Riley Throwing Shade at OU

Pitman said:
I just don’t see it being as easy as it looks. I would like to see a pac team be relevant again. But the strength of the rest of the conference is not there IMO
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that winning the PAC would just as difficult as it is to win as the SEC?
 
outofyourmind said:
Is it Wake
Click to expand...

Nods Reaction GIF by TLC Europe
 
Volbound1700 said:
They were ranked as high as #13 during the early part of the season. They finished the season unranked. I remember UCLA was talked about last year as a playoff contender at one point and they fell apart.

There have been several seasons with Arizona or Arizona State being ranked high only to fall apart. After Oregon, look at the records of the Pac12 North team. Also look at the records of the South teams as well.

Riley should easily be able to come in and win 7-8 games with how bad the Pac12 is right now. Chip Kelley did NOT have that advantage because Pac12 had far more solid teams when he took over UCLA.

I spelled out the stats for you above. Only two teams in the Pac12 were ranked last year (Oregon and Utah) and one of those two lost their head coach. If you think Oregon isn't a question mark after losing their coach, you are in major denial. Anytime you bring in a new system, it is a struggle. I know being a Tennessee fan. Coaching is everything. Compare Alabama 1997-2006 vs. Alabama 2007-present.

The Pac12 was still pretty strong in 2017 with sold coaches and teams that can contend at high level: Notably Washington, Washington State, Stanford, USC, and Utah.

Now it is a pretty watered down league (especially the North). The Oregon State team you bragged about lost to Utah State.
Click to expand...
being ranked as high as 13 during the early part of the season was only because they beat LSU. it was way to big of a jump. UCLA was unranked going in. they beat Hawaii and then 16th ranked LSU. then lost 2 games of the next 3. they beat 1 seemingly good team so the talking started. it's your fault for buying into the talking. UCLA finished about where everyone picked them in the preseason. 1 flashy win that in the end wasnt, got them more hype.

there have been several seasons where Arizona and Arizona state have got ranked. rarely are they predicted to actually do well. there is a difference in living up to the expectations and having the expectations changed.

how come Riley should easily be abel to come in and win but Oregon is a BIG question mark? new coaches same conference.
Chip Kelly came in to the Pac at Oregon with USC, Oregon, Oregon State all ranked the prior season as well as Cal winning 9 games and AZ at 8.
compared to the 2017 you brought up where USC, Stanford and Washington were ranked and not as well as what was in 09. as well as WSU at 9 wins.
Pac was arguably better when he took over Oregon than UCLA but he wasnt rebuilding like he had to at UCLA and like Riley has to at UCS.

and i spelled it out for you Oregon has had multiple coaching changes with little to no drop off. when it did, it took 4 years to happen and it wasnt as much about the coaching change as other factors. its not denial.
Alabama coaching change comparing 1997-2006 vs 2007 to now is a horrible comparison. 2006 went 6-7 2007 7-6 before becoming what they are now.
USC went 4-8 and Riley has done nothing to even come close to thinking about making that comparison.

i wasnt bragging about Oregon state my point was your standards and wording call a team who has dropped a game W/L differential of 6 games in 4 years on the decline but a team who has a W/L improvement 5 games in 4 years trash. are they good no. are they improved and possibly on the rise? maybe.
if 7-6 Oregon State is trash is 7-6 Tennessee also trash? also Utah State 11-3 and Mountain West champions. and lets not forget its only been a couple years since Tennessee lost to Georgia State who only started football in 2010.
 
7samurai13 said:
So, do you believe that winning the PAC would just as difficult as it is to win as the SEC?
Click to expand...
loaded question.
in my opinion the 2 have different reasons for being hard to win.
thats coming from a fan of the team that has won the most Pac 12 championships. (Keep your pants on I said PAC 12 not Pac in all its years)
 
OlyDuck said:
being ranked as high as 13 during the early part of the season was only because they beat LSU. it was way to big of a jump. UCLA was unranked going in. they beat Hawaii and then 16th ranked LSU. then lost 2 games of the next 3. they beat 1 seemingly good team so the talking started. it's your fault for buying into the talking. UCLA finished about where everyone picked them in the preseason. 1 flashy win that in the end wasnt, got them more hype.

