Can't remember the last time even the biggest tool on eDuck trashed UW academics.

Congrats on removing the track -- my feeble arm could never get my urine bags past lane 3 so hopefully this gives me a fighting chance.

You've had 12 straight seasons with at least six losses. For UW, going 8-4 only ensures us the continuation of the Sark project.

Derpa-de-derp bro.


---------------------------------------------
--- lockdawg wrote:

UW has a lot to offer academically as well, #25 rated university worldwide. We have finally upgraded the stadium,
weight room, all football facilities. We are doing what you did 8 years ago, when you were going 8-4.

---------------------------------------------

lockdawg wrote: Pot meat Kettle.

Seriously, if you listen to yourselves......... the rest of the Pac 10 was wondering the same thing about you the last 10 years.

DucknChicago wrote:  - Really...they were?  Uhm, we win on the field.  I think it's pretty clear why recuits go to Oregon.  you don't.  You haven't won anything in two decades...that's a long time.

I guess it escapes the Dawg Oregon is 65-21 the last 10 seasons tied with USC for the best in conference (giving USC its vacated wins back) , 9 bowls, 4 BCS bowls, 2 BCS bowl wins;  and, the UW is 28-58 with 3 bowls, 0 BCS bowls, 0 BCS bowl wins?

Very good points.

---------------------------------------------
--- DucknChicago wrote:

Calm down people...UW has a good recuriting staff, a new stadium, a good fan base and a very nice city location.  It also has some momentum this year....  I do think we played our recuiting horrible too.  I mean it seems like we were very picky and the fact that the NCAA wouldn't just come out with a decision along with CK leaving in the worst way possible (let's be honest, it KILLED this year) is really hurting us.

But you know what, so what?  I mean, we are going to be a top 5 program this year and UW will be off-season champs.  Does this mean they'll be "back?"  Maybe, but not with Sarkingham coaching.  I would hate to lose the Twins, but even if we do, I don't think we have much to worry about.  They haven't beaten us in a freaking decade.

---------------------------------------------

Its pretty obvious you've never been to Seattle for any period of time longer than maybe 2 days. Within 50 miles UW has more high school football players than the whole state of Oregon. The win-loss record doesn't matter, the UW has deep and strong roots around puget sound and across the whole state. Hey you will also find that lots of kids will jump on board simply to be part of bringing the home program back to the glory days as well. Beautiful campus, great stadium, tons of tradition and history despite recent records. Like it or not there are lots of kids that don't want to live in a small town like Eugene and prefer a metropolis like Seattle is.
Bottom line is kids choose teams for many reasons beyond the win/loss records



---------------------------------------------
--- DanielSimpsonDay wrote:

<div >I continue to be absolutely dumfounded by Washington recruiting... I would like to know what kind of precedent there is for a program that is at their high-water mark for a DECADE at 7-6... for a program that hasn't been in the national discussion for over 20 years.. with a head coach that has almost zero credibility nationally, to be this strong in recruiting.  They have recruited three of the top six WRs on the west coast... continue to be in the mix for top 50 players.  What the heck is the message?  One guy (can't remember his name) was quoted as saying, "I don't want to wait around to win, I want to win now!"  Huh????  On paper, UW is a program where you pick it due to immediate playing time, to come to a program to build something from scratch, for the recruits that were overlooked by the big boys... for the local kids who always wanted to play close to home.  Of their nine four-star recruits, none of them are from the state of Washington.
 
Well, why is this?  Tosh is an incredible recruiter?  Ok, but really?  What is his message?  Mind Control?? This is a program that should be on the verge of <strong>quitting</strong>  after this sorry decade of ineptitude..... that program just LOST TO WASHINGTON STATE.    They haven't even been competitive with Oregon since the Clinton Administration.    And yet they continue to convince 18 year olds and their parents that UW is a desirable location to play football.  These are players with great options yet sign on with UW.  At some point you really have to question what is going on up there.  Seriously.</div>

---------------------------------------------

Kelly's gone. The Luster's gone. Everybody has wild Uni's. It's Ewgene, in the middle of nowhere. NCAA lurking around. Kelly's gone. Facilities that others are improving now also. Kelly's gone. It's Ewgene. I hope this helps. If the Dawgs start improving next year with the new stadium, and this staff that can recruit, this could only get worse for you. You better win when you come up this year!

