THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[Eco]

As an Alabama alum, I will say that we consider USC a traditional power, or whatever you want to term it. These teams are an exclusive group, with national championships in different decades, and sustained success. A rough list is:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. USC
5. Notre Dame

And then you might have Texas, Michigan, Miami, Nebraska, FSU, Florida, all those schools are lacking National Championships over a sustained amount of time.

 

[Eco]

And on the topic of Oregon, they are definitely not a traditional power, but they did accomplish something extremely rare, and that use jersey and what you guys call 'flashy' things to recruit great talent, and play with a style of offense that hadn't been seen to that extent, and then win with it.

They used an unorthodox method to gain success and notoriety, and I can't be mad at them for it. I was hoping they were going to beat OSU and Auburn for the National Championships, and I remember seeing them with the signs saying 'We Want Bama', and I was thinking, "Fuck you, we don't want anything to do with that offense."

 

[socaljim242]

The Rose Bowl argument is a little flawed. You are forgetting or not mentioning that Oregon won 2 BCS Fiesta Bowls due to the BCS rotation. More than likely they would have won the Rose Bowl in those years.

Is Oregon a traditional power? Not even close. They have been a recent power, but it would take 4 or 5 more decades of being ranked with a few nattys. Then maybe 50 years from now they can be mentioned with the Oklahoma, USC, & Alabama's.

Even if you consider the Fiesta Bowl wins as Rose Bowl wins ,USC would have the same amount as Oregon since 2000. Which still holds up my argument that USC despite sanctions and it's current condition is still a traditional power. I wasn't knocking Oregons winning of late just pumping the breaks on how down USCs been.

 

[trojanfan12]

not entirely true because Oregon has beat Stanford and beat teams that tried to dictate time like Wisconsin, Florida State, Michigan State, Kansas State and Texas.
the narrative that Oregon can't beat bigger physical teams is a clouded in that while yes they have lost to teams that fit that description they have beat some too. but they have also lost a few to teams that dont fit that description.

To me, it's like Alabama and their struggles with uptempo offenses. Yes, Alabama has beaten plenty of teams that play uptempo, but when they struggle and/or lose, it's usually to a team running an uptempo offense.

The reverse is true with Oregon. Yes, they have beaten teams that play more of a power attack/ball control style, but when they struggle and/or lose, it's more likely to be against a power team.

 

[trojanfan12]

The Rose Bowl argument is a little flawed. You are forgetting or not mentioning that Oregon won 2 BCS Fiesta Bowls due to the BCS rotation. More than likely they would have won the Rose Bowl in those years.

Is Oregon a traditional power? Not even close. They have been a recent power, but it would take 4 or 5 more decades of being ranked with a few nattys. Then maybe 50 years from now they can be mentioned with the Oklahoma, USC, & Alabama's.

I don't know about 50 years, but I agree it'll take awhile and a Natty or 2 would help their case tremendously. Also, I hope Ducks fans don't think I'm criticizing Oregon. I'm just pointing out where they are and that every traditional power has been where Oregon is right now. Imo, for us to even be having this conversation shows how successful Oregon has been.

 

[SUBuddha]

Stanford will never be a traditional power, I am just going to enjoy the ride as long as I can, then again, I have been a fan through some horrible seasons too.

 

[Eco]

Stanford will never be a traditional power, I am just going to enjoy the ride as long as I can, then again, I have been a fan through some horrible seasons too.

That is the right mindset, enjoy it while it lasts. Even with Alabama, I know it all has to end sometime, so I might as well enjoy it.

When I was school, Alabama's record was -

2004: 6-6
2005: 10-2 (although Alabama vacated all wins)
2006: 6-7 (again, all wins were vacated)
2007: 7-6 (5 wins were vacated)

That means without counting the vacated wins, Alabama was 29-21 while I was there. Those are lean years.

 

[Olyduck]

I wouldn't say any team in college football history has ever been where Oregon is. I'd say Texas would be about closest ever but even Texas' boosters lack Uncle Phil.

Uncle Phil bought Oregon into a top program and IMO there biggest issue is Uncle Phil and Oregon didn't actually acknowledge they were in the big leagues and have kept Oregon the gimmick school instead of evolving.

That was an issue with us, we were a gimmick school with a spread offense but once we got in our little 3 year run we didn't have the resources to evolve but Oregon does.

Forward pass was just a gimmick.
Shotgun formation was just a gimmick.
Pretty much any formation that broke from the norm was just a gimmick.
Nickel defense was just a gimmick

 

[wazzu31]

not entirely true because Oregon has beat Stanford and beat teams that tried to dictate time like Wisconsin, Florida State, Michigan State, Kansas State and Texas.
the narrative that Oregon can't beat bigger physical teams is a clouded in that while yes they have lost to teams that fit that description they have beat some too. but they have also lost a few to teams that dont fit that description.

