AP ranking - Preseason - Pac 12 teams
- Thread starter Coug1990
- Start date
Oregon too high (but not by much)
UW too high (this year might be our best chance to get them in a while, next year they'll be tough again)
Utah too low (class of their division, conference favorite)
WSU too low
Stanford too high (still think Cal might be better if they can find an offensive pulse)
It is hard to swallow but there is a truth about the rivalry right now and we are getting handled. There were three straight games of 30 point losses .
A UW fan said if it was not for one lucky quarter in 2012 it would be seven in a row . At some point it isn’t luck or buttluck.
The key reason, to me, that I think Oregon has a shot to be better has nothing to do with Herbert. It's Boise State's D coordinator. If he gets some consistent toughness out their defense, they return enough offensive pieces to make a run. But I have no idea how well their current players will mesh with his philosophy.
This post is embarrassing.
Maybe UW will agree to play us in September so we're perfectly healthy and it's 70 degrees out.
Its 6 in a row dude. They've been better and it really hasn't been close. It's ok to admit it.
I wouldn’t say it’s lucky, but there’s an element to the win streak of “that’s just sports”. We’ve been beating up on Stanford, Oregon, and USC while UW has struggled against them. UW is not light years better, and Jimmy Lake doesn’t have some magical potion for the air raid that no other coach can figure out (theres is a little thing called game film other coaches can use). Sometimes when two quality rivals play each other one happens to win a bunch in a row, and multiple variables can help contribute to such a thing (Key injuries, weird weather, etc). UW will win 65-70% of Apple Cups over time because of their inherent advantages, money, resources, location, etc, but the last 10 years has been more about randomness of sport than anything else. Sometimes that shit just happens.
It's also about matchups. UW under Pete is generally strong where we're weak (power running game) and blunts our effectiveness on offense with personnel that give us grief. The main reason I'm skeptical about UW this season is inexperience on defense (not a lack of talent, they'll be tough this year but tougher next) and the loss of Myles Gaskin. Browning wasn't great but he was experienced. The offensive line is a strength, UW will still be tough to beat. I'm just not as sold on their other running backs nor on the quality of their QB development as a program, and without a gamebreaker at receiver and a legit bellcow running back, I think the Huskies will have to win by strangling opposing offenses. They have the talent to do that, but can they do it every week? They're like a better version of Cal.
You, and almost everybody else that thinks its all SKILL, Not Luck, and that UW was better, is misunderstanding, misrepresenting, what I said, and Not getting some things.
1. I am not saying that EVERY game has been luck.
2,3 of the last 7 games, UW, WAS BETTER NOT LUCK, against 2, 3-9, 1, 6-6 Leach, WSU teams?
Why?
Because UW was CLEARLY better VS 2 BAD Leach, WSU teams, and 1 average, mediocre, .500 team.
And there were NO LEGIT Reasons, like 3rd string QB's, Snowstorms, Hail, Sleet, 33 to 50 MPH wind, Torrential Downpour Rain, etc, CONDITIONS THAT WOULD MAKE IT HARD TO PASS, SHUT DOWN A AIR RAID PASSING OFFENSE WHILE FAVORING A UW POWER RUN.
And the QB wasnt recovering from a injury, concussion.
And because those things didnt happen, and because UW was CLEARLY better, UW BEAT THOSE TEAMS.
2. I didnt say an or mean that WSU had to be injury free. A punter getting injured shouldnt stop a 9 win WSU team from winning, beating UW.
BUT KEY INJURIES TO VITAL PLAYERS NECESSARY TO WIN OR MULTIPLE MASS INJURIES OF, TO SEMI IMPORTANT POSITIONAL STARTERS, ABSOLUTELY WOULD, COULD, SHOULD PREVENT A 9 WIN WSU TEAM FROM WINNING, BEATING A 7,8,9 WIN UW TEAM.
3. I didnt say an or mean that WSU would have to play in perfect weather.
33 to 39 degrees, with a few raindrops, or the occasional falling snowflake, with the occasional 9 to 17 mph semi gust of win, IN NOVEMBER is NOT PERFECT 70 degree Sept WEATHER as you put it, and SHOULD NOT PREVENT A 9 WIN WSU FROM WINNING, BEATING A 7,8,9 win UW.
