If you needed another example of our programs growth...
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
WSU just opened as 19 point favorites vs. UCLA....
I never thought that would ever happen. Ever.
You better start talking negative right quick to undo the jinx you just put on us with that rare optimistic post!WSU just opened as 19 point favorites vs. UCLA....
And decline....It is amazing they can't figure it out...WSU just opened as 19 point favorites vs. UCLA....
Maybe have Lou Holtz do the pregame press this week
Edited for accuracy.
Better case scenario is that ucla is a better team then they are...we're 7 point favorites and then we beat them by 24.
Why the worry?
UCLA is a garbage program right now. You can see in their abysmal performance so far that this team is on the verge of throwing in the towel. It would be a shocking upset if they were to win in Pullman.
WSU 49
UCLA 24
If the attitudes of many of our fans (much of present company excluded) is any indication of how our players are approaching this game, I'd be on upset watch, or at least on a watch for this being much closer than people think. Yeah, UCLA isn't great, but they have waves of talent and I don't think they're as terrible as many think.
I watched some of their first game against Cincinnati and they were pretty close to winning that one despite DTR having one of the worst games a QB could have. Then they sucked against a SDSU team that looks pretty good (didn't catch any of that one) and were pasted by Oklahoma as expected.
Really, this boils down to whether Chip still has the team or not. If he does, I'm worried what a bunch of motivated, highly talented players can do if putting together a decent game. If he doesn't, then yeah, they'll probably look pretty bad.
I watched some of their first game against Cincinnati and they were pretty close to winning that one despite DTR having one of the worst games a QB could have. Then they sucked against a SDSU team that looks pretty good (didn't catch any of that one) and were pasted by Oklahoma as expected.
Really, this boils down to whether Chip still has the team or not. If he does, I'm worried what a bunch of motivated, highly talented players can do if putting together a decent game. If he doesn't, then yeah, they'll probably look pretty bad.
UCLA is neither as good as the pre-season pundits thought, nor as bad as they look right now.
Their D is good enough to win some games if the O does its job. The O has speed. The whole group has been very inconsistent. If they discover focus and consistency they will be much better.
We need to pressure the pocket and our outside D guys need to stay home and play disciplined football.
If we do that we will win by 20-something. If we don't, it could easily come down to the last drive.
Their D is good enough to win some games if the O does its job. The O has speed. The whole group has been very inconsistent. If they discover focus and consistency they will be much better.
We need to pressure the pocket and our outside D guys need to stay home and play disciplined football.
If we do that we will win by 20-something. If we don't, it could easily come down to the last drive.
It's the Cougs. And it's CMLs cougs.
No freaking way they cover . They'll win, but in standard CML fashion it'll be way closer than it should have been.
(Not saying CML is responsible for the teams performance, just that under his regime the Cougs like to make what should be no-contests into nail-biters.)
No freaking way they cover . They'll win, but in standard CML fashion it'll be way closer than it should have been.
(Not saying CML is responsible for the teams performance, just that under his regime the Cougs like to make what should be no-contests into nail-biters.)
There's no correlation between fans and our players attitude. The players know they can't just show up and win.
They do have good athletes, and we can never underestimate a conference opponent.
With that said, for as much as I recognize our challenges facing blue blood programs, playing against elite defenses, and playing in adverse weather conditions, I've also realized the following about facing our program under Leach.
If you come limping into Martin Stadium with inconsistent QB play and/or a bad defense, it's more than likely going to be a long day for you. There are never any guarantees in college football, but if I took off my crimson glasses and acquired nervousness about our games, I would see a lot of red flags if I were looking at the game from a UCLA perspective. Vegas doesn't assign 19 point spreads arbitrarily.
Not sure how you can state that with apparent authority. We've seen some anecdotes over the years about how players--remember, these are college kids--are overconfident. They're on social media, in school, etc., and if anything correlates with player overconfidence in a given contest, I would expect our fans' expressed confidence level on boards and other fora to have about the highest correlation of anything.
I'm not saying this is a major problem or that I know that it will be an issue in this case. I expect Leach and the staff will be all over these guys. We've seen it before, though, and it happens in a lot of programs despite the coaches being in their ear.
