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.
-
I think I already summed it up. I'm not a guy who writes a lot of dumb words for people to not read. We're #1.creepycoug said:
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.
-
Well Ok. That's good enough for me.PurpleJ said:
I think I already summed it up. I'm not a guy who writes a lot of dumb words for people to not read. We're #1.creepycoug said:
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.
-
Thanks Taft!!!
-
Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component: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.
UW has the coach to maintain this success.
In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted. -
Sure. Which just means that, after four failed attempts to replace James, Washington found their man.FremontTroll said:
Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component: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.
UW has the coach to maintain this success.
In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted. -
No we're #1.FremontTroll said:
Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component: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.
UW has the coach to maintain this success.
In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.
-
WTFAY?
LEAVE -
*Five failed attempts.creepycoug said:
Sure. Which just means that, after four failed attempts to replace James, Washington found their man.FremontTroll said:
Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component: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.
UW has the coach to maintain this success.
In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.
But considering Cal is now on their 13th attempt to replace Pappy I think we made out OK. -
creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30... -
You have Cal ranked way too high IMO.GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30... -
This thread gave me aids and who is this massive faggot?
-
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30...
Second, I'm sitting here in utter disbelief that you bring up empiricism, and then cite "prestige rankings" and concepts of relative fault to predict the future. That's going in the krisvashon HOF.
All-time histories are simply irrelevant, so if Washington wants the coveted "first bitch to USC" status, have at it. It doesn't help or predict anything because it's a distant #2, no-matter who claims it.
What does matter is recent history, built-in advantages and coaching. Period.
If all-time history mattered, Notre Dame would never be down. They are dripping, oozing, with history and prestige. And yet, I haven't seen a truly great ND team since Holtz coached there.
Oregon came w/in an eyelash of doing it recently playing against the best team in the country. UW did it with its greatest team ever in 1991 - 26 years ago - against a team that had its ass cleaned out by Florida State in its own stadium.
If Washington had a compelling advantage built in, I'd buy it. They don't. USC does, and that's why they are always likely to be in the mix. Washington should never be mentioned in an article like Miller's with USC. As someone put it - classic lazy journalism.
HTH -
People east of the Front Range don't give a shit about Kal, Oregon State, Arizona, WSU, or Stanford when they're good - which isn't often (yeah I know Stanford had a little run...historically they're very average). People only cared a little about Oregon for a second because they spent millions for attention which is quickly faded. USC has name recognition. Washington has the capability and more of a history than most. That's what he's saying and he's right. The people getting bent out of shape aren't hardcore fans and/or they're fans of other teams who are part of category a.
-
You can go fuck yourself for being right.creepycoug said:
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30...
Second, I'm sitting here in utter disbelief that you bring up empiricism, and then cite "prestige rankings" and concepts of relative fault to predict the future. That's going in the krisvashon HOF.
All-time histories are simply irrelevant, so if Washington wants the coveted "first bitch to USC" status, have at it. It doesn't help or predict anything because it's a distant #2, no-matter who claims it.
What does matter is recent history, built-in advantages and coaching. Period.
If all-time history mattered, Notre Dame would never be down. They are dripping, oozing, with history and prestige. And yet, I haven't seen a truly great ND team since Holtz coached there.
Oregon came w/in an eyelash of doing it recently playing against the best team in the country. UW did it with its greatest team ever in 1991 - 26 years ago - against a team that had its ass cleaned out by Florida State in its own stadium.
If Washington had a compelling advantage built in, I'd buy it. They don't. USC does, and that's why they are always likely to be in the mix. Washington should never be mentioned in an article like Miller's with USC. As someone put it - classic lazy journalism.
