September 19, 2005
Southern Cal ruining college football?
You cannot blame Arkansas coaches for struggling to find the right words after the Trojans mauled them 70-17 this past Saturday night. But what do you make of UA defensive coordiator Reggie Herring's take on USC?
"They’re the best team I’ve ever seen," Arkansas defensive coordinator Reggie Herring said. "They need to hurry up and graduate, because if they don’t, they’re going to ruin college football."
Ruin college football? Come again?
There have been many dominant teams in the history of college football--and some arguably more dominant than the current USC squad--but I fail to see how any of them have "ruined" the game. Perhaps they ruined life for many mediocre coaching staffs struggling to hold onto their jobs, but you cannot say the game itself was tarnished.
Ignoring NCAA rules might ruin college football.
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, on three years probation due to violations primarily centered around impermissible employment in Dallas of a number of men's basketball and football student-athletes. The case concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits, recruiting and financial aid.
Player-buying scandals might ruin college football.
Lang also told jurors that Arkansas offered him either an assistant coaching job worth more than $80,000 a year or $150,000 in cash if he delivered Means and another player.
Poor off-the-field player conduct might ruin college football.
Nutt has been criticized for a lack of discipline on his teams and a number of his student-athletes have had off-campus arrests for DUI and other offenses.
Superb and dominant play by the USC Trojans will not ruin college football.
Now, to be sure, I expect that Herring was using hyperbole when discussing the Trojans' talent. And you have to credit the Razorbacks for taking on Pete Carroll's squad on a day when fellow SEC teams were playing the likes of Ball State, Indiana, Louisiana-Monroe, and Tulane in non-conference tilts.
However, if the idiots that run college football and the BCS haven't ruined it, I don't expect the Trojans OR the Razorbacks to be able to ruin it, either.
Comments:
brent shapiro said:
posted on September 19, 2005 4:32 PM — 128.125.70.218 — link — abuse?
Yo Jeremy,
what was oklahoma last year. the ywere said to be the best team ever assembled in college football. Wait till we maul texas in the rose bowl. You cant say a team thats gonna win 3 staright championships is a fluke. our offense is unstoppable, but your proably are a UCLA fan, i know it hurts.paulwesterdawg said:
posted on September 19, 2005 5:02 PM — 64.238.123.108 — link — abuse?
The only thing that is going to ruin college football is programs that field unwatchable teams.
Reggie Herring set defensive football back 30 years. Houston is ruining that program with his inability to recruit better players.
posted on September 19, 2005 6:04 PM — 68.35.231.61 — link — abuse?Mike Boone said:
The important thing is that USC is only ruining the game for those that can't adapt to their style of play. A team like Arkansas with few athletes can't compete with SC right now due to the players on the field. The right team with the right scheme will knock Southern Cal off their pedestal before too much longer.
George said:
posted on September 19, 2005 6:37 PM — 198.203.175.175 — link — abuse?
Too bad the right teams to knock SC off their pedestal are all playing on Sundays. As for a weak schedule, look at what the Pac-10 did this weekend in their non conference games. SC is just that much better right now.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 19, 2005 7:03 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
First, let's debunk this whole three-peat mythology surrounding SoCal.
The BCS champion two years ago was LSU. Did SoCal play or beat LSU? No. SoCal won a fictional, pollsters' national championship two years ago.
Last year, the BCS gave us SoCal versus an overrated Oklahoma. Did SoCal play or beat undefeated Auburn? No.
SoCal hasn't exactly blown away all its opponents either. Just last year, the Trojans struggled against Virginia Tech, Stanford, California, Oregon State and UCLA en route to its BCS championship.
For those with short memories, here are the scores:
USC 24 VaTech 13
USC 31 Stanford 28
USC 23 Cal 17
USC 28 Oregon State 20
USC 29 UCLA 24
Anyone who actually watched those games knows just how close SoCal came to having a mediocre season in 2004-05.
Please don't suggest that Texas will be a worthy opponent in a BCS championship game. Are there any good teams in the Big 12 this year other than Texas?
Who cares if SoCal has blown out Hawaii and Arkansas, one of this year's worst teams in the SEC?
Anyone care to suggest a team this year that has a good enough run and pass defense to beat SoCal?
I don't think there is an opponent so far this year that has even the potential to be as good as Auburn a year ago and LSU two years ago.
If SoCal wins the BCS championship this year, it will probably still be a joke. Where's the worthy competition this year?
