ADVERTISEMENT

Should WSU and Oregon State turn their series into a trophy game?

PeteTheChop

Hall Of Fame
May 25, 2005
1,959
505
113
Arkansas and Missouri play for the Battle Line Trophy.

North Carolina and South Carolina meet in the Battle of the Carolinas.

Colorado State and Wyoming compete for the Golden Boot.

Heck, even Fresno State and Boise State play for a milk can (see below)

There seems to be a good deal of respect between the Cougs and the Beavs.

Would a big trophy and an official name for the rivalry drum up even greater interest for the fan bases and from the Pac-12's media partners?

5441e6ad05a1e-image.jpg
 
Arkansas and Missouri play for the Battle Line Trophy.

North Carolina and South Carolina meet in the Battle of the Carolinas.

Colorado State and Wyoming compete for the Golden Boot.

Heck, even Fresno State and Boise State play for a milk can (see below)

There seems to be a good deal of respect between the Cougs and the Beavs.

Would a big trophy and an official name for the rivalry drum up even greater interest for the fan bases and from the Pac-12's media partners?

5441e6ad05a1e-image.jpg
If the AC and the Civil War went away...yes
 
If the AC and the Civil War went away...yes

Can you imagine the reaction of Huskies and Ducks fans if WSU and OSU collectively told UW and UO to pound sand?

"Change conferences and these rivalries are over."

The negative backlash for breaking up the Pac-12 and the two sports rivalries in the PNW would be absolutely brutal.

Not sure the administrations at Washington or Oregon have the guts to make those kinds of decisions
 
  • Like
Reactions: 79COUG
Can you imagine the reaction of Huskies and Ducks fans if WSU and OSU collectively told UW and UO to pound sand?

"Change conferences and these rivalries are over."

The negative backlash for breaking up the Pac-12 and the two sports rivalries in the PNW would be absolutely brutal.

Not sure the administrations at Washington or Oregon have the guts to make those kinds of decisions

It won’t be an if, it will be a when.

Money talks.
 
It won’t be an if, it will be a when.

Money talks.

Per Brand X, there's already a legislator in the Seattle area crafting a bill to prevent any shenanigans that separate the state's two Power 5 programs.

Probably doesn't want to lose his Apple Cup tickets.
 
Can you imagine the reaction of Huskies and Ducks fans if WSU and OSU collectively told UW and UO to pound sand?

"Change conferences and these rivalries are over."

The negative backlash for breaking up the Pac-12 and the two sports rivalries in the PNW would be absolutely brutal.

Not sure the administrations at Washington or Oregon have the guts to make those kinds of decisions
"The negative backlash for breaking up the Pac-12 and the two sports rivalries in the PNW would be absolutely brutal."

Actually, I don't think it would be brutal in the long run.

It would be a shock
, as with any major change.

Brutal at the time, but only for a season.

The reality is...UW has overwhelmingly dominated the series. If it happens...time to move on.

Genesis to Maps is all about change.

We would get over it.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine the reaction of Huskies and Ducks fans if WSU and OSU collectively told UW and UO to pound sand?

"Change conferences and these rivalries are over."

The negative backlash for breaking up the Pac-12 and the two sports rivalries in the PNW would be absolutely brutal.

Not sure the administrations at Washington or Oregon have the guts to make those kinds of decisions
The only way to keep the apple cup game that I would support is all games in pullman
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cougini5591
Per Brand X, there's already a legislator in the Seattle area crafting a bill to prevent any shenanigans that separate the state's two Power 5 programs.

Probably doesn't want to lose his Apple Cup tickets.
Lots of bills get drafted. Inslee is a dawg with veto power, too.

I'll believe it when I see it. When was the last time the State of Washington legislature actually did something of value? Certainly not in the last 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 79COUG
Lots of bills get drafted. Inslee is a dawg with veto power, too.

I'll believe it when I see it. When was the last time the State of Washington legislature actually did something of value? Certainly not in the last 3 years.
Did you ever watch the movie "Shakes the Clown"?

That's what kind of dog Inslee is
 
WSU needs the Apple Cup more than UW does, unfortunately, in terms of fan interest, donations, money, and so on, and all of that matters more than someone feeling good about telling UW to pound sand. Now, if a threat to not play UW following a Pac-12 exit might actually serve as an effective deterrent, sure. Sign me up. But it wouldn't.

I don't see UW leaving anytime soon, if ever. But even if it did, I expect WSU would try to focus on preserving the Apple Cup, with it viewed as some kind of major victory to get UW to agree to travel to Pullman every year for a while instead of playing at a neutral site, on a 2-for-1 basis, or something else. There would be a lot of grumblers saying UW should just be told to pound sand, but that isn't what would happen.
 
Last edited:
WSU needs the Apple Cup more than UW does, unfortunately, in terms of fan interest, donations, money, and so on, and all of that matters more than someone feeling good about telling UW to pound sand. Now, if a threat to not play UW following a Pac-12 exit might actually serve as an effective deterrent, sure. Sign me up. But it wouldn't.

I don't see UW leaving anytime soon, if ever. But even if it did, I expect WSU would try to focus on preserving the Apple Cup, with it viewed as some kind of major victory to get UW to agree to travel to Pullman every year for a while instead of playing at a neutral site, on a 2-for-1 basis, or something else. There would be a lot of grumblers saying UW should just be told to pound sand, but that isn't what would happen.
It's what should happen if it comes down to it.
 
WSU has zero leverage to force UW to travel to Pullman every year. Or play a 2 for 1 in Pullman.

It's not in UW's interest to play WSU at all should the UW ever leave the conference.

They may play a few times for 'tradition's" sake but after a couple runs through whatever superconference they decide to bolt to (which I completely believe will happen if the opportunity presents itself), they won't want any of that WSU smoke. No incentive financially or recruiting-wise or affecting their W-L record to continue to play the Cougs.

Sorry but that is the reality of it.
 
Lots of bills get drafted. Inslee is a dawg with veto power, too.

I'll believe it when I see it. When was the last time the State of Washington legislature actually did something of value? Certainly not in the last 3 years.

Don't follow politics much, so I'll leave it to the experts on this board.

But would not a Democrat-controlled legislature push to get involved/meddle with a bill like this (as opposed to a Republican-controlled legislature operating with a hands-off/less government mindset)?

A democratic legislature would be advantage to this bill passing, correct?
 
I don't see UW leaving anytime soon, if ever. But even if it did, I expect WSU would try to focus on preserving the Apple Cup, with it viewed as some kind of major victory to get UW to agree to travel to Pullman every year for a while instead of playing at a neutral site, on a 2-for-1 basis, or something else. There would be a lot of grumblers saying UW should just be told to pound sand, but that isn't what would happen.

If WSU is going 11-1 or 10-2 in the MWC or consistently winning 7-9 games in a Big XII superconference, why should Cougar fans care about maintaining a series with a Big Ten also-ran?

I hope the rivalry continues as a home-and-home if UW makes some kind of conference money grab like the Observer predicts, but as long as Chun and Schultz (or their successors) maintain the program on a high level, one non-conference game won't be that vital to WSU's overall well-being.

Also think you may be underestimating the joy of telling your enemy to go pound sand 😉
 
Back to the original question. There is an underlying rivalry between OSU and WSU. It has something to do with having a bad season and the fans will talk amongst themselves saying the same thing. You can lose to anyone, but don't lose to (WSU or OSU). It's subtle, but it's real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
On WSU vs. OSU, I have often thought that a neutral site game - maybe in Seattle - to kick off the season would be a great for exposure. I've thought something like the "NW Rivalry" "State Rivalry" "State War" and play for the "golden Fir Tree" or something like that.

Before the "no Seattle game crowd kills the idea"....consider, Sunday on Labor Day weekend is pretty much wide open for TV viewing. Games in Pullman are usually not well attended. The opponent is usually a weak one. The neutral game basically means one less "away" game. The drive time is pretty much the same for both fan/student bases. And let's face it, we need the money to be competitive.
 
On WSU vs. OSU, I have often thought that a neutral site game - maybe in Seattle - to kick off the season would be a great for exposure. I've thought something like the "NW Rivalry" "State Rivalry" "State War" and play for the "golden Fir Tree" or something like that.

Before the "no Seattle game crowd kills the idea"....consider, Sunday on Labor Day weekend is pretty much wide open for TV viewing. Games in Pullman are usually not well attended. The opponent is usually a weak one. The neutral game basically means one less "away" game. The drive time is pretty much the same for both fan/student bases. And let's face it, we need the money to be competitive.

Let's put something up with real value then

Winner gets to ship their homeless to the other state until the next time around.
 
Sorry if I want to get back to the original question.

Yes, I'd favor a trophy game between WSU and OSU. We have a ton of mutual history and I think it makes sense. And I'd include basketball somehow.

I could see a contest to come up with the football trophy name. Obviously there a bunch of semi-funny possibilities, but we should be able to come up with something solid.

As for neutral site football games...maybe. I actually like home and away better, but I would not throw out the possibility of a neutral site game. Maybe even do a trio: one home, one away, and one neutral; then repeat.

For hoops I'd like an annual tournament in December that includes both teams, and that should be in Seattle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeteTheChop
WSU needs the Apple Cup more than UW does, unfortunately, in terms of fan interest, donations, money, and so on, and all of that matters more than someone feeling good about telling UW to pound sand. Now, if a threat to not play UW following a Pac-12 exit might actually serve as an effective deterrent, sure. Sign me up. But it wouldn't.

I don't see UW leaving anytime soon, if ever. But even if it did, I expect WSU would try to focus on preserving the Apple Cup, with it viewed as some kind of major victory to get UW to agree to travel to Pullman every year for a while instead of playing at a neutral site, on a 2-for-1 basis, or something else. There would be a lot of grumblers saying UW should just be told to pound sand, but that isn't what would happen.
eff that. If UW left we should never play them again.
 
On WSU vs. OSU, I have often thought that a neutral site game - maybe in Seattle - to kick off the season would be a great for exposure. I've thought something like the "NW Rivalry" "State Rivalry" "State War" and play for the "golden Fir Tree" or something like that.

Before the "no Seattle game crowd kills the idea"....consider, Sunday on Labor Day weekend is pretty much wide open for TV viewing. Games in Pullman are usually not well attended. The opponent is usually a weak one. The neutral game basically means one less "away" game. The drive time is pretty much the same for both fan/student bases. And let's face it, we need the money to be competitive.
1. Yes, you are right that we DO need money! A lot of money. But I question whether this is the answer to that problem.
2. What does Sunday of Labor Day weekend have to do with Cougar football?
3. Yes, LD weekend games are not well attended, but what makes you think that they would be well attended in Seattle? And don't forget that WSU would have to split proceeds 50/50 with OSU if it is in Seattle.
4. The neutral site means one less away game only every other year, not every year. It also means one less home game every other year. I'm thinking that might just possibly piss off the Pullman/Whitman County sponsors.
5. I think an analysis of drive times will benefit OSU more than WSU.
6. WSU was given a pretty good deal on the use of Seahawks Stadium because Paul Allen was the owner. Paul is no longer with us, there is a pretty good chance the Cougar discount will no longer be available.
7. IIRC, interest in the Seattle games declined over the years and was not at all the financial boon that was envisioned. Have any external factors changed over the years to make us think that interest in a Seattle game has changed? I don't think of any right away.......
8. The NFL doesn't play regular season games on Labor Day weekend-why is that? Could it be that they know attendance suffers that weekend and so they use it as a "throwaway" weekend for the final pre-season game? A lot of folks like to use that as the final summer getaway with family and will not go to either place for a game.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but my initial thinking leaves me dubious of the benefits of this plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HCoug
On WSU vs. OSU, I have often thought that a neutral site game - maybe in Seattle - to kick off the season would be a great for exposure. I've thought something like the "NW Rivalry" "State Rivalry" "State War" and play for the "golden Fir Tree" or something like that.

Before the "no Seattle game crowd kills the idea"....consider, Sunday on Labor Day weekend is pretty much wide open for TV viewing. Games in Pullman are usually not well attended. The opponent is usually a weak one. The neutral game basically means one less "away" game. The drive time is pretty much the same for both fan/student bases. And let's face it, we need the money to be competitive.
No seattle game
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cougini5591
I'm not in favor of any Seattle games, but if there was anything I'd understand, it would be something like an early-season September home game against some kind of out-of-conference opponent, and done no more frequently than every three or four years.

Maintain a connection with the westside alumni who will never travel to Pullman anyway, but not with a conference game and not every year, as Bill screwed up in doing. If you can get behind doing something like that, the question is whether to use any such game to just play a San Jose State type of school (the Seattle crowd would show up to drink and pretend they care every few years no matter who the opponent is) or as a way to get some kind of "big" school in town for a neutral site matchup when they wouldn't go to Pullman.

I don't care that much about giving a school like San Jose State travel to the game as easy as it is for the Cougs, nor about scheduling a likely loss, so I'm against the idea generally, but those are the only ways I'd grudgingly want to see it.
 
Other big programs do neutral site games series with success. OK vs. Texas. Georgia vs. Florida. If done with say Oregon State, at the right time of the year, I would do it.

The point on Labor Day weekend is their is TV programming is open. ESPN would pay money for the right match up. The ticket sale business case for both schools to do it, is there. I know we won't due to the history and taste of the Seattle game. I think the Seahawks would give us a deal - President is a Coug and Seattle benefits from the added fans in town - as long as no conflicts with the M's.

Fast forward....conference has stated they want to play in LA. If they say, WSU and OSU you are playing "the Pac-12 kick off game in LA"...(which has to be in the works)...we'd be fine with it because of the perceived "recruiting exposure."

Like it or not -- and I don't like it -- we are going to have to be open minded on how to generate more revenue to WSU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cr8zyncalif
Both of us have good vet schools, maybe we could have it sponsored by Purina.

Play at a neutral site, rotating between Ellensburg and The Dalles?

As for the trophy...for a game between Cougars and Beavers, how about the Furburger Bowl? The trophy itself could look like a taco.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90 and 79COUG
Lots of great ideas here

I wonder if it ever came to the point where, if (for the aforementioned reasons) both the Cougs and Beavs decided to cut loose their in-state rivals, could the "Cascades Classic" be the annual season-finale for both programs?

Maybe a four-year rotation on Thanksgiving Weekend among Pullman, Corvallis, Seattle and Portland (OSU has played some games at Civic Stadium over the years) could grow the rivalry even further and might be televised nationally on ESPN or FOX if it ends up as a Big XII conference game
 
I like "Cascade Classic" for the basketball tourney in Seattle that always has OSU and WSU as hosts. The name has a certain je ne sais quoi. Prob could use the same name for the football rivalry, much as we do with the AC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeteTheChop
Too bad EWU and Portland State took the Dam Cup.

Best Dam Rivalry in the West.

Or at least until Inslee and his ilk blow them up to save fishies.
 
I like it.

T-Town, what do you think about rotating the "Cascade Cup" among Pullman, Corvallis, Seattle and Portland?

That could generate a lot of interest across both states
I'm fine with neutral site games.

I think the only way this is getting played game is getting played on campus.... for reasons listed in this post.

On neutral site games, I think the conference will drive this with the networks paying a premium for certain match-ups.
 
Too bad EWU and Portland State took the Dam Cup.

Best Dam Rivalry in the West.

Or at least until Inslee and his ilk blow them up to save fishies.
No fish will be saved by this. Quite the opposite. It will also kill birds, small mammals, and people.

And, once they've gotten the Snake dams, they'll start coming after the Columbia ones.

At no time will they discuss the way the Columbia is essentially blocked by nets at The Dalles, or the countless barriers, diversions, and culverts that block the small tributary streams (where salmon actually want to spawn) throughout western WA and OR, or the billions of gallons of water pulled from the Snake so that alfalfa and potatoes can grow in the southern Idaho desert. They'll also forget about international commercial fishing in the north Atlantic, the decline of salmon even in the rivers without dams, and the fact that the salmon population in the Columbia watershed was decimated by commercial canning to the point that many of the canneries were no longer economically viable...a full two decades before the first major dam on the river was built.

None of that matters, because Jay wants a car that doesn't make noise, and he wants windmills on every ridgeline in Eastern Washington. Doesn't matter that those windmills are so inefficient and economically questionable that nobody would even build them if there weren't government subsidies. Doesn't matter that tremendous amounts of carbon go into producing every one of them...and into transporting them...and into erecting them. Also doesn't matter that they never reach their rated capacity, because the wind doesn't blow the right speed all the time...and doesn't blow when the power is needed. And, most of the electrical utilities won't point any of this out, because with the dams gone they'll be able to raise rates...and if they're relying on unreliable power from windmills, they can probably raise them even more. Except when there are brownouts...and there will be.

Not that I have a position on this issue.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 79COUG and HCoug
No fish will be saved by this. Quite the opposite. It will also kill birds, small mammals, and people.

And, once they've gotten the Snake dams, they'll start coming after the Columbia ones.

At no time will they discuss the way the Columbia is essentially blocked by nets at The Dalles, or the countless barriers, diversions, and culverts that block the small tributary streams (where salmon actually want to spawn) throughout western WA and OR, or the billions of gallons of water pulled from the Snake so that alfalfa and potatoes can grow in the southern Idaho desert. They'll also forget about international commercial fishing in the north Atlantic, the decline of salmon even in the rivers without dams, and the fact that the salmon population in the Columbia watershed was decimated by commercial canning to the point that many of the canneries were no longer economically viable...a full two decades before the first major dam on the river was built.