HTH
-
They don't give a shit about Washington when they're good either. If it helps you get through to think otherwise, delude away. The truth is, the Pac 12 is USC and a bunch of other teams that have stretches of respectability that ebb and flow.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:People east of the Front Range don't give a shit about Kal, Oregon State, Arizona, WSU, or Stanford when they're good - which isn't often (yeah I know Stanford had a little run...historically they're very average). People only cared a little about Oregon for a second because they spent millions for attention which is quickly faded. USC has name recognition. Washington has the capability and more of a history than most. That's what he's saying and he's right. The people getting bent out of shape aren't hardcore fans and/or they're fans of other teams who are part of category a.
Outside of one big out of conference bowl win against Oklahoma in the Orange, and a very good team and season in 1991, the rest of Washington's rep rests on winning 7 Rose Bowls, a locked up bowl with a lot of hype. And W's record in that game is a hugely distant second to SC, and is no better than Stanford's (with Furd making one more appearance) and not much better than UCLA's.
Rose Bowel Win/Loss/Tie
USC 25 9
Michigan 8 12
Stanford 7 7 1
Washington 7 6 1
Ohio State 7 7
UCLA 5 7
Nobody knows Washington in the east. They know USC for football and film, UCLA for basketball, and Berkeley and Stanford for academics.
-
Not true. You mention scarves, sustainability, and queers, and Washington jumps right out at you.creepycoug said:
They don't give a shit about Washington when they're good either. If it helps you get through to think otherwise, delude away. The truth is, the Pac 12 is USC and a bunch of other teams that have stretches of respectability that ebb and flow.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:People east of the Front Range don't give a shit about Kal, Oregon State, Arizona, WSU, or Stanford when they're good - which isn't often (yeah I know Stanford had a little run...historically they're very average). People only cared a little about Oregon for a second because they spent millions for attention which is quickly faded. USC has name recognition. Washington has the capability and more of a history than most. That's what he's saying and he's right. The people getting bent out of shape aren't hardcore fans and/or they're fans of other teams who are part of category a.
Outside of one big out of conference bowl win against Oklahoma in the Orange, and a very good team and season in 1991, the rest of Washington's rep rests on winning 7 Rose Bowls, a locked up bowl with a lot of hype. And W's record in that game is a hugely distant second to SC, and is no better than Stanford's (with Furd making one more appearance) and not much better than UCLA's.
Rose Bowel Win/Loss/Tie
USC 25 9
Michigan 8 12
Stanford 7 7 1
Washington 7 6 1
Ohio State 7 7
UCLA 5 7
Nobody knows Washington in the east. They know USC for football and film, UCLA for basketball, and Berkeley and Stanford for academics. -
Ehl O Ehl 'ling right now.Swaye said:
Not true. You mention scarves, sustainability, and queers, and Washington jumps right out at you.creepycoug said:
They don't give a shit about Washington when they're good either. If it helps you get through to think otherwise, delude away. The truth is, the Pac 12 is USC and a bunch of other teams that have stretches of respectability that ebb and flow.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:People east of the Front Range don't give a shit about Kal, Oregon State, Arizona, WSU, or Stanford when they're good - which isn't often (yeah I know Stanford had a little run...historically they're very average). People only cared a little about Oregon for a second because they spent millions for attention which is quickly faded. USC has name recognition. Washington has the capability and more of a history than most. That's what he's saying and he's right. The people getting bent out of shape aren't hardcore fans and/or they're fans of other teams who are part of category a.
Outside of one big out of conference bowl win against Oklahoma in the Orange, and a very good team and season in 1991, the rest of Washington's rep rests on winning 7 Rose Bowls, a locked up bowl with a lot of hype. And W's record in that game is a hugely distant second to SC, and is no better than Stanford's (with Furd making one more appearance) and not much better than UCLA's.
Rose Bowel Win/Loss/Tie
USC 25 9
Michigan 8 12
Stanford 7 7 1
Washington 7 6 1
Ohio State 7 7
UCLA 5 7
Nobody knows Washington in the east. They know USC for football and film, UCLA for basketball, and Berkeley and Stanford for academics.