It's too bad that the BCS could not give us LSU versus SoCal two years ago and Auburn versus SoCal last year.
Will the BCS system fail football fans again this year? Is the BCS ruining college football, too?
SC Fan said:
posted on September 19, 2005 7:11 PM — 12.28.137.34 — link — abuse?
Those who say SC is not the best team in college football or hasn't been for the past three years, are either delusional or UCLA fans.
The Pac-10 is the best conference in America as far as talent goes. Just look at the number of Pac-10 players that play on Sundays.
USC not the best team? You have a long way to go understanding college football.
VOLPIMP said:
posted on September 19, 2005 7:29 PM — 208.0.27.10 — link — abuse?
Come on guys, don't hate on the Trojans. Until they go down they are the Champs. They have a complete team, much like Miami in it's heyday. Until someone proves they can be beaten, the rest of us will have to admit it. But UCLA and Notre Dame should give them a good fight.
Casey said:
posted on September 19, 2005 7:42 PM — 71.104.96.62 — link — abuse?
Note to any and all clear thinkers:
Cumberland Ave has been spreading a hate campaign against USC on almost every Fanblog post I've read lately. Truth is that Cumberland Ave is actually TREV ALBERTS in disguise. Having lost (given up) his spot on ESPN's Gameday, Trev is now using Fanblogs as his platform to hate on USC and the Pac-10.
How's life, Trev?
kidomaha said:
posted on September 19, 2005 7:45 PM — 68.13.135.174 — link — abuse?
Hey Lost on Cumberland Ave:
USC will be going for their 3rd consecutive AP national title. No other team has achieved this during its duration. The AP is typically considered the more respected of the polls, largely because there aren't an restriction on whom may be voted for.
LSU did win the National Championship in 2003, in the coaches poll. LSU's title was less mythical than USC's. They simply got the nicer trophy that year.
The fact that three coaches voted for USC even after they were instructed to vote for the OU-LSU winner shows how much respect that team had. (Remember that P. Carrol didn't vote in the poll.)
Pointing out that SC has had close games, shows that perhaps competition in the Pac10 is greater than most give it credit for. Cal had a late season melt down triggered by a number of high profile injuries. Sanford and ucla both loathe USC and leave everything on the field, which is more than some of the other non-conference teams can say in the Pete Carrol era.
As for how SC has fared against SEC team lately, call Auburn and Arkansas. While Auburn and USC did meet last year, they beat the tigers the two previous years. Auburn may be crying on the outside, but nobody on that team wanted to face USC again, after losing at home 24-0 to open 2003.
Who might USC host in the Rose Bowl? Maybe Texas, maybe Virginia Tech, but my hope is that SC can finish its argument as best team ever by destroying another over-inflated SEC team. While it doesn't matter whether its Florida or LSU, there would be a certain sense of poetic justice to battle LSU.
jessi said:
posted on September 20, 2005 12:45 AM — 84.254.188.2 — link — abuse?
USC has done nothing but beef up there roster for the last 3 years, and to compare now to then is simply unfair. LSU is a good team but USC has basically a pro team over there, and considering everyone they play in the pac-10 is a warmup game they will probably win it again. Then there is more recruits for them to build on next year. I dont hate on USC, but i do beleive that they are in a week ass conference, that allows them to go undefeated and end up getting the best recruits in the nation. Kinda unfair to the other good team who actually have to work at it.
Jarred said:
posted on September 20, 2005 12:46 AM — 12.178.128.91 — link — abuse?
No playoff is ruinng college football.
Preseason polls is what it's all about
USC could win every game by one point and play for the title and someone like Arkansas COULD win every game by 25 and not because they may or may not be ranked high enough to pass everybody.
About the TOP Ten are the only ones with a shot.Greg said:
posted on September 20, 2005 1:24 AM — 68.2.133.14 — link — abuse?
USC victories in the last three years:
Top 5 Auburn (twice), including shutout in Auburn
#3 Iowa (Blew them out)
#3 Michigan (Blew them out)
#2 Okalahama (Not one person pick SC to win the game)
#6 Washington State
#10 Notre Dame (2002 they were in top ten, 3 straight by 31)
#7 Cal
Top 15 ASU (twice by more than 30 points) ASU dominated LSU
Top 10 V Tech who almost beat your unbeatable Auburn
Undefeated over another 11 victories over Top 25 teams.Bottom Line: SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and ACC ARE OVERRATED
SCOREBOARD - Deal with it!
