THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[963BUSC]

...USC coming back but they didnt exactly have a strangle hold on the conference even with Carroll. They shared the title 3 of those 7. they lost games they shoulndt have almost every season. (Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA) teams were catching up to them even before the sanctions. Carroll is a better coach than Sark. not singling out USC just going off what the article talked about.

It was all a conspiracy to keep the NCAA away. USC would deliberately drop a game to a crappy Pac school while destroying OOC competition and in return the PAC would stand up for and help USC avoid sanctions instead of throwing SC under the bus like they did to Washington in the 90's.

 

[Olyduck]

USC won 11 games or more every year over a seven year period ( two AP Titles) and didn't finish ranked lower than 5th in any of those years. Finished first or tied in the PAC for first in all seven. Played in seven straight BCS games only losing to Texas (and getting the Okl beatdown taken off the books) for the best BCS winning percentage of any team. Two Heismans (not counting Reggies) . But yeah, nothing special. You can show me seven or more years of any PAC team coming close to that since 2000. Heck USC won 4 Rose Bowls in those 7 years. Oregon has won 1 (Uno) in a hundred years. I guess that's what you call catching up.

ok like i mentioned yesterday my work computer has issues with this site. sometimes lets me on sometimes thinks its a compromised site and blocks it. I typed a response and it kicked me out before posting.
so to sum it up
I never said they werent the best. just that i didnt believe they had a strangle hold on the conference. the perception of the USC and 9 dwarves was over blown.
it wasnt just losing to Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, UCLA, WSU, Oregon in that stretch but also games that were decided by 1 score or less (8 points) against pretty much everyone else.
05 is the only year I consider USC as the dominant team they were made out to be. every other year in that stretch they were the best but not dominant. they shared the title 3 out of 7 times that doesnt say dominant.
and like i said I wasnt singling out USC to single them out. I just went with the article. so your comparisons to Oregon are silly.
I didnt want to sit there and break down every school.
my other point that you glossed over was Carroll> sark. any day of the week. All this USC is back, I will believe it when I see it. If Carroll came back I would be more likely to take that statement seriously

 

[WizardHawk]

Doesn't look good for the Washington fans who talk about how the facilities and peterson are going to vault them to higher pastures. USC got a huge bump from 25th last year to 6th.

Don't whine to me that your Huskies are not on it because I didn't make it. You obviously care way too much what that panel said (or in your teams case, didn't say) because you're crying about it big time. I'm amazed at your reaction it's like someone just told you the Easter bunny and Santa Claus don't exist or you've never heard something negative about your team.

Your second post doesn't match reality. I don't care that they aren't on your list. All I did was respond to that first post where I clearly said we aren't worried.

In what universe is that crying or carrying on?

You really love to project things and try to make them into much more than they are.

I'll say this just one last time. Panels, preseason rankings, and lists don't win games. All of them can say what they want and it won't change our perspective on what our potential is. It just wont. There are rankings out there that have UW finishing in the top 25 and I've said I really don't see it. Not like I'm just being a homer. All I did was respond your assertion that we are worried as fans over this ESPN article where I said we weren't worried.

Is that finally clear enough? (not shocked if it isn't )

 

[Olyduck]

Your second post doesn't match reality. I don't care that they aren't on your list. All I did was respond to that first post where I clearly said we aren't worried.

In what universe is that crying or carrying on?

You really love to project things and try to make them into much more than they are.

I'll say this just one last time. Panels, preseason rankings, and lists don't win games. All of them can say what they want and it won't change our perspective on what our potential is. It just wont. There are rankings out there that have UW finishing in the top 25 and I've said I really don't see it. Not like I'm just being a homer. All I did was respond your assertion that we are worried as fans over this ESPN article where I said we weren't worried.

Is that finally clear enough? (not shocked if it isn't )

So would you saythose panels, preseason rankings and list that don't win games are about as impactful as history and tradion on winning games in the cuurent season?

 

[WizardHawk]

That falls under the category of duh.

Those panels have no more chance of being right than anything the blowhards on these boards spew. It's all just chatter until the games are actually played.

 

[Olyduck]

There are real questions about who will follow Mariota, or what that plan is. Four-star Travis Waller, who participated in the Elite 11 finals and The Opening, did not draw rave reviews from our recruiting analysts

so back to this part real quick.
he finished 3rd at the opening named to All Tournament team and won the 7 on 7 championship.
just saying.

 

[WhiteMamba]

And then there is Morgan Mahalak

 

[socaljim242]

ok like i mentioned yesterday my work computer has issues with this site. sometimes lets me on sometimes thinks its a compromised site and blocks it. I typed a response and it kicked me out before posting.
so to sum it up
I never said they werent the best. just that i didnt believe they had a strangle hold on the conference. the perception of the USC and 9 dwarves was over blown.
it wasnt just losing to Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, UCLA, WSU, Oregon in that stretch but also games that were decided by 1 score or less (8 points) against pretty much everyone else.
05 is the only year I consider USC as the dominant team they were made out to be. every other year in that stretch they were the best but not dominant. they shared the title 3 out of 7 times that doesnt say dominant.
and like i said I wasnt singling out USC to single them out. I just went with the article. so your comparisons to Oregon are silly.
I didnt want to sit there and break down every school.
my other point that you glossed over was Carroll> sark. any day of the week. All this USC is back, I will believe it when I see it. If Carroll came back I would be more likely to take that statement seriously

So you're trying to throw in games that were close but they still won into your argument? LOL.
They lost SIX conference games in seven years. They won the PAC outright four years and tied for first three times. Won four Rose Bowls. And in those seven years the never finished ranked less than fifth nationally playing in a record number of BCS games and having a record holding winning percentage. Yes, I know they lost six games in seven years so they weren't dominant. LOL.

