Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The conference now vs 10 years ago: was it better then?

245

Comments

  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,281
    haie said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    haie said:

    creepycoug said:

    Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.

    It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.

    You're welcome.

    They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.

    Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)

    Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
    Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.

    If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.

    So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.

    And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changed there with me.
    Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.

    Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
    This is really the key: who do we? Beat OOC. Beat an SEC team or high level B10 or ACC and the conference has instant legitimacy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,676
    edited July 2018
    haie said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    haie said:

    creepycoug said:

    Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.

    It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.

    You're welcome.

    They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.

    Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)

    Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
    Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.

    If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.

    So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.

    And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changed there with me.
    Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.

    Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
    When did Arizona become an 8/9 win team? They have won more than 7 games once in the past 10 years. And averaged around 5/6.

    Or has the weird preseason hype on utah and arizona clouded your mind?


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,676
    edited July 2018
    fuck arizona and fuck tate. Dude went off against like Colorado and UCLA (the worst rushing defenses in the world) and everyone thought he was good.

    Here's how fucking shitty colorados D is. This was part of a 400 yard rushing performance.

    http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21292722
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • haie
    haie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 24,424 Founders Club
    creepycoug said:

    haie said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    haie said:

    creepycoug said:

    Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.

    It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.

    You're welcome.

    They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.

    Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)

    Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
    Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.

    If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.

    So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.

    And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changed there with me.
    Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.

    Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
    This is really the key: who do we? Beat OOC. Beat an SEC team or high level B10 or ACC and the conference has instant legitimacy.
    I just don't think the conference cares about the dick measuring contests if it's not the playoffs though. Is it really a surprise that the 2 teams who expected to make the playoffs we're complete duds in their "big time" bowls against the "hated" b1g? They don't think like the diehard fans
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • haie
    haie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 24,424 Founders Club
    Pitchfork51 said:

    haie said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    haie said:

    creepycoug said:

    Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.

    It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.

    You're welcome.

    They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.

    Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)

    Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
    Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.

    If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.

    So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.

    And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changed there with me.
    Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.

    Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
    When did Arizona become an 8/9 win team? They have won more than 7 games once in the past 10 years. And averaged around 5/6.

    Or has the weird preseason hype on utah and arizona clouded your mind?


    Last year those 2 teams (possibly Utah, before they collapsed) replaced your bRuins and devil's. That's all I'm saying. I don't think UCLA, ASU being bad means anything different than when they're relatively good: always good talent, always brotastic coaching staffs.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,504 Founders Club
    USC always paid a bigger price for blowing a league game and going 11 and 1 than a SEC team did
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fire_Marshall_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 26,114 Standard Supporter
    Basically it's mostly about natties, which isn't really a transparent, fair process, but it never really has been. We only have two in 25 or 26 years now and it's hurting the perception.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HUSKYFANATIC
    HUSKYFANATIC Member Posts: 1,651
    Pitchfork51 said:

    fuck man. 2008-2010 was the dark days. My freshman year we won 10 games then it was horse shit after that.

    Honestly the only good memory I can think of is

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omhoUYoSDlM

    Fuck off
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    HUSKYFANATIC said:

    Pitchfork51 said:

    fuck man. 2008-2010 was the dark days. My freshman year we won 10 games then it was horse shit after that.

    Honestly the only good memory I can think of is

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omhoUYoSDlM

    Fuck off
    Don't discourage him from on topic, cogent posts. Even if they're at UW's expense. This is a big step.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter