Tell me about Washington

[SoDawg]

Adding a conference game does nothing, in reality. If you're hoping for utopia, it's not possible. There will always be teams who get in playing an easier schedule.

If 4 teams play 4 games to start a season....If they are against each other than than at least 3 of those teams will have at least 1 loss, Let's say it ends up 4-0, 3-1,1-3, 0-4, Now let's say those are all OOC games and now each team is 4-0. Does that impact SOS for the conference, etc.?

go DAWGS

 

[crimsonaudio]

If 4 teams play 4 games to start a season....If they are against each other than than at least 3 of those teams will have at least 1 loss, Let's say it ends up 4-0, 3-1,1-3, 0-4, Now let's say those are all OOC games and now each team is 4-0. Does that impact SOS for the conference, etc.?

go DAWGS

*sigh*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Have fun, I'm out of this one.

 

[RTR91]

What you don't seem be getting is that Bama (and the rest of the SEC) generally play in the toughest league in the nation, year in and out. This year the SEC is down, but there's a reason a vast majority of the championships of the last 15 years have come from SEC teams. You're obsessing about an extra conference game when I'm willing to bet Washington hasn't played a schedule as tough as Bama in any of the last 10 seasons.

I honestly don't understand your obsession over this.

Seems like this is the one area Pac-12 fans feel superior to everyone else, so they won't shut up about it.

Only if they realized it doesn't make them any better than the rest of the nation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoDawg]

What you don't seem be getting is that Bama (and the rest of the SEC) generally play in the toughest league in the nation, year in and out. This year the SEC is down, but there's a reason a vast majority of the championships of the last 15 years have come from SEC teams. You're obsessing about an extra conference game when I'm willing to bet Washington hasn't played a schedule as tough as Bama in any of the last 10 seasons.

I honestly don't understand your obsession over this.

Not an obsession at all? Do you honestly not think that playing 1 less conference game against a common opponent impacts the conference? It is simply axiomatic that if you play less of 'each other' and more 'outside' teams... your conference teams will most likely have less losses, especially if those OOC are 3/4 cupcake teams.

What am I missing?

 

[SoDawg]

Seems like this is the one area Pac-12 fans feel superior to everyone else, so they won't shut up about it.

Only if they realized it doesn't make them any better than the rest of the nation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just trying to have meaningful discussion. Explain to me why NOT play the same # of conference games compared to other conferences if it isn't an advantage? Why do you decide to only play 8? Did the SEC do that because they feel it makes it harder to make it to CFB, provides a disadvantage to sEC teams?

 

[SoDawg]

What you don't seem be getting is that Bama (and the rest of the SEC) generally play in the toughest league in the nation, year in and out. This year the SEC is down, but there's a reason a vast majority of the championships of the last 15 years have come from SEC teams. You're obsessing about an extra conference game when I'm willing to bet Washington hasn't played a schedule as tough as Bama in any of the last 10 seasons.

I honestly don't understand your obsession over this.

In 2012 we played #3 LSU, #8 Stanford, #2 Oregon, #11 USC, #7 Oregon St, and #19 BSU...along with AZ, Cal, Utah, Colorado, WSU, San Diego St and Portland St. I think that is pretty decent schedule...basically 5 Top10 teams in a 12 game schedule.

 

[SoDawg]

*sigh*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Have fun, I'm out of this one.

New subject...

 

[Bubbaloo]

Just trying to have meaningful discussion. Explain to me why NOT play the same # of conference games compared to other conferences if it isn't an advantage? Why do you decide to only play 8? Did the SEC do that because they feel it makes it harder to make it to CFB, provides a disadvantage to sEC teams?

When some other conference can win 8 of the last 10 NC's and play for the other 2, then and only then should the SEC change the way they play a conference schedule. Maybe it's not the SEC doing it wrong!! Live and learn
from someone else's success.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results (this time or next )

Capischi ?

 

[81usaf92]

Just trying to have meaningful discussion. Explain to me why NOT play the same # of conference games compared to other conferences if it isn't an advantage? Why do you decide to only play 8? Did the SEC do that because they feel it makes it harder to make it to CFB, provides a disadvantage to sEC teams?

