Alabama wins sec without tua. Clemson is winning with a freshman QB.
Texas went to holiday bowl with chance mock . Part of it is the conference they are in .
Not the playoffs but Rosebowl will do..
- Thread starter Cougarmatt90
- Start date
Alabama wins sec without tua. Clemson is winning with a freshman QB.
Texas went to holiday bowl with chance mock . Part of it is the conference they are in .
Alabama wouldn’t have won the title with Tua. And they actually lost the SEC last year without Tua.
Here’s the score from the Auburn game. As you can see no Tua
http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400933932
Then against Clemson they won with no Tua
http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400953413
And if you remember the National title game they had to put in Tua in order to win.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400953415
There is nothing to suggest Alabama wins without Tua. They needed him to win the title.
The couldn’t beat Auburn without Tua, they almost lost to Georgia without Tua. So last year without Tua they were the 3rd best SEC team. With Tua they won the title.
Go watch your lover at Sac. State that is where you belong.
That's true, but you could also say UW may need to beat OSU for the AC to be relevant. I know it's a longshot, but I could see Jonathan Smith putting together a plan uniquely effective vs. the Huskies.
Glad Cougar
I hope he does. It’s no guarantee we will win the AC and I don’t want to see those dickheads celebrating a North title on our field again.
Not so fast. OSU beats UO, mutts beat OSU and beat us, mutts are champs.
Mutts beat OSU and us, UO beats OSU, 3 way tie for first with no head to head tiebreaker.
In order to win the NW championship, you have to beat all the teams. No points if you don’t beat all 3. That’s how it works. This year, it’s only us with a shot at it.
Well my friend, the mutts created this mythical thing So just how do you know the rules so well? I'm starting to get a wee bit suspicious...…...
Never fear....he's just remembering the t-shirt that the Huskies made back in the day.
Objectively you are picking the worst possible perceptions of WSU and presenting them as a common thought process.
WSU struggled to put away Wyoming? We beat them by 3 TDs and pounded the life out of them in the 4th quarter. What game were you watching?
Yes the USC loss hurts, but if our only loss is on the road in September by 3 points, that is still pretty damn good. No SEC or Big 10 team would get that treatment. Ohio State just got beat down by 3 loss Purdue and were instantly given a mulligan.
WSU beat a fully healthy Utah that some were calling the best team in the conference as recently as last weekend. The fact that their QB got hurt weeks later is irrelevent, and there is nothing we can do about that.
And finally you penalize WSU for winning close games with Stanford and Cal. Ok cool - we didn't blow everyone out. No one is claiming we are Alabama.
You are a downer.
Who gives a shit? Its like some of you people hate having success.
Coug[ed] is not a Coug. It’s become apparent who he is. He’ll disappear once we win the PAC 12 championship. Until then, he’ll throw up a sail to slow our excitement through passive aggressive posts.
Last edited:
Maybe not. I'm sure they could play with those teams though.
What's amazing is those teams hadn't lost a 3 year starter at QB, an All American & an NFL draft pick on their OL, an All American on their DL and their all purpose yards leader from the year prior.
What we're seeing is really unprecedented for WSU.
Bad day in the carcass cleaning biz? Didn't know vultures were that sensitive. Be that as it may, there are several points. Alabama has enough talent to win consistently without qb play. Yes, they lost to a 10-2 auburn team, but Hurts was 11-1. Even with him at qb they beat LSU, Arkansas and the likes. There are two things at play. They have the talent and depth to beat up people, and they play in a conference that hasn't had great qb play. Not sure why that gets you all riled up. leach has said as much himself.
When I talk about Minshew and his value, we don't go 11-1 without him. Where Alabama for example throttles Vandy with poor QB play, we barely beat OSU with Minshew. Speaking of OSU, they had how many points put up on them by Ohio State?
It is a fun ride, and a great story. As Fab pointed out even as talented as the 97 squad was, how many games does WSU win without Leaf?
As for Sac State, couldn't even tell you their record.
