We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40 UCLA: 19
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.
1937-1958: None 1959-1963: 3 1964-1976: none 1977-1981: 3 1982-1989: none 1990-1995: 4 1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40 UCLA: 19
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.
1937-1958: None 1959-1963: 3 1964-1976: none 1977-1981: 3 1982-1989: none 1990-1995: 4 1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40 UCLA: 19
Why would you count division titles?
In general, they are inconsequential to the numbers that I've produced ... but at this point in time, you have to win your division first to win the conference championship.
My expectations for Pete are probably somewhere in the range of Pete winning the North 5 out of 10 years and then winning the conference 2 or 3 out of the 5 times he plays for the title game.
We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40 UCLA: 19
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.
1937-1958: None 1959-1963: 3 1964-1976: none 1977-1981: 3 1982-1989: none 1990-1995: 4 1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
What it definitely tells me is that IF we have the right coach in place, we can definitely win at a high level ...
But unlike a school like USC where you can have corpses like Ted Tollner or John Robinson (his 2nd tenure) in charge, we really need just about everything lined up working well for us to be competitive at the highest levels.
We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.
What's your standards?
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40 UCLA: 19
Why would you count division titles?
In general, they are inconsequential to the numbers that I've produced ... but at this point in time, you have to win your division first to win the conference championship.
My expectations for Pete are probably somewhere in the range of Pete winning the North 5 out of 10 years and then winning the conference 2 or 3 out of the 5 times he plays for the title game.
I'd be disappointed if Pete only wins the conference two years out of ten. That might be doogalistic, but 3 out 10 is my minimum expectation. And winning the north 6 or 7 times out of 10.
This kid was all UW before committing to SC. Maybe our staff wasnt very high on him?
I can think of 4 players on the west coast that we have a legit shot at that I'd like more than him. Osborne, Spiker, Chase Williams, Mike Wilson. I just don't think he is like those guys.
So, he's committed for the second time... this time to Neb and their drunk-driving, hard-crootin' WR coach Keith Williams (who is responsible for the hashtag #CaliBraska).
Comments
1937-1958: None
1959-1963: 3
1964-1976: none
1977-1981: 3
1982-1989: none
1990-1995: 4
1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
My expectations for Pete are probably somewhere in the range of Pete winning the North 5 out of 10 years and then winning the conference 2 or 3 out of the 5 times he plays for the title game.
But unlike a school like USC where you can have corpses like Ted Tollner or John Robinson (his 2nd tenure) in charge, we really need just about everything lined up working well for us to be competitive at the highest levels.
I bet USC told him to look around.
He's good... but he's not AMAZING.
1. Jalen Hall (going to USC)
2/3. Osbourne/Spiker (not sure how you have them ordered)
4. Michael Wilson
5. Chase Williams
Is Allen number six, or are there others who slot above him?
*Some of that may have come from Coker, but I always just assume you two share a TBS brain.
I think DDY and Coker both said that they think Osborne/Spiker are the top 2 on the West coast this year.
Tier 1
Osborne, Spiker, Hall, Devon Williams from Antelope Valley if he plays WR (kid is unreal)
Tier 2:
Wilson, Williams, St. Brown, Chase Cota
Tier 3:
Others