The Iron Laws today
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
-
FO, AD.
-
Take this shit to the Premium Content board.
-
I am not sure UCLA is actually weak in tradition... and I think they have money to a lesser degree. Stanford has money to a lesser degree as well.
-
Doogery at its finest
-
NO! I stopped reading after this.Auburndawg said:
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.
Stop gargling Sark's balls. -
You should've kept readingPurpleBaze said:
NO! I stopped reading after this.Auburndawg said:
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.
Stop gargling Sark's balls. -
There are no iron laws...
HTH -
Nope!Auburndawg said:
You should've kept readingPurpleBaze said:
NO! I stopped reading after this.Auburndawg said:
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.
Stop gargling Sark's balls. -
Why does USC have location but UCLA does not.
-
Ghetto > Westwood ... HTHAZDuck said:Why does USC have location but UCLA does not.
-
christ
-
I said UCLA does have location. Learn to readAZDuck said:Why does USC have location but UCLA does not.
-
Ucla has tradition, not sure why you wouldn't think that.
And Stanford has more money than the rest of the conference combined. -
There's only one Iron Law, hire a good fucking coach. If somebody hires him away, hire another one.Auburndawg said: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.
Location means jack shit. Tradition is built by hiring good coaches. Money is attracted to winning, which comes from good coaches.
-
I stopped reading after the subject line.
-
I stopped reading after the user nameTierbsHsotBoobs said:I stopped reading after the subject line.
-
Unless this thread gets interesting by halftime of the Pac12 network game of the week that doesn't matter and isn't on, this thread will be nuked.
Dumbest fucking post ever. -
doogs gonna doogCheersWestDawg said:Unless this thread gets interesting by halftime of the Pac12 network game of the week that doesn't matter and isn't on, this thread will be nuked.
Dumbest fucking post ever.
-
Is that an iron law?90sHuskyFan said:There are no iron laws...
HTH -
UCLA has tradition. It's nothing compared to USC's, but I would put it against any other team including Warshington. Oregon bought their tradition by acting like complete attention whores. I guess the people under 30 think they might have tradition.
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. -
Location matters a little bit in the Pac12 (basically, Pullman). It doesn't matter at all nationally. The schools in Tallahassee and Gainesville can be just as much of a power as the school in Miami. The school in Athens is more of a power than the school in Atlanta. The schools in Lincoln and Norman have just as much tradition as the school in Austin.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:UCLA has tradition. It's nothing compared to USC's, but I would put it against any other team including Warshington. Oregon bought their tradition by acting like complete attention whores. I guess the people under 30 think they might have tradition.
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.
Pullman is the outlier because it sucks so exceptionally hard, but basically location means nothing in CFB.