Last edited:
Would help if I could see them.... : )But I think it has been cleaned up....I love it that you don't know how to edit your posts.
I think they probably beat the 97 team even though I think 97 had a little more talent. I just see 2002 having to many top flight DB's for the offense to be consistent. And the way Rien Long rushed the passer , I think that would have been problematic.
Price was almost to the unprecedented area you are talking about. 2002 to 2003.
Do you think if it wasn't Minshew, we would have this kind of success. I do chuckle because either Leach is part genius, part leprechaun, part savant. There is nothing in Minshew's past that indicated he was this type of QB. Heck the kid all but gave up football. Biggs said it best, Heaven sent.
Call me a downer, call me a snowflake, call me a RINO....think of whatever insults that you want to throw my way. It's fine. I look at this team and I see a good team that's finding ways to win but it is not a dominant team that can handle a team like Alabama in the first round of the playoff. I'd say that it's better to go beat tOSU in the Rose Bowl and finish in the Top 5 than it would be to see us get our asses kicked by Alabama and have everyone spend the next week saying that we didn't belong in there and that we screwed someone else out of the spot. Worse yet, we get our tails kicked, the next time we get close, the first thing that everyone would be talking about would be how we didn't deserve to be there the last time. So.......call me names all you want.....it's fine. We don't have the resume to get into the playoff unless there is absolute mayhem and I'm fine with being #5.
I'll bet you $500 right now that if we got into the playoff and played Bama, we'd lose by at least two touchdowns. That's not being a downer.....that's being a realist. We aren't ready for primetime yet....but I'm grateful that Leach has us as close as he does.
What purpose does it serve to answer questions with questions?
No one is making the claim we are going to beat Alabama you nimwit. In fact, no one is claiming anyone is going to beat Alabama.
But wanting to avoid them is a cowards move. I say bring em on. And if you lose, so what. You can still go into recruits houses and tell them that WSU made the playoff. Something that only UW and Oregon can say right now.
Hmmm what purpose does it serve to answer a question of an answer with a question ? If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?
I like this one better: "If a man speaks in a forest, and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Back to the namecalling! Like I said....keep it coming. Let me ask you this, what's more meaningful to a recruit? Getting our asses handed to us by Alabama in the playoff or winning a Rose Bowl and finishing in the Top 5? I'd argue that while making the playoff is good, winning the Rose Bowl would be better.
FWIW, if the Cougs manage to make into the playoff, I'll be excited to give Alabama our best shot if it happens.
BTW, I looked at the recruiting rankings for Oregon and UW before and after making the playoffs. Oregon had no meaningful change, UW showed a bump, but only to the point where Peterson matched what Sarkisian was doing from 2010-13. Strangely enough, Oregon is doing better right now after a couple mediocre seasons than they did after the CFP appearance. Go figure.
You keep framing this as if winning the Rose Bowl is a guarantee, which it 100% is not. You can just easily lose that game to Ohio State or Michigan, at which point what are you left with vs losing to Alabama?
Being able to tell future players and future coaches that WSU doesn't have a glass ceiling and that it is possible to make the playoff here is invaluable. Especially when 2 of our chief PNW rivals can already say that.
There are no guarantees in life. Either scenario is great and we could certainly lose to Ohio State. Here's the deal though, we'd be a 6 point underdog to Ohio State but have a legit shot at winning. We'd be a two touchdown underdog to Alabama and nobody would expect us to cover. I'll take whatever situation our team gets, but from a long term benefit standpoint, winning is always better than losing and accepting better odds is never a bad thing. The SEC is the "great" conference that it is because they know how to schedule their competition to put them in the best light and it's allowed them to build up their elite programs over time.
I was thinking about the cowardly comment above and realized how stupid that line of thinking was. WSU scheduled Wyoming....a middle of the road....at best.....Mountain West team, San Jose State, a team that's had one decent season in the past 10 years but has sucked outside of that, and an FCS team. The BS logic of "Let's take on Alabama just because" would imply that if our AD and coaching staff wasn't cowardly, we would be scheduling Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin and teams like that in our OOC games. If there was a "need" to prove our worthiness, scheduling and winning early season matchups would do it.
