Hello Bama Fans. Let me tell you about Washington

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,656
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Uh-oh.

Appears I have a little pressure on me. Will try to be on my best behavior ... and as a founder/moderator of Gonzaga's board I'd like to think I know a little about how to act while visiting somebody else's living room.

I'm incredibly excited about this game, and while I thought UDub was undersold a bit (i.e. should have had the 2 or 3 seed) I've come to the conclusion that it's better that they play Alabama first .... giving Chris Peterson more time to prepare.

I'm aware of the speed, size, experience, coaching, history, etc. etc. etc. This truly is David v Goliath that will be played in Goliath's neck of the woods. But ever since David sprung the upset .... there's a "chance" ... and i'm hopeful that my guys come through on the 31st.

While it's neither here nor there, I'll explain my username. I'm the only member of my family in the last 3 generations of my family that has a college degree that is NOT from the University of Washington. I learned how to say "Go Huskies" long before I learned how to say "Go Zags". BTW those 2 schools met on the basketball court last night .... and the "good guys" won by 27.

You guys have so much to be proud of vis a vis your football heritage (AND current team). This is fun. I plan to enjoy myself during the buildup .... and .... hopefully during the game.
Any team can beat any team on a given day. We're just talking about what the probabilities are. BTW, the David and Goliath comparison is probably always a bit overblown. In his day, expert slingmen were greatly feared. They were the artillery of the day. Goliath probably never had a chance... ;)
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
Good first post, and welcome.

I am left wondering why you feel that you should have had the 2 or 3 seed.
I watched the Clemson/North Carolina State game as well as the ACC final. Sure, that was just "2" games but both left me unimpressed with Clemson. And I'm willing to bet that's at least 1 more game than Clemson fans watched Washington this year. To me, a 31 point conference championship game win over #8 trumps a 7 point championship game win over #23.

Also, this "weak" schedule argument. At the end of the season, UW's schedule was something like 14 or 15 (out of the 128). They played 10 conference games plus 3 OOC. The big whining was from the Big Can't Count to 10 pundits/shills (can Ohio State get any more guys on ESPN?). UW's first game was against Big 10 Rutgers (who was 9-4 when the game was scheduled). In the meantime, Michigan was hurting their shoulders patting themselves on the back for scheduling Colorado (and won at home when the CU qb was injured in the 3rd quarter ... with the lead). Colorado was 12th in the Pac 12 three years running when THAT game was scheduled. So ... I understand ... UW's OOC ranked 127 out of 128 ... and until they played ranked Utah on the road (late in the season), ranked Washington State on the road (late in the season) and Colorado in the Pac 12 Championship, their OVERALL schedule was weak, too. But they PLAYED those games (and won those games). They also played (and lost) to USC at home (NOT a "pretty" sight that night). But the "meme" didn't change. So Washington went 12-1 with a Top 15 schedule and were "treated" as if they went 12-1 with the 127th ranked schedule.

Ohio State shouldn't have been "Top 3" as they sat on their duffs during "Championship" Saturday. They didn't even win their division.

THAT is why I felt Washington was a "bit" undersold.

And don't get me started on Barry Alvarez's "Committee". Stanford can't stand Washington. Tyrone Willingham (Washington's 0-12 disaster of a coach who was too busy playing golf to recruit/coach is STILL questioning why he was let go). Then there's Condi Rice. Hmmm .... 2 from Stanford "representing" the west. Right.

Let's just say I'm happy to make the playoffs .... and am looking forward to the next few weeks.

I've "read" a bit about UW just being lucky to be here. I have a feeling the Huskies are going to be around for awhile.
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Well, I agree with just about none of your reasoning, but thanks for taking the time to clarify your thoughts.
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
Well, I agree with just about none of your reasoning, but thanks for taking the time to clarify your thoughts.
And I don't understand how Clemson STRUGGLING to beat #23 Virginia Tech (by 7) somehow is more meaningful than Washington beating #8 Colorado by 31. And Colorado is still Top 10.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
I watched the Clemson/North Carolina State game as well as the ACC final. Sure, that was just "2" games but both left me unimpressed with Clemson. And I'm willing to bet that's at least 1 more game than Clemson fans watched Washington this year. To me, a 31 point conference championship game win over #8 trumps a 7 point championship game win over #23.