GODUCKS said:
posted on September 20, 2005 7:03 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Peaple were saying that same stupid shit last year when U.S.C. played UofO.Peaple have been saying the same stupid shit about the pac10 for a long time and every year top teams lose or almost lose to the pac 10 teams that you call weak.
Every one of your so called teams have came to play the pac10 at one point in time and came away with a loss or come verry close to doing so.
Any one remember when LSU almost lost to oregon state or when USC beat Auburn or when Michigan lost to Oregon.That was the worst Oregon team I have ever seen and Michigan lost.
Talk all you want,But we all know the truth and once again the pac10 will rise.
I hope that the ducks win Saterday, but I dont think it will happen.USC will have some close games this year,but thay are going to blow out ANY non-pac10 teams thay play.Watch and see.At the end of the year you will only have your "what ifs" and your bullshit to get you to next year.Dont stress. We will always have stanford for you to pick on so that you can brag that you beat a pac10 team.
Glenn said:
posted on September 20, 2005 11:46 AM — 134.173.75.183 — link — abuse?
Hey Casey, why were none of those teams considered overrated until they got beat by USC? Is that the litmus test? If SC beats them then they are overrated? How about the Big 12 being overrated? Teams like Kansas, Baylor, and well pretty much anyone besides Texas and OU don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of many teams. BTW the same Auburn team that went 13-0, the same Va Tech team that nearly beat Auburn, Oklahoma who played in three straight national championship games are all overrated? Come on not all of them were overrated. The fact is this is a special group of players and we should sit back and enjoy them play whether or not you are an SC fan. These are a good group of guys too. Leinart, Bush, White, and the rest they don't get in trouble, they just come out and win every time they lace it up. Like i said enjoy it while it lasts because next year they will be playing on Sundays.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 20, 2005 11:53 AM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey guys,
USC has a great team, but I don't buy into this media hype about a three-peat.
It's my understanding that the NCAA decided to crown its football champion in the BCS championship game. USC did not play in the BCS championship game in 2004. USC did win it against Oklahoma in 2005. We still don't know if USC will even make the BCS championship game in 2006.
USC can only claim back-to-back #1 rankings at season's end in the AP poll, which is a respected poll, but it does not determine the college football Div. 1 champion.
As for those years that USC beat Auburn, I ask you how many SEC teams beat Auburn in those years? If memory serves me well, Auburn did not even win the SEC West the two years in which USC beat them.
When was the last time that Southern California or any Pac 10 team for that matter beat the winner of the SEC West or the SEC East? Do we have to go back to the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or has USC beat the winner of the SEC West and/or the SEC East more recently? I do not know. I am simply asking. I look forward to accurate answers.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 20, 2005 12:07 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey guys,
Visit here to find a list of SEC champions from 1933 to 2004 and SEC East and SEC West champions from 1992-2004.
Please report back to us SEC fans about how often Pac 10 teams have beaten SEC East, SEC West and SEC champions in the past eight decades.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 20, 2005 12:28 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Dear USC and Pac 10 fans,
I offer my apologies regarding my comments about the mythology of a USC three-peat. It turns out that USC did in fact win three years running in the Matthews poll in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
I refer you to http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
There you will find a list of past NCAA Div. 1A football champions in all the polls from the beginning of polls to 2004.
You will search hard and long to find a Pac 10 national champion in the majority of the reputable polls such as BCS, AP, UPI, ESPN, USA Today, etc.
Other than USC, only Washington and UCLA have shared national championships in NCAA Div. 1A football since the 1950s!
Prior to 2000, the most recent Pac 10 team to share a national title was Washington in 1991 when they split the votes with Miami.
Southern California has not been dominant since the 1960s and 1970s until its recent run of three Matthews championships, two AP championships and ONE BCS championship!
Learn how to play some defense against some real teams on a consistant basis Pac 10 and then and only then will you win the respect of fans in the SEC.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 20, 2005 12:47 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey guys,
SEC college football teams have won or shared 41 NCAA Div 1A national titles in the game's history.
Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Ole Miss and yes even Vandy have all won or shared a national title in college football in the game's history.
The Pac 10 can claim USC, UCLA, Washington, ASU and perhaps some others. Am I missing anyone PAC 10 fans?
I suggest you create a football legacy other than USC and UCLA before you start denigrating the SEC teams and ranting on about the college football superiority of the Pac 10.