 

[socaljim242]

Your second post doesn't match reality. I don't care that they aren't on your list. All I did was respond to that first post where I clearly said we aren't worried.

In what universe is that crying or carrying on?

You really love to project things and try to make them into much more than they are.

I'll say this just one last time. Panels, preseason rankings, and lists don't win games. All of them can say what they want and it won't change our perspective on what our potential is. It just wont. There are rankings out there that have UW finishing in the top 25 and I've said I really don't see it. Not like I'm just being a homer. All I did was respond your assertion that we are worried as fans over this ESPN article where I said we weren't worried.

Is that finally clear enough? (not shocked if it isn't )

Thank's for clearing that up genius. We were all under the impression that Panels -pre season rankings and lists actually did win games. Who knew? LOL
I never said you were worried ( over the article). It had just came out I just posted it. I'm sure most of you hadn't even seen it. So why would I think you were worried? I said "it doesn't look good for the Washington fans" clearly because they didn't put them in THEIR list. Not my list THEIR list. So it was THEIR assertion that UW wasn't worthy.
So like I've been saying, you're choice words and mocking of my military service was quite unnecessary.

 

[WizardHawk]

Thank's for clearing that up genius. We were all under the impression that Panels -pre season rankings and lists actually did win games. Who knew? LOL
I never said you were worried ( over the article). It had just came out I just posted it. I'm sure most of you hadn't even seen it. So why would I think you were worried? I said "it doesn't look good for the Washington fans" clearly because they didn't put them in THEIR list. Not my list THEIR list. So it was THEIR assertion that UW wasn't worthy.
So like I've been saying, you're choice words and mocking of my military service was quite unnecessary.

Why did I know that you weren't going to let that be the end of it.

I didn't mock your service, but it doesn't shock me that everything you read is negative until proven otherwise. Much of my family was in the Marines and my son just got out of the Navy after serving 8 years and is on his way to Penn State to work on his degree.

As for 'So why would I think you were worried?'

You obviously care way too much what that panel said (or in your teams case, didn't say) because you're crying about it big time.

All I did was point out I'm not crying over anything. I simply said we were not concerned with that panel.

Why is this so hard for you to deal with? I made a simple response and now your tantrum over it has gone on for pages. It's really not that necessary.

 

[socaljim242]

Why did I know that you weren't going to let that be the end of it.

I didn't mock your service, but it doesn't shock me that everything you read is negative until proven otherwise. Much of my family was in the Marines and my son just got out of the Navy after serving 8 years and is on his way to Penn State to work on his degree.

As for 'So why would I think you were worried?'



All I did was point out I'm not crying over anything. I simply said we were not concerned with that panel.

Why is this so hard for you to deal with? I made a simple response and now your tantrum over it has gone on for pages. It's really not that necessary.

Really?lol
"I realize you are former military, but you can remove that stick from your ass any time you like now. They don't require you keep it after you leave."
" I understood full well what FUTURE means asshole."
"I said I don't give a flying fuck about what your panel thinks about their future."

You simply said huh.

 

[WizardHawk]

Are you trying to deny you have a stick up your ass, because you are failing miserably at doing so. Epic fail kind of thing.

 

[Olyduck]

So you're trying to throw in games that were close but they still won into your argument? LOL.
They lost SIX conference games in seven years. They won the PAC outright four years and tied for first three times. Won four Rose Bowls. And in those seven years the never finished ranked less than fifth nationally playing in a record number of BCS games and having a record holding winning percentage. Yes, I know they lost six games in seven years so they weren't dominant. LOL.

If a team wins by 8 or less no I dont consider that dominant.

 

[socaljim242]

Are you trying to deny you have a stick up your ass, because you are failing miserably at doing so. Epic fail kind of thing.

Whats epic is your blathering. " I don;t give a flying fuck" "you asshole" "stick up your ass"
You're a little too emotional about all this. Maybe the one with something up his ass is you - your panties. :rollseyes:

 

[Olyduck]

You saying Wiz is getting too emotional when you are the one that is all butt hurt that someone doesnt think that USC was dominant even though I said they were the best in the conference no question.

 

[socaljim242]

If a team wins by 8 or less no I dont consider that dominant.

LOL. So a team has to go 5-6-7-8-9 years and beat every team by more than 8 or no way they were a dominant team? LOL. way to put that bar where no one can come close to reaching it. Miami in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Oklahoma in their hey day, Nebraska. I guess no one has ever been dominant.

 

[socaljim242]

You saying Wiz is getting too emotional when you are the one that is all butt hurt that someone doesnt think that USC was dominant even though I said they were the best in the conference no question.

Emotional= "You asshole !"- I don't give a flying fuck

I'm laughing at him that's my emotion.lol. You judge emotions about as good as you describe what a dominant team looks like. LOL

 

[963BUSC]

If a team wins by 8 or less no I dont consider that dominant.

Heck losing by less than 8 during that time was like a moral victory for a lot of teams.

 

[UtahUte]

GO Utes

 

[yeodonie]