Also, this "weak" schedule argument. At the end of the season, UW's schedule was something like 14 or 15 (out of the 128). They played 10 conference games plus 3 OOC. The big whining was from the Big Can't Count to 10 pundits/shills (can Ohio State get any more guys on ESPN?). UW's first game was against Big 10 Rutgers (who was 9-4 when the game was scheduled). In the meantime, Michigan was hurting their shoulders patting themselves on the back for scheduling Colorado (and won at home when the CU qb was injured in the 3rd quarter ... with the lead). Colorado was 12th in the Pac 12 three years running when THAT game was scheduled. So ... I understand ... UW's OOC ranked 127 out of 128 ... and until they played ranked Utah on the road (late in the season), ranked Washington State on the road (late in the season) and Colorado in the Pac 12 Championship, their OVERALL schedule was weak, too. But they PLAYED those games (and won those games). They also played (and lost) to USC at home (NOT a "pretty" sight that night). But the "meme" didn't change. So Washington went 12-1 with a Top 15 schedule and were "treated" as if they went 12-1 with the 127th ranked schedule.

Ohio State shouldn't have been "Top 3" as they sat on their duffs during "Championship" Saturday. They didn't even win their division.

THAT is why I felt Washington was a "bit" undersold.

And don't get me started on Barry Alvarez's "Committee". Stanford can't stand Washington. Tyrone Willingham (Washington's 0-12 disaster of a coach who was too busy playing golf to recruit/coach is STILL questioning why he was let go). Then there's Condi Rice. Hmmm .... 2 from Stanford "representing" the west. Right.

Let's just say I'm happy to make the playoffs .... and am looking forward to the next few weeks.

I've "read" a bit about UW just being lucky to be here. I have a feeling the Huskies are going to be around for awhile.
Welcome.

Where is Washington's schedule ranked that high? Sagarin ranks Washington's SOS 41.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
Welcome.

Where is Washington's schedule ranked that high? Sagarin ranks Washington's SOS 41.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My "google" of the words "College Football Rankings Strength of Schedule" led me to this as the first option ... a "betting" website where #15 Washington's SOS is sandwiched between Ole Miss and Florida. I don't claim to be an expert, but I was curious where Washington ranked AFTER they played their later games against ranked opponents (1 at home, 2 on the road and one at a neutral site).

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
And I don't understand how Clemson STRUGGLING to beat #23 Virginia Tech (by 7) somehow is more meaningful than Washington beating #8 Colorado by 31. And Colorado is still Top 10.
It is about the entire season, right? Not just the conference championship game?
 

PitMaster

Suspended
Aug 24, 2015
2,281
1
0
Nick Saban has never won Coach of the Year in a season where we actually won a National Championship
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
My "google" of the words "College Football Rankings Strength of Schedule" led me to this as the first option ... a "betting" website where #15 Washington's SOS is sandwiched between Ole Miss and Florida. I don't claim to be an expert, but I was curious where Washington ranked AFTER they played their later games against ranked opponents (1 at home, 2 on the road and one at a neutral site).

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other
No idea how they calculate it and never heard of them. ESPN has your SOS at 55. Sagarin at 41.
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
No idea how they calculate it and never heard of them. ESPN has your SOS at 55. Sagarin at 41.
And it doesn't really matter. I was asked the question why I thought UW should have been "2" or "3" and gave my rationale. Perhaps I'm placing too much emphasis on the end of the season ... winning by 28 @ ranked Washington State and winning by 31 against #8 Colorado while going 12-1 in a Power 5 conference that plays 9 league games. They also beat #7 Stanford by 38. Interesting to note Clemson's games against ranked opponents. Won by 3, 6 and 7 and lost at home to unranked Pitt.

But if everybody agreed on everything, the world (and sports world) would be pretty boring.... and we'll see soon enough.

Also ... not sure of the rules here ... but I'm attaching this 2 minute "football" related video. I was in the house (Seahawks/Saints playoff game) for the original "Beastquake" but if you haven't seen this rendition ... it's pretty good (my opinion). Edited to add the "real" run is the next short vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5jvBxLZLwk
 
Last edited:

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
I watched the Clemson/North Carolina State game as well as the ACC final. Sure, that was just "2" games but both left me unimpressed with Clemson. And I'm willing to bet that's at least 1 more game than Clemson fans watched Washington this year. To me, a 31 point conference championship game win over #8 trumps a 7 point championship game win over #23.

