Joseph Ngata, 5* 2019 WR, Folsom, CA (WE FUCKED THE POOCH)

[Tequilla]

And since I'm completely off my rocker, conference championships (including shares of) since 1975 in the PAC:

USC = 16
Washington = 9
UCLA = 8
Oregon = 7
Stanford = 5
Arizona St = 3
Cal = 2
Washington St = 2
Oregon St = 1
Arizona = 1

And USC's titles by time period:

1975 - 1984 = 4
1985 - 1994 = 4
1995 - 2004 = 4
2005 - 2014 = 4
2015 - Present = 0

USC hasn't won a PAC title since 2008 ... I wouldn't call that dominant.

So they have one less title than number two and number three combined.

That's the definition of premier.

It's good marketing and perception ...

If you look at the total numbers it says SC is the power ...

If you look at conference titles by decade ... you get the illusion that SC is a power ...

But SC is working on a decade without a championship and has really only had 1 high end coach over that time period (Petey - who accounted for 7 of the 16 titles) ...

Let's extrapolate this out another 10 years here to 2024 (that's 8 more seasons) ... I'd be willing to bet that UW wins at least 4 of the 8 championships ... do you think Clay Helton is going to have a 4 in 10 year run in him? I don't. UW will continue to close the gap.

I get what SC is ... it's branded itself to the point that most buy the hype when they haven't done shit to earn it (see this offseason as Exhibit A). They will almost always be the first choice of most LA kids that are looking to stay local. That doesn't mean that they are the best choice.

Back up for a bit and realize that UW over the 42 year period basically had shit for HC from 1993 through 2013 ... we won (or had a share of) 2 conference titles in that time period. I think we all are in agreement that when UW has the right coach in place they are as dangerous as any program in the conference.

Compare SC's track record (previous post) to UW's over the same period:

1975 - 1984 = 3
1985 - 1994 = 3
1995 - 2004 = 2
2005 - 2015 = 0
2015 - Present = 1

It's not hard to see that we are every bit as capable as USC is ... WHEN we have the right coach in place. If anything, we're better positioned under Pete than we were even under Don James. And for as much fun as it is to clown some of the former coaches SC has had, only Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett qualify as absolute disasters. John Robinson (particularly the 1st time around) was at worst above average and Larry Smith was probably average (I'd say Clay Helton will be fortunate to get to this level). Lambo is the definition of average for us ... Slick's been proven to be largely below average ... Gilby was a disaster as a HC at both Cal and UW ... Tyrone was cashing checks ... and Sark was a drunk. Hard to get much worse of a 20 year run. Pete's turned that around ... as we continue to win at a high level, the perception of where UW stands in the pecking order of the West Coast will continually to change for the better.

 

[FremontTroll]

Yes if a bunch if stuff happens in the next 10 years then we will have a different conversation in 10 years.

As of today USC is, and always has been, the premier program in the PAC.

 

[dnc]

And since I'm completely off my rocker, conference championships (including shares of) since 1975 in the PAC:

USC = 16
Washington = 9
UCLA = 8
Oregon = 7
Stanford = 5
Arizona St = 3
Cal = 2
Washington St = 2
Oregon St = 1
Arizona = 1

And USC's titles by time period:

1975 - 1984 = 4
1985 - 1994 = 4
1995 - 2004 = 4
2005 - 2014 = 4
2015 - Present = 0

USC hasn't won a PAC title since 2008 ... I wouldn't call that dominant.

So they have one less title than number two and number three combined.

That's the definition of premier.

It's good marketing and perception ...

If you look at the total numbers it says SC is the power ...

If you look at conference titles by decade ... you get the illusion that SC is a power ...

But SC is working on a decade without a championship and has really only had 1 high end coach over that time period (Petey - who accounted for 7 of the 16 titles) ...

Let's extrapolate this out another 10 years here to 2024 (that's 8 more seasons) ... I'd be willing to bet that UW wins at least 4 of the 8 championships ... do you think Clay Helton is going to have a 4 in 10 year run in him? I don't. UW will continue to close the gap.