Our coaches know that it's smarter to schedule teams that are appropriate competition, not worry about how others view the level of that competition. Again, you talk about Washington and Oregon in the playoff like it's some magical cure-all that made them who they are. Take a stroll down memory lane and review their recruiting classes over the past 10 years and you'll see that the coach and the money available is more important than any one game. Florida State, Oregon and Michigan State have all had miserable seasons since being in the CFP.
I remember when we went to the Rose Bowl in 2002 and then knocked off Texas in 2003, our fans thought the additional exposure and success meant that we were finally part of the upper crust of college football. The reality? Nope. Again, individual games are meaningless in the big picture if you aren't winning.
Not surprisingly, you continue to miss the point completely.
What is the point in even playing if you don't want the opportunity to play for the ultimate prize?
What is the point in even playing if you don't want the opportunity to play for the ultimate prize?
We lost lesser bowls against lesser teams the last two years.
I'm actually more worried about a RB berth than a playoff berth as far as winning. At least in a playoff we go in swinging with nothing to lose and a puncher's chance. I feel like a RB is a game they would think they should win and maybe not play as loose and get punched in the teeth by a bitter tOSU team.
Getting that tOSU payback would be a sweet, sweet treat, though.
I get the Rose Bowl thing. I reaaaaaally do. But I'm with 96 and BCG on this. And the reason is, at least from Flat's perspective, it's an "either/or" proposition. We'll lose and be ashamed of how we played because we don't belong there or we play in the Rose Bowl and have a fighting chance. And I disagree with that. We play 'Bama, I don't expect us to roll over. I would CHERISH the David and Goliath storyline. And I think we'd make 'Bama sweat.
It honestly is a "no-lose" situation for us. We lose badly "We were supposed to lose" but we still get bragging rights that we were there. Only 2 other teams in the PAC can say that. We'd be in elite company. And what a boost for our team internally, if anything else. We make it a fight but still lose? "Damn, those Cougs are better than we thought!". And we'll get national exposure for that. And then obviously we win, "Well I'll be damned... They won... I'll be damned." and the Nation collectively yells, "Go Cougs".
I get what all of you are saying. But playing 'Bama is something we as fans have to trust the team that they aren't going to $h!t the bed, which is what I perceive some are concerned about. You aren't saying it but I don't think that will happen. I trust our team that wouldn't happen. We'll fight. And we'll fight hard. We'll be able to hold our heads up high after that game, no matter what. And from that, we will grow.
Bring on 'Bama.
It honestly is a "no-lose" situation for us. We lose badly "We were supposed to lose" but we still get bragging rights that we were there. Only 2 other teams in the PAC can say that. We'd be in elite company. And what a boost for our team internally, if anything else. We make it a fight but still lose? "Damn, those Cougs are better than we thought!". And we'll get national exposure for that. And then obviously we win, "Well I'll be damned... They won... I'll be damned." and the Nation collectively yells, "Go Cougs".
I get what all of you are saying. But playing 'Bama is something we as fans have to trust the team that they aren't going to $h!t the bed, which is what I perceive some are concerned about. You aren't saying it but I don't think that will happen. I trust our team that wouldn't happen. We'll fight. And we'll fight hard. We'll be able to hold our heads up high after that game, no matter what. And from that, we will grow.
Bring on 'Bama.
Statistically, there is a way you can attempt to definitively prove which scenario is a better bet: expected value tables. Plus, this stupid conversation is missing a stupid picture. In any event, enter win likelihood % as well as estimated program impact per scenario, and comparing the sums of the two scenarios will show which is the better outcome. You could still argue over impact and probability (I really do believe tOSU this year is a shell of former years), but the most strident people here might be surprised - using their own estimates - at how close the two scenarios are.
Utah didn’t go in fearing Bammy and that turned out ok for them, same should apply to us
