I loathe excuses but there is a point about how fucked up the league is in regards to football
But a winner sees the opportunity to dominate the West and making 5 stars beg to come here
Get it done or get the fuck out
There's no short term fix to the issue that they just care more about football in the South and part of the Midwest. BUT we also have a rather advantageous situation to win 11 or 12 games a year - as long as Blake Shelton stays at USC and Chip is distracted by West Hollywood - and make to the CFP. 2010 and 2014 Oregon have a much harder path to get to the finals in the SEC.
All this means is it should be easier for us to dominate WC recruiting.
But our branding is awful, so it's hard.
I think the overall product is fucking awesome and more kids are starting to get it. It's not as though we've been relevant for the past 10 years. But yes, the branding could use some tweaks. And that's where you guys come in - TSIO is the canary in the coal mine nit picking every possible weakness standing in our way of reaching the promised land.
I have a bit of comparing Pete to Dabo fetish (Clemson is easily the best example out there of what Tier II winning a NT looks like in CFP era) and even with all the shit you guys bag on Chris for, I'd argue his early results and momentum are more impressive than Dabo's. What none of us can predict is if we plateau or keep on leveling up like Clemson has done.
Yeah, I like the comparison... LSU, UGA, Clemson and Auburn are Tier IIs that are all masquerading as Tier Is. Florida is kind of in that as well (though with their success in the 90s they are pretty close to actually being a Tier I, even though they aren't).
The reason why I point to branding is because it matters a ton when it comes to getting HS recruits. It's not cool to say you're going to UW in the same way it is to say you're going to Clemson or LSU. Largely our branding is 'uh, what about this? This is cool, right??'
I'm no expert (well, maybe I am), but that's not a great branding stance.
There are people in the marketing dept that say 'the brand is whatever CP says it is'.
If we had a solid brand like Clemson did in 2013 then I would be more optimistic.
Our brand space right now could best be described as 'mushy middle' - we aren't traditional, we aren't innovative. We aren't tough and we aren't exciting.
The teams with skrong brands in the Pac are
1. Stanford: Intellectual brutality - traditional and top notch education, if you come here you already know no one is going to watch your games but you don't care because you will get drafted in the first round and also get to say you went to Stanford.
2. USC: Traditional, winners, big time. The Bama of the Pac. Branding could be a little better (more elaborated), but when you are the best you don't have to work too hard.
3. Oregon: INNOVATION IS OUR TRADITION or whatever. Shiny shit. But they do it well.
4. Utah: TUFF overachievers with good defense and a difficult home field to win at.
Our branding is weak and nonsensical. It's not coordinated nor driven by core principles.
If ever someone needed to read
'Kellogg on Branding' it's our fucking marketing dept.