The conference now vs 10 years ago: was it better then?
Washington: Willingham // Petersen -- lol improved by a thousand oceans and heavens and parsecs. Way better now.
Washington State: Wulff // Leach -- significantly improved from dead last SRS, avg L margin 34.5, upper tier conference team now. Way better now.
Oregon State: Riley // Smith -- notably worse, went 7-2 in conference in 2008 and finished 3rd. Pure dreck now. Way worse now.
Oregon: Belotti (Chip as OC puppermaster) // Cristobal -- worse by many orders of magnitude. Way worse now.
The PNW schools are about the same, with just the two states having flipped in relevance.
Cal: Tedford // Wilcox -- in '08 Cal finished 9-3, 7-2. Wilcox could turn out OK but is largely still an unknown. Somewhat worse now.
@BearsWiin. Stanford: Harbaugh // Shaw -- Year 2 of Khakis went 5-7 , Stanford now has been the toast of the conference for nearly a decade. Embarrassing. <b class="Bold">Way better now.
USC: Carroll // Helton -- 2008 was the last great year for Pete's dynasty. Way worse now.
UCLA: Neuheisel // Kelly -- 46-7 pedigree of terrorizing the P12 gives Chip the default win over skippy. Way better now.
USC, of course, is the argument for the conference being better 10 years ago because the conference truly had an elite team, amazing coaching staff, and was capable of winning the NC. If the playoffs existed in the 2000s how many more would USC have? At least one.
Arizona: Stoops // Sumlin -- This was the apex of Stoops' ever consistent barrage of 8-5 seasons. Midly decent at best and unremarkable. A&M reject Sumlin comes in to replace a program that is sub .500 the past 4 years. Slightly worse now.
Arizona State: Erickson // Edwards -- The alchy from Everett went 5-7 in 2008, but the bizarre Edwards hire does not portend well. Somewhat worse now.
Way better now: UW, WSU, Stanford, UCLA
Somewhat Better now:
Way worse now: Oregon State, Oregon, USC
Somewhat Worse: Cal, Arizona, Arizona State
For comparison's sake I didn't include Utah and Colorado, although they've largely lowered the conference's value. MacIntyre is flailing in mediocrity oblivion save one outlier year. Utah is the only team that hasn't won the south IIRC.
I'd say because of the ceiling being that much higher with USC, 2008 was a stronger year for the pac as it is now, although the depth to which people say the P12 has fallen is a bit overblown because it wasn't great 10 years ago, either.
Comments
-
this would have made a great poll, Gladdy!
-
Cunt!
-
DisagreeGladstone said:I'm looking at the teams as they were perceived in 2008, so I tried to disregard things like Cal's impending collapse because in '08 no one really would have guessed the extent of their downfall. Tedford had them pretty alright for a good long while.
Washington: Willingham // Petersen -- lol improved by a thousand oceans and heavens and parsecs. Way better now.
Washington State: Wulff // Leach -- significantly improved from dead last SRS, avg L margin 34.5, upper tier conference team now. Way better now.
Oregon State: Riley // Smith -- notably worse, went 7-2 in conference in 2008 and finished 3rd. Pure dreck now. Way worse now.
Oregon: Belotti (Chip as OC puppermaster) // Cristobal -- worse by many orders of magnitude. Way worse now.
The PNW schools are about the same, with just the two states having flipped in relevance.
Cal: Tedford // Wilcox -- in '08 Cal finished 9-3, 7-2. Wilcox could turn out OK but is largely still an unknown. Somewhat worse now.@BearsWiin.
Stanford: Harbaugh // Shaw -- Year 2 of Khakis went 5-7 , Stanford now has been the toast of the conference for nearly a decade. Embarrassing. <b class="Bold">Way better now.
USC: Carroll // Helton -- 2008 was the last great year for Pete's dynasty. Way worse now.
UCLA: Neuheisel // Kelly -- 46-7 pedigree of terrorizing the P12 gives Chip the default win over skippy. Way better now.
USC, of course, is the argument for the conference being better 10 years ago because the conference truly had an elite team, amazing coaching staff, and was capable of winning the NC. If the playoffs existed in the 2000s how many more would USC have? At least one.
Arizona: Stoops // Sumlin -- This was the apex of Stoops' ever consistent barrage of 8-5 seasons. Midly decent at best and unremarkable. A&M reject Sumlin comes in to replace a program that is sub .500 the past 4 years. Slightly worse now.
