why has this team underperformed so poorly? Seriously.
It hasn't.
As noted before it has twice as many conference champions as anyone in the same time frame, just as it has twice as many top picks.
We are killing the Pac12, just not killing outside the Pac12. Which makes sense since the Pac12 is bad.</ cblockquote>
So winning one of five bowl games is not underperforming? Keep in mind bowels try to pair somewhat evenly matched teams (yes they want high attendance and tv ratings but don't want an unwatchable blowout) . Regardless, only a sissy's game like baseball allows a .200 average. If it helps leave out the peach bowel and Pete's average climbs to .250.
Set your fucking goals a little higher. Holy shit. Think past the steak you buy on the day you get your food stamps.
So winning one of five bowl games is not underperforming? Keep in mind bowels try to pair somewhat evenly matched teams (yes they want high attendance and tv ratings but don't want an unwatchable blowout) . Regardless, only a sissy's game like baseball allows a .200 average. If it helps leave out the peach bowel and Pete's average climbs to .250.
Set your fucking goals a little higher. Holy shit. Think past the steak you buy on the day you get your food stamps.
Dude stop. Derek has asked this question twice in response to posts about how UW has done producing draft picks in relation to the rest of the league, implying that we have underperformed based upon our draft success.
Of course I think our bowel record is bad. Of course I think we need to do better.
"The Huskies are producing twice as many draft picks as the rest of the conference, therefore they should be beasting the conference." Logical argument, and it's debatable whether two out of three conference championships and 24-5 record in the last three years satisfies this.
"The Huskies are producing twice as many draft picks as the rest of their conference, therefore they should be beating the best teams from other conferences." Not logical. Not enough information about the relative strengths of the conference champions. A quick glance shows you that both OSU and Alabama produce more draft picks and high draft picks than UW, so from what does it follow that UW should be beating these teams?
Comments
As noted before it has twice as many conference champions as anyone in the same time frame, just as it has twice as many top picks.
We are killing the Pac12, just not killing outside the Pac12. Which makes sense since the Pac12 is bad.
Washington has underperformed.
We obviously need to absolutely kill the P12 to be equal to the best of the other conferences.
We are no where near where we need to be.
Of course I think our bowel record is bad. Of course I think we need to do better.
Follow the fucking conversation.
18' on the road were truly bad losses. Signs of a team not being elite.
17' was a tough year injury wise but no excuses.
The PAC is a bad conference right now. UW should win the conference this year. No excuses.
"The Huskies are producing twice as many draft picks as the rest of the conference, therefore they should be beasting the conference."
Logical argument, and it's debatable whether two out of three conference championships and 24-5 record in the last three years satisfies this.
"The Huskies are producing twice as many draft picks as the rest of their conference, therefore they should be beating the best teams from other conferences."
Not logical. Not enough information about the relative strengths of the conference champions. A quick glance shows you that both OSU and Alabama produce more draft picks and high draft picks than UW, so from what does it follow that UW should be beating these teams?