Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Dispelling UW Football Myth # 243 - PAC 12 is Pat Hill Tuff'er Today than in Don James' Day
Tequilla
Member Posts: 19,907
Seriously? I don't get how people actually believe that - but there's a lot of people that not only were using this argument to support Sarkisian's mediocrity (like hell SC is going to be saying that to prop up his annual 5-4 conference record), but are still using it to temper expectations.
In the 16 years from Don James' first Rose Bowl (1977 season) to his final Rose Bowl (1992 season), the parity in the conference is evident based on the final conference record of the conference champion as follows:
# of No Loss Seasons (either undefeated or no defeats w/ a tie) = 4
3 of these 4 seasons occurred from 1988 - 1991 ('88 and '89 USC and '91 Washington)
# of 1 Loss Seasons (1 and only 1 loss) = 6
# of 1.5+ Loss Seasons (seasons with a loss and tie or 2+ losses) = 6
So to claim that there was less competition and parity in the conference when teams were playing a 7 or 8 game conference schedule (compared to the 9 we currently play) during this period just flat out isn't supported by the facts.
Why do so many people hate winning, expecting to win, and holding people accountable.
FUCK.
In the 16 years from Don James' first Rose Bowl (1977 season) to his final Rose Bowl (1992 season), the parity in the conference is evident based on the final conference record of the conference champion as follows:
# of No Loss Seasons (either undefeated or no defeats w/ a tie) = 4
3 of these 4 seasons occurred from 1988 - 1991 ('88 and '89 USC and '91 Washington)
# of 1 Loss Seasons (1 and only 1 loss) = 6
# of 1.5+ Loss Seasons (seasons with a loss and tie or 2+ losses) = 6
So to claim that there was less competition and parity in the conference when teams were playing a 7 or 8 game conference schedule (compared to the 9 we currently play) during this period just flat out isn't supported by the facts.
Why do so many people hate winning, expecting to win, and holding people accountable.
FUCK.
Comments
Honestly, look into their personal life - you will see excuses to temper down expectations to excuse laziness.
Yes we can!
http://www.firecoachsark.com/the-myth-that-the-pac-12-is-tougher-now-than-during-don-james-tenure/
Final records of one team is a bit simplistic don't you think?
The bottom line is this: When Washington was ruling the conference the conference wasn't really any better than it is now. Worse? Hard to say. But not better.
There are, in my view, more good teams in the conference now and fewer auto-drecks. Oregon State couldn't get out of its own way when Washington was good in the 80s and 90s. Oregon wasn't much better. Furd was perennial middling to dreck. Arizona schools had one great year between them in the early 90s.
I basically don't know what the fuck the issue is. Look at '91. SC was 3-8. The second best team in the conference was Cal whose claim to fame was beating up on yet another fake Clemson team. You had Furd and UCLA as lower end top 20 teams.
Now you have a legitimate power in Oregon and Furd, you have an Oregon State program that is at least capable of tying its shoes, you have about the same WSU program, give or take, SC's been everything from juggernaut to Ok given sanctions and UCLA is on the return. The Arizonas seem stuck being what they are, with slight deviations here and there.
I would say, it's certainly not the case that the conference is weaker, and an argument can be made that there is more parity. Maybe not a ton more, but more. The advancements of both Oregon schools simply cannot be denied.
You see, when you are talking conference strength, the whole point of that is to assert that you don't get any, or many, weeks off. That you have to bring your A game or you get what Oregon got at Arizona. That is what makes a good conference good. That everyone can play.
That is not true in many other conferences.
I’ll start with James
1975: Year One
Pac-8 had 3 teams ranked: 37.5%
One team top 10: 12.5%
One team top 5: 12.5%
Don James record vs ranked teams in conference: 2-1 including wins over eventual #5 ranked and Rose Bowl champion UCLA on the fucking road in November. Lost to eventual #14 Cal on the road 27-24 in November and defeated eventual #17 USC 8-7 in November. All three games were in a row as James was turning the ship around.
1976: Year two
Pac-8 had 2 teams ranked: 25%
One team top 10: 12.5%
One team top 5: 12.5%
Don James record: 0-2, USC finished year ranked #2.
1977: Year three
Pac-8 teams had 3 teams ranked: 37.5%
One top 10 team: 12.5%
Top 5: 0%
Don James record: 2-0.
Huskies finished ranked 10th in the nation
1978: Year Four
Pac-10 teams had 3 teams ranked: 30%
One top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Don James record: 1-2
1979: Year Five
Pac-10 had 2 teams ranked: 20%
One top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Don James: 0-1 as he lost 24-17 to eventual national champion USC
UW final ranking was 11th.
Now the Seven win Steve era where in 2011-13 teams are feasting on Utah/Colorado.
