There are tiers in the Pac-12, caused by geography and history. UA is in the bottom tier when it comes to history, and history is a powerful force in college football. They are close to the bottom for geography too.
So, yeah, Arizona could rise up and become a power. It could happen to anyone. It’s just very unlikely.
I don’t think Arizona is a dead end job. I think they need to rebuild to what Tomey was doing, then work they’re way up to higher goals. Another way to look at it, IMO, is Arizona is a lot like we were. In that they should be better, but for whatever reason they haven’t been. So they need to get the right coach to build or rebuild a culture. For us it was initially McBride, then Meyer, and look at us now. It wasn’t over night, but it happened.
I fully expect Arizona to build that culture faster than we did, they have better infrastructure than we did. So, why not start with Niumatolo? Maybe he’d adapt his offensive philosophy to be more open, more passing, faster paced, etc.
Rich Rod showed what this program was capable of in 2014. Ironically and oddly, they are one of the five PAC12 programs that have been to a NY6 bowl or playoff game since the conference expanded. I don’t see a big difference in UA’s potential and Utah’s, ASU’s, Colorado’s, Stanford, etc.
Clearly, UA football is a mess right now and it will take a while to dig out of that. However, I wouldn’t discount the allure of a program that at this time of year its coeds are wearing shorts, tank tops and flip flops while ours are bundled up in sweaters, scarfs and thick coats.
Zona had some damned good teams in the mid 90s and had some impressive defenses.
When we beat them in the Copper Bowl, we had an outstanding defense led by Luther Ellis, but also had a respectable offense that the Wildcats held to 75 yards. (our only TDs were set up by a fumble recovery and long Cal Beck return)
Rich Rod has nothing to laugh about. He was not fired for losing. He was fired for cheating on his wife with an administrative assistant who accused him of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment.
If you look at the top recruits in AZ, they all leave the state. If someone can come in and keep just a quarter of them, they could build a solid foundation. It’s not a bad destination (hot, but better than cold). ARod found some success. Desert Swarm was good times. Probably a cyclical school, but with the right coach to recruit AZ and CA and install a scheme that matches that personal should be an easier lift than even Utah (or Wash St., Ore St., …). They probably look at several decent years than a great year on a cycle of 3-4 years.
UA’s stadium is the worst I’ve ever been too. It sucks. I know they were doing some renovations, but if I remember, it was just one end zone.
This happened, but he would still be there if he had won more.
To reiterate: sure, Arizona could become a great program. So could Texas Tech or Illinois. It’s just that nobody is expecting it to happen. It will take the right hire plus a lot of luck. But it does happen. It happened to Utah and TCU. It almost happened to Boise State (would have happened had they been invited to a P5 like they deserved).
Who was the last P5 to climb out of the bottom and become a team that can regularly compete in its conference? Baylor did it for a few years, but they are back to being Baylor. Iowa State is there now, but I doubt they remain an annual contender in the Big 12. Northwestern is up right now - do they have staying power? Maybe UNC will be the one if they make the right hire after Mack Brown is gone.
Tiers are not set in stone in college football, but they aren’t very fluid either.
The things we list as plusses for Arizona - facilities, weather, girls in shorts - those all exist already at a lot of other, already established programs.
If I were to rank the Pac 12 jobs:
Tier Two
5. Stanford
6. Colorado
7. UCLA
8. Cal
Tier Three
9. Arizona State
10. Washington State
11. Oregon State
12. Arizona
I think most people would put Utah and ASU in tier 2 and would put UCLA in tier 1.
I think Tier 1 is just UW, USC, and Oregon.
UCLA plays in the Rose Bowl. Other than that they are the second fiddle in their own town. I have Utah as tier 1 because I see it as a Football hungry powerhouse that also has decent hoops from time to time. A Florida of the Pac 12. A program with slim history but big upside.
This is how I see it as well, and I’m constantly being told by fans that I should not expect to go to the Rose Bowl. We should expect it. USC, Oregon, and Washington can’t go every year and when they don’t, it should be us. We should have at least one Rose Bowl appearance per decade.
I like your thinking. I would put it something like this, but everyone’s opinion is pretty fair:
That’s kind but if you have ever won the P12 its difficult to say we’re a tier 1. I think Stanford is closer to tier 1 than Utah but we’re knocking on the door with both fists. I have a few quibbles about a few other teams but thats okay.
These lists come up from time to time. The interesting part is balacing perceived strengths (like UCLA’s draws) with actual on field results (like UCLA’s historical performance).
UCLA, Stanford, and ASU always get points for perceived strengths, when in reality they’ve been mediocre or worse for most of their football history with occasional high points.
Utah always gets dinged for perceived weaknesses, when in reality we’ve done more on the field over the past 20 years than most Pac-12 teams.
OSU, WSU, Zona, and Cal are usually rightfully put at the bottom. Why doesn’t Cal get the same consideration as Stanford? Equal in academics and geography, which are the things people usually cite for the Cards.
And this is the only reason we may never go to a Rose Bowl. Our own fans’ low expectations.
That’s a good question. They should be nearly on par. I think Stanford has just run the athletic dept better. Cal has had some serious funding issues for athletics, so maybe it’s a difference of donor support. Neither is a huge draw or strong interest from the students (olympic sports better supported but smaller crowds anyway?). Stanford admissions are a little tighter, even for athletes, so maybe getting higher IQ players? Maybe snootiness of peninsula vs. east bay?
Yeah, the only reason … 
Because our expectations translate onto the field in so many ways.
Utah is much easier to get players in than Stanford. You should be able to get better athletes. I also have spent time around Stanford. Maybe it’s my Southern California bias but that part of the bay seems like a big office park. UCLA is spectacular but you clearly are not the #1 sport there.
Wilner agrees with you.
The model for success here is Dick Tomey football.
It’s tough, defensive-minded, run-it-on-third-and-seven, first-team-to-17-wins football.
It leans into program history and places linebackers and defensive backs at the foundation of recruiting.
Sure, that’s a different approach. College football is 50 passes and 40 points per game.
But Arizona needs to be different. It needs to distinguish itself on the recruiting trail.
Different can work, if done properly … if the style meshes with the program’s natural recruiting pool.
Stanford turned its ability to recruit offensive linemen and tight ends into years of success as the ground-and-pound specialist.
Washington State leaned on its ability to recruit receivers into years of winning under Mike Leach’s Air Raid.
Arizona has a history — a tradition — of producing elite linebackers and defensive backs.
The Wildcats should keep that in mind as they seek a new coach.