I'm seeing a couple primary lines of smack that I think bear a little reality check from both sides.
Husky smack against Oregon
A common line of argument:
"Win a Rose Bowl and then come back and pop off about how good you are."
Despite Oregon's success over the past 10-15 years, the Ducks have not won a Rose Bowl and therefore really don't have much to brag about. And further, in that time frame, even the Huskies have won one Rose Bowl (following the 2000 season).
- Since the 1994 season, Oregon has won the Pac-10 title outright four times (1994, 2001, 2009, 2010) and split the crown once (2000). That's four more outright league wins that the Dawgs. Twice the Ducks did go to the Rose Bowl and it is true that in 1994 and 2010 they lost those games.
- HOWEVER, following the Duck's 2001 season crown, the Rose Bowl was the designated BCS National Championship Game. In those days, that meant only the #1 and #2 team in the BCS played in the Rose Bowl. Therefore, if the Pac-10 league winner was not #1 or #2 in the BCS rankings, they would be diverted to another BCS game (Fiesta Bowl). Controversially, the 11-1 Ducks were #4 or #5 in the BCS standings, so they played in the Fiesta Bowl - a game they won by beating a highly ranked Colorado team to finish the season as the consensus #2 team in the nation.
- Also, last year after winning the Pac-10 title, the Ducks were #2 in the BCS standings. So, they got the invite to play in the national title game - which as of a few years ago is now a separate game than the other big bowls. Of course they wanted to play for the title, so they went there instead of the Rose Bowl.
While the Husky line of argument is technically true, it is completely ignorant as any real fan of the Pac-10 and college football know the Ducks had no say in the fact that they could not play in the Rose Bowl following the 2001 season AND last season they played in the national title game instead of the Rose Bowl.
Smack talk rating:
Really weak stuff - willfully ignorant of what's happened in 2001 and the last 10 years. A real reach.
Duck smack against Washington
A common line of argument:"The Huskies are a joke and irrelevant to anything important in the Pac-12. We've clobbered you seven times in a row, and unless you forgot...your team went 0-12 in 2008."
The UW football program has been so bad over the past 9-10 years that any thought of equity with Oregon is laughable. Start winning some games and then come back and we'll talk.
- It is true that the Huskies have not had a good run between 2002 and 2010, and indeed they have not won a league title in that time frame. It is also true that the Ducks have beaten the Huskies seven season in a row by large margins.
- HOWEVER, UW had a decent year last season, and they won their bowl game against a good Nebraska team. This year, they're bowl eligible already. All told, the Huskies are clearly improving steadily.
Again, the insults are technically true, but ignorant - in this instance ignorant of recent events. Because the Ducks have beaten UW so regularly recently, Oregon fans like to dismiss the resurgence going on at UW...and they do so at the risk of being shocked come Saturday evening.
Smack talk rating:
Feeble - UW fans know how bad their team has been. Reminding them of that at a time when their team is actually improving rings particularly hollow.
- Until UW beats Oregon and/or wins a league title, Washington fans should stop tyring to undermine Oregon's recent success.
- Until Oregon wins a BCS Bowl game again, Duck fans need to temper claims to greatness or reminding the Huskies of their recent woes.