---------------------------------------------
--- lockdawg wrote:

UW has a lot to offer academically as well, #25 rated university worldwide. We have finally upgraded the stadium,
weight room, all football facilities. We are doing what you did 8 years ago, when you were going 8-4.

---------------------------------------------

8 years ago was 2005. We were 10-2, with one of those losses being vacated by USC.
We updated our stadium over 10 years ago.

Our "bottom years" have been in the 7-6 range over the past decade plus, while your ceiling has been 7-6.


You've got some great used car salesmen types up there that can really sell the dream to some of these kids. Too bad they can't back it up with quality coaching to produce on the field.

UW= has ancient history and the "promise of a better tomorrow" based on unicorns and rainbows to sell

UO= has the present and the "promise of an equal or better tomorrow" backed up by their play on the field.

---------------------------------------------
--- GGG19 wrote:

Kelly's gone. The Luster's gone. Everybody has wild Uni's. It's Ewgene, in the middle of nowhere. NCAA lurking around. Kelly's gone. Facilities that others are improving now also. Kelly's gone. It's Ewgene. I hope this helps. If the Dawgs start improving next year with the new stadium, and this staff that can recruit, this could only get worse for you. You better win when you come up this year!

---------------------------------------------

are you sure you're not young next year?

GGG19 wrote: Kelly's gone. The Luster's gone. Everybody has wild Uni's. It's Ewgene, in the middle of nowhere. NCAA lurking around. Kelly's gone. Facilities that others are improving now also. Kelly's gone. It's Ewgene. I hope this helps. If the Dawgs start improving next year with the new stadium, and this staff that can recruit, this could only get worse for you.

The rallying cry of Husky football?

We've heard how good UW will be next year for the past 9 years. One of these years you will be good again but when you hear it over and over and over and over and over and over again you begin to cry wolf.

---------------------------------------------
--- GGG19 wrote:

Kelly's gone. The Luster's gone. Everybody has wild Uni's. It's Ewgene, in the middle of nowhere. NCAA lurking around. Kelly's gone. Facilities that others are improving now also. Kelly's gone. It's Ewgene. I hope this helps. If the Dawgs start improving next year with the new stadium, and this staff that can recruit, this could only get worse for you. You better win when you come up this year!

---------------------------------------------

When you tell these 18 year olds about material possessions that Tosh throws in their way to get them to sign with UW, it makes little or no difference just how mediocre the Football program they sign with is.
He sold Cal football, even though they became mediocre, so it's no different at UW, either.
Some kids are smart enough to know about this, but a lot of kids aren't.

It's wrong, but it's also a fact of life.

These young kids aren't old enough, or smart enough to know or care about how mediocre UW has been for 20 years now. All they care about is the bling that they get under the table from seedy and dishonest recruiters from people like Tosh "Lu-poison", who sweet talk the very impressionable kids into anything he says to them.
They all learn too late when they see the scoreboard, and realize that they just got beat again by Oregon, and then they are on their way to another 7 win season and a Las Vegas Bowl.

A couple of comments about UW:

I always thought Kim was a chick

Maybe the selling point with their young team is as trip to Vegas.

We're back guys! Remember we used to be UW like 20 years ago. Remember Don James? Remember 1991?

Let's be honest, you've specifically have posted for years how Oregon will decline and UW will surpass Oregon.  Ever off-season, it's the same song from you.

At some point, do you look at yourself and say, "Dang, even I am tired of my own act?"

There is little sign UW will climb to the next level.  UW has experienced good recruiting classes on paper over the past 10 years, but the results have not been better than a 6 loss season.  It's been since 2001 UW had done better than 6 losses. 