I get what SC is ... it's branded itself to the point that most buy the hype when they haven't done shit to earn it (see this offseason as Exhibit A). They will almost always be the first choice of most LA kids that are looking to stay local. That doesn't mean that they are the best choice.

Back up for a bit and realize that UW over the 42 year period basically had shit for HC from 1993 through 2013 ... we won (or had a share of) 2 conference titles in that time period. I think we all are in agreement that when UW has the right coach in place they are as dangerous as any program in the conference.

Compare SC's track record (previous post) to UW's over the same period:

1975 - 1984 = 3
1985 - 1994 = 3
1995 - 2004 = 2
2005 - 2015 = 0
2015 - Present = 1

It's not hard to see that we are every bit as capable as USC is ... WHEN we have the right coach in place. If anything, we're better positioned under Pete than we were even under Don James. And for as much fun as it is to clown some of the former coaches SC has had, only Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett qualify as absolute disasters. John Robinson (particularly the 1st time around) was at worst above average and Larry Smith was probably average (I'd say Clay Helton will be fortunate to get to this level). Lambo is the definition of average for us ... Slick's been proven to be largely below average ... Gilby was a disaster as a HC at both Cal and UW ... Tyrone was cashing checks ... and Sark was a drunk. Hard to get much worse of a 20 year run. Pete's turned that around ... as we continue to win at a high level, the perception of where UW stands in the pecking order of the West Coast will continually to change for the better.

That's rifuckingdiculous. We have what it takes to be an elite program with an elite coach. SC has what it takes to be the best program in the nation with an elite coach.

You're nuts if you think DJ only wins half an NC with 17 years at SC.

SC has a higher ceiling than we do. Any idiot can see that.

Stop dooging.

 

[dnc]

To use the selective endpoints that @Tequilla chose, here are the dominant programs in their respective conferences since 1975:

SEC: Alabama - 13 titles
Big 12/8: Oklahoma - 17 titles (10 Big 8)
ACC: Florida State - 15 (only been in the conference since like 92)
Big 10: Ohio State - 16

With the exception of Florida State which absolutely owns the ACC, SC's 16 titles are right in line with the best programs in any conference.

They are the premier Pac12 program. It's not that close.

 

[FremontTroll]

And since I'm completely off my rocker, conference championships (including shares of) since 1975 in the PAC:

USC = 16
Washington = 9
UCLA = 8
Oregon = 7
Stanford = 5
Arizona St = 3
Cal = 2
Washington St = 2
Oregon St = 1
Arizona = 1

And USC's titles by time period:

1975 - 1984 = 4
1985 - 1994 = 4
1995 - 2004 = 4
2005 - 2014 = 4
2015 - Present = 0

USC hasn't won a PAC title since 2008 ... I wouldn't call that dominant.

So they have one less title than number two and number three combined.

That's the definition of premier.

It's good marketing and perception ...

If you look at the total numbers it says SC is the power ...

If you look at conference titles by decade ... you get the illusion that SC is a power ...

But SC is working on a decade without a championship and has really only had 1 high end coach over that time period (Petey - who accounted for 7 of the 16 titles) ...

Let's extrapolate this out another 10 years here to 2024 (that's 8 more seasons) ... I'd be willing to bet that UW wins at least 4 of the 8 championships ... do you think Clay Helton is going to have a 4 in 10 year run in him? I don't. UW will continue to close the gap.

I get what SC is ... it's branded itself to the point that most buy the hype when they haven't done shit to earn it (see this offseason as Exhibit A). They will almost always be the first choice of most LA kids that are looking to stay local. That doesn't mean that they are the best choice.

Back up for a bit and realize that UW over the 42 year period basically had shit for HC from 1993 through 2013 ... we won (or had a share of) 2 conference titles in that time period. I think we all are in agreement that when UW has the right coach in place they are as dangerous as any program in the conference.