You originally said:
"If the attitudes of many of our fans (much of present company excluded) is any indication of how our players are approaching this game, I'd be on upset watch...".
I'm sure the players are listening to what's out there but they also have a lot to work on and I'm sure the staff is much louder. Personally I doubt our players and staff are approaching this game like it's a foregone conclusion. I have a hard time believing there's a significant level of overconfidence running through the program at this point. Doesn't mean UCLA can't win the game but I'm confident we should win given what we know at this point in the season.
We are becoming a blue blood football school. Just flipped a kid in September. Got a verbal from a Cali kid with a Nebraska offer among others.
The brand, stadium, unis, coaching, facilities, NFL success, and college town community that is unmatched anywhere else in the country...big time players want in more than ever. I guarantee you some of these UCLA kids are going to leave Pullman envious of the kids they just played against, the culture and opportunities for success they are getting at WSU.
Over the years there's been a common theme when we play any Cali school. A lot of the kids who go to Wazzu are kids from Cali who didn't get an offer from the schools down there. They love proving those staffs wrong.
Plus I'm pretty sure most the UCLA players have yet to experience a night game in Pullman.
We'll be OK.
Plus I'm pretty sure most the UCLA players have yet to experience a night game in Pullman.
We'll be OK.
That's kind of an odd knock on Leach.
I don't think that is true of Leach, at least, not any more so than any other coach.
What games, in particular, are you talking about?
Kind of picking on your semantics, but we are FAR from being able to call ourselves a "blue blood" program.
Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, Texas are what I think of as "blue bloods". You don't become a blue blood after 4 bowl games.
It's not a Leach take, or a football take, per se. It's a betting take. Cougs ATS are lousy.
Last edited:
While I semi agree with semi a lot with what your saying.
WSU is semi semi blue blood ish, and ONLY GRADUALLY, EVENTUALLY BECOMING SEMI BLUE BLOODISH TO BLUE BLOOD ISH.
Yes WSU recruits 4 stars, and might probably even get a 5 star soon, eventually.
But Semi Blue Bloods, and Blue Bloods recruit LOTS of 4 stars and 5 stars.
WSU is nowhere near that YET.
Basically real soon(not this year(But probably within the next 2,3,4 years), WSU is going to get a recruiting class with 1,2 5 stars, 3,4,5 4 stars, the rest 3 stars, no NR, NO 2 stars, ranked as a top 15 to top 30 class. Then WSU will develop that class. Then WSU will go to CFP, might probably win a CFP game.
After WSU does that, and after 13 straight Bowl years with semi consistently to consistently winning, going a mix of 7-5(8-5)8-4(9-4), 9-3(10-3), 10-2(11-2), 11-1(12-1), EVERY YEAR.
And by the time Leach Retires after 10 to 13 more years from now. And after WSU builds a Leach Statue, and or Leach Stadium, and after WSU hires a replacement that is as good, and does as good as Leach, THEN WSU WOULD BE A SEMI BLOOD BLOOD TO BLUE BLOOD ISH TEAM GETTING 1,2,3 5 stars every year, every other year, 4 to 7 4 stars every year, every other year, and the rest 5 to 13 3 stars, no 2 stars, no NR, etc, every year, every other year, Top 13 to to 27 recruiting classes every year, every other year, every 3,4 years.
Until then, when that happens, WSU is not YET, a semi blue blood ish program, and is not becoming that YET, but PROBABLY will become that GRADUALLY, EVENTUALLY.
Also. Some keep on saying how AWESOME UCLA football players are. While thats true. Just because you have AWESOME players like UCLA does, doesnt mean you win. In fact UCLA will PROBABLY lose with its AWESOME players, but not because of taking WSU too lightly, BUT BECAUSE OF BAD COACHING, SYSTEM, YOUTH, INEXPERIENCE, ETC.
Also while UCLA has AWESOME players, some keep overlooking:
WSU HAS AWESOME PLAYERS AND MIGHT PROBABLY BE JUST AS AWESOME AS UCLA PLAYERS, AND MAYBE EVEN MORE AWESOME THEN UCLA PLAYERS
So WSU's AWESOME PLAYERS, to go along with EXPERIENCE, GOOD COACHING, GOOD SYSTEM, ETC, are PROBABLY going to beat UCLA.