I'm not saying you're style keeps you guys from winning or that it hinders you from ever winning a NC. I'm just saying you guys missed a big chance with you're Nike money by sticking with that style. With SC, UCLA and UW down you guys should've had a title by now had you switched styles IMO. Guys like Mariota aren't coming around very often and the Pac isn't weak like it was when you had Thomas and Dixon.

 

[Olyduck]

I'm not saying you're style keeps you guys from winning or that it hinders you from ever winning a NC. I'm just saying you guys missed a big chance with you're Nike money by sticking with that style. With SC, UCLA and UW down you guys should've had a title by now had you switched styles IMO. Guys like Mariota aren't coming around very often and the Pac isn't weak like it was when you had Thomas and Dixon.

changing styles is kind of what got Oregon to where they are. remember Knight started really putting money into the program after Oregon won the conference in 94. as the years went Oregon got faster. Smith vs Harrington vs clemons vs Dixon vs Masoli vs Thomas vs Mariota has been very different offenses through the years

 

[wazzu31]

Forward pass was just a gimmick.
Shotgun formation was just a gimmick.
Pretty much any formation that broke from the norm was just a gimmick.
Nickel defense was just a gimmick

All those you listed are offenses that can evolve, you guys sticking with the Chip Kelly style does not allow for an evolution.

You mentioned Joey Harrington's era which is specifically what I'm talking about you guys going wrong. When you had Harrington, then Droughts, Morris, Smith etc is what you should've built off of IMO. Instead you are stuck with a shit ton of speed and average at best QB's, and you need to find that unicorn QB to get you over the hump.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

All those you listed are offenses that can evolve, you guys sticking with the Chip Kelly style does not allow for an evolution.

You mentioned Joey Harrington's era which is specifically what I'm talking about you guys going wrong. When you had Harrington, then Droughts, Morris, Smith etc is what you should've built off of IMO. Instead you are stuck with a shit ton of speed and average at best QB's, and you need to find that unicorn QB to get you over the hump.

You mean like Cam Newton at Auburn, Vince Young at Texas & Tim Tebow at Florida.

 

[WizardHawk]

As an Alabama alum, I will say that we consider USC a traditional power, or whatever you want to term it. These teams are an exclusive group, with national championships in different decades, and sustained success. A rough list is:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. USC
5. Notre Dame

And then you might have Texas, Michigan, Miami, Nebraska, FSU, Florida, all those schools are lacking National Championships over a sustained amount of time.

It's often too complicated, but to many there is a difference between a blue blood team and a traditional power. The blue bloods are the 5-6 teams while the traditional powers are many on the rest of that list and probably a couple more. Teams that can come and go, but over the decades have had several runs of being very dangerous and threats to win a national championship. Power doesn't have to mean the most dominate of all time. Either way, Oregon isn't even close to either of those. There was an argument that UW was as they have a long standing history of winning going back to the early days, but after the last 15 years no one puts them in that category. Go on another run and come back and they have an easier argument to reaching that status again than Oregon or Standford does despite their recent success.

 

[Olyduck]

All those you listed are offenses that can evolve, you guys sticking with the Chip Kelly style does not allow for an evolution.

You mentioned Joey Harrington's era which is specifically what I'm talking about you guys going wrong. When you had Harrington, then Droughts, Morris, Smith etc is what you should've built off of IMO. Instead you are stuck with a shit ton of speed and average at best QB's, and you need to find that unicorn QB to get you over the hump.

look at the numbers and you will see this is not the same offense that Chip ran

 

[WizardHawk]

That is the right mindset, enjoy it while it lasts. Even with Alabama, I know it all has to end sometime, so I might as well enjoy it.

When I was school, Alabama's record was -

2004: 6-6
2005: 10-2 (although Alabama vacated all wins)
2006: 6-7 (again, all wins were vacated)
2007: 7-6 (5 wins were vacated)

That means without counting the vacated wins, Alabama was 29-21 while I was there. Those are lean years.

Son, you don't know lean years until you've followed a team that was a national power and watch them end up so far in the dumps that they go 0-12. That's lean years. It's one thing for the duck fans, stanford fans, etc to talk about their struggling years, but back then that's all they knew. You really can't feel the dumps until you've been to the very top of the sport and then go that deep downhill. I've been a UW fan since the mid 70's and only knew quality football for at least 25-30 years of that time only to see it all taken away.

That's why most of our base is cautious while also still being excited over what has been building the last few years going back to Sark's last couple of seasons and the jump they have been making since Petersen has taken over. We know well both sides of the coin. Sure feels like things are heading back to where UW belongs, but they have to go prove it before we are fully buying in.

