Aftermath of the CFB Apocolypse

SeatownJay

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
6
Location
Hagerstown, MD
After the most exciting, entertaining and topsy-turvy week we've seen in college football in a long, long time, here are the new polls.

AP
1: Florida State
2: Auburn
3: Ole Miss (tie)
3: Mississippi State (tie)
5: Baylor
6: Notre Dame
7: Alabama
8: Michigan State
9: TCU
10: Arizona
11: Oklahoma
12: Oregon
13: Georgia
14: Texas A&M
15: Ohio State
16: Oklahoma State
17: Kansas State
18: UCLA
19: East Carolina
20: Arizona State
21: Nebraska
22: Georgia Tech
23: Missouri
24: Utah
25: Stanford

Coach's Poll
1: Florida State
2: Auburn
3: Baylor
4: Ole Miss
5: Notre Dame
6: Mississippi State
7: Alabama
8: Michigan State
9: Oklahoma
10: Georgia
11: Oregon
12: TCU
13: Arizona
14: Texas A&M
15: Ohio State
16: Kansas State
17: UCLA
18: Oklahoma State
19: East Carolina
20: Arizona State
21: Nebraska
22: Stanford
23: Georgia Tech
24: Missouri
25: Clemson
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
I've got Auburn in the top spot.

Baylor ranked higher than 'Bama. Never thought I'd see that day. Nor a day when perennial powerhouses like Michigan, LSU, Miami, Texas, Penn st, Florida and Washington ALL fail to rank. Dayum.
 
OP
OP
SeatownJay

SeatownJay

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
6
Location
Hagerstown, MD
Next week is going to result in another shake up. Look at these matchups.

#2 Auburn @ #3 Mississippi State
#3 Ole Miss @ #14 Texas A&M
#9 TCU @ #5 Baylor
#12 Oregon @ #18 UCLA
#13 Georgia @ #23 Missouri
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
HawkWow":zvg3heu3 said:
Nor a day when perennial powerhouses like Michigan, LSU, Miami, Texas, Penn st, Florida and Washington ALL fail to rank. Dayum.


LOL

What is about Husky fans that they thing UW belongs in the same category as any of those other schools?
 
OP
OP
SeatownJay

SeatownJay

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
6
Location
Hagerstown, MD
theENGLISHseahawk":10dhld2v said:
There's a pretty decent chance there's no unbeaten teams by the end.
Well we're only through week 6 and there are only 10 unbeaten teams left in FBS. Arizona, Auburn, Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Marshall, Mississippi State, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, and TCU. Two of them are guaranteed to lose this weekend.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
The_Z_Man":h67l06k4 said:
Seahawks1983":h67l06k4 said:
LOL

What is about Husky fans that they thing UW belongs in the same category as any of those other schools?

All time wins, bowl appearances and victories, and the NCAA's longest unbeaten streak (which will never be broken), and a few national championships puts them among the most storied programs.

Not quite on par with Michigan, USC, Alabama, or Notre Dame, but definitely in that top 25ish historical program range... Florida is what? 29th all time in wins, and Washington is 27th... Stanford is about 40ish and Oregon is high 50's low 60's...

.

UW has had one nationally relevant season in the past 23 years. (2000)

Florida has three legitimate national championships, Washington has one (A split title, btw.)

No one put Stanford or Oregon on that list.

UW does have a good football history, no one denies that, but to put them in the top tier with the bluebloods of the sport is wishful thinking at best.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
Seahawks1983":3ao6jqu2 said:
UW has had one nationally relevant season in 23 years. (2000)

Florida has three legitimate national championships, Washington has one (A split title, btw.)

No one put Stanford or Oregon that list.

UW does have a good football history, no one denies that, but to put them in the top tier with the bluebloods of the sport is wishful thinking at best.

It's probably before your time, but for about 20 years the Huskies were basically like USC with Pete Carroll, and they've had some good stretches outside of the Don James era as well.

For a long time, if some team beat the Huskies they'd be swarming the field and tearing down the goal posts the same way that teams would react if they beat Alabama the last five years. Duck fans like to point out their 10 game winning streak on UW, but they would need to get that streak to 22 straight to get to .500 vs. UW all time. 10 years of dominance is a hella long time, but that's nothing compared to the 34 year streak UW once had over Cal.

Very few teams in college football history were as good for as long as UW was under Don James. And who knows, maybe that era of dominance may have to continued to this very day if not for the death penalty in the early 90s and the defacto coronation of Jim Lambright.

I wouldn't put UW on par with Alabama or Notre Dame, but Michigan? Sounds about right to me.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
Wow, they decided national championships before the season was even over? That's insane.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
The_Z_Man":1qokq227 said:
Seahawks1983":1qokq227 said:
UW has had one nationally relevant season in 23 years. (2000)

Florida has three legitimate national championships, Washington has one (A split title, btw.)

No one put Stanford or Oregon that list.