there have been several seasons where Arizona and Arizona state have got ranked. rarely are they predicted to actually do well. there is a difference in living up to the expectations and having the expectations changed.

how come Riley should easily be abel to come in and win but Oregon is a BIG question mark? new coaches same conference.
Chip Kelly came in to the Pac at Oregon with USC, Oregon, Oregon State all ranked the prior season as well as Cal winning 9 games and AZ at 8.
compared to the 2017 you brought up where USC, Stanford and Washington were ranked and not as well as what was in 09. as well as WSU at 9 wins.
Pac was arguably better when he took over Oregon than UCLA but he wasnt rebuilding like he had to at UCLA and like Riley has to at UCS.

and i spelled it out for you Oregon has had multiple coaching changes with little to no drop off. when it did, it took 4 years to happen and it wasnt as much about the coaching change as other factors. its not denial.
Alabama coaching change comparing 1997-2006 vs 2007 to now is a horrible comparison. 2006 went 6-7 2007 7-6 before becoming what they are now.
USC went 4-8 and Riley has done nothing to even come close to thinking about making that comparison.

i wasnt bragging about Oregon state my point was your standards and wording call a team who has dropped a game W/L differential of 6 games in 4 years on the decline but a team who has a W/L improvement 5 games in 4 years trash. are they good no. are they improved and possibly on the rise? maybe.
if 7-6 Oregon State is trash is 7-6 Tennessee also trash? also Utah State 11-3 and Mountain West champions. and lets not forget its only been a couple years since Tennessee lost to Georgia State who only started football in 2010.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood or have not read half my points based on this response.

First off, I never said the situation at Oregon was bad so I am not sure why that was even a discussion point. I would probably agree with your comments on that. A coach coming into Oregon should be able to win easily (even easier than USC with how bad Pac12 North is). I don't disagree with that. What I am arguing is that we don't know how good that system or coach will be. Generally a new coach losses 2-3 games they are not supposed to do.

You cannot argue this Pac12 is stronger than in 2017 with Chris Peterson at Washington, Mike Leach at Washington State, Stanford being a top squad, etc. Did you even review the data that I posted? If so, you wouldn't be making this argument.

Not sure what Chip Kelley's first year at Oregon has to do with this argument. I have clearly been pointed out the year Chip Kelley started at UCLA.

Of course you want to trash talk Tennessee because you don't have a point or you are not understanding my argument. My main initial argument was that Lincoln Riley is taking over USC at a very good time when there are not a lot of elite programs with elite coaches in the Pac12 versus perhaps 5 years ago when the Pac12 had more stable coaching and higher quality programs.
 
OlyDuck said:
loaded question.
in my opinion the 2 have different reasons for being hard to win.
thats coming from a fan of the team that has won the most Pac 12 championships. (Keep your pants on I said PAC 12 not Pac in all its years)
Click to expand...
How is it a loaded question? I said that it’s an easier path for USC to get to the playoffs through the PAC than it is Oklahoma trying to go through the SEC. I didn’t say the PAC was easy, I said it was easier than the SEC.
 
7samurai13 said:
How is it a loaded question? I said that it’s an easier path for USC to get to the playoffs through the PAC than it is Oklahoma trying to go through the SEC. I didn’t say the PAC was easy, I said it was easier than the SEC.
Click to expand...

My conversation wasn't even about that, I was literally comparing Pac12 in 2017 vs. Pac12 in 2021 and the stats totally support the Pac12 in 2017 was superior as well as coaching situation but he is still arguing with me about it.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I think you misunderstood or have not read half my points based on this response.

First off, I never said the situation at Oregon was bad so I am not sure why that was even a discussion point. I would probably agree with your comments on that. A coach coming into Oregon should be able to win easily (even easier than USC with how bad Pac12 North is). I don't disagree with that. What I am arguing is that we don't know how good that system or coach will be. Generally a new coach losses 2-3 games they are not supposed to do.

You cannot argue this Pac12 is stronger than in 2017 with Chris Peterson at Washington, Mike Leach at Washington State, Stanford being a top squad, etc. Did you even review the data that I posted? If so, you wouldn't be making this argument.

Not sure what Chip Kelley's first year at Oregon has to do with this argument. I have clearly been pointed out the year Chip Kelley started at UCLA.