Erik said:
posted on September 20, 2005 1:02 PM — 216.163.247.1 — link — abuse?
The SEC is far and away the Best College Football Conference In America. Try and tell me that USC would go undefeated just as easily if they faced off against LSU, Florida, UGA, UT, Alabama and Auburn every season! That's Laughable.
All of these SEC teams would have alot more "national championships" if they played in the PAC-10 cause they wouldn't have that one or two tough losses every season.
posted on September 20, 2005 1:19 PM — link — abuse?
I love the SEC, but I think I'm about ready to say that Southern Cal would go undefeated in the SEC. There is no question in my mind that they would have mauled Auburn last year, and the Tigers ran the SEC table.
The overall level of competition is higher in the SEC, but...Southern Cal? As much as it might pain me to admit it, Southern Cal is the real deal.
Kendall PRice said:
posted on September 20, 2005 1:49 PM — 208.190.198.201 — link — abuse?
Reggie Herries comments are a bit ridiculous. Herring helped the score with not being able to back up his words before the game with a defense that even looked competent. At some point USC will come back to earth as all of these great programs do. But I do wish the writer had used some perspective on the real deal behind the 'scandals' he mentioned in regard to the Arkansas program. The smoldering smells he left on the table in the blog in reality were a lot different than the impression he leaves the reader with. Lets leave the stinking to the game we just played.
Maurice said:
posted on September 20, 2005 2:09 PM — 208.17.179.33 — link — abuse?
This a stupid statement. USC is not ruining College football. The BCS and Bowl system is ruining college football. Division I-A needs a playoff.
I am happy for USC and The PAC 10. West Coast Football is alive in well especially in LA CountyCumberland Ave said:
posted on September 20, 2005 2:49 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey guys,
I am not attacking USC, but I think the three-peat stuff is just media hype.
USC has a great team and has had a great team for the past three years, but that alone does not make a case for the superiority of the Pac 10 over the SEC.
As for those USC wins over Auburn in 2002 (24-17) and in 2003 (23-0), one must keep in mind that Auburn was overrated in preseason in 2002 and ended with an overall record of 9-4. Three SEC teams beat Auburn in 2002. In 2003, Auburn finished with a record of 8-5. Four SEC teams beat Auburn in 2003.
Let's look at the Pac 10's recent record overall in Bowl games.
2004 3-2
2003 4-2
2002 1-3
2001 2-3
2000 3-2
1999 1-4Wake Forest even beat two Pac 10 teams in bowl games during that period.
Let's not forget recent USC non-Pac 10 losses:
2001 10-6 to Utah
2001 27-16 to Notre Dame
2001 10-6 to Kansas State
2000 38-2 to Notre Dame
1999 25-24 to Notre Dame
1998 30-10 to Florida State
1998 28-19 to TCUI would have liked to see USC vs. Auburn in 2004-05 and USC vs. LSU in 2003-04.
The BCS is not the answer. Give Div. 1A NCAA college football fans a playoff and a legitimate, undisputed national champion. One does not find it in USC
William Rainey said:
posted on September 20, 2005 3:51 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
How quickly you Pac-10 fans forget that the second best team in the conference last year(Cal) got demolished by Texas Tech which wasn't even the second best team in it own state let alone its own conference(Big-12). The pac-10 with the exception of USC is a bunch of overrated soft teams that just wouldn't make it in any other conference besides maybe the MAC, WAC, or the pathetic Big East. Maybe Washington will be good after a few years, but that's about it. Nothing could prove my point better than Stanford losing to I-AA UC-Davis. I'm still laughing at that one.
As anybody else noticed how many "USC fans" have come out of the woods since they started winning?How many of you people were fans ten years ago?
These fair weather fans are part of what is hurting college football. PICK A PROGRAM AND STAY WITH IT.As a Razorback fan it pained me to see the USC game, but at the same time I can appreciate a great team when I see one. I don't think they would have beaten LSU in '03 but they could have beaten Auburn last year and no one will come close to beating them this year. And they aren't ruining college football they are giving it a standard and a villian at the same time. They are college footballs New York Yankees and evryone loves the Yankees, right?
Link said:
posted on September 20, 2005 3:57 PM — 68.181.247.173 — link — abuse?
