The PAC is still strong in Los Angeles but it seems to be losing out in the rest of the state.

2020- 4* & 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Milton - Georgia
Mcmillion - Washington
Nagata. - A&M
Badger - Oregon
Norman Lott - ASU

2019- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
To toa’o. - Tennessee
Ngata. - Clemson
Bandes - Washington
Jones - Stanford
Latu. - Washington
Pakola - Stanford
Rutherford. - ND
Foskey. - ND
Sinclair - Stanford
Jackson - Michigan


2018- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Tuliaupupu- USC
Letuligasenoa - Washington
Stephan’s - Oregon
Martinez - Nebraska
Holland - Oregon
Crocker - Oregon
Webb- Oregon
Craig - Cal

That has always been the case since the PAC 8.

Now if the majority is playing for a school across the country, then that is revealing.

(07-30-2019 07:03 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  That has always been the case since the PAC 8.

Now if the majority is playing for a school across the country, then that is revealing.

So is that made to look like a downward trend by picking a year that the PAC-12 did unusually well in recruiting it's non-LA California FB prospects, in landing 7 out of 8 4/5 star recruits?

If “playing for the national championship” is a kid’s top priority (and it’s not for everybody) then P12-schools are pretty much eliminated from consideration.

(07-29-2019 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The PAC is still strong in Los Angeles but it seems to be losing out in the rest of the state.

2020- 4* & 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Milton - Georgia
Mcmillion - Washington
Nagata. - A&M
Badger - Oregon
Norman Lott - ASU

2019- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
To toa’o. - Tennessee
Ngata. - Clemson
Bandes - Washington
Jones - Stanford
Latu. - Washington
Pakola - Stanford
Rutherford. - ND
Foskey. - ND
Sinclair - Stanford
Jackson - Michigan


2018- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Tuliaupupu- USC
Letuligasenoa - Washington
Stephan’s - Oregon
Martinez - Nebraska
Holland - Oregon
Crocker - Oregon
Webb- Oregon
Craig - Cal

I mean, aren't most of these guys staying in the Pac 12 though?

In 2020 I see 2/5 leaving and in 2019 5/10 (two of which are going to ND, who always recruits California heavily)

(07-30-2019 08:26 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The PAC is still strong in Los Angeles but it seems to be losing out in the rest of the state.

2020- 4* & 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Milton - Georgia
Mcmillion - Washington
Nagata. - A&M
Badger - Oregon
Norman Lott - ASU

2019- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
To toa’o. - Tennessee
Ngata. - Clemson
Bandes - Washington
Jones - Stanford
Latu. - Washington
Pakola - Stanford
Rutherford. - ND
Foskey. - ND
Sinclair - Stanford
Jackson - Michigan


2018- 4* and 5* CA recruits not in SoCal
Tuliaupupu- USC
Letuligasenoa - Washington
Stephan’s - Oregon
Martinez - Nebraska
Holland - Oregon
Crocker - Oregon
Webb- Oregon
Craig - Cal

I mean, aren't most of these guys staying in the Pac 12 though?

In 2020 I see 2/5 leaving and in 2019 5/10 (two of which are going to ND, who always recruits California heavily)

Which is why ND insists on their annual Stanford and USC series

(07-29-2019 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The PAC is still strong in Los Angeles but it seems to be losing out in the rest of the state.

You seem to be implying that the there is a negative trend here, that the PAC used to have California locked down but is now losing ground.

To show that, we'd need historical data from 5, 10, 15 years ago, etc.

(07-30-2019 08:11 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  If “playing for the national championship” is a kid’s top priority (and it’s not for everybody) then P12-schools are pretty much eliminated from consideration.

Come on. That's a program thing not a PAC thing. USC was competing for national titles 10 years ago, Oregon was earlier this decade.

If one of them - or UCLA or Washington, etc. - manages to hire a diamond in the rough like Dabo they will be contending and winning just like Clemson is.

Nothing wrong with the PAC as a launching pad to win titles. Heck, the B1G hasn't won a hoops title in 20 years now. Does that mean the B1G is fatally-flawed as a place to develop good hoops teams?

(07-30-2019 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:11 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  If “playing for the national championship” is a kid’s top priority (and it’s not for everybody) then P12-schools are pretty much eliminated from consideration.

Come on. That's a program thing not a PAC thing. USC was competing for national titles 10 years ago, Oregon was earlier this decade.

If one of them - or UCLA or Washington, etc. - manages to hire a diamond in the rough like Dabo they will be contending and winning just like Clemson is.

Nothing wrong with the PAC as a launching pad to win titles. Heck, the B1G hasn't won a hoops title in 20 years now. Does that mean the B1G is fatally-flawed as a place to develop good hoops teams?

This. You can win a national championship out of the PAC-12. USC ever make the right hire, they will be back once again.

All the other PAC schools recruit southern cal heavily. That was part of the big discussion on the north south split. ND has always heavily recruited in Cali

This is status quo

This is part of a larger trend. The SEC has been pushing back at B1G schools raiding the South. Texans are bemoaning that the majority of 4 and 5 star, even many 3 star athletes are playing for schools out of state. Florida is legendary for how many players choose to go out of state.

Recruiting is national now. The P12 needs to recruit nationally, like every other conference, rather than rely on being region. Alabama's list of starters last year were majority from beyond a 400 mile radius of campus. Everybody does this now.

I do not see this as a story, except for the issue that the P12 is perhaps still too dependent upon local recruiting. (Well, Stanford for one has always recruited Texas heavily for both students and athletes, others should follow).

