From: kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: WOOF GODS STRIKES AGAIN! (was Re: WSU 42 UW 23)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 08:09:56 GMT
Organization: UC San Diego
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: guppy.ucsd.edu

In article <dkH=2w@engin.umich.edu> chyang@westquad.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
>
[ALOT OF STUFF ABOUT HOW THE WEATHER WAS THE ONLY REASON THE 
WASHINGTON STATE COUGARS DESTROYED THE HUSKIES SATURDAY]
>
>       Ok.  Given the weather condition, WSU has the definite advantage
>with the way their teams is and game plan is structured.  There is no
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
What, Don James only had a 70 degree, perfect weather, dry field game plan?  
He was probably so busy trying to figure out how to use this dry field
to his advantage that he or his staff never got a chance to see a weather
prediction.  In fact, he was so convinced that it was going to be a beautiful
sunny day in Pullman, that he only packed a short sleeve golf shirt.
Imagine his surprise as he started to notice the chilly air as he jogged 
though the tunnel that leads to the field.  When he gets to the field, James
is overheard muttering: "What the Hell is all of this white stuff doing
all over the field?"

Come on, both teams knew in advance that a snowy, slippery field was a
definite possibility Saturday, and I'm sure both teams adjusted their
game plans accordingly.  Also a passing team is more likely to get hurt
by poorer weather conditions.  Washington State just had alot more to gain 
by winning.

>arguemnent.  UW could not have won anyway.  The snow COMPLETELY neutralized
>the speed of Washington's defense and offense.  The arguement of bulk vs
>speed comes into play here. The defensive line of the Huskies are big but
>not as big as the offensive line and they were in effective without traction
>on the ground.  

But the Washington State Cougars had these magic cleats that gave their
defensive line perfect traction against Washinton's offensive line.

>       BTW, this is the kind of day that if MIAMI had played WSU, they will
>have been blown out as well.  Miami's team structure is similar to the Huskies,
>which relies on speed.  The game would not even be close.  Too bad they played
>in a dome.

Any GOOD team can ADAPT to poor weather conditions, loud and unruely home
fans, and other conditions which makes playing on the road so difficult.
I'm sure if Miami had to play in the same conditions against WSU, Erickson 
and company would have adjusted the offensive play calling to take advantage 
of the slippery field.  Actually, he probably has some good slippery field
plays left over from his last coaching job.  (BTW, I think that playing in
the Carrier Dome might have been just as difficult a place to play as
in Pullman, not because of the weather obviously, but because of the 
hometown fans.  I don't think Miami has been given enough credit for going
into such a hostile environment, and coming out with the win)
 
>       Not to take away Bledsloes talent he is very good.  But he is playing
>against a defensive set that is basically useless in a weather like that. 

Again, is the Washington Huskies defensive set only designed for perfect
playing conditions?  Are there no provisions for slippery field conditions?
I wonder what happens when it rains in Seattle (which I hear it does every
once in a while) and the Huskies home field becomes a little slippery?
It's amazing that the Huskies have won any games on a less than perfect
field which makes their defence USELESS.  In fact, I'm surprised that 
when the Huskies have to play on a slippery field, Don James doesn't
just say: "Oh no, the field is slippery - our defense is basicly useless -
the other team is going to score at will - let's just forfeit and go back
home to sunny Seattle."
I have played on both in both snow and rain on artificial turf.  The snow
is a little bit slipperier than wet turf, but in both cases the teams just 
adapted.

>       Like I said, the Woof God Stuck and it snowed that game.  If it was
>on dry ground, the story will be very different.  
>       I don't buy the arguement of talent level ....  etc.  I don't care how
>good the WSU offense is.  The weather was the primary factor in determine the
>outcome.  Now all you WAZZU fans have to hope for is that it snows everytime
>Apple cup come around.
                            
Although the weather might have influenced the final result slightly, the
bottom line is WASHINGTON STATE WANTED TO WIN MORE THAN WASHINGTON.
Washington State had everything to gain by winning Saturday.  Even though
a 7-4 Pac10 team should be taken seriously by the various Bowl committees,
it was obvious that the only way to guarantee a Bowl game for WSU was to win.
I also believe that WSU played harder, since they were the underdogs and 
had something to prove to the other state school which thinks it is so superior.
Washington had already wrapped the the Rose Bowl bid, and had nothing to 
play for except for state bragging rights - which apparently was not all that
important to the Huskies.  Even though they still had an outside chance at the 
MNC, I think that after losing to Arizona, all the Huskies cared about was 
making sure that they got the Rose Bowl bid.
If the game meant more to the Huskies, then maybe the story would be
different (although WSU has in the past been just as difficult even when 
this game was really important to the Huskies - I can't remember if poor
weather conditions were the reason the Huskies lost those games as well).

>- Chung Yang

Isaac (kim@bull.ucsd.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college