BUT -3 Degrees, or 34 degrees, WITH either HAIL, an or SLEET, an or DOWN POURING RAIN, AN OR A SEMI BLIZZARD, AN OR DUMPING 6 TO 18 INCHES OF SNOW, WOULD, COULD, SHOULD SHUT DOWN A WSU AIR RAID, LEACH offense, and BENEFIT A UW POWER RUN OFFENSE, AND WOULD, COULD, SHOULD CAUSE A 9 WIN AIR RAID WSU TEAM TO LOSE TO A 7,8,9 WIN POWER RUN UW TEAM.
4. You, Ed, others ERRANTLY think that if the streak is long enough, that no matter what happened, happens, it must be because UW was better, beat WSU, etc.
This is what in POKER is called RESULTS ORIENTED THINKING.
What that is:
Let's suppose a EXTREMELY BAD POKER PLAYER PLAYS STUPID, SHOVES ALL IN EVERY HAND, AND WINS NOT JUST 1 TOURNAMENT, PLAYING STUPID LIKE THAT BUT WINS 20 TOURNAMENTS IN A ROW PLAYING STUPID LIKE THAT.
Then lets say that player says he is a good player, because he won 20 tournaments in a row.
Thats result oriented thinking.
What a lot of people dont get is that LUCK, VARIANCE, CHANCE, ETC, WHETHER ITS BAD LUCK, GOOD LUCK, CAN LAST A LONG TIME, before the extreme long term eventually either evens it out or allows the best skilled to win.
I turned $15 into $1750 playing Poker Online. I first turned $15 into $200, and then proceeded to get bad beat out of BUY INS by DONKS 70 TIMES IN ROW, down to $6 before I built it up to S1750.
Now suppose there are 2 Pro Boxers. Boxer UW, and Boxer WSU. And UW Boxer has 9 at the same level, as the 9 win WSU Boxer.
Now lets say these 2 Boxers fight ONCE a year, each year. And Lets say that for the Last FOUR years the 2 boxers have had 9 wins a year at the same level. Then lets say that the WSU Boxer has had to fight the UW Boxer with 1 arm attached, tied behind his back, because he broke his arm, each year, 1 hour before the fight. Then lets say that because of ALL that, those things, that the UW Boxer has WON, NOT BEAT, the WSU Boxer each of the LAST 4 Years.
So in that kind of situation, did the UW BOXER BEAT THE WSU BOXER?
OR DID THE UW BOXER JUST GET LUCKY THE LAST 4, FOUR YEARS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT WHILE TECHNICALLY WON, DIDNT BEAT A 9 WIN WSU BOXER THAT COULD USE BOTH ARMS, INSTEAD OF 1 BROKEN ARM TIED BEHIND BACK?
Well thats Boxing example applies to football.
9 win WSU, has had to play 9 win UW, with its PROVERBIAL BROKEN ARM TIED BEHIND ITS BACK THE LAST 4 YEARS because of either A. Injured Starting QB, back up 3rd string Bender QB. B. BAD weather. C. Starting QB recovering from a concussion.
So if using the Boxing example, if for say the next 30 years, 9 win UW BOXER keeps winning against 9 win WSU Boxer with broken arm broken 1 hour before fight, tied behind back, would that mean that 9 WIN UW BOXER BETTER THEN, BEAT 9 WIN WSU BOXER? Or would that mean that 9 WIN UW BOXER JUST GOT LUCKY, TECHNICALLY WON AGAINST WSU BOXER FOR 30 TIMES, 30 YEARS?
Same with football.
If 9 WIN UW were to win vs a 9 WIN WSU with its broken arm, tied behind back, for 40 times, 40 years, would that be UW being better, beating WSU?, or would that be UW getting lucky?
And to those who say WSU would never have that happen.
Well if one can flip a coin 1 trillion times and have it come up either heads, 1 million times in row, or tails 1 million times in row, which is possible, then WSU could possibly win 9 games a year, while playing a 9 win per year UW, while having to play with its WSU football broken arm, tied behind back, for the next 40 years.
Until a 9+, etc, win UW BEATS A 9+, etc, win WSU that doesnt have its FOOTBALL BROKEN ARM TIED BEHIND BACK, then its luck until that happens
Or.if a 9 win UW beats a 4-5 win WSU, with or without its broken arm behind back. Of that happened, that would not be luck.
So UNTIL about a 7,8,9 win UW beats a 7,8,9. win Leach, WSU, WITHOUT its football arm being broken, behind back, then its luck, unless its against a 4,5 win WSU team that UW Better then.