As for all the SEC fans, the big-10 fans, and everyone else who is damn certain that USC is not the best team in the nation, consider:
USC has won more national championships than any other team. We've had 6 heisman trophy winners. We're averaging 67.5 pts a game, more than the usual college basketball team scores.
And as for the argument that SC wasn't dominant in the past and that the PAC-10 sucks, that was then and this is now. As for the SEC's bowl teams last year, they went 2-3 (I believe this is correct, if I'm wrong, sorry, either this or 3-2). Not that great a record. At least, no greater than the other major congferences.
Furthermore, regardless of what arguments are made about USC's past two seasons, the fact is this: They are kicking the crap out of every team their playing, in conference, and out of conference. They're not unstoppable, i'll agree(their secondary needs a LOT of work) but show me a defense that can stand up to USC's offense. And when that happens, it'll be a fun game to watch.
Norm Chow said:
posted on September 20, 2005 4:09 PM — 132.1.207.21 — link — abuse?
You guys are completely funny! YES, USC is going for a 3-PETE!!!! 2 years ago: USC ranked #1 in both polls and blew out Michigan. LSU sqeaked by Oklahoma ('nuff said). LSU had to be BcS champ but only by a technicality. Last year: USC #1 all year and blows out Oklahoma. Yes Okies were weak and the Big 12 and Big Ten are the most overrated conferences in the history of college sports. Oh yeah, USC is now a record-setting 23 weeks in a row at #1!! Come on but that is pretty damn impressive considering all the other "pro"/college teams through the years - Okla, Nebraska, Miami. This year, who knows but USC looks incredible. Defense is the key as alot of new faces. SEC has always been the best conference in US but PAC-10 is back. All this is a moot point though until we get a playoff like every other CFB division.
Norm Chow said:
posted on September 20, 2005 4:18 PM — 132.1.207.21 — link — abuse?
Jeremey says "play some real teams" Oh like Texas playing Louisian Monroe! Or maybe like Ohio St playing San Diego....ooooooo!!!!
USC has played those "tough" teams in the past 3-4 years and every one of them have been crushed!!! As for leagues, PAC-10 has Stanford but SEC has Vandy (oh they still have a football team?), S Carolina. ACC is an absolute joke; Fla St with only like 8 losses since joining league; yeah that's tough! Only ND plays a true tough schedule every year; god I hate those guys!! Every team and every conference has ups and downs; now is time for USC and PAC-10!!VOLPIMP said:
posted on September 20, 2005 4:39 PM — 208.0.27.10 — link — abuse?
Kevin said it well, USC would probably go undefeated no matter what conference they were in, for people to say it's not fair, they have better players and we don't is borderline stupidity. I hated the Canes and Noles when they were smokin' hot, simply because they had what UT didn't and still doesn't. I watch their games and highlights and just laugh because they ARE that good. Sure there are teams that can hang with them, but I bet nobody, NOBODY wants to play them right now. Everyone acts like USC has an unfair advantage, I guess they do, since they ARE better than anybody else. Give credit where credit is due, f##k the weak conference crap, they killed OU, Va Tech was a little closer, and ND. What National Champ hasn't had a close game? In 98 damn near every game UT played was close, winning the close ones is a better watermark than blowing out a weak or 2nd tier team. (In my opinion) Every dog has it's day, right now that dog is a Trojan. Don't hate...Congratulate
VOLPIMP said:
posted on September 20, 2005 4:51 PM — 208.0.27.10 — link — abuse?
William Rainey...brilliantly said! This guys team just got hammered by USC and he's smart enough to recognize good football. I agree 1000%, bandwaggoners and morons are what ruins good football chat. I had an idiot tell me the other day how shitty UT was, when I inquired who his team was he proudly claimed OU as his favorite. "Name 5 players on their squad" I challenged him. The stupid bastard didn't even know Adrian Peterson, I just told him to get out of my face. Of course then he wasn't really a fan of college ball, he was a Titans fan. Name 5 Titans was my reply. "Derrick Mason, Samari Rolle, and Steve McNair" were all he could get! Two of those guys are now with the Ravens! Morons who don't know their shit are what ruins good chat rooms and sites like this one. I definitely don't know everything, but damn at least know what you're talking about when you do. William, I was really surprised the Hogs didn't do well. Houston Nutt coached at Murray State about 45 minutes from me and he is an excellent coach. He must be struggling with recruiting, Texas and LSU, probably Auburn as well are making recruiting hell for him in our region. Think he wishes he would have gone to Lincoln now? Hell they are pitiful up there now. I hate it too because Nebraska was todays USC not too long ago.