You mention meth, parking lot rape and cool swag, and Oregon jumps out. -
A "go fuck yourself" from d' flea is a badge of honor in my army. Thank you sir may I have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!dflea said:
You can go fuck yourself for being right.creepycoug said:
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30...
Second, I'm sitting here in utter disbelief that you bring up empiricism, and then cite "prestige rankings" and concepts of relative fault to predict the future. That's going in the krisvashon HOF.
All-time histories are simply irrelevant, so if Washington wants the coveted "first bitch to USC" status, have at it. It doesn't help or predict anything because it's a distant #2, no-matter who claims it.
What does matter is recent history, built-in advantages and coaching. Period.
If all-time history mattered, Notre Dame would never be down. They are dripping, oozing, with history and prestige. And yet, I haven't seen a truly great ND team since Holtz coached there.
Oregon came w/in an eyelash of doing it recently playing against the best team in the country. UW did it with its greatest team ever in 1991 - 26 years ago - against a team that had its ass cleaned out by Florida State in its own stadium.
If Washington had a compelling advantage built in, I'd buy it. They don't. USC does, and that's why they are always likely to be in the mix. Washington should never be mentioned in an article like Miller's with USC. As someone put it - classic lazy journalism.
HTH -
I think I'll rely on analysts and people with 20x more experience evaluating programs over the years, than people drawing up their own narratives so they can sleep at night. You sound like those Zeroes who think college football began in 1994. We'll agree to disagree.creepycoug said:
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.GiantOnMontlake said:creepycoug said:
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.
If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30...
Second, I'm sitting here in utter disbelief that you bring up empiricism, and then cite "prestige rankings" and concepts of relative fault to predict the future. That's going in the krisvashon HOF.
All-time histories are simply irrelevant, so if Washington wants the coveted "first bitch to USC" status, have at it. It doesn't help or predict anything because it's a distant #2, no-matter who claims it.
What does matter is recent history, built-in advantages and coaching. Period.
If all-time history mattered, Notre Dame would never be down. They are dripping, oozing, with history and prestige. And yet, I haven't seen a truly great ND team since Holtz coached there.
Oregon came w/n an eyelash of doing it recently playing aginst the best team in the country. UW did it with its greatest team ever in 1991 - 26 years ago - against a team that had its ass cleaned out by Florida State in its own stadium.
If Washington had a compelling advantage built in, I'd buy it. They don't. USC does, and that's why they are always likely to be in the mix. Washington should never be mentioned in an article like Miller's with USC. As someone put it - classic lazy journalism.
HTH -
If you take away the pick-6 and the long TD run then UW was right in that game...creepycoug said:
They don't give a shit about Washington when they're good either. If it helps you get through to think otherwise, delude away. The truth is, the Pac 12 is USC and a bunch of other teams that have stretches of respectability that ebb and flow.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:People east of the Front Range don't give a shit about Kal, Oregon State, Arizona, WSU, or Stanford when they're good - which isn't often (yeah I know Stanford had a little run...historically they're very average). People only cared a little about Oregon for a second because they spent millions for attention which is quickly faded. USC has name recognition. Washington has the capability and more of a history than most. That's what he's saying and he's right. The people getting bent out of shape aren't hardcore fans and/or they're fans of other teams who are part of category a.
Outside of one big out of conference bowl win against Oklahoma in the Orange, and a very good team and season in 1991, the rest of Washington's rep rests on winning 7 Rose Bowls, a locked up bowl with a lot of hype. And W's record in that game is a hugely distant second to SC, and is no better than Stanford's (with Furd making one more appearance) and not much better than UCLA's.
Rose Bowel Win/Loss/Tie
USC 25 9
Michigan 8 12
Stanford 7 7 1
Washington 7 6 1
Ohio State 7 7
UCLA 5 7
Nobody knows Washington in the east. They know USC for football and film, UCLA for basketball, and Berkeley and Stanford for academics.
