Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Joseph Ngata, 5* 2019 WR, Folsom, CA (WE FUCKED THE POOCH)
Comments
-
Oh Jesus.Tequilla said:How SC is anybody's dream school that isn't a spoiled rich kid I have no idea ...
-
It's pretty simple. They've won the most. Nobody wins forever and always. This is as retarded as your blue blood non-sense. Alabama has disappeared for long stretches of time. As has Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc.Tequilla said:
It's good marketing and perception ...dnc said:
So they have one less title than number two and number three combined.Tequilla said:And since I'm completely off my rocker, conference championships (including shares of) since 1975 in the PAC:
USC = 16
Washington = 9
UCLA = 8
Oregon = 7
Stanford = 5
Arizona St = 3
Cal = 2
Washington St = 2
Oregon St = 1
Arizona = 1
And USC's titles by time period:
1975 - 1984 = 4
1985 - 1994 = 4
1995 - 2004 = 4
2005 - 2014 = 4
2015 - Present = 0
USC hasn't won a PAC title since 2008 ... I wouldn't call that dominant.
That's the definition of premier.
If you look at the total numbers it says SC is the power ...
If you look at conference titles by decade ... you get the illusion that SC is a power ...
But SC is working on a decade without a championship and has really only had 1 high end coach over that time period (Petey - who accounted for 7 of the 16 titles) ...
Let's extrapolate this out another 10 years here to 2024 (that's 8 more seasons) ... I'd be willing to bet that UW wins at least 4 of the 8 championships ... do you think Clay Helton is going to have a 4 in 10 year run in him? I don't. UW will continue to close the gap.
I get what SC is ... it's branded itself to the point that most buy the hype when they haven't done shit to earn it (see this offseason as Exhibit A). They will almost always be the first choice of most LA kids that are looking to stay local. That doesn't mean that they are the best choice.
Back up for a bit and realize that UW over the 42 year period basically had shit for HC from 1993 through 2013 ... we won (or had a share of) 2 conference titles in that time period. I think we all are in agreement that when UW has the right coach in place they are as dangerous as any program in the conference.
Compare SC's track record (previous post) to UW's over the same period:
1975 - 1984 = 3
1985 - 1994 = 3
1995 - 2004 = 2
2005 - 2015 = 0
2015 - Present = 1
It's not hard to see that we are every bit as capable as USC is ... WHEN we have the right coach in place. If anything, we're better positioned under Pete than we were even under Don James. And for as much fun as it is to clown some of the former coaches SC has had, only Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett qualify as absolute disasters. John Robinson (particularly the 1st time around) was at worst above average and Larry Smith was probably average (I'd say Clay Helton will be fortunate to get to this level). Lambo is the definition of average for us ... Slick's been proven to be largely below average ... Gilby was a disaster as a HC at both Cal and UW ... Tyrone was cashing checks ... and Sark was a drunk. Hard to get much worse of a 20 year run. Pete's turned that around ... as we continue to win at a high level, the perception of where UW stands in the pecking order of the West Coast will continually to change for the better.
If we picked random periods of time, everybody is something, or nothing.
Yeah, Oregon has had a long and sustained run in this conference. Period. During that time, it wasn't SC.
But SC has had the most runs in the conference. They keep coming back and making runs. Other schools, not so much. They are, w/o question, the class of the conference. They are the standard. -
'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.
We got their best game and lost. -
I agree 100% with this ... and that is what I'm expecting going forward. But because of coaching, UW is in a better position than USC.RaceBannon said:'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.
We got their best game and lost.
Our biggest issue will be recruiting at a comparable level to them - if we can we should be able to beat them more often than not.
I'm not arguing that SC isn't in the most advantageous position in the conference ... what I am arguing is that the idea that they are just this slam dunk I'm going to go here because they are the best option isn't accurate as I think at least for the next 5-10 years UW is well positioned. -
UW has the best coach, ergo UW is the best option. We all agree on that.Tequilla said:
I agree 100% with this ... and that is what I'm expecting going forward. But because of coaching, UW is in a better position than USC.RaceBannon said:'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.
We got their best game and lost.
Our biggest issue will be recruiting at a comparable level to them - if we can we should be able to beat them more often than not.
I'm not arguing that SC isn't in the most advantageous position in the conference ... what I am arguing is that the idea that they are just this slam dunk I'm going to go here because they are the best option isn't accurate as I think at least for the next 5-10 years UW is well positioned.
But you said only spoiled rich kids should see SC as their dream school and that's nuts. SC isn't even the rich kids school of choice for football, that's UCLA. It's been the premier program in the conference for decades. Of course it's plenty of kids' dream school.
It's going to take more than one playoff year where we got smoked by SC at our place for California kids to realize we're a better option. -
Nobody ever gives a shit about coaching if they want to go to USC. USC kicked ass in recruiting when Paul Hackett was there, for fucks sake. As good as Oregon has been since 2009, I can still count the number of recruiting battles Oregon won against USC on one hand.
All of this fag talk about Peterman is great and all, he won 12 games last year, kudos. You dildos are still as far away from SoCal as you can possibly be without being in Canada.
-
The spoiled rich kid thing is a hangover admissions rep. of SC's from the old days, and it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with football. SC has been recruiting the same players forever, and few have been from wealthy backgrounds.
The rap, which was at least based in truth (like most stereotypes) was that it was the place you went if you couldn't get into UCLA and your parents could hack the tuition.
Private school admissions has changed drastically in that regard, and it's no longer an accurate description of SC. Though SC notoriously games the system to inflate their admissions stats. That's a topic for another bored.
-
Mods, please to be changing this OP to @AlanSmitheeDawg
-
GrundleStiltzkin said:
Mods, please to be changing this OP to @AlanSmitheeDawg
chance -
GrundleStiltzkin said:
Mods, please to be changing this OP to @AlanSmitheeDawg
prayer