UW does have a good football history, no one denies that, but to put them in the top tier with the bluebloods of the sport is wishful thinking at best.

You sound like a typical Duck.

All National Championships in college football are mythical... split title, please. No way that Erickson team would have stood up... showed that two years later when a scholarship/coach depleted Husky team went into their house, smoked them, and broke their home winning record.

There is also a NC team from the 60's ... most football historians count that as a national title. The voting ended early back then, but the Huskies destroyed the National Champions in the Rose Bowl, so you can't do anything but call them the Champions that year.

I get it that the Ducks are upset that they haven't gotten their "natty" yet... but seriously, you can't get it by downplaying another team's past anymore than the Huskies can make themselves relevant TODAY by reliving that past.

I'm not a Duck. I'm an impartial observer. UW fans want everyone to believe in their glory, but it has long since passed. Similar to Colorado and Georgia Tech. Like I said, they have a good history, but not up to par with the teams listed in the post I originally quoted.

As for that 1960 NC, if you wait 45+ years to claim it, it ain't real.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
kearly":21moduax said:
Seahawks1983":21moduax said:
UW has had one nationally relevant season in 23 years. (2000)

Florida has three legitimate national championships, Washington has one (A split title, btw.)

No one put Stanford or Oregon that list.

UW does have a good football history, no one denies that, but to put them in the top tier with the bluebloods of the sport is wishful thinking at best.

It's probably before your time, but for about 20 years the Huskies were basically like USC with Pete Carroll, and they've had some good stretches outside of the Don James era as well.

For a long time, if some team beat the Huskies they'd be swarming the field and tearing down the goal posts the same way that teams would react if they beat Alabama the last five years. Duck fans like to point out their 10 game winning streak on UW, but they would need to get that streak to 22 straight to get to .500 vs. UW all time. 10 years of dominance is a hella long time, but that's nothing compared to the 34 year streak UW once had over Cal.

Very few teams in college football history were as good for as long as UW was under Don James. And who knows, maybe that era of dominance may have to continued to this very day if not for the death penalty in the early 90s and the defacto coronation of Jim Lambright.

I wouldn't put UW on par with Alabama or Notre Dame, but Michigan? Sounds about right to me.

Not all before my time. I remember the James years well, and they were pretty good for the most part, with a few outstanding seasons. Comparing them to the Carroll years at USC though, is completely disengenious. James never accomplished what Carroll did at USC. His run at USC is unprecedented.

One 18 year era does not make a program a historical power.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
The_Z_Man":enlz760g said:
Seahawks1983":enlz760g said:
I'm not a Duck. I'm an impartial observer. UW fans want everyone to believe in their glory, but it has long since passed. Similar to Colorado and Georgia Tech. Like I said, they have a good history, but not up to par with the teams listed in the post I originally quoted.

As for that 1960 NC, if you wait 45+ years to claim it, it ain't real.

"long since passed" gotta love this, dude it's a conversation about legacy, not present. The entire thread was about how traditional powers are sucking right now...

Seriously, Colorado? GT? They had ONE era of dominance... not several.

The Huskies had the James years, the Owens years, the Dobie years... plus other runs of success here and there - including some great stuff with Heisman candidates during the 40's and 50's and btw, no one was as dominant as UW was during the Dobie years... that was ridiculous,. So yes, the program has a storied tradition.

As far as "ain't real" - that's pure haterade there, Duck quacking - like something right off their forums, and you say you aren't a Duck?

And yea, during the latter part of the James era, the Huskies were so dominant in the Pac-10 that almost every game was a dang blowout ... by huge huge margins.


Are you even reading my posts? I applauded UW's history on several occasions. It is ok to admit that UW is not the historically elite program that Husky fans think it is.

There is literally nothing "haterade" about disputing the validity of a title claimed 4+ decades after the fact. That is desperation for validity, plain and simple, though I do find your angst for Duck fans amusing.

UW's legacy for an entire generation now is 1 Rose Bowl victory in 2000. Collegiate seniors weren't even born yet when the 1991 season finished. That is a long, long time ago.

The irony of all this is that this absurd arrogance continues to hurt UW from becoming good again, and most don't even realize it.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
The_Z_Man":110as2jr said:
Seahawks1983":110as2jr said:
Are you even reading my posts? I applauded UW's history on several occasions. It is ok to admit that UW is not the historically elite program that Husky fans think it is.

There is literally nothing "haterade" about disputing the validity of a title claimed 4+ decades after the fact. That is desperation for validity, plain and simple, though I do find your angst for Duck fans amusing.

UW's legacy for an entire generation now is 1 Rose Bowl victory in 2000. Collegiate seniors weren't even born yet when the 1991 season finished. That is a long, long time ago.

The irony of all this is that this absurd arrogance continues to hurt UW from becoming good again, and most don't even realize it.

Yea, you are the one not reading...