Compare SC's track record (previous post) to UW's over the same period:

1975 - 1984 = 3
1985 - 1994 = 3
1995 - 2004 = 2
2005 - 2015 = 0
2015 - Present = 1

It's not hard to see that we are every bit as capable as USC is ... WHEN we have the right coach in place. If anything, we're better positioned under Pete than we were even under Don James. And for as much fun as it is to clown some of the former coaches SC has had, only Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett qualify as absolute disasters. John Robinson (particularly the 1st time around) was at worst above average and Larry Smith was probably average (I'd say Clay Helton will be fortunate to get to this level). Lambo is the definition of average for us ... Slick's been proven to be largely below average ... Gilby was a disaster as a HC at both Cal and UW ... Tyrone was cashing checks ... and Sark was a drunk. Hard to get much worse of a 20 year run. Pete's turned that around ... as we continue to win at a high level, the perception of where UW stands in the pecking order of the West Coast will continually to change for the better.

That's rifuckingdiculous. We have what it takes to be an elite program with an elite coach. SC has what it takes to be the best program in the nation with an elite coach.

You're nuts if you think DJ only wins half an NC with 17 years at SC.

SC has a higher ceiling than we do. Any idiot can see that.

Stop dooging.

Yeah in his argument it is a plus for UW that we have had shitty coaches and its a plus that USC has had shitty coaches.

USC's floor with shit coaching is between 6-6 and 10-2. UW is between 0-12 and 7-6.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

Can you tardos argue in PMs so I don't get notifications of it?

 

[FireCohen]

Can you tardos argue in PMs so I don't get notifications of it?

