Oh yeah, that's the only agenda. It's not like a bunch of drippy coont doogs don't use it to minimize Oregon or anything right?
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.
The Pac-12 had four shit tier teams in the conference this year, and one of the four beat the conference champion.
#FuckingDreckfest
and a 3-8 USC team took the greatest Husky team of all time to the 4th quarter in a 14-3 blowout. doesn't mean the conference is weak. I just don't buy that.
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.
I think if you try a little harder, you will discover that Oregon State's transformation is a little more significant than "only means that those games are more competitive."
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.
It would seem with this comment that we don't disagree. So how am I being coug stupid? I would seem that this is exactly in-line with my views, articulated in this thread and others.
I don't really give a flying fucking shit if it is tougher or easier today. You play what is on your schedule, and we have sucked at that since Rick left. Who gives a fuck how hard or easy it is, just win. Fuck.
I don't really give a flying fucking shit if it is tougher or easier today. You play what is on your schedule, and we have sucked at that since Rick left. Who gives a fuck how hard or easy it is, just win. Fuck.
I don't really give a flying fucking shit if it is tougher or easier today. You play what is on your schedule, and we have sucked at that since Rick left. Who gives a fuck how hard or easy it is, just win. Fuck.
well, there's that too.
I like to keep things simple. Boobs, beer, red meat, guns, fly fishing and winning football. Pretty easy life when you distill it down to the basics.
I don't really give a flying fucking shit if it is tougher or easier today. You play what is on your schedule, and we have sucked at that since Rick left. Who gives a fuck how hard or easy it is, just win. Fuck.
well, there's that too.
I like to keep things simple. Boobs, beer, red meat, guns, fly fishing and winning football. Pretty easy life when you distill it down to the basics.
to take issue with that list of life objectives is to scream, "I am a homo!"
I get that there were a few teams back in the DJ era that were fucking terrible (hello Oregon State).
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 stupidspent 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.
Comments
I'm with ya, i'm with ya.