Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Top 5 underachieving programs of all time
Gladstone
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,417
Gladstone
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,417
Comments
Northwestern should be on there. Elite Academis, big city, power5 Conf. They just don't care enough to be good.
If you go to UCLA, it's for the wrong reasons. Always has been, always will be. They've got good players, but they will never have sustained success.
If a kid chooses UCLA over USC, they are basically saying, they want to live in Westwood over Compton for non-football reasons. Proximity to Santa Monica looms large in the minds of soft kids.
That's not how you get great football teams.
I remember hearing that their facilities were shitty and small, but I could be wrong @BallSacked? The fan base has been better, but most people are apathetic about UCLA football. They will also always be little brother to USC, although little brother is whooping USC ass, and I guess Oregon-UW proved that things can change.
I don't really get the ASU one. They aren't a bad program and could be good with a great coach, but so could a lot of schools. They have a lot of hot girls and umm? Umm? The whole state is a dreckfest. Great weather my ass. UCLA has great weather. An average of 100+ from June until September fucking sucks. "Yeah, but it's a dry heat." Fuck off.
They've achieved exactly as much as they should.
#ConferenceOfChampions
One (Miami) got it done because they were around a lot of black people and didn't find them scary. They started recruiting them and didn't give a fucking shit about anything (also had a great coach).
The other (Oregon) did it because they had a singularly minded investor who pushed to get to the top in the winner way. He bent rules, used tools, paid, cajoled, etc. to get them built up to a 'respectable' point.
UCLA will always fucking suck. So will ASU.
Ole Miss doesn't even make any fucking sense. They were never good, Mississippi produces a lot of talent (there's an irony there somewhere that the most racist, slave owning state benefits because they have lots of black people), but they just don't have the population or fan base. Once other people pay more (right now they are clearly highest bidder), they'll go back into shitsville. Freeze sucks.
It's hard to see a team on the horizon like Miami or Oregon which have become legit-ish powers. Still NOGAF about Miami football and Oregon is a Phil Knight stroke from losing it all in 6 years.
What are @Auburndawg's iron laws again? Population, tradition and something else?
They should've consulted him before they made this list, obviously!
Rosebowl, I think only sucks for students. If you're an alumni or a player it's probably a benefit or irrelevant. It's a great tailgate spot and a nice setting, plus one of the most historic stadiums in the U.S. Plus when they're good they'll draw more than anyone but SC out west.
The "UCLA is always soft thing" is just what fat people stuck in 1991 like DDY say to assuage their fears of UCLA becoming a real player. Mora has us at a top15 level after a decade of shit with possibly even more upside. Bob Fucking Toldeo was instant replay away from a NATTY birth in 1998 and won 20 in a row. It's easy to win here if the AD cares to win, but even easier to do so at SC.
Unless you're younger than I thought. Someone should do a pole and ask everyone how old they are.
But, yeah, they're legit.
They seem to be a case of 'great coach, lots of black kids who white people
in the southfind scary, college town, people give a shit'.Miami doesn't have those last two. As you no doubt know, comparing Tallahassee to Miami is like comparing Pullman to Paris.
And yes I would rather lose the natty 5 times in a row than watch what I have watched here for 12 years
SC in the PC glory years had snoop dog performing at frat parties with the players and they still won a natty(ies).
You win or you don't. UCLA hasn't wanted it bad enough. Similar to modern Washington but without the excuse of being located in an area devoid of an abundance of talent
1) You played 11 or 12 games per year over the last 40 years. You have more talent (usually by far) than arguably everybody except 2 teams on your schedule (OSU and ND sometimes). You play in front of the biggest crowd in the country at home and have a college major basically designed to keep everyone eligible (kinesiology).
2) You create the easiest schedule for yourself possible. You refuse to play in the southeastern part of the country (last regular season game there in 1985) and basically are boycotting the west (where you're 0-7 since 1998 when you get there - usually to lose the Rose Bowl). Many years you play your four road games in states which are bordering Michigan (like Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin). You play FSU and Miami at home and never give them a home game. You play Florida and Alabama only at neutral sites.
3) You're 4-12 in Rose Bowls in the last 50 years. You've won 1/2 a national championship in the last 67 years.
4) Since 1975, you have had only ONE season of one or less loss or tie (you know, something that Coach Petersen has done FIVE FUCKING TIMES ALREADY). You think you could just fall into seasons like that every few years with all these advantages.
This Quook faggot (he was dumber and more annoying than Pdx, OneFineDuck, and many others) kept acting like Phoenix had this gigantic amount of talent. I don't follow TBS enough to know if that's true. I know we usually get a couple of guys from there, AZ gets maybe four , and ASU gets several? It's an area of 4,000,000 or maybe a little more so there aren't hundreds of d 1 players.
They suck in Rose Bowels but they have made a ton and they did win the NC in '97.