I think there is also now an allure for Californians to leave the state. Surveys show 40% or more of people under 40 want to leave. The African American community has been gutted in many towns (East Palo Alto has dropped from 90% to 30% in less than 40 years, Oakland percentage is dropping rapidly as well). What is going on is California is a state where the best can do well, but the middle find they cannot and their children have few opportunities in state where industry only hires the best from the worldwide pool, which pushes many out. College is a good place to start that migration. So more and more families are open to sending their kids out of state. I am certain in the rougher communities where athletes are more often from that opportunity looks very enticing.

The have been going downward since the California schools dropping football at many of the schools. If you could not get into the PAC 8? You had schools at the top level from almost all of the Big West schools having football to D2. Now, you have 10 D1 public schools have football and 1 private, plus 1 private D2. The rest are D3 and Junior Colleges. When the schools dropping football made it look like the whole state do not care about the sport.

Large areas of California have never been Pac-12 territory. California is as long as Chicago to New Orleans, or New York to Jacksonville. Yet there's only 4 power schools, and worse, they're side-by-side.

What if the only schools in the Atlantic-12 were Army, Rutgers, Duke, and UNC?

What if the only schools in the SEC were Georgia, Georgia Tech, Rice, and Texas A&M?

There's 4 million people in the San Joaquin Valley. A kid in Fresno, Visalia, or Bakersfield is 3 hours from a Pac-12 school.

There's 3 million people in San Diego. I lived there for 3 years, and you see more Michigan or Ohio State gear than any Pac-12 school.

There's not many recruits from Redding, San Luis Obispo, or El Centro. But they're all cities of over 150,000 that are nowhere near LA or the Bay Area (geographically or culturally).

(07-30-2019 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:11 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  If “playing for the national championship” is a kid’s top priority (and it’s not for everybody) then P12-schools are pretty much eliminated from consideration.

Come on. That's a program thing not a PAC thing. USC was competing for national titles 10 years ago, Oregon was earlier this decade.

If one of them - or UCLA or Washington, etc. - manages to hire a diamond in the rough like Dabo they will be contending and winning just like Clemson is.

Nothing wrong with the PAC as a launching pad to win titles. Heck, the B1G hasn't won a hoops title in 20 years now. Does that mean the B1G is fatally-flawed as a place to develop good hoops teams?

At the end of the 2016 season, after the bowls and playoffs, the Pac-12 had two top five schools in the polls. USC was #3 and Washington #4 in the final AP poll. In the final coaches poll, Washington was #4 and USC #5. The only FBS conference with two teams in the final top five that season. So there is no reason that the Pac-12 can't play for national championships in the future.

When USC and UCLA are both struggling in football, Pac-12 recruiting is going to be effected. The #1 rated player on the Rivals 250 list is a kid from St. John Bosco, a power house school in Southern California. He has verbally committed to Clemson. The #2 player on their list is from Upland high school, in the inland empire of area of Southern California. He has not committed, but is supposedly leaning to Clemson.

This gives you an idea of what is happening. Schools like Clemson, Georgia and Alabama are recruiting the top players from out here. It has happened before. This will change once USC and UCLA start winning again. It does hurt the conference, but it is not permanent. Oregon and Washington will pick up some top recruits as well, but if a kid has an offer to Clemson and Oregon, he is likely going to Clemson.

UW does not seem to have any issues recruiting California.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you think football is bad, check out the current ESPN 100 in basketball:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/baske...w/espnu100

Only 2 recruits from the West have committed to Pac-12 schools thus far.

(07-30-2019 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:11 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  If “playing for the national championship” is a kid’s top priority (and it’s not for everybody) then P12-schools are pretty much eliminated from consideration.

Come on. That's a program thing not a PAC thing. USC was competing for national titles 10 years ago, Oregon was earlier this decade.

If one of them - or UCLA or Washington, etc. - manages to hire a diamond in the rough like Dabo they will be contending and winning just like Clemson is.

Nothing wrong with the PAC as a launching pad to win titles. Heck, the B1G hasn't won a hoops title in 20 years now. Does that mean the B1G is fatally-flawed as a place to develop good hoops teams?

The BCS system was much kinder to the PAC since an undefeated team from a BCS conference was going to be super high in the polls and if dominating getting the computer numbers up is no problem.

The new system is tough on schedule so if the PAC has one if its out to sea type years there is no shot at the playoff. Further recruiting is tied increasingly to ability to make or win playoff to land a Top 5 class. Its made CFB top heavy again after the BCS democratized it for the BCS conferences.

Its starting to emerge as a big issue I can see where a P5 conference if not a couple of them will be strong proponents of expanding to 8 which is still top heavy but more feasible for a P5 champ to make.

Then if you go 8 its going to put more bowls in the CFP rotation. More bowls then would make more room at the Inn for the G5, possibly all of their conference champions.

Other issue is that the CFP has devalued major bowls. Rose Bowl still matters but it was the clear cut #2 bowl in BCS (after national championship) and this makes being down more difficult.

That said, the PAC is where the ACC was about a decade ago. It is decent in the middle, but the top is weaker. That is a bad combination for getting national attention (everyone beats up on each other with fewer standing out). That will change though.

(08-01-2019 10:01 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  If you think football is bad, check out the current ESPN 100 in basketball:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/baske...w/espnu100

Only 2 recruits from the West have committed to Pac-12 schools thus far.

Only 30% of the players in the ESPN top 100 have committed to a school. Six of the top 11 players are from California and only one has committed. Some or all of the remaining five kids will commit to the Pac-12. Plus, some of the 30% of kids that commit, can or will change their minds.