Has ASU Ever Reigned Supreme Over The PAC-10 At Anytime?

[Gee!]

Ok just for willy nilly ASU fans.. Have you ever owned the PAC at any given time?

USC owns football and yes, baseball.. More titles than ASU in each..

UCLA owned the PAC for decades in basketball.. Then UofA came along to hold the torch for a few decades keeping the PAC in the national spotlight when no one wanted to or could..

As I was typing this, I now see why ASU fans have inferiority complex.. Always been good enuff just to be the brides maid but never the bride.. Im starting to pity you guys as I type this..


*a tear forms in Gee!'s eye*

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

I'm pretty sure ASU owned the rest of the Pac-10 in point shaving at one point.

 

[Gee!]

I'm pretty sure ASU owned the rest of the Pac-10 in point shaving at one point.

As I remember, it was quite the headache..

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Then UofA came along to hold the torch for a few decades keeping the PAC in the national spotlight when no one wanted to or could..

You must be kidding. The Pac-10 has had many teams keeping it in the spotlight. Quit acting like Arizona "carries" the entire conference in basketball.

 

[Gee!]

You must be kidding. The Pac-10 has had many teams keeping it in the spotlight. Quit acting like Arizona "carries" the entire conference in basketball.

You didnt read my post did you? In the 80's and 90's UofA held the torch for PAC-10 in basketball.. Stanford had a couple good years, but nothing of the magnitude UofA had..

 

[HooverDam]

For a guy who couldn't get into either school, you sure are big into the rivalry.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

You didnt read my post did you? In the 80's and 90's UofA held the torch for PAC-10 in basketball.. Stanford had a couple good years, but nothing of the magnitude UofA had..

Still - are you kidding?

UCLA won a title in 1995.

Heck, in 1997 UofA was the Pac-10's 5th best team. UCLA made the Elite 8 and Stanford and Cal were in the Sweet 16.

Quit acting like UofA "carried" the Conference.

 

[Renz]

Still - are you kidding?

UCLA won a title in 1995.

Heck, in 1997 UofA was the Pac-10's 5th best team. UCLA made the Elite 8 and Stanford and Cal were in the Sweet 16.

Quit acting like UofA "carried" the Conference.

National Champions
1997

NCAA Tournament Final Four
1988, 1994, 1997, 2001

Pac-10 Conference Tournament Champions
1988, 1989, 1990, 2002

Pac-10 Conference Regular Season Champions
1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005

As has been stated by Russ and others, the Pac-10 is what it is today because of Lute Olson and Arizona. Lute forced the rest of the PAC to step it up or face domination by the UofA. That's indisputable, even to the haters.

 

[Mulli]

National Champions
1997

NCAA Tournament Final Four
1988, 1994, 1997, 2001

Pac-10 Conference Tournament Champions
1988, 1989, 1990, 2002

Pac-10 Conference Regular Season Champions
1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005

As has been stated by Russ and others, the Pac-10 is what it is today because of Lute Olson and Arizona. Lute forced the rest of the PAC to step it up or face domination by the UofA. That's indisputable, even to the haters.

Looks like U of A finished first in the conference less than half the time in the 80's and 90's. I would have thought it was more.

 

[D-Dogg]

For a guy who couldn't get into either school, you sure are big into the rivalry.

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn!

 

[Gee!]

For a guy who couldn't get into either school, you sure are big into the rivalry.

Well, that would have to mean I tried to get into one.. I will say this.. I wasnt trying to get into ASU but they sure did make me feel at home once upon at time.. And thats all Imma say about that..

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Looks like U of A finished first in the conference less than half the time in the 80's and 90's. I would have thought it was more.

Exactly - which was my point. Gee's making it sound like the whole conference was carried by one team. The conference was 5, 6, or even 7 teams deep most years. In 1997 5 teams made the NCAA's and two more made the NIT.

UofA, like 'em or not, was up and down. One year a Final Four and the next a first round exit. They did not carry the conference. They were helped by playing in a tough conference.

 

[Gee!]

Exactly - which was my point. Gee's making it sound like the whole conference was carried by one team. The conference was 5, 6, or even 7 teams deep most years. In 1997 5 teams made the NCAA's and two more made the NIT.

UofA, like 'em or not, was up and down. One year a Final Four and the next a first round exit. They did not carry the conference. They were helped by playing in a tough conference.

ASU wouldnt have the Swoosh on thier jersys if it wasnt for UofA.. Like it or not, you owe the Wildcats for that..

 

[HooverDam]

ASU wouldnt have the Swoosh on thier jersys if it wasnt for UofA.. Like it or not, you owe the Wildcats for that..

The following is the internal thoughts of Gee:

"Well I've been completely obliterated on the other point I was trying to make over and over, so I guess Ill talk about shoe companies"

 

[Gee!]

The following is the internal thoughts of Gee:

"Well I've been completely obliterated on the other point I was trying to make over and over, so I guess Ill talk about shoe companies"

Go ahead and live in your own world buddy.. Just like I was denied from both ASU and UofA.. If you cant see what Im talking bout as far as the Swoosh, well, you must think the world thinks Arizona as a state is first and foremost known for college football..

 

[Brian in Mesa]

ASU wouldnt have the Swoosh on thier jerseys if it wasnt for UofA.. Like it or not, you owe the Wildcats for that..

Michigan, USC, Florida State and Miami were the first schools to sign with Nike.

I think the whole Pac, except lone holdout UCLA (Adidas), has USC or even Washington or Oregon to thank for "the Swoosh." That's where the Pac-10/Swoosh connection comes in. Heck, Nike just pledged $100 million to the Oregon athletic department.

About a decade ago ASU and UofA were fighting their student bodies and special interest groups in order to sign lucrative deals with Nike. The opposition was because of Nike's use of sweatshop labor.

Nike wanted ASU for their football success, but ASU got a deal done for every sport but baseball.

--------------------------------------------------------

Just as an FYI - here are the most recent athletic department revenue figures for the Pac-10.

11-15-07 Arizona Daily Star

The U.S. Department of Education this week revealed athletic department revenue figures for the 2006-07 school year.

Here are the Pac-10 figures, which do not include private schools USC and Stanford, both of whom do their shopping without worrying about price tags.

1) UCLA, $61.3 million
2) Washington, $59.6 million
3) ASU, $53.5 million
4) Cal, $52.7 million
5) Oregon, $50.5 million
6) Oregon State, $45.4 million
7) Arizona, $45.3 million
8) WSU, $31.9 million

 

[Gee!]

Hey BIM.. UofA got the Swoosh .. skeet around all you want.. And I didnt see ASU making it possible .. Gotta be hard realizing this.. But we should wait for Hoover to chime in.. He's only waht? 24?, living with his mom trying to talk bout someone? ha ..

 

[HooverDam]

Hey BIM.. UofA got the Swoosh .. skeet around all you want.. And I didnt see ASU making it possible .. Gotta be hard realizing this.. But we should wait for Hoover to chime in.. He's only waht? 24?, living with his mom trying to talk bout someone? ha ..

I can not make heads or tails of this sentence.

The only point was, I think bragging about which shoe company your school has a deal with is about as pointless as it gets. I don't really care if ASU is w/ Addidas, Nike, Converse or whomever. The only school it really matters to is Oregon since Nike dumps so much cash into their program. In fact, when ASU switched to Nike I was actually a bit nervous because of Nike's tendencies to foul up teams uniforms (look at UAs current football and basketball unis, very ugly IMHO, their old ones were very clean and classic looking though).