ESPN Article - The rise of UW and USC is good for the PAC-12

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

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.

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.

haie said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

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.

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.

creepycoug said:

haie said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

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.

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.

creepycoug said:

dflea said:

creepycoug said:

GiantOnMontlake said:

creepycoug said:

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

So I hear from the grapevine that these two (el o el) incredibly prestigious and national progrums have not played each other as top 10 teams since 1972. EL O FUCKING EL

Yeah, sounds like a clash of the fucking titans. Should be speshul.

Let the rationalization, err, "narrative", begin ....

When the two schools last played each other ranked in the top 10 on the date of the game (or ended the season ranked that high) is another research project. The evidence I provided you was based on pre-season rankings- i.e., 1972 was the last time they began the season ranked that high and then proceeded to meet on the field. Again, keep working on the reading comprehension skills.

creepycoug said:

Gladstone said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

So I hear from the grapevine that these two (el o el) incredibly prestigious and national progrums have not played each other as top 10 teams since 1972. EL O FUCKING EL

Yeah, sounds like a clash of the fucking titans. Should be speshul.

Let the rationalization, err, "narrative", begin ....

When the two schools last played each other ranked in the top 10 on the date of the game (or ended the season ranked that high) is another research project. The evidence I provided you was based on pre-season rankings- i.e., 1972 was the last time they began the season ranked that high and then proceeded to meet on the field. Again, keep working on the reading comprehension skills.

Thanks for the set-up dick head. Who the fuck cares about that?

How about poasting more interesting "facts".

this sperg raging lol

hey look tierbs upvoted him too

get hondo sled and doogie and maybe we can put on a festival

You again? Shouldn't you have your Dad's cock in your mouth at this point in the evening?

TurdBuffer said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

haie said:

Gladstone said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

So I hear from the grapevine that these two (el o el) incredibly prestigious and national progrums have not played each other as top 10 teams since 1972. EL O FUCKING EL

Yeah, sounds like a clash of the fucking titans. Should be speshul.

Let the rationalization, err, "narrative", begin ....

When the two schools last played each other ranked in the top 10 on the date of the game (or ended the season ranked that high) is another research project. The evidence I provided you was based on pre-season rankings- i.e., 1972 was the last time they began the season ranked that high and then proceeded to meet on the field. Again, keep working on the reading comprehension skills.

Thanks for the set-up dick head. Who the fuck cares about that?

How about poasting more interesting "facts".

this sperg raging lol

hey look tierbs upvoted him too

get hondo sled and doogie and maybe we can put on a festival

Creepy is the funniest poaster here and a pretty standard doog test.

You didn't pass.

Uh, you're pretty much the gold standard of doog poasters, right after TurdBuffet. HTH.

It's an honor to be the object of your scorn @OregonBlitzingFaggotWithFullBlownAids.

oregonblitzkrieg said:

TurdBuffer said:

How may hours of your life have I stolen? You've been rooting through poasts from 2 years ago for downvote material. Time you could have spent two holing your dumpster muffin wife or teaching your dooglets how to poast like Septuple Warrior Haie. Trololololol!11!111



LEAVE.

oregonblitzkrieg said:

TurdBuffer said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

haie said:

Gladstone said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

So I hear from the grapevine that these two (el o el) incredibly prestigious and national progrums have not played each other as top 10 teams since 1972. EL O FUCKING EL

Yeah, sounds like a clash of the fucking titans. Should be speshul.

Let the rationalization, err, "narrative", begin ....

When the two schools last played each other ranked in the top 10 on the date of the game (or ended the season ranked that high) is another research project. The evidence I provided you was based on pre-season rankings- i.e., 1972 was the last time they began the season ranked that high and then proceeded to meet on the field. Again, keep working on the reading comprehension skills.

Thanks for the set-up dick head. Who the fuck cares about that?

How about poasting more interesting "facts".

this sperg raging lol

hey look tierbs upvoted him too

get hondo sled and doogie and maybe we can put on a festival

Creepy is the funniest poaster here and a pretty standard doog test.

You didn't pass.

Uh, you're pretty much the gold standard of doog poasters, right after TurdBuffet. HTH.

It's an honor to be the object of your scorn @OregonBlitzingFaggotWithFullBlownAids.

How may hours of your life have I stolen? You've been rooting through poasts from 2 years ago for downvote material. Time you could have spent two holing your dumpster muffin wife or teaching your dooglets how to poast like Septuple Warrior Haie. Trololololol!11!111



LEAVE.