This is a great point. I honestly am not in love with their O, but the D has some talent if it can be directed. Leavit (sp?). Was a quality coordinator though so I am still hesitant in thinking they will be a top 10. I can see them being ranked most of the year though.
I might be more inclined to agree with you if the scores were generally close. UW is just a bad matchup for us and they're very good. Nothing flukey about it, IMO.
I got halfway through this diatribe before giving up. If you'd like to have a discussion about this, you need to get to your point and not restate it 4 times in all caps.
Falk missed one game. And if weather can completely derail one team, then I'd argue the other team is more complete.
UW has just been better and that's ok.
Last edited:
The uw has been better in the Apple Cup. I have been to every one of them in both Seattle and Pullman for the last decade or more. I graduated in 1990. I have attended 100's of Cougar football games. To me, that was by far the worst weather for a game that I have ever attended.
Yes, weather can completely derail one team. It is no difference than an all wheel drive SUV is going to perform better in the ice and snow than a high performance sports car.
The uw's offensive game plan is to run through holes created by their huge lineman and mix in a pass. That is built for playing in the snow.
Both the Cougars offense and defense are the high performance sports car.
The uw earned the win. I do believe that had the weather been normal, that WSU would have won. But, it wasn't and the uw came out ahead. As I wrote, they earned that win.
UW has been the better team in TWO, 2, 3, THREE, out of the last 6, 7 Apple cup games, vs 2, 3-9, 1, 6-6 WSU teams.
But UW has not BEATEN(They Technically Won Yes), the 2,3, 8,9,11 win WSU teams, and UW got LUCKY against those specific 2,3 WSU teams.
UW did semi earn those wins, because using your SUV example, they built the SUV, while WSU built the Sports Car, and UW still had to play the game.
But my Boxing analogy is more accurate.
Boxing Analogy:
Say there are 2 Pro Boxers, 9 win UW Boxer, 9 win WSU Boxer, and lets say that 1 hour before the fight, WSU Boxer breaks arm, has to fight with broken arm tied behind WSU Boxer back, leading to UW Boxer GETTING LUCKY to win vs WSU Boxer.
That applies to Football.
8,9, 11 win WSU has had to play 2,3 games against 2,3, 9 win UW teams, with a PROVERBIAL BROKEN ARM TIED BEHIND BACK, so because of that, no wonder UW GOT LUCKY to win those games
Also if the roles were reversed, we all know that NO ONE would give credit to WSU for Beating UW, that they would say that WSU GOT LUCKY to win against a UW team with a proverbial broken arm.
Excuses are for losers. Just admit we lost. You're embarrassing yourself.
Agree 100% on your assessment of this years UW prior to the season. They lost a ton of experienced talent on D, Gaines and VV were mayhem for us and a lot of other teams in the middle and you don’t just replace guys like that. They are not easy to find. And it does not bode well that a week away from the season Eason hasn’t separated himself from Haener. Sure UW could very well go out and win 10-11 games again but I think they are due for a dip and my guess would be 7-5, 8-4. It’s a long ways to the AC so I’m not going to even go there.
I did say that WSU TECHNICALLY LOST.
There is a DIFFERENCE between winning, losing, BEATING, GETTING BEAT.
and NOT ALL reasons, excuses are for losers, some reasons, excuses are LEGIT, some are LOSER.
EXAMPLES
1. USC game. WSU technically, LOST that game, but USC did not BEAT WSU.
WHY?
LEGIT REASONS:
1. USC PLAYER COMMITTED A PENALTY VIOLATION OF RULES, TARGETED WSU MINSHEW QB, THAT WASNT ENFORCED.
That penalty would have given WSU a KEY, CRITICAL 1ST DOWN, and PROBABLY would have led to WSU winning, beating USC.
Even ESPN, pretty much almost everyone recognizes that as a LEGIT reason, NON loser excuse.
USC GOT LUCKY, DIDNT BEAT WSU(USC technically WON)
2. The WSU/Oregon BBall game, where WSU WON that game, and after the GAME WAS OVER, the BS REF, CALLED A BS TECHNICAL Foul, gave 2 BS freethrows, over a fan, fans making either too much noise, or throwing a piece of paper, an or CELEBRATING, an or stepping onto the court a second too soon before the teams were off the court, heading to the locker rooms, etc
Yes Oregon TECHNICALLY won because of that. BUT OREGON DID NOT BEAT WSU, OREGON GOT LUCKY.
THAT'S A LEGIT REASON, NON LOSER EXCUSE.
