(08-10-2023, 11:52 AM)branner Wrote: If we assume your "minimum definition of a power conference," California alone has enough high school football talent to populate that number of teams, even with USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington all getting their usual share. Is there an argument that, say, Washington State and Oregon State are institutionally incapable of sustained, Top 25 success? I have been a passionate, attentive fan of college football for over fifty years. I cannot think of a single team that has not gone through ups and downs over that period. Even perennial doormats can rise, given the institutional commitment.
Members of a true, regional conference have a terrific argument to make to recruits: you won't be spending an excruciating amount of time on airplanes and in buses, and will be able to provide your families a reasonable prospect of seeing you play. I remain dubious that as constituted, either the ACC or Big 10 are long for this world. The travel demands are inconsistent with concept "student-athlete."
I appreciate your perspective but think it's wishful and naive.
You vastly overrate California's talent and the ability of non-power conference schools to attract it. California is a good state for football talent due primarily to its massive size but it's not a great state for football talent, especially outside of a swath of Southern California. That, along with demographic and cultural reasons making football not very central to life in California, is why despite being by far the biggest state we only have seven major college football programs. North Carolina has barely a quarter as many people but as many major college football teams. Ohio, roughly the same size as North Carolina, has eight major college football teams. Alabama has 13 percent of California's population but six major college football teams. Louisiana has 12 percent of California's population but five major college football teams. Texas has millions fewer people than California but 13 major college football teams. Other states actually care about football and produce talent. California has a lot of people so it develops a lot of football players, but we punch way below our weight.
California's ability to maintain athletes is diminishing
More alarmingly, the correlation between California residence and matriculation to California colleges has been going down in college football. Really good players from California now go to the SEC and Big 10. Now that USC and Oregon are in the Big 10 that's almost exclusively the case. In the 2024 class right now, only two of the top 30 players in California are committed to schools outside the future Power Four - #17 Elijah Brown and #29 Naki Tuakoi (and, of course, Stanford was a Power Five school when they committed). Only two of the top 30 recruits in California in 2023 went to Pac-4 remnants, #11 Aidan Chiles to Oregon State and #29 JShawn Frausto-Ramos to us. The harsh reality is that a Group of Five team would be thrilled to get top 100 players in California. That's not a level that will compete. Sure, you can "populate" a roster with people who grew up in California, but it's not going to be good unless the players are good. The good players have already been going elsewhere and now will be more attracted to USC and the other Pac-12 exiles in the Big 10 because they're playing in a marquee conference for the first time in a decade.
Oregon State and Washington State
There is indeed an argument that Oregon State and Washington State are institutionally incapable of sustained top 25 success. These have been consistently very well-run programs for decades but have ceilings on what they can accomplish. Oregon State had singular top 10 years under Tommy Prothro and Dennis Erickson - both Hall of Famers among the best in the business - and in the last quarter century has consistently had outstanding coaching that peaks with occasional top 25 teams. Washington State has had slightly more frequent top 10 years with their excellent coaches, but when Mike Price did it Washington State wasn't institutionally capable of keeping him from the big leagues (in fairness few teams would have been) and then couldn't follow him up with somebody who sustained it, and Mike Leach's top 10 season was actually his only top 25 season. It should tell us something when programs with really, really good coaches can't have more than five top 25 seasons this century (the case for both of these schools).
Consistency of the Haves
You say not a single team has avoided ups and downs. True, but you're vastly overstating this case too. There is consistency to the teams that tend to be competitive and the teams that don't. A few days I ago I posted data showing the 68 teams that currently have Power Five homes ranked by top 25 seasons all time and in this century. In the 22 seasons this century, there are 17 programs that have been top 25 half the time or more. Comparing the two lists, 13 of those 17 programs are historical heavyweights. The only exceptions are Wisconsin (somewhat misleading to say they weren't a heavyweight previously considering they made three Rose Bowls in the decade immediately preceding this period, but I'll grant that the institutional commitment from Barry Alvarez onward changed the historical birthright of the program), TCU (data distorted by one legendary coach and it's quite likely that this is a program that wasn't previously and won't in the future be a consistent heavyweight), Virginia Tech (ditto), and Oregon (we all know this is the Phil Knight story).
When you say "even perennial doormats rise, given the institutional commitment," that is true but rare. There are two paths: hire a legendary coach who finds his bliss and just sticks around (Virginia Tech, TCU), though eventually the party ends; or decide as an institution that you're a football power and will not take losing for an answer (Wisconsin, Oregon). Stanford always tries to follow the first path rather than the second, and that's a much worse bet. (After all, it's not like other schools aren't also trying to hire good coaches)
Importantly, when perennial doormats rise it's typically in the context of a major conference because there are so many advantages to being seen as major and so many disadvantages to being seen as not. The one program that has truly provided hope that being consigned to a minor conference need not be a death knell is TCU. Patterson really built them up and made them worthy of a Power Conference. In order for a new western conference to build up to be major, we would need teams from the Mountain West to pull off that miracle and for the Pac-4 remnants to keep their games up despite the major hit to revenue. Such a tall order.
Good Recruits' Expectations
Your last paragraph may be the most naive and wishful of all. Good recruits want a stage. All empirical evidence points to the quality of conference being the most important factor in a recruit's decision. That's why Power Five is better than Group of Five which is better than FCS which is better than Division II/III/NAIA. It's basically the definition of conferences - clubs whereby the best players can arrange themselves in hierarchies based on talent. Good recruits, by and large, are not going to pick for the quality of school or to minimize travel. They want a stage (you're right that they want family and friends to see them...pretty frickin' big deal in the negative column in this day and age if games don't have big nationally televised platforms, which is another differentiator between conferences). They wouldn't be big recruits if they didn't. Real talent wants to go to Juilliard or the Culinary Institute of America or Broadway.....or the Big 10. It's wishful thinking to argue football recruits might be different.