Of course you want to trash talk Tennessee because you don't have a point or you are not understanding my argument. My main initial argument was that Lincoln Riley is taking over USC at a very good time when there are not a lot of elite programs with elite coaches in the Pac12 versus perhaps 5 years ago when the Pac12 had more stable coaching and higher quality programs.
Click to expand...
we dont know how good Riley and the system coming in to USC will be or work either. its the same argument but you are making a different standard for the different schools.

i didnt argue that 17 wasnt tougher. i never brought up 17 period.

me comparing chip to Riley is lost on you exactly why?
Chip goes to Oregon a ready made program and does well. goes to a rebuilding UCLA to much hype and has not done well.
Riley goes to Oklahoma a ready made program and does well. now going to a USC team that went 4-8 a year ago to much hype. forgive me for making such an outlandish comparison

i only brought up Tennessee because they had the same record as a team you called trash.
 
7samurai13 said:
How is it a loaded question? I said that it’s an easier path for USC to get to the playoffs through the PAC than it is Oklahoma trying to go through the SEC. I didn’t say the PAC was easy, I said it was easier than the SEC.
Click to expand...
if its an easy path then why has there only been 2 teams from the Pac to make it? if its an easier path why has more than 1 team from the SEC made it at the same time in multiple years?
its harder for different reasons and is not a simple yes or no question. thats why its loaded
 
OlyDuck said:
if its an easy path then why has there only been 2 teams from the Pac to make it? if its an easier path why has more than 1 team from the SEC made it at the same time in multiple years?
its harder for different reasons and is not a simple yes or no question. thats why its loaded
Click to expand...
Pull your head out of your ass and read the fucking question absolute fucking chode. Again I didn’t fucking say the PAC was easy.

If the PAC is just as strong as the SEC how come the PAC has only one playoff win and the SEC has had three different teams win the championships?
 
OlyDuck said:
if its an easy path then why has there only been 2 teams from the Pac to make it? if its an easier path why has more than 1 team from the SEC made it at the same time in multiple years?
its harder for different reasons and is not a simple yes or no question. thats why its loaded
Click to expand...
Also are we really wanting to ask us to ignore that we are witnessing one of the greatest college dynasties of all time in Alabama and pretend that has nothing to do with why more teams from the SEC aren’t getting to the playoffs. Please tell me who from the PAC stacks up to Bama over the last 8 seasons?
 
7samurai13 said:
Pull your head out of your ass and read the fucking question absolute fucking chode. Again I didn’t fucking say the PAC was easy.

If the PAC is just as strong as the SEC how come the PAC has only one playoff win and the SEC has had three different teams win the championships?
Click to expand...

7samurai13 said:
Also are we really wanting to ask us to ignore that we are witnessing one of the greatest college dynasties of all time in Alabama and pretend that has nothing to do with why more teams from the SEC aren’t getting to the playoffs. Please tell me who from the PAC stacks up to Bama over the last 8 seasons?
Click to expand...
where in any post did i ever say anything like the Pac is just as strong or that anyone stacks up to Alabama? also 8? i think you are underselling. now who needs to pull their head out?

I said that Pac is harder for different reasons than what makes the SEC hard.
the pac is harder because of the team balance and uncertainty of who will be the unexpected tough teams. Pac has more cyclical power. more teams rotating through as the better teams.
SEC has is more top heavy. you know who you have to go through.

Since going to divisions 3 teams have won the North. All 6 teams have won the South in the Pac 12. that was from 2011 and on. 5 different teams have won the conference. 3 out of 12 have not played for a title.
and its been like that forever. even with USC and Pete.
the BCS era was 98 to 2013 seasons. in that time 9 of the Pac 10 won or shared the title. Arizona did not but they were second with a 12-1 record and finished ranked 4th in 98.

same time frame for the SEC has had 3 different east teams and 3 west teams. 4 teams have won the conference. 8 of the 14 have not played for a title. and thats not to say other teams dont also pop up like South Carolina and Arkansas and Texas A&M and finish ranked with good records.
but at the same time Oregon State and Washington state have finished ranked as well from the Pac.
 