What do you gain out of it in a championship setting? We play 6 divisional games and 2 non divisional games. That is a perfect way to prevent numerous tie breakers within the division. The only way it really makes sense for 9-10 conference games is if you don't have a conference championship game (like the big 12), or if you have #1 vs #2 CCG setup. Note that the big 10 and acc play a 6 and 2 setup like the SEC. The only reason the PAC 12 does 9 is because of the money attached to USC. The 9 game conference season allows USC to play an extra north game which = more money and more eyes on the tv.

 

[seebell]

My two cents. Washington is a very good well-balanced team that is quite capable of beating us. The best team we have played all year. I think it will be a whale of a game!

 

[huskylawyer]

People should consider the non-SEC conference perspective which isn't all that outlandish.

At the end of the day, most folks, rightfully or wrongly, think the SEC is really "Bama and everyone else." Nobody can dispute that Bama is the #1 program in the nation, top to bottom, in nearly every facet of the game. That is just a fact, and as a Pac-12 homer, I'm man enough to admit it.

The problem however is the other SEC teams act like they've "earned" the right to chant SEC! SEC! SEC!, solely because Bama dominates everyone in and out of conference (it is so odd to us Washington fans, as most of us would rather be water boarded than root for Oregon against an SEC team). We can only roll our eyes when teams like A&M and Mizzou chant this for obvious reasons. If they were being honest, they should chant BAMA! BAMA! BAMA! because Bama is the SEC.

That's what drives the passion and yes, defensiveness, from non-SEC fans, including Pac-12 fans. Maybe we're struggling with non-Bama teams improving, as I remember when we went down and clobbered Emmitt Smith and Florida as a "hope you enjoyed your CFB experience!" moment (ahh..the good 'ol days). But maybe we're just perplexed because it seems like half of the starting QBs in the SEC should be playing RB or WR, instead of operating under center (looks like things can change with folks like Eason headed south). Other SEC teams are getting the "Bama bump."

There is literally only one SEC team which worries me, and that is Bama. The other teams are "meh" IMHO. I just can't shake in my boots about the prospect of playing the likes of Etling and Harris at LSU for example. You guys are legit. The rest? Not so much.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

People should consider the non-SEC conference perspective which isn't all that outlandish.

At the end of the day, most folks, rightfully or wrongly, think the SEC is really "Bama and everyone else." Nobody can dispute that Bama is the #1 program in the nation, top to bottom, in nearly every facet of the game. That is just a fact, and as a Pac-12 homer, I'm man enough to admit it.

The problem however is the other SEC teams act like they've "earned" the right to chant SEC! SEC! SEC!, solely because Bama dominates everyone in and out of conference (it is so odd to us Washington fans, as most of us would rather be water boarded than root for Oregon against an SEC team). We can only roll our eyes when teams like A&M and Mizzou chant this for obvious reasons. If they were being honest, they should chant BAMA! BAMA! BAMA! because Bama is the SEC.

That's what drives the passion and yes, defensiveness, from non-SEC fans, including Pac-12 fans. Maybe we're struggling with non-Bama teams improving, as I remember when we went down and clobbered Emmitt Smith and Florida as a "hope you enjoyed your CFB experience!" moment (ahh..the good 'ol days). But maybe we're just perplexed because it seems like half of the starting QBs in the SEC should be playing RB or WR, instead of operating under center (looks like things can change with folks like Eason headed south). Other SEC teams are getting the "Bama bump."

There is literally only one SEC team which worries me, and that is Bama. The other teams are "meh" IMHO. I just can't shake in my boots about the prospect of playing the likes of Etling and Harris at LSU for example. You guys are legit. The rest? Not so much.

Most years, that's not representative of the situation. Several SEC teams are normally in the top ten. However, memories are short...

 

[SoDawg]

So I'd prefer actual anaysis, rather than "we will crush them". It's never (or rarely) that easy.