If the roles were reversed whether the 2,3 UW games VS WSU, whether the 1 USC game VS WSU, whether the Oregon Bball game vs WSU, EVERYONE, except maybe you, would be Saying that altho WSU would have technically won, that WSU didnt BEAT those teams, that WSU got lucky.
Also to use my Boxing Analogy.
If a Pro Boxer WON, GOT LUCKY against another PRO Boxer that had accidentally broken his arm hours before the fight, that everyone would say that Boxer got LUCKY, and didnt BEAT the other Boxer, and no one would consider the broken arm a lame, non legit, loser excuse.
So your WRONG
Last edited:
This is my assessment too. I'm not saying, and will never say, that the Cougs are a bad football program under Leach.
I just think the current styles of both programs heavily favor the Huskies when they match up. The Huskies have been able to rush 3, drop 8 and get home rather easily... until that stops, it's the perfect recipe to beat the air raid. Plus it seems like the Dawgs do a pretty good job of baiting/disguising coverage that other teams haven't been able to replicate against the Cougs.
That was true when UW played the 2, 3-9, Leach WSU teams, and the 6-6 Connor Halliday Leach WSU team.
We'll see if that is True, IF Leach, WSU's, 7,8,9,10 win teams gets to play UW without the PROVERBIAL BOXER'S BROKEN ARM.
IF UW BEATS(NOT TECHNICALLY win), a 7 to 11 win Leach WSU team without a WSU'S PROVERBIAL BOXER'S PROVERBIAL BROKEN ARM, Then what your saying might probably be true.
So maybe we'll see if your right.
Then again with WSU's bad luck against UW, WSU maybe have another BOXER'S BROKEN ARM against UW AGAIN.
I’m guessing a few, couple, some, many, most, everyone on here doesn’t understand one iota of what you just said there.
Eh other teams do this too. SC, Stanford, and Oregon has seen the tapes and has had similar athletes. It was a miserable bitch with Gaines and VV though.
Dont forget to throw Cal in there too to go with Oregon, SC, Stanford, all of which got to play a Leach, WSU team that went on to win 7 to 10 games, that did not have the WSU'S BOXER'S PROVERBIAL BOXER'S BROKEN ARM AGAINST THEM, the way that UW got WSU's Proverbial Boxer's Broken Arm(USC being a semi exception that got the WSU's Proverbial Boxers Broken Arm at the end of the game, that technically won USC the game, at the end of the game(The other 99.9% of the game was just fine tho.)
I actually watched clips of the 2017 game last year that focused on O'Connell. Vea had tons of trouble getting around him. It was the right side of the line that couldn't give Falk the 10 seconds or so he needed to make a decision when his first read was taken away, and that combined with a total inability to stop Gaskin spelled doom. He got like 8 yards a carry on us in that game
Maybe we'd understand if you explained the "PROVERBIAL BOXERS BROKEN ARM" analogy again.
Your boxing analogy implies that all fighters in a similar weight class have the same fighting style and are essentially equal on paper. The number of wins a team has does not indicate or dictate a team's ability to match up with a future opponent.
Yeah a 9-win Cougar and Husky team might look like an even match if you don't look any deeper... then you realize that the Huskies have had about a 5-inch reach advantage when punching/jabbing, are extremely disciplined boxers who don't fall for the tricks the smaller boxer sets up to get punches in, and while the boxer's weights are even (which they aren't)... it's extremely clear at the end of the day who has more stamina and strength.
Not what I was talking about, meaning.
The whole point of the Boxing analogy is that if a Boxer fought another Boxer that had BROKEN A ARM hours before the fight, and had won.
The winning Boxer, wouldnt be given credit for BEATING the Boxer with the BROKEN ARM.
Now if the Boxer Won Vs that same Boxer, and that Boxer, didnt have a broken arm, and was fully able to fight, because didnt have something, anything like a Broken Arm, etc, THEN the winning boxer would get credit for BEATING the Boxer.
For AT LEAST 2 out of the last 3 Apple Cups, WSU has had to Fight, Play UW, WITH SOMETHING LIKE A BOXER's BROKEN ARM.
And because of that, juat like the winning Boxer, altho UW gets TECHNICAL credit for winning against that, WSU, in that kind of situation, for those 2 games, UW does not, SHOULD NOT get credit for BEATING WSU in those 2 games.
Thats the VALID, LEGIT point, I was making, not what you said.