So UCLA has, should worry about WSU's AWESOME PLAYERS, EXPERIENCE, COACHING, SYSTEM, more then WSU fans worrying about how AWESOME UCLA players are, and that because of that, that why WSU either lose or could lose.
Basically its the POOR OLE LIL OLE WSU MENTALITY LOSER CULTURE.
And it needs to stop.
Also while UCLA has AWESOME players, some keep overlooking:
WSU HAS AWESOME PLAYERS AND MIGHT PROBABLY BE JUST AS AWESOME AS UCLA PLAYERS, AND MAYBE EVEN MORE AWESOME THEN UCLA PLAYERS
So WSU's AWESOME PLAYERS, to go along with EXPERIENCE, GOOD COACHING, GOOD SYSTEM, ETC, are PROBABLY going to beat UCLA.
So UCLA has, should worry about WSU's AWESOME PLAYERS, EXPERIENCE, COACHING, SYSTEM, more then WSU fans worrying about how AWESOME UCLA players are, and that because of that, that why WSU either lose or could lose.
Basically its the POOR OLE LIL OLE WSU MENTALITY LOSER CULTURE.
And it needs to stop.
Is that true? I have seen several articles that WSU has been one of the most underrated schools against the spread. I have seen them in the past as either number one or two. Maybe it is old news and things have changed. I don't know.
Those were players in the past that didn't win 14 of 16 games like these current players have.
Did a little digging, it might be my long memory kicking in or thinking of the O/U.
Anyway, 12-4 ATS last 16. (I'm sure GM helped a bunch there...)
I stand corrected.
I still wouldn't lay the 19.
Of course, all of this is purely academic as I don't sports gamble...
Last edited:
Shaking My Head.............
But Reality says according to Las Vegas, since Leach showed up in 2012, the Cougs Are Ranked 5th in All of D1 Against The Spread 53-38-1 (58.2%). Including last year at 11-2 ATS.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/ats_trends/?range=yearly_since_2012
Last edited:
Yup.
I corrected myself. Not sure where I got that notion from, but I felt fairly confident about it. Whelp...
Not a betting guy - do that enough in real life. But a 19 point spread is way too much. WAY too much. This is the house's way of getting action on the game and hedging their exposure.
This is still UCLA. Talent has a way of appearing at strange times. And, given the development of 18 to 23 year old male brains, reading that kind of spread provides a false sense of security and overconfidence. I don't like that number at all.
This is still UCLA. Talent has a way of appearing at strange times. And, given the development of 18 to 23 year old male brains, reading that kind of spread provides a false sense of security and overconfidence. I don't like that number at all.
You may want to review the Mike Leach F You, F Me, F everyone rant.
Neither did a good chunk of ours.
WSU isn't a blue blood and won't ever be. Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St have all spent 50+ years building their brand. That is what makes a "blue blood" program. Not a 5 year run of winning 8 & 9 games and going to Holiday Bowls. Not even a 10 year run of bowl games.
If that's all it took, then Boise St would be a "blue blood".
There are tons of programs who have had runs as good as we're on and better. Baylor, West Virginia, Oklahoma St, Utah, Texas Tech, Kansas St, TCU, Va Tech. Heck, even Rutgers. I wouldn't consider any of them "blue bloods". Not even close.
I'm worried that our team will not be as focused as they should be and that we are going to be surprised by UCLA's talent (kind of like the Houston game). I will not be surprised to see us trailing in the second quarter. I see us down 10-7 in the second quarter, up 14-10 at the half, up 35-17 after three quarters and winning 49-24. I would not be surprised to see us fail to cover the spread and win 42-24....but I believe we cover if we want to.
It takes a lot to become a true "blue blood" program. For a team like WSU to get close to consideration as a blue blood, we would need to meet most (but not all) of the following criteria:
- Win multiple conference championships in a short term period (less than 10 years)
- Soundly defeat a highly ranked opponent in a BCS bowl game, preferably more than once.
- Finish with 10+ wins in at least 4 out of 5 seasons.
- Finish without a losing season for at least a decade.
- Win a national championship and play in the CFP at least twice in a 10 year period.
Thanks, A&M, for this. What I find most interesting is that other than Stanford and WSU, the P12 does not fare very well in this category. Worth a look down the list.