Arizona State: Erickson // Edwards -- The alchy from Everett went 5-7 in 2008, but the bizarre Edwards hire does not portend well. Somewhat worse now.
Way better now: UW, WSU, Stanford, UCLA
Somewhat Better now:
Way worse now: Oregon State, Oregon, USC
Somewhat Worse: Cal, Arizona, Arizona State
For comparison's sake I didn't include Utah and Colorado, although they've largely lowered the conference's value. MacIntyre is flailing in mediocrity oblivion save one outlier year. Utah is the only team that hasn't won the south IIRC.
I'd say because of the ceiling being that much higher with USC, 2008 was a stronger year for the pac as it is now, although the depth to which people say the P12 has fallen is a bit overblown because it wasn't great 10 years ago, either. -
USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though. -
fuck man. 2008-2010 was the dark days. My freshman year we won 10 games then it was horse shit after that.
Honestly the only good memory I can think of is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omhoUYoSDlM
-
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
-
Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome. -
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016 -
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me. -
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre. -
This is really the key: who do we? Beat OOC. Beat an SEC team or high level B10 or ACC and the conference has instant legitimacy.haie said:
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre. -
When did Arizona become an 8/9 win team? They have won more than 7 games once in the past 10 years. And averaged around 5/6.haie said:
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
Or has the weird preseason hype on utah and arizona clouded your mind?
-
fuck arizona and fuck tate. Dude went off against like Colorado and UCLA (the worst rushing defenses in the world) and everyone thought he was good.
Here's how fucking shitty colorados D is. This was part of a 400 yard rushing performance.
http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21292722
-
I just don't think the conference cares about the dick measuring contests if it's not the playoffs though. Is it really a surprise that the 2 teams who expected to make the playoffs we're complete duds in their "big time" bowls against the "hated" b1g? They don't think like the diehard fanscreepycoug said:
This is really the key: who do we? Beat OOC. Beat an SEC team or high level B10 or ACC and the conference has instant legitimacy.haie said:
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre. -
Last year those 2 teams (possibly Utah, before they collapsed) replaced your bRuins and devil's. That's all I'm saying. I don't think UCLA, ASU being bad means anything different than when they're relatively good: always good talent, always brotastic coaching staffs.Pitchfork51 said:
When did Arizona become an 8/9 win team? They have won more than 7 games once in the past 10 years. And averaged around 5/6.haie said:
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
Or has the weird preseason hype on utah and arizona clouded your mind? -
The conference 10 years ago was infinitely better because USC was fresh off some natties and the SEC hadn't butt fucked everyone for 10+ years.
The nation actually respected West Coast football and now no one gives a shit -
USC always paid a bigger price for blowing a league game and going 11 and 1 than a SEC team did
-
Basically it's mostly about natties, which isn't really a transparent, fair process, but it never really has been. We only have two in 25 or 26 years now and it's hurting the perception.
-
Fuck offPitchfork51 said:fuck man. 2008-2010 was the dark days. My freshman year we won 10 games then it was horse shit after that.
Honestly the only good memory I can think of ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omhoUYoSDlM -
Don't discourage him from on topic, cogent posts. Even if they're at UW's expense. This is a big step.HUSKYFANATIC said:
Fuck offPitchfork51 said:fuck man. 2008-2010 was the dark days. My freshman year we won 10 games then it was horse shit after that.
Honestly the only good memory I can think of ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omhoUYoSDlM -
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working. -
By being worse than both asu and ucla?haie said:
Last year those 2 teams (possibly Utah, before they collapsed) replaced your bRuins and devil's. That's all I'm saying. I don't think UCLA, ASU being bad means anything different than when they're relatively good: always good talent, always brotastic coaching staffs.Pitchfork51 said:
When did Arizona become an 8/9 win team? They have won more than 7 games once in the past 10 years. And averaged around 5/6.haie said:
Ehh UCLA and ASU flipped with WSU and Arizona. 8-9 win teams that are relevant part of the year.Pitchfork51 said:
Usually if the middle of the pack teams are unusually good or unusually bad that's what pushes the needle either way.haie said:
They were all roughly the same, is the correct answer. No one cares some doogs thought Oregon was only good because Washington was down.creepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
Every year in the pac 12 you have 1-2 good to very good teams to beat, and 3 or so really solid teams to not fuck up against. Plus maybe your 1 or so trap game to a shitty team (Stanford Beavlets 2017, UW Arizona 2016, UW ASU 2017)
Whether that means the conference is awful or not doesn't matter, it's roughly the same in difficulty every year. 2010 and 2014 weren't different than 2016
If you think of the middle of the road teams the past decade which are Utah, ASU, UW, UCLA you get UCLA and ASU that have been really up or down. Utah and UW relatively consistent.