And that last statement was ridiculous. There is no absurd arrogance and even if there was, how would that affect the job Chris Peterson is or is not going to do? That's just off kilter.

Clearly you have an axe to grind against Husky fans "absurd arrogance" gives that away.

People lie on the internet. So many 49er fans come on here prancing about and making digs and then saying "Not a 49er fan, Not a 49er fan, Not a 49er fan" even though they talk like one, and walk like one, and their constant prods at Seahawks and hawk fans give it away, and then low and behold "Oh yea, I am actually a 49er fan.."

And same goes here, if it talks like a Duck, and if it walks like a Duck... seriously, no other fanbase is as obsessed with supposed Husky arrogance as Duck fans are.

You can believe about me whatever you want. My collegiate fandom lies with a university far, far away from the PNW. Like I said, an impartial observer.

As for the arrogance comment, that was observation on the culture of UW football as a whole. Unrealistic expectations that exist due to success achieved long ago lend themselves to just expecting to win without really taking stock of how the entire landscape has changed. When they finally decided to invest into their decrepit facilities, that was the first sign that someone in charge finally admitted to themselves that real change needed to be made.
 

seahawk2k

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
0
I root for UW 11 games out of the year, but the fanbase is a bit arrogant, the arrogance seems to show up more when they struggle, which is interesting, but I get the psychology.

UW has a very good history and I'd say the only western that has a more illustrious history is USC.

Don James was widely regarded for an extended period of time as the best coach in college football. This was when Osbourne was at Nebraska, Bowden at FSU, Schembechler at Michigan, Donahue at UCLA, Switzer at Oklahoma and Faust at Notre Dame(just kidding).

Seahawksfan1983 is right in that UW hasn't been relevant for nearly two decades since they got jobbed by their own administration and conference. That tends to diminish the view of the program's power. That's been the case for a few of the big powers. Michigan is a mess and hasn't made a Rose Bowl in 8 years and hasn't won a Rose Bowl in 17. Nebraska had one of the best stretches in college football history from 1993-1997, now what are they? 9 wins and irrelevance. The Huskies appear to have steadied themselves though, especially compared to their old Rose Bowl opponent Michigan.
 

Seahawks1983

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
915
Reaction score
0
Location
509
The_Z_Man":wj4ozrsg said:
Seahawks1983":wj4ozrsg said:
As for the arrogance comment, that was observation on the culture of UW football as a whole. Unrealistic expectations that exist due to success achieved long ago lend themselves to just expecting to win without really taking stock of how the entire landscape has changed. When they finally decided to invest into their decrepit facilities, that was the first sign that someone in charge finally admitted to themselves that real change needed to be made.

You must certainly be from somewhere else, because you clearly don't understand how the UW works.

Almost every husky fan I know is "angstridden" "snakebit" "we are never going to be relevant again" - just a bunch of people who are getting crap from all the other schools they used to own, so the only thing left is the past. That's not arrogance, that's depression.

Many of the folks making decisions on UW money are a bunch of hoity toity, blueblood, hand wringing, old school liberals who would rather not even be involved in the NCAA. They don't want to invest in facilities because the University admins are at odds against the football and sports faction and many of the top brass at the UW and the state see college football as a detriment to the academic standing of the University. Any funding to the football program is a battle -- past success was achieved because Kearny and Lude were forces of nature - but they had to battle that old school Washington liberal resentment towards sports the entire time, and often battle with inept university presidents and vice presidents. Hedges was completely overwhelmed and she couldn't stand up to those crusty old sports haters AND keep any kind of handle on the department.

Trust me, I know one of these high ranking UW admins, and she hates sports and "stupid jocks". She is an old school liberal educator. If she could flush the program, she damn well would... but it pays for girls track and such, so she tolerates it all. So many times the Tyee club has asked the board to lower the academic standards for football players and they will not relent. It is so much harder to find an athlete who can handle the UW compared to one that can slide by at USC or Oregon, or Arizona, and all those athletes that have the athletic AND academic ability want to go to Stanford or Notre Dame .. and who could blame them?

USC is a private school, which is why they are the most successful school in Pac history.

Oregon is all but a private school now under Knight, who funnels unprecedented money into that University. If he tells the President of Oregon to jump, the President asks him "How high, and can I bend over for you as well?" The only reason they aren't winning the National Championship every single year, is because the SEC has the best talent pool.... football is religion in the south, so more kids play.

Mike Lude wrote a book on the kind of crap he had to deal with to get Washington to prominence in college football - if you want to understand why they aren't competitive right now, that book will explain it to you pretty well.

It has nothing to do with this perceived "arrogance" of the football fans.


Good post. I have heard the rumblings of the conflict at the top before, but not being from a Husky family I never was really privvy to any inside information.

From my perspective, rebuilding Husky Stadium seems like a huge step forward in the face of the conflict you describe. What was the main motivator behind that finally happening? Pressure to win in football, or fear of a complete disaster in the event of a big earthquake?
 
Top