Can USC & Washington carry the PAC-12 upon their shoulders?

[Hook'Em0608]

Actually, there were at least a couple of seasons where a loss to a PAC-12 school was what kept USC out of the NCG and "weak conference" was the reason given for the exclusion. USC had to go unbeaten to get to the NCG where other programs didn't. So, it's not revisionist at all.

Oh yes, poor USC, never gets a fair shake.

2002 11-2 finished ranked #4 (highest ranked 2 loss team in the country)
2003 12-1 finished ranked #1 and #2 (split title with 1 loss LSU)
2004 13-0 finished ranked #1 (got title over also undefeated Auburn)
2005 12-1 finished ranked #2 (Texas undefeated USC highest ranked 1 loss)
2006 11-2 finished ranked #4 (finished behind 2 loss LSU but ahead of other 1 loss power conference teams)
2007 11-2 finished ranked #2 and #3 (finished behind 2 loss LSU and Georgia in one poll and just LSU in another)
2008 12-1 finished ranked #2 and #3 (finished behind 1 loss Florida and undefeated Utah in one and 1 loss Florida in the other)

If you can't objectively look at the above and see you benefitted from a broken BCS system as much as you were hurt, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you think USC deserves to be 1st every single time? That there isn't ever a scenario where USC finished behind a school with the same amount of losses?

Looks to me like your beef should be with the SEC cock sucking that went on during that time period, but to be fair, they kept winning the fucking national title year after year and mopping up in bowl games.

A non-revisionist could look at that era and realize it started USC, Oklahoma, and Big 10 cock is great! Then went to USC, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Texas, and SEC cock is great! Yes, the SEC got complete conference dick riding, but Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St, and USC got plenty benefit of the doubt and great coverage.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

It's hilarious watching Pac fans cry about not being the center of attention. Try being middle america. Well duh, the nations population center being on the east coast means more people follow east coast teams. Wah...

The playoffs have not been kind to either the Pac or Big 12. Crying about our location and time zone is sour grapes. Win some fucking titles and we will get the coverage. The BCS era is over, the AP era is over. It's time to put up or shut up.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

What??
you mean the rest of the Pac was bad like 2002 #10 WSU 10-3, 2003 #9 WSU 10-3, 2004 #9 Cal 10-2, #19 ASU 9-3, 2005 #13 Oregon 10-2, #16 UCLA 10-2, #25 Cal 8-5, 2006 #14 Cal 10-3, #21 Oregon State 10-4, 2007 #16 ASU 10-3, #23 Oregon 9-4, #25 Oregon State 9-4, 2008 #10 Oregon 10-3, #19 Oregon state 9-4
2003 WSU 10-3 with wins over #17 Colorado and #6 Texas?
2003 Oregon beating #3 Michigan?
2004 ASU beating #16 iowa? Oregon State losing 21-22 in OT in Louisiana to #3 LSU still finish out by beating Notre Dame in a bowl?
2005 UCLA beating #21 Oklahoma
2006 Cal beating #21 Texas A&M
2007 Oregon beating Michigan that finished 18th and #21 South Florida
2008 Oregon beating #13 Oklahoma State, Oregon State beat #18 Pitt,
and I only listed ranked teams from BCS conferences. there were wins over ranked Utah, BYU, Hawaii teams as well and plenty of non ranked P5 teams like Purdue, Michigan State, Miami, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri type teams.

2002 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 1-5

This season USC finished as highest ranked 2 loss team

2003 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 3-2

This season, USC split a title without even playing in a national championship game

2004 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 2-2

This season, USC won the title over an also undefeated Auburn

2005 bowl season

USC lost, rest of Pac 10 3-1

USC played for the title and lost.

2006 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 2-3

Did the Pac 10 show superiority over the SEC this season for USC to be the highest ranked 2 loss team over LSU?

2007 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 3-2

Did the Pac 10 show superiority over the SEC this season for USC to be the highest ranked 2 loss team over LSU? You guys were probably 2nd best and the rankings agreed with this.

2008 bowl season

USC won, rest of Pac 10 4-0

This is the best argument to be made for a Pac 10 snub that bowl season proved out to be true. Pac was a damn good conference that year. But so were the SEC and Big 12.

I don't see the reason for the all the whining, when the Pac 10 had a good season, USC got the reputation bump every single year during the Carroll run but 2008. 2008 was the year that the SEC and Big 12 were head and shoulders going into bowl season and the Pac 10 made it's case during bowl season. You guys hadn't really made any statements up until that point OOC outside of USC.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

You can't convince anyone outside of the Pac that the Pac isn't/hasn't been USC when they are dialed in and an odd ok team here and there and that is the entire story. That's been the narrative for a long time.

Pac12 after dark hasn't helped things. Way too much of our games come after the rest of the country is already well into their saturday night drunken stupor and beyond the ability to watch, more or less care, about two quality Pac12 teams going at it. Way too many of our top games come after 6pm eastern time. I mean no one cares if two teams not in any kind of a hunt are playing late, but come on.

The parity in the Pac has always been a thing. It's damned hard to run the table in this conference and historically always has, no matter how well the top teams have done against elite non Pac schools. For a long part of the history of this conference there wasn't any other conference that had more diversity of different types of offenses and defenses to prepare for. It only takes that one week against a style you aren't optimized for to trip you up. Even now, how many other conferences have the air raid, pro style, spread/no huddle, modified spread exotic formation, power running, spread with outside speed, etc. I've said for many years that being a DC in the Pac just has to suck balls.

Oregon got plenty hype when USC was down, Washington is getting plenty hype at the same time USC is on an upswing again. Stanford has gotten plenty respect under Harbaugh and Shaw.

I like Pac 12 football, I think you guys play an exciting brand of football and the parody makes it fun to follow. But with parody comes the lack of year in and year out hype for single programs. USC has been the only team in the Pac 12 to consistently put out a great product. That is why it's viewed as a USC dominated conference. That doesn't mean any given year that a great football team won't get recognized. You guys get too caught up in offseason talk where only the big boy schools get hype. Once the season starts, by week 4 or 5, if you have a team that is good, it will be talked about regularly.

Nobody gives a fuck about Baylor, TCU, or Oklahoma St nationwide either. Because they are flash in the pan programs. It's Oklahoma and Texas for the Big 12. Despite Texas being a lesser football school for 8 years now compared to those schools.

 

[Olyduck]

@Hook'Em0608 first you say the rest of the Pac was pretty bad most of those years when USC was winning. now you are posting where the rest of the Pac had winning bowl records 4 out of the 7 years and one year was a .500. that doesn't exactly hold up your argument. and it ignores the non bowl OOC wins too.

 

[Olyduck]

Oregon got plenty hype when USC was down, Washington is getting plenty hype at the same time USC is on an upswing again. Stanford has gotten plenty respect under Harbaugh and Shaw.

I like Pac 12 football, I think you guys play an exciting brand of football and the parody makes it fun to follow. But with parody comes the lack of year in and year out hype for single programs. USC has been the only team in the Pac 12 to consistently put out a great product. That is why it's viewed as a USC dominated conference. That doesn't mean any given year that a great football team won't get recognized. You guys get too caught up in offseason talk where only the big boy schools get hype. Once the season starts, by week 4 or 5, if you have a team that is good, it will be talked about regularly.

Nobody gives a fuck about Baylor, TCU, or Oklahoma St nationwide either. Because they are flash in the pan programs. It's Oklahoma and Texas for the Big 12. Despite Texas being a lesser football school for 8 years now compared to those schools.

"It's Oklahoma and texas for the Big 12" ?? really? Oklahoma 10 Texas 3 Kansas State and Baylor 2 each. Its Oklahoma and everyone else.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

@Hook'Em0608 first you say the rest of the Pac was pretty bad most of those years when USC was winning. now you are posting where the rest of the Pac had winning bowl records 4 out of the 7 years and one year was a .500. that doesn't exactly hold up your argument. and it ignores the non bowl OOC wins too.

If I used bad that was a bad choice of words on my part. I've never felt the Pac 10/12 was a bad conference. With or without USC.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

"It's Oklahoma and texas for the Big 12" ?? really? Oklahoma 10 Texas 3 Kansas State and Baylor 2 each. Its Oklahoma and everyone else.

I know it makes you sad that you just came off your most successful era ever and Texas still gets more talk in college football than Oregon, but it is what it is. Don't be a hater. I already said it was underserved the last 8 years and will continue to be until we can win some games again.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

"It's Oklahoma and texas for the Big 12" ?? really? Oklahoma 10 Texas 3 Kansas State and Baylor 2 each. Its Oklahoma and everyone else.

Although you get no argument from me that since the Big 12 was formed Oklahoma has been more dominating of this conference than USC has of the Pac 12.

We just gonna move the goalpost now? I thought we were talking about USC getting fucked over during the Pete Carroll era?

I know you really want to white knight for the Pac 12, but take that shit up with someone else. I'm not arguing the points you are making...

 

[Yo Tee]

Its just my opinion, but I am not confident in Washington this year. They lost A LOT of decent players from both sides of the ball. I really think USC is in the driver's seat w/ Utah right behind. That North division, I believe, is one of the weakest divisions in all of College Football.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Its just my opinion, but I am not confident in Washington this year. They lost A LOT of decent players from both sides of the ball. I really think USC is in the driver's seat w/ Utah right behind. That North division, I believe, is one of the weakest divisions in all of College Football.

Washington lost one starting WR and one starting OL on offense. They lost a boatload of guys on defense but they're replacing them with studs that have game experience.

 

[Yo Tee]

Washington lost one starting WR and one starting OL on offense. They lost a boatload of guys on defense but they're replacing them with studs that have game experience.

John Ross, Kevin King, Budda Baker and Sidney Jones are big losses. I don't see them returning to the playoff but they are lucky they don't have a game with USC in the regular season. I'm not as high on USC as everyone else is either though. Obviously it's either USC or Washington but I like Utah as a sleeper pick for a possible surprise this year.