 

[Eco]

Son, you don't know lean years until you've followed a team that was a national power and watch them end up so far in the dumps that they go 0-12. That's lean years. It's one thing for the duck fans, stanford fans, etc to talk about their struggling years, but back then that's all they knew. You really can't feel the dumps until you've been to the very top of the sport and then go that deep downhill. I've been a UW fan since the mid 70's and only knew quality football for at least 25-30 years of that time only to see it all taken away.

That's why most of our base is cautious while also still being excited over what has been building the last few years going back to Sark's last couple of seasons and the jump they have been making since Petersen has taken over. We know well both sides of the coin. Sure feels like things are heading back to where UW belongs, but they have to go prove it before we are fully buying in.

See, I think differently because of my situation. My father is from Alabama, born and raised, so growing up, all I heard about were the glorious 60's & 70's. In 1992, I was 6, and not into Alabama at the time, so I missed out on that as well. From '92-2009, we had 1 really good year, and that was 1999 when we actually had season tickets and watched Shaun Alexander play in the Orange Bowl against Tom Brady and Michigan.

Other bowls game during my 'formidable' years, Gator Bowl, Citrus Bowl, Outback Bowl, Music City, Independence, etc.. Violations made us unable to go to Bowls games and took away wins that I was there watching.

It is lean for Alabama, because Alabama fans have different expectations. Especially when you grow up around parents who were raised with those expectations and all these stories about how great we used to be...

Granted, fast forward, and now I understand, so I won't take one second of this run for granted, as it won't last forever, so I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

But to finish my point, those are absolutely lean years to us.

 

[wazzu31]

You mean like Cam Newton at Auburn, Vince Young at Texas & Tim Tebow at Florida.

Actually, those are prime examples. Stud players that had real NFL talent around them and their offenses evolved. Not sure if you realize this as well but Auburn, Texas and Florida won a title with the before a mentioned players.

 

[WizardHawk]

See, I think differently because of my situation. My father is from Alabama, born and raised, so growing up, all I heard about were the glorious 60's & 70's. In 1992, I was 6, and not into Alabama at the time, so I missed out on that as well. From '92-2009, we had 1 really good year, and that was 1999 when we actually had season tickets and watched Shaun Alexander play in the Orange Bowl against Tom Brady and Michigan.

Other bowls game during my 'formidable' years, Gator Bowl, Citrus Bowl, Outback Bowl, Music City, Independence, etc.. Violations made us unable to go to Bowls games and took away wins that I was there watching.

It is lean for Alabama, because Alabama fans have different expectations. Especially when you grow up around parents who were raised with those expectations and all these stories about how great we used to be...

Granted, fast forward, and now I understand, so I won't take one second of this run for granted, as it won't last forever, so I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

But to finish my point, those are absolutely lean years to us.

I don't think you were getting what I was laying down.

You said they were lean years because Bama has different expectations.

In the late 80's and early 90's UW had every single bit those same expectations and had been a power for some time. After the sanctions that took down the program they got all the way down to a 0-12 season. Bama doesn't have any 0-12 seasons. No one else in the Pac does either. You can't possibly EVER go farther downhill than national title to 0-12. That's the definition of the worst drop you can possibly have. There is no comparison. And it's not even close.

 

[Eco]

I don't think you were getting what I was laying down.

You said they were lean years because Bama has different expectations.

In the late 80's and early 90's UW had every single bit those same expectations and had been a power for some time. After the sanctions that took down the program they got all the way down to a 0-12 season. Bama doesn't have any 0-12 seasons. No one else in the Pac does either. You can't possibly EVER go farther downhill than national title to 0-12. That's the definition of the worst drop you can possibly have. There is no comparison. And it's not even close.

I get it, and not being mean but just trying to explain my point of view, as good as UW football was, it was Bear Bryant good, over 10 National Championships good. And you speak about 10-20 years for UW, whereas I'm talking 40+ years with Alabama. It's all about the starting point I suppose.

My father started off high - got lean (though no 0-12) - and is now back on a high.
I was born in '86 - So I was lean for most years until 2009 since I was too young for '92

I'm not trying to suggest we have the same definition of lean, and say that Alabama's was worse than UW, because that's not far to you or the other UW fans that went through that dry spell, all I'm say is that to me, this was a dry, or 'lean', spell, and 100% based on the stories I read and what my father told me.

 

[TheLonestarDUCK]

Actually, those are prime examples. Stud players that had real NFL talent around them and their offenses evolved. Not sure if you realize this as well but Auburn, Texas and Florida won a title with the before a mentioned players.

That was the point - those programs have not won w/o a NFL QB. Your statement that Oregon needs a high quality QB to win it all holds true for 99% of the CFB teams.