So when both ASU and UCLA suck the conference is awful.
And UW just traded places with oregon recently so nothings changedtherewith me.
Cal and UCLA won OOC games against the SEC. The conference wasn't terrible, it's just that the team that won it had a ton of hype, more than just winning the conference, which probably was a bad call anyways because their coach is really mediocre.
Or has the weird preseason hype on utah and arizona clouded your mind? -
Congrats on shaking and vomiting over some friendly off-season banter.Mosster47 said:
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working. -
You're shit poasting again.haie said:
Congrats on shaking and vomiting over some friendly off-season banter.Mosster47 said:
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working. -
Like "Oregon wins it all...Ohio State is really good," type of shit poasting?Mosster47 said:
You're shit poasting again.haie said:
Congrats on shaking and vomiting over some friendly off-season banter.Mosster47 said:
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working.
Or the "I went fishing during the 38-3 game," kind?
-
And rightfully so.PostGameOrangeSlices said:The conference 10 years ago was infinitely better because USC was fresh off some natties and the SEC hadn't butt fucked everyone for 10+ years.
The nation actually respected West Coast football and now no one gives a shit
Beat Auburn.
-
Icreepycoug said:Let me give you outsiders the HCH formula: Washington Good = Conference is Good. USC Good = Conference is Good. Washington and USC Good = Conference is Apex. Oregon Good = Conference Bad.
It's really that simple. The doogs will pull hamstrings rationalizing this formula through the ages.
You're welcome.
respect the formula -
Cuogs have taken a step back.
-
One of the best things about HH is the bonding that takes place between Ducks and Dawgs over their Mosster trolling.haie said:
Like "Oregon wins it all...Ohio State is really good," type of shit poasting?Mosster47 said:
You're shit poasting again.haie said:
Congrats on shaking and vomiting over some friendly off-season banter.Mosster47 said:
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working.
Or the "I went fishing during the 38-3 game," kind? -
ntxduck said:
One of the best things about HH is the bonding that takes place between Ducks and Dawgs over their Mosster trolling.
haie said:
Like "Oregon wins it all...Ohio State is really good," type of shit poasting?Mosster47 said:
You're shit poasting again.haie said:
Congrats on shaking and vomiting over some friendly off-season banter.Mosster47 said:
Oregon best player on offense in 2016 was a true freshman QB or a WR that finished at Utah and their best player on defense was a true freshman LB. Freeman was mailing it in that year like he did last year when Herbie went down.haie said:
I mostly agree with your take that UW is a good but not great program under Petersen, but the 2016 schtick is laughable. Oregon had a horrible defense and ASU was shittier than usual. That was it.Mosster47 said:USC was at the end of their run.
UCLA was UCLA.
Cal was on Ted's free fall.
Stanford was awful.
Oregon was under Bellotti.
OS was under Riley.
UA was UA.
ASU peaked the year before.
UW was UW.
Wazzu was Wazzu.
As all of these better then vs now things always come to the same conclusion; this conference blows regardless of time frame. If USC happens to be good the conference has a team that actually competes nationally. If USC is bad they don't.
For the mega-doogs trying to rewrite history Oregon was an 8 or 9 win team back then just like they are now and will be. Outside of those four years of Chip the Ducks have been an 8 or 9 win team since football was invented.
2009 was probably the worst year this conference has had in the last twenty. There wasn't even a conference race that year. A mediocre Oregon team played two good teams, got pushed around by both and lost to a bad Stanford team. If I remember right the team that finished second that year only had 6 conference wins and it might have been UA. 2016 wasn't really much different though.
The good teams in conference were Utah, SC, WAzzu, Stanford, and Colorado. 3 of those games on the road including the one at Oregon. Lost only 1 of those by 13 and absolutely rolled everyone else except Utah.
If the conference was historically bad that year than Oregon wins 2-3 more games just with the residual talent from 2014.
Congrats on losing to SC and winning the conference and I'm glad we live in a world right now where that is possible, but trying to rewrite Oregon history for your Doog insecurities just isn't working.
Or the "I went fishing during the 38-3 game," kind?