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 20, 2005 6:19 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
The PAC-10 is absolutely better than the SEC. Florida is your best team, and for godsakes FLA practically IS a PAC 10 team (all passing, no defense). USC is far and away the best team in the country. UCLA beat the everyloving crap out of Oklahoma. ASU dominated, fully dominated LSU... Stop talking about history. Who did what in what decade...? Who cares? The kids in the PAC 10 who are kicking the crap out of everyone now werent even born when the SEC had all your precious championships. Deal with reality as it is NOW. PAC TEN FOOTBALL BABY. BELIEVE IT.
Greg said:
posted on September 20, 2005 6:27 PM — 209.181.130.33 — link — abuse?
Cumberland Ave who is your team?????
USC has 11, count em 11 NATIONAL TITLES!
How many does your team have??
waiting...
What you SEC and whoever honks don't get is that the Pac 10 isn't weak, they play a different style. There are excellent athletes in the Pac 10 (just like in other conferences) thus there is a more open style of play (this is verfied by the fact that Pac 10 has the most players in the pros).
Before you get all worked up, keep in mind the SEC has some great teams but college football generally has cycles. USC was very bad in the 90's now they are simply one of the best teams ever! Also, look at last year. Everyone said OK was the best, all the analyst said not only will OK win but they will probably blow them out, but look what happened. Then AFTER the game everyone said Auburn should have been in the game but NO ONE said that before the Orange Bowl.
There are many good teams and conferences, it just so happens that USC is by far the best. It is not even close. The coaching far superior to anyone out there. Who could outcoach Carroll? Tuberville? Mack Brown? Bob Stoops? Tressell? Good grief, Tressell can't even get Ginn the damn ball. USC just makes is look easy, but its not, that is why no one else is doing.
THE SCOREBOARD DOESN'T LIE. Before your next post remember...SCOREBOARD!
3-pete here we come, then 4 pete...you get the idea!!
11 National Titles
6 Heisman Trophies (soon to be 7, 3 of the last 4)
Gerald said:
posted on September 20, 2005 8:10 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Greg and USC fans:
The PAC - 10 has more players in the NFL than anyone else? Not according to this link! 5 of the top 10 producers of NFL talent are in the SEC: Florida, Tennessee, UGA, Auburn, and LSU. The other 5 are FSU, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame. Meanwhile, no PAC - 10 school is on the list! Note that the source is the LA Times, USC's own hometown newspaper. And I don't want to hear about how the PAC - 10 is loaded with young stars that will fill the NFL soon. Like that isn't the case with the SEC?
I do not begrudge USC their success, but what I do hate is the hypocrisy. When you guys beat middle of the pack SEC schools, they are always "great wins against great opponents from a tough conference." But when you finish with the same record as an SEC school and want to be called the undisputed champs, all of a sudden the SEC is a bunch of overrated schools with weak schedules, slow athletes, and bad coaching!
Gerald said:
posted on September 20, 2005 8:42 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
One more thing Greg and PAC - 10 fans:
You all love to talk about "East Coast bias." Well excuse me, but precisely why are Oregon and UCLA ranked? Oregon was 5 - 6 last year (and not much better the year before), UCLA is coming off 7 - 6, 6 - 7, and 6 - 6 years. I will grant you that the teams are 6 - 0 this year, but come on. UCLA's opponents were San Diego State (0 - 3), Rice (0 - 2), and OU (1 - 2). Oregon's opponents were Houston (1 - 2), Fresno State, and I - AA Montana. Of the 6 games, only 1 was on the road (UCLA at San Diego).
Even better, Oregon needed 4th quarter comebacks against Fresno AND Houston. They gave up almost 400 yards to Houston and almost 500 to Fresno. AT HOME! Even against Montana, THEY HAD TO SETTLE FOR A SCHOOL RECORD SIX FIELD GOALS!
And yet those two schools are ranked. Now the media is claiming that "USC has a tough road game on the road against nationally ranked Oregon this weekend." And this Notre Dame thing. They beat 0 - 3 Pitt and a Michigan team lacking their best player, and all of a sudden they are national title contenders setting up this huge clash with USC? We were hearing about how Charlie Weis was a "genius" for beating a Michigan team without its best player when Ty Willingham beat Michigan 2 times out of 3!
