Random Thought - USC/UCLA are about to go the way of Nebraska
Nebraska has never recovered their past glory from the day they joined the Big Ten.
Pretty sure USC and UCLA will suffer the same fate for one simple reason - weather.
It's going to be a joy watching those candy-ass, warm weather programs slog it in cold, wet Big Ten road games.
They'll rue the day they joined. Book it.
I disagree.
I'll bump this thread in about 5 years to say how I was right and how wrong you were.
Unless it is deleted within the hour as I suspect...
Exactly. Nebraska was really just Tom Osbourne that built a program dependent on Texas recruits. When he left and they left the Texas sphere and the other Texas schools (TCU, Baylor, TTU) plus national teams started getting more and more Texas talent, Nebraska was left with nothing.
Los Angeles has a ton of talent and USC is program with more long-term staying power.
They're going to continue being very good. In fact, I bet under Riley in the B1G, they become better than they've been in 15 years.
Nebraska mined Texas for plenty of players, sure, but the famous walk-on program and rampant steroid abuse would also warrant a mention regarding how Nebraska became a power for a couple decades.
Sure, and I attribute both of those things to the coaches that ran / oversaw / enabled them to happen. To the post below, yes, it was started by Devaney and elevated by Osbourne.
Bob Devaney, born in Saginaw, attended Alma College.
Oh that’s super interesting! Alma’s football field/stadium was always really nice to play at. They even had a tiny little jumbo tron.
A nickel for every time Osborne Nebraska was up a touchdown at halftime and forty points in the fourth quarter after the tireless, drugged-up, no-name farmboy linemen "imposed their will" on the hapless opponent.
Steroids don't have the affect on the game as much as people think. Plenty of these places have them on steroids if they want to be on them. Also steroids don't make you a better player mentally but physically they will if you already have the talent. You or me can't become football players if we take steroids it doesn't work that way. Do they give you an advantage if two players of the same caliber talent, skill and build if one take them and one doesn't yes. Also you forget back then steroids were still legal in the 80s so anyone could have used them.
Steroids do make you better mentally. Because you recover faster and are so fresh every day physically you don’t have as much challenging you, thus you are sharper mentally. You are also more confident because of the results you’ve achieved. As one baseball player said about his MVP ‘roided up season, every day felt like Opening Day even in August.
Show me any clean football player who thinks game 7 or 8 feels like game one kickoff.
Steroids aren’t magic, nobody on this blog is saying that. But the advantages they offer are very significant at the major college and even pro level. Programs can add much needed depth from average walk-ons doing enough steroids and that can can change the outcomes of seasons.
Bob Devaney was the one who built the program. Osbourne did a heck of of a job maintaining and elevating it.
agreed - USC is just a competent HC away from being very relevant again. Lincoln Riley will help them achieve that relevance using talent a notch higher than what he was able to bring to Norman.
More aptly - it is likely that OKLAHOMA goes the way of Nebraska.
It all depends on who is coaching at Oklahoma, We don't know what Venables will be like as a HC. If he's more like Riley they will be just fine. If he's more like Gary Gibbs they'll struggle. But Oklahoma will continue to recruit Texas well so I doubt there will be too much of a dropoff.
Nebraska’s thing wasn’t just recruiting Texas (they weren’t in the same conference most of that time). It was a mixture of 1) triple-option; 2) having 170 players on the roster due to cheap in-state tuition; and (likely) 3) steroids.
1 and 2 weren't advantages all more most other teams didn't also have (or could have had).
And triple option, again, was a coach choice. So if you're going to give the scheme credit, give the coach who ran it credit.
That's what a screen shot is for.
The current USC and UCLA players and their families who are from California and other west coast states thought when they committed to USC and UCLA they were going to be playing road games in Berkeley, Palo Alto, Tempe, Tucson, Corvallis, Eugene, Pullman, and Seattle.
Are they really enthusiastic about instead playing games 2 and 3 time zones away in Iowa City, Champaign-Urbana, West Lafayette, East Lansing, New Jersey, Columbus, and out in the fucking wilderness at Penn State?
I'd say nobody knows the answer to that question yet. Maybe they won't care, but if lots of them are reluctant to commit to that new arrangement, then USC and UCLA might have a problem on their hands down the road.
I strongly disagree. The cold weather aspect is not the big deal it is often made out to be. USC and UCLA play northern schools such as Oregon, Washington, Colorado etc. While those locations are not as cold as the Midwest in November, it’s not likely they will be playing an away game in late November. Rain, sleet and snow impact the game much more than the cold, which doesn’t really impact the game until the temps are in the 20’s. SEC schools would be much more impacted by “cold” weather than a PAC 12 school.
I believe that them joining the B1G will be advantageous to the rest of the conference from a recruiting perspective. However, the Nebraska comparative is nonsense.
I agree, USC and UCLA are always going to recruit great talent that don't want to leave the west coast. If you add great coaching and the willingness of the school to support their programs' tradition, that equates to competitive programs. Nebraska on the other hand has great tradition, fan support and the university's support but who wants to got to the cornfields to play. They will get what's left over of the Big Ten pickings but they might struggle until they get a genius of a coach to rebuild their winning tradition.
Agreed, simple fact is USC and UCLA are in a talent rich region whereas Nebraska not only isn't, but it's a downright woeful region in talented recruits.
The Nebraska comparison is way off plus USC and UCLA are going to have even more money simply by being in the B1G.
Also, regarding the earlier winningest all time thread, a couple of years ago I looked up OSU's record in the early 1900's and they won a whole lot of games with great records. So when they try to dismiss those years, M fans can remind them of their own history that they might be ignorant about.