Let's be honest, the best thing you have going for UW is "hope".  It's definitely not on the field success.  Sark has not proven whatsoever he can take UW to the next level.  The built in excuse of 0-12 is  distant history.  There wasn't a single player on the 0-12 team last year (that I know of).  Sark simply has not improved UW during his tenure.

It's fair to say the long term future of Oregon is an unknown.  However with our stockpile of talent, facilities, money and quality coaching staff, it's fair to say Oregon will still perform better than UW.  Until UW can prove they can make it to the next level (which is something like a 3 or 4 loss season for UW), they are simply not even close to the same ballpark compared to Oregon.  The reality is, the distance between the two program is huge.  Even if Oregon slips a bit, they are still significantly better than UW.

Kim is in fact a guy, albeit a 4'9" guy.....but that explains why the normal size football looks so big in his hands



---------------------------------------------
--- oahuduck wrote:

A couple of comments about UW:

I always thought Kim was a chick

Maybe the selling point with their young team is as trip to Vegas.

---------------------------------------------

so what is the message that the OP and the follow up comments are trying to send here?

That because UW has been bad, they're not entitled to improve?

That because Oregon has seen success, that they should be getting first pick at all top recruits?

That Washington is dumping a ton of cash in to their program (facilities, coaches, etc) and their efforts are corrupt, but when Oregon did it , it was clean?

That, though you lecture other fan about not accepting mediocrity but actually working to improve...that is not what you really meant, and you would prefer that things stay as they are?

That Oregon wasn't always good, but committed resources and efforts in to improving the program...and now that you're finally at the top of the game it is not fair for any other school to do the same?

It all smacks of hypocrisy and fear. Hypocrisy, because you guys have always been defensive about the role money has played in your ascension, but you now seem to think that money is at the nefarious root of the rise of Washington's recruiting efforts. Fear, because you all seem to sense that for the first time in a long time, momentum doesn't seem to be strongly at your back.

Here is the thing...Oregon absolutely revolutionized the process of building a football program, not surprising when you consider the genius of Phil Knight and Nike. It took dollars, but it also took brass balls and imagination.

I would consider you guys to be pioneers. But here is the thing about pioneers...they do all of the hard work, they take a lot of the risks, they settle new territories, and then others start moving in and enjoying the fruits of their labors. You forged a new way to go about building a program, but now it is being mimicked and you may find yourselves victims of your own success.

---------------------------------------------
--- GGG19 wrote:
You better win when you come up this year!

---------------------------------------------

I don't think that will be a problem. 10.

You make some good points, jrlaco.

However, I think you missed the point a little.

I don't think anyone was saying/complaining that uw isn't entitled to try to improve their program. Obviously, they are. I think people just find it confounding that so many top recruits are buying in to whatever it is they are selling up there, even though there has been absolutely no indication that they are on the verge of becoming an elite program any time soon.

Your points about building a program through donations, facilities, creative thinking, etc. are all very valid. And, the whole thing about pioneers is very true. Many people are now copying Oregon, meaning that we don't have the market on "cool" quite as cornered as we maybe once did.

However, the overall point is still there. Teams don't typically build their program through recruiting. At least, not at first.

The typical way to pull a program out of the dumpster is to find under-the-radar kids, coach them up, and overachieve a bit. THEN, when you win 9 or 10 games, you start catching the eyes of the top recruits.

Now, obviously, if you're program is in fertile recruiting grounds, then you can often get to those top kids sooner... but, as someone pointed out, it's not like uw is relying on top local kids. In fact, they're losing a lot of the top local kids to bigger schools (i.e. Max Browne going to USC).

Not saying anything fishy is going on (at least, not necessarily), but, it does seem quite odd that they've been able to stick around the Top 25 for recruiting for so long, with minimal success in these recruits lifetime, and virtually none since they were in kindergarten.

Are they getting guys who don't care as much about winning, and thus it shows some on the field?
Are they "chasing stars" more than filling needs (i.e. going after that extra 4-star reciever, rather than a solid 3-star lineman)?
Are theei top recruits "busting" at a higher rate than most?
Maybe some of their recruits are just over-inflated to begin with?
Or, are their coaches just better salesmen than football coaches? (seems the most likely)

Whatever it is, over the past 5-10 years, there is an unuasual disconnect between their recruiting success and their on-field success. Pretty sure that is all people are saying.