2009: Year one
Pac-10 has one team ranked: 10%(USC was 22nd but under old format not ranked)
Top 10: 0%
Top 5: 0%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-1, highest ranked team was Oregon at 11th
2010: Year two
Pac-10 has two teams ranked: 20%
Top 10: 20%
Top 5: 20%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-2, lost by a combined score of 94-16 to #3 Oregon and #4 Stanford
2011: Year three
Pac-12 has three teams ranked: 25%
Top 10: 25%
Top 5: 8.3%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-3, lost by a combined score of 139-55 to #4 Oregon, #7 Stanford and #6 USC
2012: Year Four
Pac-12 has three teams ranked: 25%
Top 10 2 teams: 16.6%
Top 5 one team: 8.3%
Steve Sarkisian: 2-1 as he defeated #7 Stanford, a RANKED OREGON STATE(#20) but was killed on the road to Oregon 52-21
2013: Year Five, which is up to date so could change
Pac-12 has 4 teams ranked(USC is #23 so doesn’t count under old format): 33.3%
Pac-12 has 2 teams top 10: 16.6%
Pac-12 has one team top 5: 8.3%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-4 so far.
Those rankings could change as UCLA is #14 plays #19 ASU while #23 USC still has to play UCLA. One of those three will play at Oregon as well so one will drop out if not two.
So let’s add up the results shall we?
Don James first 5 years:
Pac-10/8 had 13 teams ranked out of 44 possible teams: 29.5%
Pac-10/8 had 5 teams in the top 10: 11.3%
Pac-10/8 had 4 teams in the top 5: 8.8%
Don James record vs ranked opponents: 5-6(45.5%)
Steve Sarkisian first 5 years:
Pac-10/12 had 13 teams ranked out of a possible 56 teams: 23.2%
Pac-10/12 had 9 teams ranked in the top 10: 16.0%
Pac-10/12 had 5 teams ranked in the top 5: 8.9%
Steve Sarkisian record vs ranked opponents: 2-11(15.3%)
So for all this talk that Sarkisian has had it tougher he has only coached against two more conference opponents who were ranked than James did in five years. James is often hurt in this strength of schedule argument as his teams typical won a lot so his teams were ranked while his opponents wouldn’t be. Say Sarkisian had defeated ASU they wouldn’t been ranked.
Sure James never had to face a RANKED OREGON STATE or the Ducks when they were powerhouses like Sark has. However, when James coached the LA schools were always ranked and he always to face them both while Sarkisian in only two out of five seasons has had to face the LA schools in the same year(3-4 all-time vs them). Sarkisian in two out of five seasons has only had to face the Arizona Schools three times in the same year(3-5 all-time vs them). Instead he has gotten to play Colorado and Utah who he is 5-0 against.
Despite what Fleenor, Kim and others want you to believe the conference is just as strong back when James was breaking into the conference as when Sarkisian was. The only difference is James was defeating those opponents and in his losses was going toe to toe. Meanwhile Sarkisian isn’t defeating those ranked opponents and is often being destroyed.
For shits and giggles I’ll compare the conference for when Lambo and Slick Rick coached vs Sark’s.
Lambo:
1993: Year one
Pac-10 has two teams ranked: 20%(Cal was 25th but doesn’t count as they fall outside top 20)
Pac-10 has one team in top 10: 10%
Zero top 5: 0%
Lambo’s record vs ranked teams: 0-1
1994: Year two
Pac-10 has 3 ranked teams: 30%(WSU just misses it at #21)
Pac-10 has zero top 10: 0%
Pac-10 has zero top 5: 0%
Lambo’s record vs ranked teams: 0-2(He did defeat eventual top 5 Miami OOC on the road and top 10 Ohio State OOC).
1995: Year three
Pac-10 has 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 has zero top 10: 0%
Pac-10 has zero top 5: 0%
Lambo’s record vs ranked teams: 0-1-1
1996: Year four
Pac-10 has 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 has 1 ranked top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Lambo record vs ranked teams: 0-1
UW finished ranked 16th
1997: Year Five
Pac-10 has 4 ranked teams: 40%
Pac-10 has 2 top 10: 20%
Pac-10 has one top 5: 10%
Lambo’s record vs ranked teams 1-2
UW finished 18th
Pac-10 in the Lambright era
Pac-10 had 13 ranked teams out of 50= 26%
Pac-10 had only 4 top 10 teams= 8%
Pac-10 had only 2 top 5 teams= 4%
Lambo record vs eventual conference ranked teams= 1-7-1
So Lambright did have an easier Pac-10 than Sarkisian and his record against ranked conference opponents was just as awful as Sarkisians for those who want to pump up Lambright.
Now onto Rick Neuheisel.
1999: Year One
Pac-10 had one ranked team: 10%
Pac-10 had zero top 10: 0%
Zero top 5: 0%
Neuheisel record vs eventual ranked teams: 1-0(Beat Oregon nothing else matters!)
2000: Year two
Pac-10 had three ranked teams: 30%
Pac-10 had three top 10: 30%
Pac-10 had 2 top 5: 20%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 1-1
UW would finish #3 in the polls.