Oh, and speaking of Michigan, oh how the media just LOVED to claim that USC beating #10 ranked Michigan in USC's OWN STADIUM was somehow the equivalent of LSU beating #2 ranked OU. How the media declared USC "the people's champ" despite LSU beating more ranked teams and higher ranked teams. I remember how after an OU defender ran down an LSU tailback from behind, the "objective" announcer screamed "THIS PROVES THAT LSU DOESN'T HAVE THE SPEED TO COMPETE WITH USC!" Never mind that it was a CORNERBACK with an ANGLE chasing down a 230 pound TAILBACK! But of course, Braylon Edwards getting WIDE OPEN behind USC's secondary (only to drop passes or have John Navarre not find him) went completely unmentioned.
Neither did they mention how LSU, who supposedly couldn't score, had a higher average margin of victory than USC. Nor did they mention that LSU's victory over Auburn was much more impressive than USC's ... LSU had a much easier time moving the ball on Auburn's defense than did USC ... they didn't need field position from turnovers and big special teams plays to put points on the board!
Don't get me wrong. I am not begrudging USC's sharing the title in 2003. Rather, I am debunking the foolish notion that LSU had no right to share the title, and the even more foolish notion that Auburn shouldn't have shared the title last year. Again, Auburn played more ranked teams ... and higher ranked teams ... than did USC. We were supposed to look at how Auburn barely beat LSU and how Virginia Tech and Tennessee came back in the second half. Sure, completely ignore the close calls that USC had against Virginia Tech, Stanford, Oregon State, and UCLA. The only difference is that Auburn had fewer close games, and theirs came against better teams ... New Year's Day bowl teams versus losers to Wyoming and Division II Cal - Davis!
And oh yes, since USC beat Auburn in 2003, of course they would have beaten them in 2004, right? Never mind that USC was 6 - 6 in Pete Carroll's first year. Never mind that just like how USC had their turnaround when Norm Chow came in to turn underachieving but talented Carson Palmer into a #1 draft pick, Al Borges came in and did the same for Jason Campbell and Auburn. The only difference is that Auburn was a much better program before Borges than was USC before Chow, and the fact that Auburn has more players in the pros than USC (see link above) proves it.
Now don't get me wrong. USC is overall a better program than Auburn or any other SEC school. They may even become the dominant college football program of the era. But LSU and Auburn were very worthy to share titles with mighty USC, and the SEC is - and shall be for the foreseeable future - a much better league than the PAC - 10, or anyone else for that matter
Gerald said:
posted on September 20, 2005 8:53 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Greg and PAC - 10 fans:
A final note: I get sick of people claiming that Pete Carroll was a mediocre NFL coach who became a great college coach. That foolishness is the reason why excellent college assistants and small college coaches are getting passed up for Dave Wannsted failures right now! Pete Carroll was actually a good NFL coach. Not only did he get the Jets to the playoffs before he was undermined by his awful ownership (the Jets didn't start winning until the ownership changed) and personnel, but he had some very good years with New England. As a matter of fact, had Curtis Martin not injured his shoulder that year, New England very well might have won the Super Bowl instead of Denver. And then Curtis Martin got injured the next year, and New England traded him and drafted another RB who suffered a career ending injiry after his rookie season. (Of course Curtis Martin went on to a Hall of Fame career after he got traded). And then Terry Glenn, New England's only receiver, quit on the team! Nah, Pete Carroll was a good NFL coach, and that is why he is an excellent college one.
And my parting shot is: how many top defenses have USC faced during their run, and how many points have they scored? Hmmm .... like I said earlier, they didn't exactly ring up the scoreboards against Auburn, and even in that Michigan "blowout" the offense had help from the sacks and turnovers that Navarre handed you!
And if USC fans are among the ones who claimed that "Nebraska and Oklahoma are overrated because they never play anybody" when those teams were winning titles during the 70s, 80s, and 90s (or the same about FSU in the ACC or Miami in the Big East) well then what does that say about your honesty?
JB said:
posted on September 20, 2005 9:03 PM — 204.69.4.81 — link — abuse?