You guys are the ones wondering how the Dawgs can be outrecruiting you this year, after being a top program the last few years. Your program can probably only go down from here. And more then likely this is just the start. Helfrich isn't exactly a real Buzz. Who brought up this topic? This is how it starts. First you get doubt. Then you get tight. Then you stumble. I'm sure that won't happen to you though!

I appreciate the serious response...

here are a few thoughts.

Your points about "under the radar" finds are valid, but not necessarily applicable to UW.


As an Oregon State fan, I am the first to sing the praises of effective scouting unearthing an overlooked gem..we have certainly had our share. But you cannot sustain any level of success that way. The biggest (by far) reason for our dramatic improvement this past season to the previous one, was that we finally had scholarship guys playing on the o-line. We had three walk-ons staring in 2011! That is pathetic.

I am a huge believer in recruiting, and I think that while Washington has done a serviceable job with it in the past, the last two years have been a slightly higher level. How are they doing it? Well...they're paying the hell our of their assistants. Dude from Cal, also the nabbed Keith Hayword from us, and subsequently a couple of solid recruits.

Washington is a big school, with a nice campus, a solid academic rep, and is capable of putting 75,000 bodies in the stadium each Saturday in the Fall (on days where they have games, it wouldn't make sense to do that during away games, or bye weeks). The route to the top is different for a school like this, vs a school like ours.

Having said all of that, I am not a fan of Sark...I think he is a lousy game-day and in-game coach. He is achieving one very important step, can he make it all work on the field. I am not sold that he can.

---------------------------------------------
--- thevolv wrote:

You make some good points, jrlaco.

However, I think you missed the point a little.

I don't think anyone was saying/complaining that uw isn't entitled to try to improve their program. Obviously, they are. I think people just find it confounding that so many top recruits are buying in to whatever it is they are selling up there, even though there has been absolutely no indication that they are on the verge of becoming an elite program any time soon.

Your points about building a program through donations, facilities, creative thinking, etc. are all very valid. And, the whole thing about pioneers is very true. Many people are now copying Oregon, meaning that we don't have the market on "cool" quite as cornered as we maybe once did.

However, the overall point is still there. Teams don't typically build their program through recruiting. At least, not at first.

The typical way to pull a program out of the dumpster is to find under-the-radar kids, coach them up, and overachieve a bit. THEN, when you win 9 or 10 games, you start catching the eyes of the top recruits.

Now, obviously, if you're program is in fertile recruiting grounds, then you can often get to those top kids sooner... but, as someone pointed out, it's not like uw is relying on top local kids. In fact, they're losing a lot of the top local kids to bigger schools (i.e. Max Browne going to USC).

Not saying anything fishy is going on (at least, not necessarily), but, it does seem quite odd that they've been able to stick around the Top 25 for recruiting for so long, with minimal success in these recruits lifetime, and virtually none since they were in kindergarten.

Are they getting guys who don't care as much about winning, and thus it shows some on the field?
Are they "chasing stars" more than filling needs (i.e. going after that extra 4-star reciever, rather than a solid 3-star lineman)?
Are theei top recruits "busting" at a higher rate than most?
Maybe some of their recruits are just over-inflated to begin with?
Or, are their coaches just better salesmen than football coaches? (seems the most likely)

Whatever it is, over the past 5-10 years, there is an unuasual disconnect between their recruiting success and their on-field success. Pretty sure that is all people are saying.

---------------------------------------------

lockdawg wrote: UW has a lot to offer academically as well, #25 rated university worldwide. We have finally upgraded the stadium,
weight room, all football facilities. We are doing what you did 8 years ago, when you were going 8-4.

Great town, fine academics, new facilities, good recruiter(s) ... and a train wreck of a football program for many years now. If I were a football recruit, I would factor that last thought in big time. Other than for football, UW might be a nice choice.