OlyDuck said:
where in any post did i ever say anything like the Pac is just as strong or that anyone stacks up to Alabama? also 8? i think you are underselling. now who needs to pull their head out?

I said that Pac is harder for different reasons than what makes the SEC hard.
the pac is harder because of the team balance and uncertainty of who will be the unexpected tough teams. Pac has more cyclical power. more teams rotating through as the better teams.
SEC has is more top heavy. you know who you have to go through.

Since going to divisions 3 teams have won the North. All 6 teams have won the South in the Pac 12. that was from 2011 and on. 5 different teams have won the conference. 3 out of 12 have not played for a title.
and its been like that forever. even with USC and Pete.
the BCS era was 98 to 2013 seasons. in that time 9 of the Pac 10 won or shared the title. Arizona did not but they were second with a 12-1 record and finished ranked 4th in 98.

same time frame for the SEC has had 3 different east teams and 3 west teams. 4 teams have won the conference. 8 of the 14 have not played for a title. and thats not to say other teams dont also pop up like South Carolina and Arkansas and Texas A&M and finish ranked with good records.
but at the same time Oregon State and Washington state have finished ranked as well from the Pac.
Click to expand...
8 years was talking about the playoff era, you set that timeline with talking about playoff births.
 
OlyDuck said:
we dont know how good Riley and the system coming in to USC will be or work either. its the same argument but you are making a different standard for the different schools.

i didnt argue that 17 wasnt tougher. i never brought up 17 period.

me comparing chip to Riley is lost on you exactly why?
Chip goes to Oregon a ready made program and does well. goes to a rebuilding UCLA to much hype and has not done well.
Riley goes to Oklahoma a ready made program and does well. now going to a USC team that went 4-8 a year ago to much hype. forgive me for making such an outlandish comparison

i only brought up Tennessee because they had the same record as a team you called trash.
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point. I see Lincoln Riley is entering the league at the right time, I didn't say he would do good. However, with how bad the Pac12 is right now, I can see USC go 8-4. Don't give me their 4-8 record last year. USC fired their coach 2 games into the season. Do you NOT think that would have contributed to their record?

Oregon State, unlike Tennessee, did not play two playoff teams (Alabama and Georgia), the ACC Champion (Pittsburgh), and another top ten team (Ole Miss). That is already 4 of Tennessee's losses right there. Tennessee did not lose to a mid-major.

People point out Georgia State all of the time about Tennessee but it is our only non-Power 5 loss since Memphis in 1997 (well perhaps BYU the same season as well). There are plenty of programs who have lost to multiple power 5s in that period including Alabama (UL Monroe 2007, UCF 2000, USF 2000, Southern Miss 2000, Northern Illinois 2003, Louisiana Tech 1999).
 
Riley we get it..” it’s not you it’s me”blah blah blah. I wish he’d shut his yapper and worry about USC and keep OU out of his mouth. How many more interviews is he gonna do to try to convince his recruits he’s not a puss for not wanting to move to the SEC.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Basically, Oklahoma can't attract talent per Riley.
Click to expand...

He couldn't attract SEC talent at OU. He could get them there but he didn't think he was in a position to get them over the top.

Personally I think it's a dick move by Riley to throw former players under the bus but it goes to his motive for changing jobs. He has a great offensive mind but he seems to believe talent will overcome scheme so he went to a place where locking down in state talent is the only place he believes he will build a roster to compete with Bama and Georgia on the national stage. Plus he went from a traditional power that is limited in NIL opportunities to a traditional power where they arguably can throw more money at recruits than anyone. From my bias I was cheering when he left but if I'm being honest his rationale isn't the healthiest sign for college football going forward. He jumps from a top 5 school where he was going to name his salary to a maybe top 10 school where he gets to name his salary but oh yeah half his next class gets recording contracts on Snoops label-I have no problem with kids getting paid endorsement deals through NIl but the obvious pay for play stuff is messed up.

Regardless though, dick move on him for his comments.
 
outofyourmind said:
Why exactly.
Because he can beat the shit out of crippled kids in wheelchairs but when a real Defense shows up he gets his shit pushed in.

That isn't an offensive genius




Fight Beat Up GIF
Click to expand...

Yall weren't bitching when you had back to back Heisman Trophy winners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top