Their run game doesn't impress me overly. We have shut down better run games. Their passing game does scare me. We haven't faced many.. Strike that, we haven't faced any good passers since October. SD Hamilton and Jackson are gone. So yea, this concerns me.

Defensively I don't see anything to indicate they can stop our running game, but they do appear to have some big atletic linebackers who like to make tackles and sacks behind the line.

thoughts?

Here's something an Alabama fan put together and posted on Dawgman

Only one game this year (Arizona) did Washington not score more points than their opponent averaged giving up. Of those games Washington averaged scoring 16pts more than their opponents were used to giving up.

Only one game this year (Arizona) did Washington not hold their opponent to less points than their opponent averaged. Of those games Washington averaged holding their opponents to 12 points less than they were used to scoring.


vs Rutgers W 48-13
average scored 15 / average allowed 37

vs Idaho W 59-14
average scored 28 / average allowed 29

vs Portland State W 41-3 fcs

@ Arizona W 35-28 OT
average scored 24 / average allowed 38

vs #7 Stanford W 44-6
average scored 26 / average allowed 20

@Oregon W 70-21
average scored 35 / average allowed 41

vs Oregon State W 41-17
average scored 26 / average allowed 30

@ #17 Utah W 31-24
average scored 30 / average allowed 23

@ Cal W 66-27
average scored 37 / average allowed 42

vs #20 USC L 26-13
average scored 32 / average allowed 22

vs Arizona State W 44-18
average scored 33 / average allowed 39

@ #23 Washington St W 45-17
average scored 40 / average allowed 27

vs #8 Colorado* W 41-10
average scored 32 / average allowed 20

 

[SoDawg]

When some other conference can win 8 of the last 10 NC's and play for the other 2, then and only then should the SEC change the way they play a conference schedule. Maybe it's not the SEC doing it wrong!! Live and learn
from someone else's success.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results (this time or next )

Capischi ?

So you are saying its an advantage to play only 8 conference games, as proof, look who is winning the BCS, CFB NC's. I agree with you...

 

[81usaf92]

People should consider the non-SEC conference perspective which isn't all that outlandish.

At the end of the day, most folks, rightfully or wrongly, think the SEC is really "Bama and everyone else." Nobody can dispute that Bama is the #1 program in the nation, top to bottom, in nearly every facet of the game. That is just a fact, and as a Pac-12 homer, I'm man enough to admit it.

The problem however is the other SEC teams act like they've "earned" the right to chant SEC! SEC! SEC!, solely because Bama dominates everyone in and out of conference (it is so odd to us Washington fans, as most of us would rather be water boarded than root for Oregon against an SEC team). We can only roll our eyes when teams like A&M and Mizzou chant this for obvious reasons. If they were being honest, they should chant BAMA! BAMA! BAMA! because Bama is the SEC.

That's what drives the passion and yes, defensiveness, from non-SEC fans, including Pac-12 fans. Maybe we're struggling with non-Bama teams improving, as I remember when we went down and clobbered Emmitt Smith and Florida as a "hope you enjoyed your CFB experience!" moment (ahh..the good 'ol days). But maybe we're just perplexed because it seems like half of the starting QBs in the SEC should be playing RB or WR, instead of operating under center (looks like things can change with folks like Eason headed south). Other SEC teams are getting the "Bama bump."

There is literally only one SEC team which worries me, and that is Bama. The other teams are "meh" IMHO. I just can't shake in my boots about the prospect of playing the likes of Etling and Harris at LSU for example. You guys are legit. The rest? Not so much.

What Alabama has done these past, we will say 8 years, is unprecedented in the post Bear period. for the SEC. Spurrier's run in the 90's is the only comparison. But he was 5-2 in the SECCG and 4-4 in major bowls in that period. Also Bama and Tennessee were close challengers throughout the 90's to his claim. But in the 80's and 01-08 it was more or less an equal conference.

