Tequilla
Active poster
Creepy Coug ...
You are being Coug fucking stupid right now ...
1) If you are at the top end of the conference, the improvement of the Oregon State's in the world only means that those games are more competitive than the blood baths that they used to be. Who is terrible in the conference has changed over the time - but there's always going to be 1-2 teams that are more or less show up and win games. It used to be that Oregon State and to a lesser extent Cal and Washington State were those teams. Now it's Cal and Colorado. The Cougs were in that group when Paul Wulff Fucking Genius was coaching.
2) ASU has always underachieved and not maximized their potential - nobody debates that. But your memory has suffered from too many Busch Lights. From 1978 (first year in the conference) to 1992 (DJ's last year), Arizona State was 57-47-4 in conference including a 5-8 record against Washington. No, they weren't great. But they were the upper middle class of the conference. And they definitely were good enough to beat some of the better teams - that was the point. The numbers illustrate that point.
3) From 1977 to 1992, UCLA's conference record was 78-39-5 for a winning % of .660. UCLA had a record of 7-7-1 versus Washington over that time period. From the beginning of football (1994) through 2013, Oregon's conference record has been 119-49, for a winning % of .708. So yes, Oregon's been a little bit better than UCLA was ... but the difference isn't super significant. If you add in let's say another conference game against the Sisters of the Poor over that time period (say UCLA went 12-3 in those games), the winning % would have been .675. Again, Oregon's been better in that stretch - but not by as much as one would seem to think.
4) Who has ever said that Cal was particularly good/great?
5) I think that the conference has been more balanced in the last 10-15 years in the middle than it ever has been. This is where the conference has improved to me the most. I think the teams at the top of the conference are as good today as they ever have been. But I don't think that the balance of the conference has caught up to the top to the point that those at the top are particularly worried about the teams in the middle. What it's done is limit the number of high end teams congregated at the top with teams that are now beating each other up in the middle.
You are being Coug fucking stupid right now ...
1) If you are at the top end of the conference, the improvement of the Oregon State's in the world only means that those games are more competitive than the blood baths that they used to be. Who is terrible in the conference has changed over the time - but there's always going to be 1-2 teams that are more or less show up and win games. It used to be that Oregon State and to a lesser extent Cal and Washington State were those teams. Now it's Cal and Colorado. The Cougs were in that group when Paul Wulff Fucking Genius was coaching.
2) ASU has always underachieved and not maximized their potential - nobody debates that. But your memory has suffered from too many Busch Lights. From 1978 (first year in the conference) to 1992 (DJ's last year), Arizona State was 57-47-4 in conference including a 5-8 record against Washington. No, they weren't great. But they were the upper middle class of the conference. And they definitely were good enough to beat some of the better teams - that was the point. The numbers illustrate that point.
3) From 1977 to 1992, UCLA's conference record was 78-39-5 for a winning % of .660. UCLA had a record of 7-7-1 versus Washington over that time period. From the beginning of football (1994) through 2013, Oregon's conference record has been 119-49, for a winning % of .708. So yes, Oregon's been a little bit better than UCLA was ... but the difference isn't super significant. If you add in let's say another conference game against the Sisters of the Poor over that time period (say UCLA went 12-3 in those games), the winning % would have been .675. Again, Oregon's been better in that stretch - but not by as much as one would seem to think.
4) Who has ever said that Cal was particularly good/great?
5) I think that the conference has been more balanced in the last 10-15 years in the middle than it ever has been. This is where the conference has improved to me the most. I think the teams at the top of the conference are as good today as they ever have been. But I don't think that the balance of the conference has caught up to the top to the point that those at the top are particularly worried about the teams in the middle. What it's done is limit the number of high end teams congregated at the top with teams that are now beating each other up in the middle.