Also, this "weak" schedule argument. At the end of the season, UW's schedule was something like 14 or 15 (out of the 128). They played 10 conference games plus 3 OOC. The big whining was from the Big Can't Count to 10 pundits/shills (can Ohio State get any more guys on ESPN?). UW's first game was against Big 10 Rutgers (who was 9-4 when the game was scheduled). In the meantime, Michigan was hurting their shoulders patting themselves on the back for scheduling Colorado (and won at home when the CU qb was injured in the 3rd quarter ... with the lead). Colorado was 12th in the Pac 12 three years running when THAT game was scheduled. So ... I understand ... UW's OOC ranked 127 out of 128 ... and until they played ranked Utah on the road (late in the season), ranked Washington State on the road (late in the season) and Colorado in the Pac 12 Championship, their OVERALL schedule was weak, too. But they PLAYED those games (and won those games). They also played (and lost) to USC at home (NOT a "pretty" sight that night). But the "meme" didn't change. So Washington went 12-1 with a Top 15 schedule and were "treated" as if they went 12-1 with the 127th ranked schedule.

Ohio State shouldn't have been "Top 3" as they sat on their duffs during "Championship" Saturday. They didn't even win their division.

THAT is why I felt Washington was a "bit" undersold.

And don't get me started on Barry Alvarez's "Committee". Stanford can't stand Washington. Tyrone Willingham (Washington's 0-12 disaster of a coach who was too busy playing golf to recruit/coach is STILL questioning why he was let go). Then there's Condi Rice. Hmmm .... 2 from Stanford "representing" the west. Right.

Let's just say I'm happy to make the playoffs .... and am looking forward to the next few weeks.

I've "read" a bit about UW just being lucky to be here. I have a feeling the Huskies are going to be around for awhile.
Is that you, Dr. Evil?

 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
And it doesn't really matter. I was asked the question why I thought UW should have been "2" or "3" and gave my rationale. Perhaps I'm placing too much emphasis on the end of the season ... winning by 28 @ ranked Washington State and winning by 31 against #8 Colorado while going 12-1 in a Power 5 conference that plays 9 league games. They also beat #7 Stanford by 38. Interesting to note Clemson's games against ranked opponents. Won by 3, 6 and 7 and lost at home to unranked Pitt.
I totally get questioning how close some of Clemson's games were. But their resume is still stronger. They did win those games, and have only lost twice in 2 seasons. Again, thanks for taking the time to answer.
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
I totally get questioning how close some of Clemson's games were. But their resume is still stronger. They did win those games, and have only lost twice in 2 seasons. Again, thanks for taking the time to answer.
Actually I "question" any Power 5 conference that only schedules 8 league games. If the Pac 12 had that set up they'd have up to 6 fewer losses in the conference each season. It is what it is, but only scheduling 8 league games (and having 4 OOC games including a powderpuff game in mid November) is weak sauce in my opinion. (And the opinion of Power 5 conferences that schedule 9 league games.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Actually I "question" any Power 5 conference that only schedules 8 league games. If the Pac 12 had that set up they'd have up to 6 fewer losses in the conference each season. It is what it is, but only scheduling 8 league games (and having 4 OOC games including a powderpuff game in mid November) is weak sauce in my opinion. (And the opinion of Power 5 conferences that schedule 9 league games.
Guess that explains how Washington entered Pac-12 play 1-2 with losses to Boise State and Eastern Washington but went 7-2 in the Pac-12.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Actually I "question" any Power 5 conference that only schedules 8 league games. If the Pac 12 had that set up they'd have up to 6 fewer losses in the conference each season. It is what it is, but only scheduling 8 league games (and having 4 OOC games including a powderpuff game in mid November) is weak sauce in my opinion. (And the opinion of Power 5 conferences that schedule 9 league games.
Cry me a river.
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
Guess that explains how Washington entered Pac-12 play 1-2 with losses to Boise State and Eastern Washington but went 7-2 in the Pac-12.
Huh?

And here I was still trying to figure out how 2015 Clemson's record had anything to do with 2016.
 

GoZags

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 4, 2016
25
0
0
Cry me a river.
Been "nice" visiting with you. Looking forward to a good game in Atlanta. Sure can't (and won't) pop off about Alabama. But it's funny how the SEC and ACC take the easy way out and only schedule 8 conference games (and then take the ostrich approach when called on it).
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Wait, how many awards did Washington players win? How many on the Walter Camp All American team?

None? How could that be?
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Huh?

And here I was still trying to figure out how 2015 Clemson's record had anything to do with 2016.
You want to crow about teams not playing 9 conference games, yet Wazzu entered conference play 1-2 after losing to a FCS opponent and Boise State and was a game away from playing for the Pac-12 Championship.

Looks like the Pac-12 was easier than those three games.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.