Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to Creepy Bart Cuog
YellowSnow
Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 36,595 
We're the clear number #2. Just accept it for fuck's sake.
If USC is the Pac-12 equivalent of Florida State, the league's Clemson in 2017 will understandably spark debate. Oregon went 80-14 between 2008 and 2014, winning four Pac-12 titles and twice reaching the national championship game. Stanford is 76-18 since 2010 with three Pac-12 titles and two top-four finishes. But Washington will pair alongside USC as the Pac-12's primary contenders. The Huskies have had more success historically. They have a location edge over Oregon and can recruit a larger talent pool than Stanford. It is no coincidence that the rise of the Ducks and the Cardinal coincided with Washington's bottoming out in 2008 and then languishing in mediocrity.
Oregon and Stanford both have had opportunities to become the Pac-12's Clemson. Neither could complete the final step. Washington might fail, too, but the Huskies are ahead of schedule under Chris Petersen, who led them to a league title and a College Football Playoff appearance in his third season. Their lone league blemish came against USC, which overcame a listless start to win its final nine games, including the Rose Bowl against Penn State.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20114139/usc-trojans-washington-huskies-need-separate-pac-12-pack-contend-college-football-playoff
If USC is the Pac-12 equivalent of Florida State, the league's Clemson in 2017 will understandably spark debate. Oregon went 80-14 between 2008 and 2014, winning four Pac-12 titles and twice reaching the national championship game. Stanford is 76-18 since 2010 with three Pac-12 titles and two top-four finishes. But Washington will pair alongside USC as the Pac-12's primary contenders. The Huskies have had more success historically. They have a location edge over Oregon and can recruit a larger talent pool than Stanford. It is no coincidence that the rise of the Ducks and the Cardinal coincided with Washington's bottoming out in 2008 and then languishing in mediocrity.
Oregon and Stanford both have had opportunities to become the Pac-12's Clemson. Neither could complete the final step. Washington might fail, too, but the Huskies are ahead of schedule under Chris Petersen, who led them to a league title and a College Football Playoff appearance in his third season. Their lone league blemish came against USC, which overcame a listless start to win its final nine games, including the Rose Bowl against Penn State.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20114139/usc-trojans-washington-huskies-need-separate-pac-12-pack-contend-college-football-playoff
Comments
The Huskies have had more success historically. [And?] They have a location edge over Oregon [Sure; they always have. And?] and can recruit a larger talent pool than Stanford [ouch; you know that's an academis slamm]. It is no coincidence that the rise of the Ducks and the Cardinal coincided with Washington's bottoming out in 2008 and then languishing in mediocrity. [actually, it is. there is no cause/effect here. it's the random ass cycle of a program losing a good coach, going through a bunch of shitty ones, and getting a good one again. it's no more or less complicated than that. btw, "mediocrity" was being generous. they? were mostly bone-in shit].
Sad!