Thoughts and prayers.
Snowflake OP's are ok but your analysis could use some protein.
OP will "rue the day" he started this thread?
Disagree. I also think our slow ass B10 teams will look like dogshit at the Rose Bowl when their fast teams run us up and down in November.
Also, Nebraska hasn't come back and it has nothing to do with joining the B10.
I totally disagree. They are in California and will be able to attract the best athletes. I think you could argue that they may even be more attractive to recruits now. USC looks to be a monster with Riley over the couple years once he gets his program implemented.
USC/UCLA will be just fine.
Riley was just as born on 3rd base as Day. I'd pump the breaks on him being USC's savior.
If he works out though, whoa nellie. USC with competent coaching should be title contender.
Yeah, born on 3rd, but the guy has done more with OK than Day has with OSU. Much more. He kept OK relevant and competitive as a near-perennial playoff team from the B12. He can recruit very well, and now has as talent rich a home location as anyone in all of college football. He runs a flashy offense that produces stats and wins, and can now ply that trade in ultra-flashy SoCal. His defense will be respectable enough - he's improved it at OK the last couple of years.
Don't sleep on Riley as a nobody, even Clay Helton had some good seasons at USC!
Gotta disagree wrt Day vs Riley. Day has a better winning percentage and has actually won a CFP semifinal game, all while playing tougher competition and improving upon Meyer's formidable recruiting legacy.
Oh, I'm not sleeping on him. He's a good coach just like Day is too. He's going to win some games given even Helton got to pedestrian. Next level? He has to prove that.
Not sure I agree with that. He built his reputation as a great offensive mind while working as an OC at East Carolina. We know he can run an off run an offense and he can recruit. Those two things alone at USC should give him some very good teams.
Joining the Big Ten may have hurt Nebraska's recruiting, but they hadn't won a conference title in a dozen years at the time. They were already well into their 9-4 Bo Pellini phase, which I suspect is their program ceiling now. Their fundamental problem is that their recruiting base just isn't very good.
USC doesn't have that problem. Yeah, they'll have to muddle through a few November road games, but having elite talent helps.
I don't know what to make of UCLA. If they ever got an on-campus stadium that would help, but that's probably not happening.
If only they had 2 5 star QBs in their state in one year, they'd be on the way up.
ITS A JOKE. RELAX, INTERNET POLICE.
A team in that situation would definitely have a higher ceiling, like say, 12 wins and a playoff bid.
most definitely they would!
The fate if the Big 12 over the next few years is going to be huge for Nebraska. There is a lot of talent (that needs development) out in the plains, but not enough to spread to Kansas, K-State, Iowa, Iowa State and Nebraska.
Would you want to play for Nebraska in the Big 10, or Kansas State where the biggest game of the year will be played @ Baylor or @ Cincinnati?
Good point. I hadn't thought of that and it is a possiblity.
UCLA theoretically could still build Drake Stadium into something (45K seats, right-in-the-heart of campus) that would look like Nippert Stadium on Cincinnati's campus.
For as much as UCLA folks complain "our campus is simply too small!", it's actually 50%+ larger than Cincinnati's urban campus.
Won't happen because of all the NIMBYs surrounding the area. But it's possible. Them playing way out in Pasadena is just stupid anymore - shoot, SoFi would be better at this point. At least you're not going over any mountains to get from Westwood to SoFi, and maybe you'll get more of that Westside crowd. Nobody wants to do the damn Westwood to Pasadena drive.
Yep, you nailed it with the NIMBYs. I remember you mentioning recently you live in LA. So do I and got my graduate degree from UCLA.
Huge difference in attitude towards football from the respective communities. No way the surrounding communities or even Westwood would want to add that kind of traffic. It's already horrible because of the mountains to the north which means access to campus/Westwood is limited by about 180 degrees.
A 45k person stadium would be just the right size for UCLA though. Would be great for the students.
Please let me see a Michigan @ UCLA game in Pasadena first.
Agree with you except I don’t think Nebraska is hurt by the move. They might not be the preferred destination in the conference and could struggle vs. the big boys but they will get the recruits who want to play against Big Ten competition and want to be seen. Even the crumbs from the other tables will help their program get better. We see lower ranked recruits overlooked and explode because they haven’t fully matured in HS all the time.
I think Corvallis, Pullman, Seattle, and Salt Lake City all presented weather challenges of their own to Cali-born and raised athletes. USC will do fine and probably light up West Lafayette, Evanston, Bloomington, and Champaign without difficulty whenever they visit.
Now UCLA....
Unlike Nebraska, USC has a hotbed of home grown talent. For this reason alone, they will be back to being a dominant program. Riley will utilize speed and they will be good. They may not be the premier team in the B1G, but they will compete. You can Rabaak (don't remember how it was spelled) it!
USC and UCLA - home to some of the most fertile football recruiting territory in the U.S.
Nebraska - home to some of the most fertile corn fields in the U.S.
Nebraska - has a Lincoln
USC - has a Lincoln that coaches
USC has one big advantage over Nebraska. Lincoln Riley. Dude can obviously recruit and also is an offensive genius. USC will be competitive. Maybe not this season or next but they will be challenging for the Big Ten title in a few years time. No doubt in my mind.
Lincoln Riley > Lincoln, Nebraska?
Cayman Nebraska > All?
Cayman Nebraska greatest "Nebraska" contribution to football's history?
Hand check!
Urbz loses again.
judging by the shit eating grin.... he must have found his lost car keys up there....
He should use that on his Christmas card