Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
Hardcore Husky was pretty dialed in, but I was talking about the national pundits. The national pundits expected Browning to progress in his 4th year, which should have been enough to lead the Huskies back to the CFP. However, as most of you mentioned in the preseason, Browning sucks and held the team back. He did that again this year. The coaching staff also did a poor job of managing games. Had UW utilized their rushing game more, they could have possibly made it despite Browning. The staff continued to trust Browning and he let you down late against Auburn, in overtime against Oregon, and took a giant dump against Cal. Yes, UW made it to the Rose Bowl which is always the goal. But when the conference in whole regresses, UW should have done more than just won the conference. Even with a loss to Auburn, had UW not mismanaged the game against Oregon, and hadn't shit the bed against Cal, this team would have been in the CFP. I also think the Rose Bowl was winnable. Had Pete not called a terrible game for three quarters, they could have ran it down Ohio State's throat for the win. So yes, under achieved is a valid argument.
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
We had plenty of talent to win the Pac12, especially given USC's dumpster fire.
I don't think we overachieved or underachieved. We did what we expected to do, win the north, win the conference, lose the RB. You could argue underachieved since we shouldn't have lost to Cal, but does winning that game change anything significant about the season? I say no.
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
We had plenty of talent to win the Pac12, especially given USC's dumpster fire.
I don't think we overachieved or underachieved. We did what we expected to do, win the north, win the conference, lose the RB. You could argue underachieved since we shouldn't have lost to Cal, but does winning that game change anything significant about the season? I say no.
Had they beat Cal and Oregon, then yes, it would have. And they should have won both
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
We had plenty of talent to win the Pac12, especially given USC's dumpster fire.
I don't think we overachieved or underachieved. We did what we expected to do, win the north, win the conference, lose the RB. You could argue underachieved since we shouldn't have lost to Cal, but does winning that game change anything significant about the season? I say no.
Had they beat Cal and Oregon, then yes, it would have. And they should have won both
On the micro level, absolutely. We *should* have beaten Auburn too by that perspective.
But at the macro level, I don't think this was a good enough team to go undefeated in conference, let alone the regular season. It wasn't a dominant team at all, just a very good team.
I think it should have been a 3 loss team but the 4th loss doesn't change my perspective on the season any. Had it kept us from winning the conference, that would be a different story.
Normally a 12-2 season should give WSU at least an "A", but with one of those losses being the most important game of your season they get downgraded to a B+
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props. WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense. Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games. Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them. ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise. UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team. Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row. Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to. Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off. USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we under achieved. With the talent we have (IE not much) and the lack of true play makers on O and D - i think we over achieved winning the Pac12 and going to the RB.
We underachieved. For evidence of this, please see games against Auburn, Oregon and Cal.
Comments
More rational grades:
Washington B+. Rose Bowl birth...enough said. But definitely under achieved
Utah B+. Talent gap, down their starting QB and running back, and still come within a TD of UW in the title game. Got to give them props.
WSU B+. Greatly beat expectations, but you can't lose to your rival at home in the biggest home game in almost 20 years, and expect any higher grade than this
Oregon B. Blah year. They beat UW when they weren't expected to, but choked against Stanford, and didn't show up against Arizona. Salvaged a B by beating Michigan St. even with a terrible offense.
Cal B. Beat expectations, and showed great improvement on defense. You could argue they were a decent QB away from winning 9 games.
Stanford B-. Played below expectations. Offense was as boring as ever, but didn't have the same vaunted defense behind them.
ASU B-. Played above expectations. However, ASU faltered late just like they used to under Graham. ASU is ASU until proven otherwise.
UCLA C-. I honestly give UCLA a C- because they ended the year as a much better team than when it started. Had the end of year Bruins showed up to start the year, they would have been a bowl team.
Oregon State D. They were expected to be bad, and showed improvement offensively. However, the defense was horrible. They gave up 400 yards on the ground to Oregon, with Burmeister in for the second half, and Arroyo calling the same play 10-15 times in a row.
Arizona D. Expected to contend in the South with Tate coming back. Never challenged, and only have a home win versus Oregon to tip their hat to.
Colorado D. Looked like they could challenge to start the year, but after choking at home against OSU the wheels fell off.
USC F. USC not making a bowl game is like other teams going 0-12. Having that kind of talent and not making a bowl game is unforgivable. The fact that Helton still has a job, shows how in over his head Lynn Swann is.
I don't think we overachieved or underachieved. We did what we expected to do, win the north, win the conference, lose the RB. You could argue underachieved since we shouldn't have lost to Cal, but does winning that game change anything significant about the season? I say no.
But at the macro level, I don't think this was a good enough team to go undefeated in conference, let alone the regular season. It wasn't a dominant team at all, just a very good team.
I think it should have been a 3 loss team but the 4th loss doesn't change my perspective on the season any. Had it kept us from winning the conference, that would be a different story.