Can USC or Washington string together dynasties after huge 2016 seasons?

[4down20]

No. Any QB USC would have lost the game. But Darnold is a better QB than the one USC started to begin the season.

I'm sure if your coaches switched them for good reason.

But, I think the difference is not as much as some USC fans would like to think. Darnold had a bit of an easier schedule IMO.

 

[Olyduck]

Can you be called a dynasty without actually winning a national title?

Or can you call it a dynasty after one good year?

it depends on how you want to break it down. they could have a conference dynasty. which would put them at least in contention for NC

 

[4down20]

If they sustain longer drives that means less offensive touches for Alabama and thus less scoring. Again, it was not the difference in the game and Alabama would have won it running away, but it COULD have made it a closer game.

The other guy played, he did worse against the 2nd string.

 

[Olyduck]

OU and UT were neck and neck at it for awhile there. Same with Michigan and Ohio St. back in the day.

how do you figure? OU won 10 Big 12 titles while Texas had 2.

 

[Olyduck]

No, no and no.

The question wasn't whether they have a dynasty, it was if Washington or USC could begin one.

The obvious answer is yes, they could. But to talk about it know would be a giant waste of time.

if that's the question then anyone could have one

 

[Wamu]

if that's the question then anyone could have one

Even Rutgers, Vanderbilt & Kansas?

 

[Olyduck]

I think Washington will, not sure about USC though.

I think USC has the better chance only because they are USC. Im not even sold on Washington to just walk away with the North this year

 

[7Samurai13]

The other guy played, he did worse against the 2nd string.

Who pissed in your cereal this morning? You are literally inventing a conversation so you can have argument about something that wasn't even said.

 

[Olyduck]

Even Rutgers, Vanderbilt & Kansas?

Can they yes. will they probably not

 

[4down20]

Who pissed in your cereal this morning? You are literally inventing a conversation so you can have argument about something that wasn't even said.

Well that wasn't really what I was trying to do, I just see this QB excuse thrown around by USC fans like they were 2 different teams and I don't buy it.

 

[Wamu]

Can they yes. will they probably not

The more important question is can Oregon win a Natty?

Spoiler

 

[socaljim242]

Well that wasn't really what I was trying to do, I just see this QB excuse thrown around by USC fans like they were 2 different teams and I don't buy it.

You're just trying to be an ass. But Didn't Alabama switch QBs in that game? Did they do it to play better or the same or worse or just for the hell of it?

 

[7Samurai13]

Well that wasn't really what I was trying to do, I just see this QB excuse thrown around by USC fans like they were 2 different teams and I don't buy it.

I haven't seen them throw it around like Texas fans do with their National Title game against Bama, but to be honest I don't pay much attention to it. Should he have changed earlier, obviously since they did play better and did have quality wins against Washington and Penn State but he would not have been the difference in game one.

I would say that Michigan State would have done much better against Bama had Connor Cook been healthy but I still think Alabama would have won the game comfortably. Just because you think you would have done better doesn't mean you think you will win. Game planning and scheming for one QB and changing to another isn't the best way to judge the second QB.

 

[Olyduck]

The more important question is can Oregon win a Natty?

Spoiler

View attachment 161648

as you pose it as "can" then the answer is yes. will they tho??

 

[Wamu]

as you pose it as "can" then the answer is yes. will they tho??

After crunching the #'s I'm confident that Rutgers, Vanderbilt & Kansas could all win a Natty before Oregon.

 

[WizardHawk]

The other guy played, he did worse against the 2nd string.

Had they named Darnold the starter week 1 he would have had more reps and had been a lot more prepared by the time he faced Bama so no one knows what impact it would have had. Given what we saw the rest of the year it's safe to say it would have been something more than no impact at all and likely not enough to have made a difference in the outcome. Given the chance to run with the 1's and start games he showed he was up to whatever was asked of him and that's all he can do.

I said pretty much the same thing about the lack of real tests after that though and agree. Their only real claim to their end ranking was beating UW at home and beating a PSU team most weren't buying as a top 10 team despite a couple of impressive wins.

After the losses to bama and utah they did what they were supposed to do and beat the teams in front of them, but it's not like they went on a murderers row and had a high degree of difficulty over that stretch.

Stanford and Texas at home are their only early challenges next year which is a huge step down from playing bama. Winning those could really give them the confidence (deserved or not) to make a run through the Pac12 south fairly easily. @wsu and @ND are on the slate, but ND hasn't been much recently and it's too early to tell if the pirate will have his crew dialed in or not this year.

 

[4down20]

I haven't seen them throw it around like Texas fans do with their National Title game against Bama, but to be honest I don't pay much attention to it. Should he have changed earlier, obviously since they did play better and did have quality wins against Washington and Penn State but he would not have been the difference in game one.

I would say that Michigan State would have done much better against Bama had Connor Cook been healthy but I still think Alabama would have won the game comfortably. Just because you think you would have done better doesn't mean you think you will win. Game planning and scheming for one QB and changing to another isn't the best way to judge the second QB.

I just don't really think QB play was the reason they lost.

Even as good as Deshaun Watson is, I don't think he would have won with USC either.

 

[7Samurai13]

I just don't really think QB play was the reason they lost.

Even as good as Deshaun Watson is, I don't think he would have won with USC either.

Nor did anyone here say that's why they lost.

 

[4down20]

You're just trying to be an ass. But Didn't Alabama switch QBs in that game? Did they do it to play better or the same or worse or just for the hell of it?

If I was trying to be an ass, I would have pointed out how funny it was to see someone calling USC's 10-3 season "huge" in context of starting a dynasty.

 

[4down20]

Nor did anyone here say that's why they lost.