Debunking the Pac-12 is tougher now than under James myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter [Deleted User]
  • Start date Start date
D

[Deleted User]

Guest
I'm only going to compare the first five years as James has more of a weight. However the Pac-12 back then was Pac-8 so four less teams meaning less team could possibly be ranked so I'll just a % of teams ranked by them. For fun I'll also include what their record was against ranked teams who finished the season ranked. Also keep in mind up until 1988 was only top 20 so I won't include teams ranked 21-25 in the Sark era or I'll make a note of it.

I'll start with James

1975: Year One

Pac-8 had 3 teams ranked: 37.5%
One team top 10: 12.5%
One team top 5: 12.5%

Don James record vs ranked teams in conference: 2-1 including wins over eventual #5 ranked and Rose Bowl champion UCLA on the fucking road in November. Lost to eventual #14 Cal on the road 27-24 in November and defeated eventual #17 USC 8-7 in November. All three games were in a row as James was turning the ship around.

1976: Year two

Pac-8 had 2 teams ranked: 25%
One team top 10: 12.5%
One team top 5: 12.5%
Don James record: 0-2, USC finished year ranked #2.

1977: Year three

Pac-8 teams had 3 teams ranked: 37.5%
One top 10 team: 12.5%
Top 5: 0%
Don James record: 2-0.

Huskies finished ranked 10th in the nation

1978: Year Four

Pac-10 teams had 3 teams ranked: 30%
One top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Don James record: 1-2

1979: Year Five

Pac-10 had 2 teams ranked: 20%
One top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Don James: 0-1 as he lost 24-17 to eventual national champion USC

UW final ranking was 11th.

Now the Seven win Steve era where in 2011-13 teams are feasting on Utah/Colorado.

2009: Year one

Pac-10 has one team ranked: 10%(USC was 22nd but under old format not ranked)
Top 10: 0%
Top 5: 0%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-1, highest ranked team was Oregon at 11th

2010: Year two

Pac-10 has two teams ranked: 20%
Top 10: 20%
Top 5: 20%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-2, lost by a combined score of 94-16 to #3 Oregon and #4 Stanford

2011: Year three

Pac-12 has three teams ranked: 25%
Top 10: 25%
Top 5: 8.3%
Steve Sarkisian: 0-3, lost by a combined score of 139-55 to #4 Oregon, #7 Stanford and #6 USC

2012: Year Four

Pac-12 has three teams ranked: 25%
Top 10 2 teams: 16.6%
Top 5 one team: 8.3%
Steve Sarkisian: 2-1 as he defeated #7 Stanford, a RANKED OREGON STATE(#20) but was killed on the road to Oregon 52-21

2013: Year Five, which is up to date so could change

Pac-12 has 4 teams ranked(USC is #23 so doesn't count under old format): 33.3%
Pac-12 has 2 teams top 10: 16.6%
Pac-12 has one team top 5: 8.3%

Steve Sarkisian: 0-4 so far.

Those rankings could change as UCLA is #14 plays #19 ASU while #23 USC still has to play UCLA. One of those three will play at Oregon as well so one will drop out if not two.

So let's add up the results shall we?

Don James first 5 years:

Pac-10/8 had 13 teams ranked out of 44 possible teams: 29.5%
Pac-10/8 had 5 teams in the top 10: 11.3%
Pac-10/8 had 4 teams in the top 5: 8.8%
Don James record vs ranked opponents: 5-6(45.5%)

Steve Sarkisian first 5 years:

Pac-10/12 had 13 teams ranked out of a possible 56 teams: 23.2%
Pac-10/12 had 9 teams ranked in the top 10: 16.0%
Pac-10/12 had 5 teams ranked in the top 5: 8.9%
Steve Sarkisian record vs ranked opponents: 2-11(15.3%)

So for all this talk that Sarkisian has had it tougher he has only coached against two more conference opponents who were ranked than James did in five years. James is often hurt in this strength of schedule argument as his teams typical won a lot so his teams were ranked while his opponents wouldn't be. Say Sarkisian had defeated ASU they wouldn't been ranked.

Sure James never had to face a RANKED OREGON STATE or the Ducks when they were powerhouses like Sark has. However, when James coached the LA schools were always ranked and he always to face them both while Sarkisian in only two out of five seasons has had to face the LA schools in the same year(3-4 all-time vs them). Sarkisian in two out of five seasons has only had to face the Arizona Schools three times in the same year(3-5 all-time vs them). Instead he has gotten to play Colorado and Utah who he is 5-0 against.

Despite what Fleenor, Kim and others want you to believe the conference is just as strong back when James was breaking into the conference as when Sarkisian was. The only difference is James was defeating those opponents and in his losses was going toe to toe. Meanwhile Sarkisian isn't defeating those ranked opponents and is often being destroyed.
 
@heretobeatmychest here is another nugget for your Fire Sark site.
 
I love that Doogs just throw out random crap without doing any fact checking at all. Any time someone does research it always shows what they are saying is completely full of shit.

However, Doogs are scare of facts so they know they won't even bother reading this "filthy" site.

It's not that we are "filthy"(we are) it's because they know this site constantly has post like this that kills their never ending excuses for Sark.
 
Until 1994 I believe there wasn't a scholarship limit so schools like SC and UCLA could load up on everybody from California.
 
Until 1994 I believe there wasn't a scholarship limit so schools like SC and UCLA could load up on everybody from California.
Click to expand...

Doogs bring that up as reasons why James had it easier but they forget that made BOTH LA schools powerhouses plus Arizona State had a nice little run in the early 80's as well.
 
The conference was more powerful back then. The teams at the top were all capable of beating anyone, and they did. Teams like Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Miami playing at their peak, as among the best teams in the nation, all fell to PAC8/PAC10 teams. In a single bowl season, three PAC10 teams played in what are now called BCS bowls and all three PAC 10 teams won their games. UCLA beat Miami, USC beat Ohio State, and Washington beat Oklahoma. The current PAC is nowhere near that powerful, in fact there is not a single team in the conference playing at that level. USC under Carroll was arguably the last team in the conference that played at that level, but they were all alone.

This is what really pisses me off about the current state of the Huskies. They've been down for so long, we now have a fairly significant portion of the fan base that is making excuses for the malaise instead of demanding results. Don James was nearly run out of town in his third season, and felt some heat later in his career when the team started slipping (and those "slipping" teams would have physically kicked the shit out of most of the current PAC). If they'll just get their act together and put the right guy in charge, they'll take off again. Everything is in place except for the most important piece, a real head coach.
 
For shits and giggles I'll compare the conference for when Lambo and Slick Rick coached vs Sark's.

Lambo:

1993: Year one

Pac-10 has two teams ranked: 20%(Cal was 25th but doesn't count as they fall outside top 20)
Pac-10 has one team in top 10: 10%
Zero top 5: 0%
Lambo's record vs ranked teams: 0-1

1994: Year two

Pac-10 has 3 ranked teams: 30%(WSU just misses it at #21)
Pac-10 has zero top 10: 0%
Pac-10 has zero top 5: 0%
Lambo's record vs ranked teams: 0-2(He did defeat eventual top 5 Miami OOC on the road and top 10 Ohio State OOC).

1995: Year three

Pac-10 has 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 has zero top 10: 0%
Pac-10 has zero top 5: 0%
Lambo's record vs ranked teams: 0-1-1

1996: Year four

Pac-10 has 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 has 1 ranked top 10: 10%
One top 5: 10%
Lambo record vs ranked teams: 0-1

UW finished ranked 16th

1997: Year Five

Pac-10 has 4 ranked teams: 40%
Pac-10 has 2 top 10: 20%
Pac-10 has one top 5: 10%
Lambo's record vs ranked teams 1-2

UW finished 18th

Pac-10 in the Lambright era

Pac-10 had 13 ranked teams out of 50= 26%
Pac-10 had only 4 top 10 teams= 8%
Pac-10 had only 2 top 5 teams= 4%
Lambo record vs eventual conference ranked teams= 1-7-1

So Lambright did have an easier Pac-10 than Sarkisian and his record against ranked conference opponents was just as awful as Sarkisians for those who want to pump up Lambright.

Now onto Rick Neuheisel.

1999: Year One

Pac-10 had one ranked team: 10%
Pac-10 had zero top 10: 0%
Zero top 5: 0%
Neuheisel record vs eventual ranked teams: 1-0(Beat Oregon nothing else matters!)

2000: Year two

Pac-10 had three ranked teams: 30%
Pac-10 had three top 10: 30%
Pac-10 had 2 top 5: 20%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 1-1

UW would finish #3 in the polls.

2001: Year three

Pac-10 had four ranked teams: 40%
Pac-10 had two top ten: 20%
Pac-10 had one top 5: 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 2-0

UW would finish 19th in the polls

2002: Year four

Pac-10 had 2 ranked teams: 20%
Pac-10 had 2 top 10 ten: 20%
Pac-10 had 1 top 5: 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 1-1

In the Rick Neuheisel era

Pac-10 had 10 teams ranked out of 40= 25%
Pac-10 had 7 top 10= 17.5%
Pac-10 had 4 top 5= 10%
Neuheisel record vs ranked: 5-2(71.4%)

So only Lambright coached in a weaker era than Sarkisian. James coached in an equal era than Sarkisian and Neuheisel actually coached in a tougher era than Sarkisian did looking at the numbers while also producing a 71.4% winning percentage against eventual ranked teams.
 
Last edited:
Don James never had to play Idaho State!
Click to expand...

The conference was more powerful back then. The teams at the top were all capable of beating anyone, and they did. Teams like Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Miami playing at their peak, as among the best teams in the nation, all fell to PAC8/PAC10 teams. In a single bowl season, three PAC10 teams played in what are now called BCS bowls and all three PAC 10 teams won their games. UCLA beat Miami, USC beat Ohio State, and Washington beat Oklahoma. The current PAC is nowhere near that powerful, in fact there is not a single team in the conference playing at that level. USC under Carroll was arguably the last team in the conference that played at that level, but they were all alone.

This is what really pisses me off about the current state of the Huskies. They've been down for so long, we now have a fairly significant portion of the fan base that is making excuses for the malaise instead of demanding results. Don James was nearly run out of town in his third season, and felt some heat later in his career when the team started slipping (and those "slipping" teams would have physically kicked the shit out of most of the current PAC). If they'll just get their act together and put the right guy in charge, they'll take off again. Everything is in place except for the most important piece, a real head coach.
Click to expand...

Your post is excellent except for one insignificant thing....... Don James' job as UW head football coach was never in jeopardy. The story that he was nearly run out of town in 1977 or that his seat was warm later on in the 1980's is a doog myth which started when doogs were trying to outdo each other as Typologists. Huskyfans in 1975 when James arrived were pretty astute and knowledgeable about their football and could recognize real improvement when we saw it. Some of the then oldtimers were pissed about losing their Tyee seats and how Jim Owens was forced out, but most were content with the changes. Just look at James' first season record-wise to see why we were hopeful, but it was more than that. The Dawgfather's program was from the start disciplined, hardnosed, and fundamentally sound which back then was what we liked above all, even more than scoreboard. Not just winning, but the way we won. It was later when Rose Bowl trips and high national rankings came that we became more interested in scoreboard

After the 1978 Rose Bowl win, James and his AD Mike Lude were asked a lot of typically dumb questions by the media and that was when the story came out in the local newspapers about James sleeping in his office on a cot after the team lost 3 of 4 OOC games (2 on the road) to start the '77 season before turning it all around with the famous trip to Eugene and the 54-0 duck stomping. I was there in Autzen that drizzly day with my dad and Oregon uncles and cousins putting down the salty-dogs and watching mostly amused by how the ducks couldn't keep Joe Steele out of the endzone. It was sometime after that season when AD Lude told the press (I believe in jest) that he and James knew they had to start winning or look for employment elsewhere. And thus the myths about the Dawgfather's job insecurities began and likely will never end.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top