ESPN Article - The rise of UW and USC is good for the PAC-12

[GiantOnMontlake]

Duck fans and every other Pac-12 school sans UW and USC are crapping their pants about this. Gotta love it!!
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/108056/usc-washington-rising-benefits-pac-12

 

[RaceBannon]

Was the author from Auburn by chance?

 

[BearsWiin]

They write variations of the same twaddle every few years when USC looks like it might get its shit together. UW's and USC's rise is good for UW and USC, not the rest of the conference. When Oregon and furd were good, it was good for Oregon and furd, and the lazy national media thought the conference was down because USC wasn't in the mix. Before that, when USC was dominant, it didn't help Cal's BCS chances in 2004, or Oregon's or UCLA's chances in 2005. The eastern half of the country barely realizes that we* play football out here.

What, then, is good for the conference? For the conference to shitstomp every OOC opponent both before conference play starts in their bowl games.

 

[creepycoug]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

 

[GiantOnMontlake]

If Ted Miller's from Auburn, that's news to me.

 

[creepycoug]

Agree with the OP: Mike Seaver will be here soon.

 

[creepycoug]

UW's and USC's rise is good for UW and USC, not the rest of the conference.

Exactly, but this piece plays right into the "rightful place" doog crowd perfectly. Almost as if they collected a fund and paid Miller to write it.

"Hey Ted, make sure you make us USC's first level bitch. They respect us the most."

 

[GiantOnMontlake]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Hardly USC and the little sisters anymore.

 

[creepycoug]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Hardly USC and the little sisters anymore.

Wow. It's almost like you didn't read the article that you linked. Missing the point perhaps?

I'll help - a little - the article rests on some notion that USC and Washington are the conference's two prestige power programs and thus are the ones most likely to win a title. The basis for that as applied to SC is abundantly clear. For Washington, it's not, and he did a shitty job making his case.

Historically, yes, it's USC and her little, much, much younger, sisters.

 

[PurpleJ]

I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.

 

[creepycoug]

I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.

Care to elaborate?

 

[PurpleJ]

I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.

Care to elaborate?

I think I already summed it up. I'm not a guy who writes a lot of dumb words for people to not read. We're #1.

 

[creepycoug]

I didn't read the article because Ted Miller sucks, but his premise is sound. The Pac-12 needs UW and USC. Cream rises. We are the best in the west.

Care to elaborate?

I think I already summed it up. I'm not a guy who writes a lot of dumb words for people to not read. We're #1.

Well Ok. That's good enough for me.

 

[backthepack]

Thanks Taft!!!

 

[FremontTroll]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component:

UW has the coach to maintain this success.

In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.

 

[creepycoug]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component:

UW has the coach to maintain this success.

In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.

Sure. Which just means that, after four failed attempts to replace James, Washington found their man.

 

[PurpleJ]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component:

UW has the coach to maintain this success.

In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.

No we're #1.

 

[AZDuck]

WTFAY?

LEAVE

 

[FremontTroll]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Good post. Lotta truth in there but you are missing one key component:

UW has the coach to maintain this success.

In 10-15 years the idea of UW as the clear #2/to USC might just be commonly accepted.

Sure. Which just means that, after four failed attempts to replace James, Washington found their man.

*Five failed attempts.

But considering Cal is now on their 13th attempt to replace Pappy I think we made out OK.

 

[GiantOnMontlake]

The logic for USC is pretty clear, and we didn't really need an article to help us out.

Honestly, joking aside, the guy did a shit job of making his case for Washington. All-time wins? Stadium capacity?

But this is where he really fell down:

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2

I dislike UCLA as much as anyone, and Lord knows they are the champs of the "do less with more" crowd, but how does that make sense? Why outside LA?

Then there's the rest of the Washington rationale, almost all of which is based on 1991 going back and stats built by Dobie.

I'm not one for the permanent marker - that's why I fell for the Canes back in the late 70s. You are what you are today and nothing else matters.

Empires rise; and empires fall. Sometimes, they come back. Sometimes, they never do. USC has characteristics that matter which portend their return. Washington, unfortunately, does not have those characteristics.

To me, the Pac 10/12 has always been USC and her little sisters. The numbers don't lie. Washington is not even close to them in any category. It's SC and everyone else, which is more or less how the piece reads.

Hardly USC and the little sisters anymore.

Wow. It's almost like you didn't read the article that you linked. Missing the point perhaps?

I'll help - a little - the article rests on some notion that USC and Washington are the conference's two prestige power programs and thus are the ones most likely to win a title. The basis for that as applied to SC is abundantly clear. For Washington, it's not, and he did a shitty job making his case.

Historically, yes, it's USC and her little, much, much younger, sisters.

If that's the narrative you want to go with. There is no imperical data to backup your point. USC is definitely a blue blood, but they are just gaining steam again, and all the other Pac programs have failed to rise up and make a big impression nationally! That isn't UW's fault that the rest of the lot have stunk it up to high hell!! Ted's premise is the two programs (sans Colorado) who have won NC's have the greatest chance at regaining NC crowns. This is a fact... you can see it whichever way you want. Prestige rankings - SC is #5, UW is around #15-17, UCLA is #19, Stanford is #20-25, Oregon is coming up around #25-30...