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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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.
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.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
You can go fuck yourself for being right.
A "go fuck yourself" from d' flea is a badge of honor in my army. Thank you sir may I have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
You are struggling badly. Take a nap. That was horrible. You didn't respond to one thing I wrote, while I responded/refuted everything you wrote. That means you failed. Ted Miller??? Did you just get here?
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
Leave and then kill yourself.
And when you're done killing yourself, check out the impiracal data supporting my claim that you are a dumb fuck.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
Leave and then kill yourself.
And when you're done killing yourself, check out the impiracal imcaracal data supporting my claim that you are a dumb fuck.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
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.
Leave and then kill yourself.
Time for someone to take their meds.
Well if that's the narrative you want to go with.
I'll focus on the impericle data that I don't need meds.
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?
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...
First, don't use $10 words if you can't spell them.
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
You can go fuck yourself for being right.
A "go fuck yourself" from d' flea is a badge of honor in my army. Thank you sir may I have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments
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
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.
And you're overusing 'narrative'.
The essence of HH