Of course, the problem with this stat is that, if you have talent like Washington has, your comparator group is going to be comprised of very good teams.
Conversely, when you don't have talent, you only need to beat teams that have more talent, but are not necessarily good themselves. Shit beats slightly less shit all the tim. It's a different thing to beat genuinely good teams.
I'm not apologizing for Toothy; and this stat can reveal coaches who underperform with what they have. But there's a reason Cuog is atop this poll and it's not all because of the Pirate. Cuog's comparator group is not a murderer's row, and he has that passing game that will allow him to beat some teams who may be better overall, but not necessarily elite or even very good.
Good analysis here Creep.
The 5 wins were as follows...
2017 UCLA and Oregon (they were one spot higher than us in 247 composite that year) 2018 Stanford and UCLA 2019 USC
Not exactly murderer's row.
Yup. There you have it.
But, but, but we do more with less.
I hate the fucking saying. It's for losers.
Looking ahead to the 247 composite 2020 rankings, there were only be 3 teams ahead of UW on the schedule in terms of overall talent: USC, Oregon and Michigan and if they are ranked higher then us it's only by a c-hair.
Jimmy really needs to go 10-2 or better to instill a lot of confidence in the half brain segment of the fan base. I will tolerate 9-3 but won't be happy.
You got Michigan the first week and travel to SC, Oregon, Utah and Cal.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon state <----------- faggoty wink
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon state
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon state
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon state
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.
And that was one year before the start of the DYNASTY.
You really overrate a win against Purdue in the Rose Bowl. I can even except that 2000 was better than 2026, especially considering the Miami win. Pete’s 2017 and 2018 are better than any other Rick year.
I don’t over rate a win over Purdue, I do value a rose bowl win. The rose bowl aside, their win percentages are similar.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Again, I’ll take 2000 as the best season either coach had, but Pete’s three year stretch with 2 Pac 12 titles is a lot better than Rick did, which is why Pete was easily better.
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon state
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.
And that was one year before the start of the DYNASTY.
Comments
Been done
Btw, brilliant fucking handle. Maybe the best I've seen on the boards ... ever.
You should be tickled pink at 9-3.
You underrate losses to Cal, Stanford, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Stanford, Colorado...
I said that Peterson isn't "way better".
Wining % difference isn't huge. .7 vs .67
Factor in a major bowl win and the difference is even less.
Yay yay. Purdue. So what? They beat who they had to. As for as fun goes... The Rick years were a kick as a fan. Peterson was more frustrating.
Pete had the better stint at UW and best collection of seasons.
Both were ultimately not quite good enough.
Ricks conference record was better though.
Also played no FCS teams.
[SMH]