None of that matters, because Jay wants a car that doesn't make noise, and he wants windmills on every ridgeline in Eastern Washington. Doesn't matter that those windmills are so inefficient and economically questionable that nobody would even build them if there weren't government subsidies. Doesn't matter that tremendous amounts of carbon go into producing every one of them...and into transporting them...and into erecting them. Also doesn't matter that they never reach their rated capacity, because the wind doesn't blow the right speed all the time...and doesn't blow when the power is needed. And, most of the electrical utilities won't point any of this out, because with the dams gone they'll be able to raise rates...and if they're relying on unreliable power from windmills, they can probably raise them even more. Except when there are brownouts...and there will be.

Not that I have a position on this issue.
You are a bad, bad, BAD man!!! How dare you not toe the official narrative line? Why, I bet you even want the use of EV's to be looked at from a global perspective, instead of just saying that it is cheaper to operate and better for the environment on a 20 mile round trip. Shame, shame, shame on you!


;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HCoug
This isn't that hard... have the school put up money for big name concert in the Colesium. Coordinate something with Whitman County Fair for discount tickets or ride passes. Offer a "lower price" concessions day. 50% off all cougar gear bought at the game.
 
You are a bad, bad, BAD man!!! How dare you not toe the official narrative line? Why, I bet you even want the use of EV's to be looked at from a global perspective, instead of just saying that it is cheaper to operate and better for the environment on a 20 mile round trip. Shame, shame, shame on you!


;-)
Well, if you really look at them, I seriously question how much gain they provide in carbon footprint. Awful lot of energy goes into all the plastics and rare earth metals they require. I suppose if they're plugged into solar panels to recharge they gain an edge...but then you can only drive them every other day.

If you really want low carbon energy production...you can't beat nuclear and hydro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HCoug
Interesting direction in which this thread has turned. That is probably the thing I like best about this site; you never know what will be discussed.

I see two viable future energy forms that are available to develop now; fuel cells and nuclear. I expected fuel cells to be at their current development 15 years ago; not really sure why it is taking so long. For nuclear, we have to diminish the waste similar to how France does it, then dispose of the last of it off-planet (the issues with on-planet disposal are well known). A capsule to the sun seems like the best approach, and all things considered, it is probably the most cost-effective solution. It also maintains funding for space research, which is something in which I see some value. Past history demonstrates that you can't trust a private entity to run a nuke plant; I would only buy in if it were run by the Navy, who has long & continuous experience with training people to safely run nuke reactors.

Solar has timing limitations. It is good for shaving peak demand during the day; it already does that in California, where subsidized solar has been a big industry for many years. The power companies here have had to shift their demand structure to charging peak rates in late afternoon/early evening, since due to solar they no longer have peak power plant demand during the noon-4:00 pm window. There is also the matter of solar panel recycling; we know how to do that, but the infrastructure that will be required is not in place to match the boom in solar panel installation over the past decade. Solar is a "day time only" part of the solution unless you want to massively produce more batteries, and the ecological & political cost of that is already severe. There are mechanical power storage solutions; the simplest of which involves pumping water to some elevated storage during the day and letting its flow back down at night run turbines. That is probably a better long term concept than massive battery farms.

Wind is almost a joke. Super high maintenance, very high first cost, and nobody runs wind farms other than for super peak demand periods as a result, unless their operation is politically mandated. They usually sit idle here. Their only real plus is that in many places, wind tends to be most available at the times when solar is not, so there is some timing advantage.

Tidal power generation is not without some appeal, but we are talking massive infrastructure requirements and relatively high maintenance. The maintenance is probably no worse than a conventional power plant, but it is probably equivalent.

Fusion has some long term appeal, but the R&D still required puts that out in the distance in terms of practicality.

Finally, there are the technologies to remove greenhouse gasses from the air. Obviously this is going to be central to any solution, and significant effort needs to be going in this direction.
 
I can see it right now!

The Mexican Drug Cartel presents:

Washington State vs. Oregon State

Sponsored by Fentanyl.​
That particular sponsorship would be more appropriate if it involved SDSU playing UTEP. It would even involve at least two different cartels, for added rivalry.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT