Rumor mill in SoCal heating up that Helton is going to be…

That’s a good sign. Helton is a good coach that would benefit from the show of support.

SCORE!!!!

I’m certain that this will not be a popular opinion, but…

USC needs to hire a very good coach, and do so quickly, before the PAC becomes completely irrelevant.  Now, you’re all wondering WTF this is lunatic talking about?  Well:

The PAC has really only one BRAND school – and we all know it is USC.  Washington was a minor BRAND long ago, and Peterson is trying to reestablish it.  UCLA, was also a BRAND long ago, but not recently, and with seemingly no chance of reestablishment any time soon.  Oregon, and Stanford are more recent “close to” BRANDS, but each is still up and down from year to year.  Colorado won a championship 25+ years ago, but not even in this conference. The Arizona schools have had some success, but no one remembers. 

A resurgence of the UCS BRAND would help all of the conference.  Every team would have an instant BRAND-name win if they managed the upset.  USC would have primetime TV games every weekend, with most being against a PAC-12 opponent.  And, if UCS was winning like they did in the early 2000’s, the PAC would be collecting CFP money for distribution to all teams.  USC oppoenents, who lost close games, would have instant credibility.

It would not help the Utes much, as all of a sudden, we would be second, or worse, behind a national Blue-Blood in the south division race.  But consider the advantages:

1.  If USC as a blueblood, is dominant, the country notices, does not ignore the PAC, and watches all of our schools competing with the blueblood every week – IN PRIMETIME – ON ABC,

2. If another school, has a stellar year, and beats, or even loses to, USC, that other school has instant credibility.

3. If UCS, is the Alabama equivalent of the PAC, the playoff committee faces the question about whether a one-lose Utah, or Washington (losses only to USC) should be included in the CFP.

4. Competition increases capability.  If we are facing a blue-blood USC every year, as opposed to the sham blue-blood (to whom we LOST), we will recruit better, prepare better, coach better, and play better.

I want Utah to be the best they can be.  To have the most opportunities that they can possibly have, in bowl games, CFP, etc.  As I see it, having a highly successful blue-blood BACK in our conference, enhances all of those possibilities.  

It is really not fair – but who every said anything would be fair.  The Blue-Bloods are being recognized in the system today, benefitting from the status, and we are all complaining about it, but largely because we have no recognized, active, blueblood.

(There is one possible exception – if our blue-blood is USC, and since we are also in the south division, then being second in the south means a much smaller likelihood of the Rose Bowl as a consolation in a year when the Blue-Blood is the only PAC school in the CFP.)

Go USC!  Get back on top, and give all of the rest of us a target EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE will recognize when we achive it.

Nothing lasts forever, including blueblood status, but USC back on top, hastens the possibility of a new blueblood, perhaps Utah being established.

I like the way you think.