USC is #8 on Sagarin with a 90.56 rating.
Vandy is #52 with a 72.23 rating.
UCLA, Oregon State, Oregon, Arizona State and Arizona are all below Vandy. Heck, South Carolina and Missouri are a few spots ahead of Arizona.
Hello Bama Fans. Let me tell you about Washington
- Thread starter huskylawyer
- Start date
Vandy is #52 with a 72.23 rating.
UCLA, Oregon State, Oregon, Arizona State and Arizona are all below Vandy. Heck, South Carolina and Missouri are a few spots ahead of Arizona.
Good post. This game is really intriguing to me. I'm still not sold on Hurts as a passer. To me, his delivery is too slow, resulting in underthrows and balls behind the receiver. He'll get better, but at this point he still needs work. That said, I've said all year that if Alabama plays a team that can stop the run and cover our WRs in man coverage, we may struggle offensively. On the opposite side of the ball, we like to play man coverage and Ross is a concern. Alabama will rely on pressure and mixing their coverages and blitz packages to keep Browning off his game. If Alabama decides to not let UW run, they will not be able to run. Period. However, a balanced offense and success in the passing game can open it up. Again, good post and welcome.
Our second best OOC opponent, Western Kentucky, rates out higher in the Sagarin than any of the East division teams we did not play this year (Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and Missouri) by at least 10 spots or more.
Hmmm. "Cherry picking"? I used those two (ESPN/Sagarin) as those were the two that you used to make your point. But ... alas, you were concerned with the SOS comparison only when we both know that there's more to it than SOS. And both of the services you quoted have Washington ending the regular season ranked ahead of Clemson. If you have trouble remember what you'd said, simple click the link.
http://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278204&p=2944925&viewfull=1#post2944925
We said that they ranked your SOS lower. We didn't get into "power rankings" because you hadn't brought that up at that point. So now that it is clear that your SOS is lower, you want to change the conversation to power rankings. Fine. You win. ESPN ans Sagaran both have you higher in their power rankings. But the BCS as a whole has you 4th. Same with the Coaches and AP polls. They all align with the committee. All of them.
Washington caught basically all of the good teams in the Pac-12 though. So that scheduling bounce going against them deserves a tip of the hat. Still...Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Cal are flat-out not good and that was 5 out of their 9 conference games. Washington won these games by successfully arriving and getting off the bus. 8 out of their 12 regular season games were basically that too. They basically had a 4-game season.
I'm sure you could kinda make a similar argument for Alabama but the magnitude of just how easy UDub's schedule was cannot be understated.
I'm sure you could kinda make a similar argument for Alabama but the magnitude of just how easy UDub's schedule was cannot be understated.
You are correct. The human polls/committees that matter ranked Clemson higher than Washington. The computerized indexes that don't matter ranked Washington higher than Clemson. Somehow I don't think those computer indexes care about where Clemson ended last season, or what they were expected to do this year.
That's probably what it comes down to. I know that when I watched Clemson this year, I saw them through the lens colored by last year's game against Alabama. It is impossible not to given the fact that the offensive players who made that possible are still on that team. Their defense is not as good as it was last year (somebody tell me how Venables won the Broyles this year), but Watson is still amazing, as are his receivers, their TE and their RB.
Agree with everything you said with the exception that Washington played 5 Top 30 schools. But I haven't been comparing Washington to Alabama. I've been looking at Washington vs Clemson, who also played 5 Top 30 schools. The difference? Washington played 2 Top 10 schools and went 1-1 whereas Clemson didn't take the field against a school that ended in the Top 10.
When you look at how they did in those 5 Top 30 games we see Washington lost to USC by 13, beat Utah by 7, beat Stanford by 38, beat Washington State by 28 and beat Top 10 Colorado by 31.
Clemson OTOH was 0-0 Top 10 and against the Top 30 lost by 1 to Pitt, beat Auburn by 6, beat Florida State by 3, beat Louisville by 6 and beat Virginia Tech by 7.
So both Clemson and Washington had 5 tough games and it's my belief that UW outperformed Clemson over the course of those 5 games.
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
That being said, I'm looking forward to being in Atlanta at the end of the month for what I'm hoping is a great college football game against the alltime great program in college football history.
Peach Bowl should be a good one. And you're probably right that Clemson and Washington are not far off but I have a ton of respect for Pitt. That is probably one of the under-the-radar really great teams at this juncture. Media loved to hype up Southern Cal in November but honest to god: sign me up for another game with them over a game against Pitt at this juncture. That Pitt offense is hell on wheels. They ended up with as good of a two wins as any team in the nation in Clemson and Penn State. 3 of their 4 losses were by like 11 combined points (that loss to Miami was really bad though they upset Clemson the next week).
Sixkiller was awesome. He is also a great guy and outstanding Ambassador for the UW program. Back in the politically incorrect days of the early 70's I clearly recall the newspaper headline after a tough home loss to Stanford. It read "11 Indians better than 1". For those who aren't as "seasoned" as you and I .... before they changed their team name to the color Cardinal they were the Stanford Indians.
Not to hijack this conversation but I just wanted to add that I am old enough to remember Sonny Sixkiller.
I miss the good parts of those politically incorrect days. (Heavy Sigh) :wink:
Last edited:
263
Since I started following Washington football they've lost 263 times. While I'm hoping #264 doesn't happen for awhile ... odds are it will come relatively soon to a great college football program.
That being said, I'm hopeful that win #405 is one for the annals, right up there with the '78 Rose Bowl, the '85 Orange Bowl and the '60 Rose Bowl.
Since I started following Washington football they've lost 263 times. While I'm hoping #264 doesn't happen for awhile ... odds are it will come relatively soon to a great college football program.
That being said, I'm hopeful that win #405 is one for the annals, right up there with the '78 Rose Bowl, the '85 Orange Bowl and the '60 Rose Bowl.
Last edited:
Re: 263
FWIW the first words of my post that you quoted were "Since I started following Washington football ..."
For some reason I missed the Huskies' first 72 seasons.
That's exciting to hear. Washington won #405 2 Presidents later (Nixon).
FWIW the first words of my post that you quoted were "Since I started following Washington football ..."
For some reason I missed the Huskies' first 72 seasons.
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-