As not only a University of Washington fan, but as a fan of college football as a whole, I am disgusted with the coverage given to the #6 team in the country (since this article was written I assume they will have moved up since #3 Oklahoma lost. In what world is it appropriate to place cupcakes on the field to represent the Husky’s non-conference schedule? You are making it sound like a month before the season started, athletic director Jennifer Cohen made sure to schedule these easy teams, when in reality she has done her best to get the Huskies into the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Game against Auburn next year, and was able to schedule a home and home series with both Michigan and Ohio State in the coming years. ESPN completely glossed over the fact that these schedules were set YEARS in advance. Years. But that doesn’t seem to matter since it makes the Pac-12 look bad. It also didn’t seem to matter that the Huskies have scheduled games in the coming years against Auburn, BYU, Michigan and Ohio State. There wasn’t a mention that before last season, the Huskies were nowhere near national title contention. These games were set even before that, when the Huskies were a Power-5 team trying to keep up with the Stanfords and Oregons of the conference and the fact that the Huskies are ranked in the top 10 doesn’t change anything for these lesser foes, because those teams who agree to play Washington still make a ton of money off of these games.

Speaking of non-conference schedules, let’s get into the specifics of what was talked about on the broadcast during Washington’s matchup with Cal. The sideline reporter placed three cupcakes on the field, to represent Rutgers, Montana and Fresno State, the Huskies’ non-conference schedule, and then did in my opinion the stupidest thing possible in that moment, compared it to Alabama’s. Yes, I understand that Alabama played at the time #3 Florida State, but one of the arguments I heard against Washington last season is that the only top 10 team they played was Colorado, even though Stanford was #8 when they got beaten up by the Huskies. Alabama outside of that Florida State game, has played Colorado State, Fresno State and Mercer. Sounds pretty similar to Washington’s schedule shouldn’t it? Nope. The broadcasters during this particular broadcast decided to talk up the fact that Alabama played the same Fresno State team, and a “hard-nosed” Colorado State team. I understand that Colorado State is a decent Group of 5 team, who is currently sitting at 4-2 with a big win over an admittedly terrible Oregon State team, but what really set me off on this huge rant is the fact that these broadcasters mentioned Fresno State by name as being decent competition for Alabama but not for Washington is an absolutely disgusting fact to me. I also feel that it needs to be repeated that the Huskies are unable to change their non-conference schedule, but no one in the media seems to ever understand that or feels that it needs to be covered.

Going off of that, after briefly reading the ESPN Power Rankings this morning, I’m outraged by the fact that the Pac-12 gets absolutely no love unless the school’s name is USC. Washington’s weekly wrap up stated that “the Huskies dominated another rather weak opponent, which should make it tough to move up in the poll rankings.” Cal took USC into the 4^th quarter in a tie game when USC was still #5 in the country, and then it was described by the same ESPN writers as a “tough, gritty” road win for USC. So I really don’t understand what the problem is with this Washington team. I understand that the Pac-12 doesn’t have the same recruiting pull as some of the other conferences, but the teams don’t get any love. The main criticism of the conference, and the Husky schedule is that they don’t have enough ranked teams in it, but when you really sit down and look at the schedule of not only a Washington or a USC, but of any other team in the conference at the end of the year, a lot of the teams in the Pac-12 only wind up with six or seven wins because of the ways that they beat each other up in conference play. No one came out unscathed last year. In all other conferences, you know who the front runners are: Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma. Then we look at the Pac-12, and even when Washington was the “sexy” pick last year, they still weren’t picked to win the conference over a Stanford, Oregon or even USC. Part of that, I believe, comes from how close most schools are talent wise. There is a clear divide in other conferences when it comes to recruiting, especially the SEC. The top half always is incredibly relevant, while the bottom half tends to slip into irrelevance, but simply because it’s the SEC, they get more attention than the Pac-12.

Now, onto kickoff times and Kirk Herbstreit. I’m actually really happy he said what he did, because it proves my point even further about the east coast bias, and that ESPN does whatever it can to not cover the Pac-12. How are you going to tell Chris Petersen that the Pac-12 should be “thanking” ESPN for its one game per week coverage of the conference? I read the ratings too, I see that the numbers go up for games after 9 PM on the East Coast. You want to know why? Because it’s the only game to watch! Just because the numbers are up doesn’t mean people are actually watching the games. As a student attending school on the East Coast, I know exactly what every college football fan out here understands about the Pac-12, and let me tell you it’s not a lot. So the fact that we have to listen to this from a former Ohio State player, who clearly knows and has embraced the bias for years is appalling to me. Getting back to kickoff times, I agree with Coach Petersen, the country needs to see what Washington can do. I love the fact that the Huskies can easily have a primetime slot because they’re on the West Coast, but when week after week they continue to improve and still have absolutely no love while being ranked inside the top 10 is astonishing to me.

Now just to prove a point, I’m going to do a blind comparison between two running backs who are in the Heisman race.

A:

We can also keep in mind that Player A has been used in kickoff returns this season, has returned one for a touchdown and has also thrown a touchdown this season.

B:

Player A is all over the media, at the top of every highlight reel and so on and so forth, while Player B, while admittedly not as good as the first running back as a the first as a pro prospect, should have his name all over the media nonetheless. Player A is Saquon Barkley from Penn State, while Player B is Bryce Love from Stanford. Just thought I should throw that out there, because I’ve talked to quite a few people and brought up Bryce Love, and they had no idea who I was talking about. If that doesn’t perfectly sum up how the media portrays the Pac-12, then I don’t know what does.