Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
How /good/ were we this year?
whatshouldicareabout
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,759 
Or rather, what did we really accomplish as a football team? Here is our resume for 2013:
Wins:
BYU (8-5)
Arizona (8-5) (4-5)
Boise St. (8-5)
Oregon St. (7-6) (4-5)
Wazzu (6-7) (4-5)
Illinois (4-8)
Colorado (4-8) (1-8)
Cal (1-11) (0-9)
Idaho St.
4 wins against teams with winning records but none over teams with winning records in the Pac-12. There are some decent wins but nothing impressive. Nothing to really smile about, like beating 12-2 Stanford in 2012 or 10-3 Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl.
Losses:
Stanford (11-3) (7-2)
Oregon (11-2) (7-2)
Arizona St. (10-4) (8-1)
UCLA (10-3) (6-3)
Every team that beat us had a better record, both overall and in conference. Beating any of them would've been an accomplishment for this team. Instead, we're 0-4 in these games and have yet to break into the upper-echelon of the Pac-12.
In order to compete for the conference championships and Rose Bowls that Sark promised in his kickass presser, we need to beat the teams with the winning records in the Pac-12. This was arguably the weakest schedule we played with Sark as a coach and, to no one's surprise, also our best record. But to the fans who are paying attention, we've seen 5-4 too many times. And we're seeing 0-4 in the games that really matter the most (through Sark's 5 years: 6-14 against Pac-12 teams with winning conference records, 18-7 against Pac-12 teams with losing conference records). That's why we played in the Fight Hunger Bowl and finished 6th place out of 12.
---
TL;DR ver.: 9-4 record is inflated and nothing special. We really didn't accomplish a whole lot.
Wins:
BYU (8-5)
Arizona (8-5) (4-5)
Boise St. (8-5)
Oregon St. (7-6) (4-5)
Wazzu (6-7) (4-5)
Illinois (4-8)
Colorado (4-8) (1-8)
Cal (1-11) (0-9)
Idaho St.
4 wins against teams with winning records but none over teams with winning records in the Pac-12. There are some decent wins but nothing impressive. Nothing to really smile about, like beating 12-2 Stanford in 2012 or 10-3 Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl.
Losses:
Stanford (11-3) (7-2)
Oregon (11-2) (7-2)
Arizona St. (10-4) (8-1)
UCLA (10-3) (6-3)
Every team that beat us had a better record, both overall and in conference. Beating any of them would've been an accomplishment for this team. Instead, we're 0-4 in these games and have yet to break into the upper-echelon of the Pac-12.
In order to compete for the conference championships and Rose Bowls that Sark promised in his kickass presser, we need to beat the teams with the winning records in the Pac-12. This was arguably the weakest schedule we played with Sark as a coach and, to no one's surprise, also our best record. But to the fans who are paying attention, we've seen 5-4 too many times. And we're seeing 0-4 in the games that really matter the most (through Sark's 5 years: 6-14 against Pac-12 teams with winning conference records, 18-7 against Pac-12 teams with losing conference records). That's why we played in the Fight Hunger Bowl and finished 6th place out of 12.
---
TL;DR ver.: 9-4 record is inflated and nothing special. We really didn't accomplish a whole lot.
Comments
Quit your bitchin'. . . it was special enough to get Sark outta here.
Man, some people are just never satisfied.
We're tallest midgets in the west and one of the tallest in the nation by my estimate. The 2013 Huskies, given a full schedule against 8-5 teams, would have a nice little season.
We were 5-4 against our peers in conference.
We couldn't beat an upper-end team in conference despite having at least 2 very realistic chances to do so.
Talent wise, we're better than what our record was.
Coaching wise, we're pretty much exactly where we should have been.
Take that asterisk win away and the best two wins were against a team that should have fired its coach and a team that forced its coach out after the Alamo Bowl.
Fucking dreckfest.
Kim was actually right, 2013 was indeed special.
There is literally no good wins to hang your hat on. Even the bowl game win was against a MWC team basically.
This was probably the first year in forever UW didn't lose to a shitty team.
With Peterman I think this past year UW would have won 11 games(UCLA and Stanford) while not being routed so easily either.
Just so glad I don't have ever to hear "What a cool week for the Huskies man" in a serious tone by our head coach for a long while.
5th year senior
Sankey
ASJ
Good receiver corps
Weak conference
Have fun SC!
The fact that anyone would place any sense of accomplishment in a nine-win season in the first place is pretty fucktarded.
Well, when the 1980 team went 9-3 with a loss in the Rose Bowl, that was still a season worth being proud of. But 9-4 with this schedule, it's a different animal.
9 wins with a solid OOC schedule is not a bad year. With the OOC Sark had ... it is kind of embarrassing.