As for the SEC chant... I personally only used it once for a team other than Bama and that was in 06 for Florida. The chant was more aimed at northern and west coast media who had crapped on the SEC for the previous 5 years. Now it's more for the little piggies to feel relevant, but you won't hear me use it because I don't cheer for the SEC. But the chant is more of something other teams use to feel relevant, kinda like when non USC PAC 10 teams used the PAC 10's record vs the SEC in the modern era ( more like90% USC's record against the SEC) when the PAC 10 was USC and the 9 dwarves.

 

[Matt0424]

Strawman argument... You simply schedule like the Pac12/ UW has for the last 20 years... A, B, C.... one P5 'name program, one mid-level and one smaller division school... and then your 9 conference games. No need to ONLY play 3 cupcakes. You don't need to have 4 OOC games to play 1 tough OOC game like USC?

Here's a 'sample schedule for illustration: UW 2012 Schedule

In 2012 we played #3 LSU, #8 Stanford, #2 Oregon, #11 USC, #7 Oregon St,...along with AZ, Cal, Utah, Colorado, WSU, San Diego St and Portland St., and #19 BSU in Bowl Game

Just trying to have meaningful discussion. Explain to me why NOT play the same # of conference games compared to other conferences if it isn't an advantage? Why do you decide to only play 8? Did the SEC do that because they feel it makes it harder to make it to CFB, provides a disadvantage to sEC teams?

Okay, since no one else has said it... All conference schedules are not created equal.

For the past 10-15 years (for the most part) an 8 game SEC schedule was tougher than a 9 game schedule in pretty much any other league. Although I am an advocate for 9, why do you need to when your 8 wins > 9 anywhere else?

Standardization of schedules all around wouldn't level the playing field, it would penalize teams in conferences who aren't just top heavy.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[SoDawg]

So I'd prefer actual anaysis, rather than "we will crush them". It's never (or rarely) that easy.

Their run game doesn't impress me overly. We have shut down better run games. Their passing game does scare me. We haven't faced many.. Strike that, we haven't faced any good passers since October. SD Hamilton and Jackson are gone. So yea, this concerns me.

Defensively I don't see anything to indicate they can stop our running game, but they do appear to have some big atletic linebackers who like to make tackles and sacks behind the line.

thoughts?

Peach Bowl UW Press Conference if you are interested

http://www.scout.com/college/washington/story/1737587-full-peach-bowl-press-conference-video-quotes

 

[SoDawg]

Okay, since no one else has said it... All conference schedules are not created equal.

For the past 10-15 years (for the most part) an 8 game SEC schedule was tougher than a 9 game schedule in pretty much any other league. Although I am an advocate for 9, why do you need to when your 8 wins > 9 anywhere else?

Standardization of schedules all around wouldn't level the playing field, it would penalize teams in conferences who aren't just top heavy.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

So you agree it is advantageous to play only 8 conference games? That has been my point... You believe 8 Conference Games in SEC is tougher than 9 in Pac12 or BiG and playing 9 would hurt your chances to play in CFB Playoffs it sounds like.

So suppose as a Pac12 Fan, I believe it is harder to play 7 Conference Games in Pac12 than 8 in SEC...so we go to 7 Game Conference Schedule and then 4 week OOC games and 1 P5 OOC game... say against Vanderbuilt, Missou, Kentucky, etc.

Would that be fair then?

Every division is going to have a bias... .I do and you do, about your 'conference', so isn't the only way to make it as equitable as possible is to have a uniform standard?

 

[seebell]

So Dawg you starting to make me hope we steam roll the Huskies and leave ya'll flattened on the field like road kill.:wink:

 

[Matt0424]

So you agree it is advantageous to play only 8 conference games? That has been my point... You believe 8 Conference Games in SEC is tougher than 9 in Pac12 or BiG and playing 9 would hurt your chances to play in CFB Playoffs it sounds like.

I believe in the past, playing 9 conference games in the SEC would be unfair to the SEC no matter how many conference games any other conference played. There couldn't be competitive balance no matter how you sliced it.

The advantage was, and never has been, about the number of conference games...it's about what conference you play in. You may point out a bunch of "3-4" loss teams in the SEC, but I say 12 Bowl teams...more than any other conference.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk