When Biggs commented that so few PAC schools really want to be good at football, I think he is right IF you take it in context. "Want", if it is serious, means commitment. There are few schools in the PAC ready to make the same sort of commitment as half of the SEC schools...ergo, they don't really "want" it. In that sense, I have to agree with his idea, though I think USC, Oregon and Washington all spend the money. Heck, so does Stanford and UCLA. The difference is that USC kept Helton for years when he was obviously the wrong guy. UW has fumbled their way through multiple coaches. Both, if they were serious, would have gotten a better AD a long time ago. UCLA continues their disfunction and utterly failed to seize the opportunity to be THE MAN in SoCal when they elected to continue to be subservient to USC in their new league, rather than being their own man (the main draw in the biggest market; what an opportunity to squander!!). Stanford maintains some perspective and considers themselves above SEC type behavior. That leaves Oregon, who has tried. They have tried hard, due mostly to Uncle Phil's money. If there was a program that wanted it and is committed, I'd have to point to Oregon ahead of the inept USC and UW folks. And now that SC has hired a real coach, they can join the "want to" list. So that is two schools. UW does not make the list...their AD is worthless and their hunt for the current coach (as well as the results of that search) make that clear. Note that I have not mentioned Colorado (a slightly more serious version of Berkeley), Utah (who is simply too well mentally grounded...I mean that as a compliment; much like WSU), the Arizona's (the potential there will forever be unrealized, similar to UCLA), or OSU (WSU's little brother).
Yes, I see 2 PAC programs who are really serious about football at the moment...when measured by an SEC type commitment level, including cheating, bribery and all that goes with it. Oregon and SC.
