ESPN Article - The rise of UW and USC is good for the PAC-12
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/108056/usc-washington-rising-benefits-pac-12
Comments
-
Was the author from Auburn by chance?
-
They write variations of the same twaddle every few years when USC looks like it might get its shit together. UW's and USC's rise is good for UW and USC, not the rest of the conference. When Oregon and furd were good, it was good for Oregon and furd, and the lazy national media thought the conference was down because USC wasn't in the mix. Before that, when USC was dominant, it didn't help Cal's BCS chances in 2004, or Oregon's or UCLA's chances in 2005. The eastern half of the country barely realizes that we* play football out here.
What, then, is good for the conference? For the conference to shitstomp every OOC opponent both before conference play starts in their bowl games. -
The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.
Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?
But this is where he really fell down:
USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2
I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?
Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.
I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.
Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.
To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.
-
If Ted Miller's from Auburn, that's news to me.
-
Agree with the OP: Mike Seaver will be here soon.
-
Exactly, but this piece plays right into the "rightful place" doog crowd perfectly. Almost as if they collected a fund and paid Miller to write it.BearsWiin said:UW's and USC's rise is good for UW and USC, not the rest of the conference.
"Hey Ted, make sure you make us USC's first level bitch. They respect us the most."
-
creepycoug said:
The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.
Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?
But this is where he really fell down:
USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2
I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?
Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.
I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.
Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.
To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.
Hardly USC and the little sisters anymore. -
Wow. It's almost like you didn't read the article that you linked. Missing the point perhaps?GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.
Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?
But this is where he really fell down:
USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2
I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?
Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.
I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.
Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.
To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.
Hardly USC and the little sisters anymore.
I'll help - a little - the article rests on some notion that USC and Washington are the conference's two prestige power programs and thus are the ones most likely to win a title. The basis for that as applied to SC is abundantly clear. For Washington, it's not, and he did a shitty job making his case.
Historically, yes, it's USC and her little, much, much younger, sisters. -
I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.
-
Care to elaborate?PurpleJ said:I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.
