Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Some chinteresting data on Pete's last 3 years from WestCoastCFB
Comments
-
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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. -
RN had the best year and best collection of wins of either of them.
Pete had the better stint at UW and best collection of seasons.
Both were ultimately not quite good enough. -
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon stateRoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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.
<----------- faggoty wink
Ricks conference record was better though.
Also played no FCS teams.
-
That's reasonable.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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. -
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.MikeDamone said:
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon stateRoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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. -
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.creepycoug said:
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.MikeDamone said:
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon stateRoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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. -
And that was one year before the start of the DYNASTY.salemcoog said:
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.creepycoug said:
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.MikeDamone said:
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon stateRoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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. -
Now picking on the Coug.dnc said:
And that was one year before the start of the DYNASTY.salemcoog said:
And all the talent was all in the North. In 2000 the PAC 10 finished with three top 7 teams. Hard to believe now.creepycoug said:
I always forget that ... the conference was tuffer in the early 2000s.MikeDamone said:
Peterson didn't have to play a ranked Oregon stateRoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
I didn't say Rick was better than Peterson.FremontTroll said:
If wins are the measure and Petersen has more wins and a higher winning percentage, then are wins really the measure?MikeDamone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.MikeDamone said:
Not if wins is the measure.RoadDawg55 said:Pete was way better than Rick. Not even close.
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.
[SMH] -
Neither lost to no Coug.