You want to take the gloves off GrundleStiltzkin you want to get down in a pissing match Let’s do it Let’s roll I’m getting completely fed up with your hate negativity and throwing people under the bus Quite frankly Race I’m very VERY happy that I don’t know you I’m quite happy that I don’t lead what appears to be such a pathetic life that is faced with looking for the negativity in every situation You need to go find something to smile at Last I checked it’s summertime The weather in Seattle seems to be pretty damn good right now – why don’t you go check that out You are pretty damn wrong about things You may think that the amount of time that you keep spewing your views that that you’ve now heard it enough times that you are right Doesn’t make you right You talk about 12-47 like that happened out of the blue sky I’ve never seen you once suggest that the process of the downfall of this program began well before Emmert arrived You want facts You want truth Here’s your truth Emmert came to the UW prior to the GLORIOUS 1-10 season under Gilby The year before that (2003) Gilby managed to do enough to get us to 6-6 but that included the debacle at Cal where we gave up 700 yards (or thereabouts) It was an indifferent team that pretty much was at best mediocre We lost 5 of our last 8 including the blowout to Cal the blowout to UCLA and a home loss to NEVADA Yep the program was heading in the right direction The 2002 season under Slick was another sterling season example that is most remembered for the “Northwest Championship” That was great But it hid the fact that going into the “Northwest Championship” we were a 4-5 football team that was pretty much a joke at 1-4 in the conference In both 2002 and 2003 we finished the season with a 4-4 conference record These weren’t good football teams The trend was heading downhill Emmert comes on board and immediately gets sadled with the Gilby 1-10 debacle Prior to Emmert coming on board Babs jumps ship after a decade of mis-management including allowing the stadium to begin the erosion process Throughout 2003 we’re faced with Slick leaving and the subsequent lawsuit(s) Dr Feelgood and a whole mess with the softball program and Teresa Wilson Now keep in mind the following ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE EMMERT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Things were not in great shape I think just about everybody knew that A search committee is formed to replace Babs The BOR upper campus and the big donor supporters of the school are sick of the egg showing up on their face They are sick of the country club that Babs ran and the loose way she ran the department – particularly in light of what went on with Slick They wanted someone prim proper and who they could count on would not sully the University name ENTER TODD TURNER Now this pretty much gets you up to the point where Emmert was hired Did he have to sign off on the hiring of Turner Most likely But whatever At this point Emmert isn’t responsible for the on-field performance of the football program There is a coach in place It’s not Emmert’s job to oversee the football program or any other program in the athletic department That job belongs to Todd Turner It’s Emmert’s job to monitor the job performance of Todd Turner So 1-10 happens Gilby is canned by Turner (rightfully so) Yes the program went 1-10 But the actions of those charged with overseeing the program were correct Turner fired the coach for poor performance If I’m in Emmert’s shoes I can’t complain Coaching search takes place and Turner has his heart set on Tyrone Willingham It’s Turner’s hire It’s not Emmert’s hire Surely Emmert had to sign off on the hire That’s fine You want to throw some blame on him for not having the foresight to negate the hire That’s fine But the hire isn’t Emmert’s responsibility It’s Turner’s responsibility It’s Emmert’s responsibility to hold Turner accountable for the hire (which he did 3 years later when it was obvious that Tyrone wasn’t the answer) So Tyrone goes 2-9 the first year after a 1-10 year Not great Warning signs start going off particularly with some poor performance to close games But it’s the first year of the regime and really hard to get too critical The next year the program goes 5-7 and has 2 significant events The first significant event is the loss of the QB to injury I think many could argue that without the loss of Isaiah that year we go 6-6 The second event that was significant was the “suddenly senior” day and the unexplicable loss to Stanford with the most emotionless football team anybody had ever seen Again there’s not enough there to fire Tyrone at that point There are warning signs There is ground to pretty much tell Tyrone that the following year is an action year where something needs to happen He’s on a short leash at this point in my opinion The following year we lose games in ways that are unexplainable Blow a huge loss to Arizona – a game we should have never lost The most ridiculous ending to an Apple Cup I’ve ever seen where a guy was open by 20 yards coming out of a timeout Blowing a pair of 21 point leads to Hawai’i It was pretty obvious at this point that things weren’t working Coaching change was in order Perhaps an AD change was also in order The coaching change was blocked and complicated The AD’s head fell – and rightfully so due to some other issues that he had and such a terrible hire of a head coach Prior to the decision to fire Tyrone after 2007 it’s really hard to argue with ANYTHING that Emmert had done with respect to the football program I will say that bringing Tyrone back for 2008 was a disasterous mistake It should have never happened You want to throw 0-12 on Emmert – I’m all for it I think if you caught Emmert in a reflective truthful moment he would tell you in hindsight that he should have made the move and that it wasn’t worth the carnage of 0-12 Throw Emmert under the bus for 2008 That’s his responsibility 2004-2007 Not so much By all means please please tell me where he has responsibility for 2004 and 2007 other than the fact that he’s the University President Please tell me what specific actions that he did to undermine the program You aren’t going to find them – they aren’t there Your criticism of Emmert is ridiculous Your criticism of Woodward is just downright comical Where has Woodward screwed this program He has only been responsible for this program in the summer of 2008 in a full-time role Are you going to hold him to the fire for being the interim AD for the first half of 2008 How is he responsible for anything from 2004-2007 when he wasn’t even involved with the Athletic Department Talk about conspiracy theories This may be one of the greatest conspiracy theories I’ve ever seen I don’t like losing I don’t like what I’ve seen the last 5 years It’s made me sick to my stomach many times over But unlike you I can at least take a step back and realize that the genesis of this problem began well before Mark Emmert became President of the University of Washington If I spent my time being a “mindless Race Bannon minion” then I’d be convinced that the only logical explanation for our failures have been Mark Emmert and Scott Woodward Quite frankly that opinion is one of the most idiotic insanely stupid opinions that I’ve ever seen in my life I don’t defend the “wrong targets” There is blame to be thrown Emmert’s way I readily acknowledge that But it isn’t his full blame Babs deserves blame Gerberding deserves blame McCormick deserves some blame Slick deserves some blame Gilby deserves some blame Turner deserves some blame Tyrone deserves some blame Of the names I’ve listed only 3 of those names have any timeline that extends into any portion of Emmert’s tenure That’s less than half of those names Quite frankly Race you are a world class donkey When I hear people bitch and moan about the people in the State of Washington – you are a crystal example of why people bitch about the State of Washington When I hear people that bitch about the fans of the University of Washington and what their complaints are you represent what those complaints are In my opinion you are not good for the University of Washington You aren’t helping the program You aren’t helping the University You are entirely self-serving and a pompous egotistical jerk You are barking up the wrong tree if you are going after me I’m not naive enough to shove my head so far up my arse to ignore what I am seeing I don’t think that there is anybody that knows me that would say that I wouldn’t call a spade a spade All that paying for and attending games longer than I’ve been alive has done for you is given you a perceived ability to go be a bitter old man Congrats on that Thanks for showing those of us in a younger generation how not to act in 20-30 years when we are in your shoes