 

[DHoey]

John Ross, Kevin King, Budda Baker and Sidney Jones are big losses. I don't see them returning to the playoff but they are lucky they don't have a game with USC in the regular season. I'm not as high on USC as everyone else is either though. Obviously it's either USC or Washington but I like Utah as a sleeper pick for a possible surprise this year.

After the 2014 season, UW had 4 guys go in the top 44 picks of the Draf, all on the defensive side of the ball and somehow were better the next year.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

John Ross, Kevin King, Budda Baker and Sidney Jones are big losses. I don't see them returning to the playoff but they are lucky they don't have a game with USC in the regular season. I'm not as high on USC as everyone else is either though. Obviously it's either USC or Washington but I like Utah as a sleeper pick for a possible surprise this year.

Utah lost eight guys to the NFL.

 

[WizardHawk]

Oregon got plenty hype when USC was down, Washington is getting plenty hype at the same time USC is on an upswing again. Stanford has gotten plenty respect under Harbaugh and Shaw.

I like Pac 12 football, I think you guys play an exciting brand of football and the parody makes it fun to follow. But with parody comes the lack of year in and year out hype for single programs. USC has been the only team in the Pac 12 to consistently put out a great product. That is why it's viewed as a USC dominated conference. That doesn't mean any given year that a great football team won't get recognized. You guys get too caught up in offseason talk where only the big boy schools get hype. Once the season starts, by week 4 or 5, if you have a team that is good, it will be talked about regularly.

Nobody gives a fuck about Baylor, TCU, or Oklahoma St nationwide either. Because they are flash in the pan programs. It's Oklahoma and Texas for the Big 12. Despite Texas being a lesser football school for 8 years now compared to those schools.

You are intermixing things I said, with whatever you had going on with TF12 or other posters.

There is zero doubt that west coast football isn't seen as much as middle/east because of the time difference. It has always been that way and is well understood. That doesn't mean zero coverage. In today's media world at least highlights are seen by those that interested the next day. Still, it is 100% accurate to say less entire games are seen by those in earlier time zones. When you only see highlights and/or final scores you aren't getting the depth of a team. Again, doesn't mean you don't know anything at all about them, but you aren't comparing teams equally.

Nowhere in that statement is anything about teams not being recognized at all or whatever else you are on about. USC has had plenty of coverage when they are relevant and Oregon or whoever the other flavors are at the time have had some coverage. That doesn't change that there have been many AP voters throughout the years that have discussed their lessor familiarity with west coast ball because of the time difference. We know even the playoff voters that are east coast have talked about the time difference so of course it has some impact greater than zero to this day. It may not be a massive impact, but it has something of an impact and always will. You are at an advantage exposure wise if you play your games at a time when the majority of the country is watching. It really is common sense that this is true. The only debate then is how much that advantage is and you don't think it's much.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

You are intermixing things I said, with whatever you had going on with TF12 or other posters.

There is zero doubt that west coast football isn't seen as much as middle/east because of the time difference. It has always been that way and is well understood. That doesn't mean zero coverage. In today's media world at least highlights are seen by those that interested the next day. Still, it is 100% accurate to say less entire games are seen by those in earlier time zones. When you only see highlights and/or final scores you aren't getting the depth of a team. Again, doesn't mean you don't know anything at all about them, but you aren't comparing teams equally.

Nowhere in that statement is anything about teams not being recognized at all or whatever else you are on about. USC has had plenty of coverage when they are relevant and Oregon or whoever the other flavors are at the time have had some coverage. That doesn't change that there have been many AP voters throughout the years that have discussed their lessor familiarity with west coast ball because of the time difference. We know even the playoff voters that are east coast have talked about the time difference so of course it has some impact greater than zero to this day. It may not be a massive impact, but it has something of an impact and always will. You are at an advantage exposure wise if you play your games at a time when the majority of the country is watching. It really is common sense that this is true. The only debate then is how much that advantage is and you don't think it's much.

That's fair, no argument from me on that.

 

[Yo Tee]

Utah lost eight guys to the NFL.

Yes but only Bolles was a big part of that team. Washington lost 4 key pieces of a pretty good team playing a farily tough schedule. Utah has a new OC, their only real competition in the division is USC. Washington plays Colorado early in the season that might derail them quick. Utah has a tough schedule but I think they do better than they did last year.

 

[Yo Tee]

After the 2014 season, UW had 4 guys go in the top 44 picks of the Draf, all on the defensive side of the ball and somehow were better the next year.

Are you talking about Danny Shelton, Shaq Thompson, Marcus Peters and Mr. Kikaha? That's not as stellar of a group as the group they lost in this draft. But, that's why they don't play the game on paper lol

 

[DHoey]

Are you talking about Danny Shelton, Shaq Thompson, Marcus Peters and Mr. Kikaha? That's not as stellar of a group as the group they lost in this draft. But, that's why they don't play the game on paper lol

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Great college players don't necessarily make great pros.

 

[Yo Tee]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Great college players don't necessarily make great pros.

That is definitely true lol