Stars don't matter Twat of the day
Comments
-
That's not the point. UW with good/great coaches (i.e., not named Lambo, Gilby, Ty, Sark) is a program that has historically outperformed their recruiting rankings. Same with Oregon after football was invented in 1994 for that matter. USC and Texas, however, are the two biggest blue blood underachievers in modern era college football. In the past 40 years those 2 programs have combined for a whopping 3.5 national titles.Mosster47 said:
That's the same number as UW....YellowSnow said:
Yeah winning the Pac once since 2008 is really special.WeakarmCobra said:
USC won the pac-12YellowSnow said:
I poasted this tongue in cheek. Of, course, stars matter greatly BUT only with good coaches. USC and Texas are laughing stocks.kirkland88 said:Nice little cherry picked stat. Went out and found a program that underachieved and a program that overachieved and threw that one together. Another attempt at trying to temper expectations. Just because UW does not offer or get a commitment from a recruit doesn't make them a bad prospect. The whole OKG thing is just an excuse for missing on talent repeatedly. Why offer if they aren't OKG anyway? You fuckin leg lifters are delusional as all hell. Out here trying to say your talent evaluators are so good that you are just going to pass on guys the rest of the country and recruiting world have put their stamp on. SMH. They really broke the mold with you idiots.
-
Football wasn't reinvented until 2016, so what the fuck is your point?Mosster47 said:
That's the same number as UW....YellowSnow said:
Yeah winning the Pac once since 2008 is really special.WeakarmCobra said:
USC won the pac-12YellowSnow said:
I poasted this tongue in cheek. Of, course, stars matter greatly BUT only with good coaches. USC and Texas are laughing stocks.kirkland88 said:Nice little cherry picked stat. Went out and found a program that underachieved and a program that overachieved and threw that one together. Another attempt at trying to temper expectations. Just because UW does not offer or get a commitment from a recruit doesn't make them a bad prospect. The whole OKG thing is just an excuse for missing on talent repeatedly. Why offer if they aren't OKG anyway? You fuckin leg lifters are delusional as all hell. Out here trying to say your talent evaluators are so good that you are just going to pass on guys the rest of the country and recruiting world have put their stamp on. SMH. They really broke the mold with you idiots.
-
People seem to forget that UW accomplished a perfect season with a head coach that didn't believe in recruiting.
That was 2008 though and the landscape has changed with the cell phones and twatters and what not coming out. -
But I'm hearing they're a storied blueblood, the premiere program on the west coast.YellowSnow said:
Yeah winning the Pac once since 2008 is really special.WeakarmCobra said:
USC won the pac-12YellowSnow said:
I poasted this tongue in cheek. Of, course, stars matter greatly BUT only with good coaches. USC and Texas are laughing stocks.kirkland88 said:Nice little cherry picked stat. Went out and found a program that underachieved and a program that overachieved and threw that one together. Another attempt at trying to temper expectations. Just because UW does not offer or get a commitment from a recruit doesn't make them a bad prospect. The whole OKG thing is just an excuse for missing on talent repeatedly. Why offer if they aren't OKG anyway? You fuckin leg lifters are delusional as all hell. Out here trying to say your talent evaluators are so good that you are just going to pass on guys the rest of the country and recruiting world have put their stamp on. SMH. They really broke the mold with you idiots.
-
".5"YellowSnow said:
That's not the point. UW with good/great coaches (i.e., not named Lambo, Gilby, Ty, Sark) is a program that has historically outperformed their recruiting rankings. Same with Oregon after football was invented in 1994 for that matter. USC and Texas, however, are the two biggest blue blood underachievers in modern era college football. In the past 40 years those 2 programs have combined for a whopping 3.5 national titles.Mosster47 said:
That's the same number as UW....YellowSnow said:
Yeah winning the Pac once since 2008 is really special.WeakarmCobra said:
USC won the pac-12YellowSnow said:
I poasted this tongue in cheek. Of, course, stars matter greatly BUT only with good coaches. USC and Texas are laughing stocks.kirkland88 said:Nice little cherry picked stat. Went out and found a program that underachieved and a program that overachieved and threw that one together. Another attempt at trying to temper expectations. Just because UW does not offer or get a commitment from a recruit doesn't make them a bad prospect. The whole OKG thing is just an excuse for missing on talent repeatedly. Why offer if they aren't OKG anyway? You fuckin leg lifters are delusional as all hell. Out here trying to say your talent evaluators are so good that you are just going to pass on guys the rest of the country and recruiting world have put their stamp on. SMH. They really broke the mold with you idiots.
Doog POTD. -
Oh I forgot OBK, the "voters" had nothing to do with Nick Saban getting his first NT that year. It was "decided on the field".oregonblitzkrieg said:
".5"YellowSnow said:
That's not the point. UW with good/great coaches (i.e., not named Lambo, Gilby, Ty, Sark) is a program that has historically outperformed their recruiting rankings. Same with Oregon after football was invented in 1994 for that matter. USC and Texas, however, are the two biggest blue blood underachievers in modern era college football. In the past 40 years those 2 programs have combined for a whopping 3.5 national titles.Mosster47 said:
That's the same number as UW....YellowSnow said:
Yeah winning the Pac once since 2008 is really special.WeakarmCobra said:
USC won the pac-12YellowSnow said:
I poasted this tongue in cheek. Of, course, stars matter greatly BUT only with good coaches. USC and Texas are laughing stocks.kirkland88 said:Nice little cherry picked stat. Went out and found a program that underachieved and a program that overachieved and threw that one together. Another attempt at trying to temper expectations. Just because UW does not offer or get a commitment from a recruit doesn't make them a bad prospect. The whole OKG thing is just an excuse for missing on talent repeatedly. Why offer if they aren't OKG anyway? You fuckin leg lifters are delusional as all hell. Out here trying to say your talent evaluators are so good that you are just going to pass on guys the rest of the country and recruiting world have put their stamp on. SMH. They really broke the mold with you idiots.
Doog POTD.
Christ almighty - stick to pumping my gas, quook. -
I've always thought Texas cares too much about stars. The fan pressure and hype of getting certain in state guys hurts their program.
That said, the real problem has been coaching and developing the players. I bet a lot of those guys are overrated though. -
Herman seems like a dickhead. I doubt Texas players would vote him in as coach if it were up to them.
-
No.RoadDawg55 said:I've always thought Texas cares too much about stars. The fan pressure and hype of getting certain in state guys hurts their program.
Yes, yes, and yes.RoadDawg55 said:That said, the real problem has been coaching and developing the players. I bet a lot of those guys are overrated though.
-
Fortunately that doesnt matter, if you are good at coaching.oregonblitzkrieg said:Herman seems like a dickhead. I doubt Texas players would vote him in as coach if it were up to them.