 

[Tequilla]

I said SC has a higher ceiling ...

UW IMO has a higher ceiling than USC as long as Pete is here ...

Just because it was true in the past does not mean it will be true going forward ...

There were challenges faced by DJ that Pete will not face with respect to SC

 

[AZDuck]

I said SC has a higher ceiling ...

UW IMO has a higher ceiling than USC as long as Pete is here ...

Just because it was true in the past does not mean it will be true going forward ...

There were challenges faced by DJ that Pete will not face with respect to SC

 

[Meek]

I'm positive Ngata is running all the numbers posted here and then hiring McKinsey to run even more advanced analyses in order to determine which school has the optimal 18NALDO number.

where 18NALDO = 18 year old Ariel Ngata Life Decision Output.

Fuck, I get the recruiting boners you guys get, but to start down these stupid ass rabbit holes full of your own delusional research about things that matter to people is just fucking annoying.

 

[dnc]

I'm positive Ngata is running all the numbers posted here and then hiring McKinsey to run even more advanced analyses in order to determine which school has the optimal 18NALDO number.

where 18NALDO = 18 year old Ariel Ngata Life Decision Output.

Fuck, I get the recruiting boners you guys get, but to start down these stupid ass rabbit holes full of your own delusional research about things that matter to people is just fucking annoying.

Thanks for reading!

 

[creepycoug]

How SC is anybody's dream school that isn't a spoiled rich kid I have no idea ...

Oh Jesus.

 

[creepycoug]

And since I'm completely off my rocker, conference championships (including shares of) since 1975 in the PAC:

USC = 16
Washington = 9
UCLA = 8
Oregon = 7
Stanford = 5
Arizona St = 3
Cal = 2
Washington St = 2
Oregon St = 1
Arizona = 1

And USC's titles by time period:

1975 - 1984 = 4
1985 - 1994 = 4
1995 - 2004 = 4
2005 - 2014 = 4
2015 - Present = 0

USC hasn't won a PAC title since 2008 ... I wouldn't call that dominant.

So they have one less title than number two and number three combined.

That's the definition of premier.

It's good marketing and perception ...

If you look at the total numbers it says SC is the power ...

If you look at conference titles by decade ... you get the illusion that SC is a power ...

But SC is working on a decade without a championship and has really only had 1 high end coach over that time period (Petey - who accounted for 7 of the 16 titles) ...

Let's extrapolate this out another 10 years here to 2024 (that's 8 more seasons) ... I'd be willing to bet that UW wins at least 4 of the 8 championships ... do you think Clay Helton is going to have a 4 in 10 year run in him? I don't. UW will continue to close the gap.

I get what SC is ... it's branded itself to the point that most buy the hype when they haven't done shit to earn it (see this offseason as Exhibit A). They will almost always be the first choice of most LA kids that are looking to stay local. That doesn't mean that they are the best choice.

Back up for a bit and realize that UW over the 42 year period basically had shit for HC from 1993 through 2013 ... we won (or had a share of) 2 conference titles in that time period. I think we all are in agreement that when UW has the right coach in place they are as dangerous as any program in the conference.

