WSU game last night illustrated my theory of the Iron Laws.
Three factors contribute to long term CFB success:
Location - proximity to a large recruiting base
Tradition - does your school really care about football?
Money - the ability to hire the best coaches and build the best facilities
Yes, coaching matters. But long term, the strongest schools will attract the best coaches.
How does this apply to today's PAC-12?
Two schools are strong in all three areas: USC and UW.
UCLA and Stanford have location, but are weak in the other two. Oregon has money, and now, tradition, but not location. Stanford and Oregon have benefited from good coaching in recent years, while bad coaching has lessened the advantages enjoyed by USC, UCLA, and UW.
If we are right about Petersen, UW will soon be the best team in the PAC. At least until USC once again hires a competent coach.
And what about the rest of the league?
To play real football - running the ball and playing defense - you need to recruit lots of good athletes. Many schools, such as WSU, can't do that. To at least be competitive, teams turn to gimmicky offenses to try and lessen the talent gap. Everyone in the PAC-`12, other than USC, UCLA, Washington, and, at least during this recent era, Stanford and Oregon, face this dilemma.
Good WRs are a dime a dozen. Now, if you can find a good QB, you're in business. You are at least entertaining and dangerous.
But defense and running the ball wins championships, and WSU will never, never consistently recruit enough 4 and 5 stars athletes to do that.
The Iron Laws -
Location, Tradition, Money - always prevail over time.
The WSU game last night illustrated my theory of the Iron Laws.
Three factors contribute to long term CFB success:
Location - proximity to a large recruiting base
Tradition - does your school really care about football?
Money - the ability to hire the best coaches and build the best facilities
Yes, coaching matters. But long term, the strongest schools will attract the best coaches.
How does this apply to today's PAC-12?
Two schools are strong in all three areas: USC and UW.
UCLA and Stanford have location, but are weak in the other two. Oregon has money, and now, tradition, but not location. Stanford and Oregon have benefited from good coaching in recent years, while bad coaching has lessened the advantages enjoyed by USC, UCLA, and UW.
If we are right about Petersen, UW will soon be the best team in the PAC. At least until USC once again hires a competent coach.
And what about the rest of the league?
To play real football - running the ball and playing defense - you need to recruit lots of good athletes. Many schools, such as WSU, can't do that. To at least be competitive, teams turn to gimmicky offenses to try and lessen the talent gap. Everyone in the PAC-`12, other than USC, UCLA, Washington, and, at least during this recent era, Stanford and Oregon, face this dilemma.
Good WRs are a dime a dozen. Now, if you can find a good QB, you're in business. You are at least entertaining and dangerous.
But defense and running the ball wins championships, and WSU will never, never consistently recruit enough 4 and 5 stars athletes to do that.
The Iron Laws -
Location, Tradition, Money - always prevail over time.
Comments
Stop gargling Sark's balls.
HTH
And Stanford has more money than the rest of the conference combined.
Location means jack shit. Tradition is built by hiring good coaches. Money is attracted to winning, which comes from good coaches.
Dumbest fucking post ever.
I think location is relevant when it comes to remote places like Pullman. Eugene is sort of close to Portland. It's probably harder to build a program from the towns and small cities, but once you are established as a program I don't think it matters much.