2001: Year three
Pac-10 had four ranked teams: 40%
Pac-10 had two top ten: 20%
Pac-10 had one top 5: 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 2-0
UW would finish 19th in the polls
2002: Year four
Pac-10 had 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 had 2 top 10 ten: 20%
Pac-10 had 1 top 5: 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 1-1
In the Rick Neuheisel era
Pac-10 had 10 teams ranked out of 40= 25%
Pac-10 had 7 top 10= 17.5%
Pac-10 had 4 top 5= 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 5-2(71.4%)
So only Lambright coached in a weaker era than Sarkisian. James coached in an equal era than Sarkisian and Neuheisel actually coached in a tougher era than Sarkisian did looking at the numbers while also producing a 71.4% winning percentage against eventual ranked teams.
also, too much math and too much numbers.
and they say I'm long winded. geezuz
Welcome to America in the 21's century...where even losers get to be winners.
I don't know what it all means... back then teams played better out of conference competition. I think we played Alabama in the late 70's, Okie State, Texas Tech, THE OSU, aTm, Colorado when they were really good, Nebraska when they were really good, Michigan when they were really good... f*** I will let the eggheads that are really good at math to figure it out.
#FuckingDreckfest
I also get that the power consisted primarily of USC, UCLA, and Washington. Although everybody seems to forget the fact that Arizona State has always been what they are - pretty damn good but too fucking stupid to get out of their way long enough to have success. Stanford, Cal, Arizona, and the Cougs have always traded periods where they have enough talent where they can sneak up on you and pull a win or two that you wouldn't expect. Oregon's probably the outlier - but up until the last two years, you could argue that they've just switched places with UCLA.
If you are a top team in the conference, the conference is no harder today than it used to be.
b. ASU has always been "pretty damn good"????? I guess I lived in an almost-parallel universe where that wasn't at all true. Selective memory man. They had some seasons here and there, sure, but they were a perennial under-achiever and soft. No, they were not "pretty good" most of the time and often got their asses handed to them when venturing out of the Pac 3.
iii. UCLA was good, yes, but I don't think they had a run quite like Oregon's. I don't think that's a wash. I have to give the tip to Oregon in that comparison.
Four. The conference may be no harder, but it's not weaker. I, myself, based on dead reckoning alone (these things are hard to measure quantitatively), believe it's stronger across the board, and I also think it's stronger at the top for one reason only: The Pete Carroll Trojans from 2000 until it died were the strongest juggernaut I've seen this conference produce. They would play anyone and everyone out of conference, on the road, and just wipe the fucking floor with them. They were dominant like no other, save for Washington one season.
E. Cal sucks now, Cal sucked then. One year (91) does not a program make. We once had a 19 game winning streak against them. That's how bad they were.
Lastly, you just have to acknowledge that the development of Oregon and Stanford as nationally relevant powers, and the ascension of Oregon State to decency, has changed the face of the conference.
even the cewgs, such as they are, do not equate to the Oregon State I grew up watching. doesn't translate. and I don't think UW is quite as consistently average to shitty as Oregon was. the latter is a closer call, what with Lionel and all, but I don't think so.
You are being Coug fucking stupid right now ...
1) If you are at the top end of the conference, the improvement of the Oregon State's in the world only means that those games are more competitive than the blood baths that they used to be. Who is terrible in the conference has changed over the time - but there's always going to be 1-2 teams that are more or less show up and win games. It used to be that Oregon State and to a lesser extent Cal and Washington State were those teams. Now it's Cal and Colorado. The Cougs were in that group when Paul Wulff Fucking Genius was coaching.
2) ASU has always underachieved and not maximized their potential - nobody debates that. But your memory has suffered from too many Busch Lights. From 1978 (first year in the conference) to 1992 (DJ's last year), Arizona State was 57-47-4 in conference including a 5-8 record against Washington. No, they weren't great. But they were the upper middle class of the conference. And they definitely were good enough to beat some of the better teams - that was the point. The numbers illustrate that point.
3) From 1977 to 1992, UCLA's conference record was 78-39-5 for a winning % of .660. UCLA had a record of 7-7-1 versus Washington over that time period. From the beginning of football (1994) through 2013, Oregon's conference record has been 119-49, for a winning % of .708. So yes, Oregon's been a little bit better than UCLA was ... but the difference isn't super significant. If you add in let's say another conference game against the Sisters of the Poor over that time period (say UCLA went 12-3 in those games), the winning % would have been .675. Again, Oregon's been better in that stretch - but not by as much as one would seem to think.
4) Who has ever said that Cal was particularly good/great?
5) I think that the conference has been more balanced in the last 10-15 years in the middle than it ever has been. This is where the conference has improved to me the most. I think the teams at the top of the conference are as good today as they ever have been. But I don't think that the balance of the conference has caught up to the top to the point that those at the top are particularly worried about the teams in the middle. What it's done is limit the number of high end teams congregated at the top with teams that are now beating each other up in the middle.