Compare SC's track record (previous post) to UW's over the same period:

1975 - 1984 = 3
1985 - 1994 = 3
1995 - 2004 = 2
2005 - 2015 = 0
2015 - Present = 1

It's not hard to see that we are every bit as capable as USC is ... WHEN we have the right coach in place. If anything, we're better positioned under Pete than we were even under Don James. And for as much fun as it is to clown some of the former coaches SC has had, only Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett qualify as absolute disasters. John Robinson (particularly the 1st time around) was at worst above average and Larry Smith was probably average (I'd say Clay Helton will be fortunate to get to this level). Lambo is the definition of average for us ... Slick's been proven to be largely below average ... Gilby was a disaster as a HC at both Cal and UW ... Tyrone was cashing checks ... and Sark was a drunk. Hard to get much worse of a 20 year run. Pete's turned that around ... as we continue to win at a high level, the perception of where UW stands in the pecking order of the West Coast will continually to change for the better.

It's pretty simple. They've won the most. Nobody wins forever and always. This is as retarded as your blue blood non-sense. Alabama has disappeared for long stretches of time. As has Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc.

If we picked random periods of time, everybody is something, or nothing.

Yeah, Oregon has had a long and sustained run in this conference. Period. During that time, it wasn't SC.

But SC has had the most runs in the conference. They keep coming back and making runs. Other schools, not so much. They are, w/o question, the class of the conference. They are the standard.

 

[RaceBannon]

'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.

We got their best game and lost.

 

[Tequilla]

'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.

We got their best game and lost.

I agree 100% with this ... and that is what I'm expecting going forward. But because of coaching, UW is in a better position than USC.

Our biggest issue will be recruiting at a comparable level to them - if we can we should be able to beat them more often than not.

I'm not arguing that SC isn't in the most advantageous position in the conference ... what I am arguing is that the idea that they are just this slam dunk I'm going to go here because they are the best option isn't accurate as I think at least for the next 5-10 years UW is well positioned.

 

[dnc]

'USC is USC. Even when they are down they are a tough out. See last year when the PAC 12 had a hard time (its hard) staying within 21 points of UW. Except for one team that didn't even win the loaded South.

We got their best game and lost.

I agree 100% with this ... and that is what I'm expecting going forward. But because of coaching, UW is in a better position than USC.

Our biggest issue will be recruiting at a comparable level to them - if we can we should be able to beat them more often than not.

I'm not arguing that SC isn't in the most advantageous position in the conference ... what I am arguing is that the idea that they are just this slam dunk I'm going to go here because they are the best option isn't accurate as I think at least for the next 5-10 years UW is well positioned.

UW has the best coach, ergo UW is the best option. We all agree on that.

But you said only spoiled rich kids should see SC as their dream school and that's nuts. SC isn't even the rich kids school of choice for football, that's UCLA. It's been the premier program in the conference for decades. Of course it's plenty of kids' dream school.

It's going to take more than one playoff year where we got smoked by SC at our place for California kids to realize we're a better option.

 

[AZDuck]

Nobody ever gives a shit about coaching if they want to go to USC. USC kicked ass in recruiting when Paul Hackett was there, for fucks sake. As good as Oregon has been since 2009, I can still count the number of recruiting battles Oregon won against USC on one hand.

All of this fag talk about Peterman is great and all, he won 12 games last year, kudos. You dildos are still as far away from SoCal as you can possibly be without being in Canada.

 

[creepycoug]

The spoiled rich kid thing is a hangover admissions rep. of SC's from the old days, and it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with football. SC has been recruiting the same players forever, and few have been from wealthy backgrounds.

The rap, which was at least based in truth (like most stereotypes) was that it was the place you went if you couldn't get into UCLA and your parents could hack the tuition.

Private school admissions has changed drastically in that regard, and it's no longer an accurate description of SC. Though SC notoriously games the system to inflate their admissions stats. That's a topic for another bored.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

Mods, please to be changing this OP to @AlanSmitheeDawg

 

[AZDuck]

Mods, please to be changing this OP to @AlanSmitheeDawg

chance