Everyone give it up. USC has played as many tough teams as all the other elite schools, and the Pac-10 is just as competitive as the SEC, Big-10 and every other BCS league. LSU only got the BCS trophy in 2003 because the coaches were contractually obligated to vote for the winner of LSU-OU, even though the vast majority agreed that USC should've been champs. So why didn't the computers put USC in that game? Because the computer programmers decided the criteria. Last year the destroyed a team that was a truly great team in the championship game. I think OU could've beaten Auburn. So what, There's no doubt USC was the best last year? USC knew Arkansas was no good, but schedule was made years ago and they were probably hoping they were better. I also heard that Arkansas coaches were insulted to be 4 touchdown underdogs, SEC teams deserve better, right?
BIG TEN said:
posted on September 20, 2005 9:51 PM — 24.208.211.95 — link — abuse?
Are you kidding the pac 10 is as competitive as the big 10. If USC had to play teams even close to being as good as Ohio St., Michigan,Michigan St., Iowa, and Purdue they would get so banged up they would not make through the season with less than two losses. Instead they play teams like oregon and washington who are probably some of the worst teams in college football right now. I think everyone knows that the oklahoma team SC beat last year was terribly overrated, look at them now they are 0-3 and where is jason white? does anyone know? Had USC played Auburn they wouldnt of been able to compete with the quickness and experience of the best in the SEC.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 20, 2005 10:04 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
VOLPIMP I appreciate the comments and I'm glad we are on the same page. I wasn't surprised that my beloved razorbacks got whipped, not only is our defense in the middle of a transition into a different scheme, but we gave USC two weeks to prepare for us. We had no chance. And as for the fan you confronted I can top that. I was talking about life in general with a stranger, the topic quickly turned to football and I mentioned I love the razorbacks he then informed me he was a devoted USC fan. I asked him how he felt when the trojans first hired Pete Carroll and whether he knew then if Carroll was the man to lead his program, he then replied. Who? I said the coach. He said oh I don't know, I didn't start liking them until they won their first title.
John said:
posted on September 20, 2005 10:57 PM — 69.209.134.243 — link — abuse?
As a Notre Dame alumnus who narrowly chose ND over USC, it pains me to say it, but yes - USC is the best team of the last three years. They fully deserve the accolades they are getting.
The best teams struggle at times - as soon as they're near No. 1, every team they play spends more than the week prior to the game dreaming of upsetting the top team. (You won't find a coach who admits it, but duh!) USC never gets a game off, because everyone goes full out. They have a tremendous amount of depth, and there's only one injury that could seriously set them back.
Nonetheless, I think USC will drop a game this season. If they don't, I don't think the Rose Bowl will be close, because you know USC will get up for that. Their losing a game will require them to overlook a team. I'm thinking ND has a shot, simply because the USC players remember winning by 31 the past three years, and MIGHT cruise before that game. (and then if it snowed, and went to 20 below, hey, it COULD happen :-) ) In any case, a lot of teams, even if they're nowhere near the talent level of USC, will play to their utmost ability, and I expect one of those teams to get lucky. If not, that will only show just how dominant USC is, just how much better of a team they are than the teams on their schedule.
As for people jumping on the bandwagon of teams that are doing well - yeah it's annoying. But, ultimately, my view on that is simple - you only truly enjoy and understand the championships when you went through the earlier pain. The USC fans who went to games through the 1990s are precisely the ones who understand just how awesome it is for USC to be doing as it is. The ones who only became USC fans in the last few years have no ability to savor victory or put it in its proper perspective. They're the ones who will fall right off if USC drops a game, even though they'll still be the best team in college football.
John said:
posted on September 20, 2005 11:11 PM — 69.209.134.243 — link — abuse?
Out of curiosity, when did the 11 National Championships of USC occur?
This link shows Alabama to have 11, ND to have 12, and USC with 10. Yale leads with 19. Having trouble finding "modern era" data, but in any case, when were those eleven championships?
Greg said:
posted on September 20, 2005 11:30 PM — 209.181.130.35 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
You go on with your bad self. I don't konw of one SC fan that takes issue with LSU. Both LSU and USC got robbed of a chance at an undisputed title. I have much more issue with a team that was destroyed by 28 points in their title game. Do I believe we would have won, of course but arguing college football is one of the great pleasures in life...isn't it? Although as an SC fan I have to metion that we were #1 in BOTH polls at the end of the season. The ONLY reason we split the title was because of a contract...period.I stand corrected on the Pac 10 players in the NFL. Although for many many years the Pac 10 was well ahead of all the other conferences. Check back on this stat in 5 years...should be different.
Big Ten,You must be an luckeye fan. Don't get all worked up, you have a good conference and a good team. I simply do not believe that the Pac 10 is as bad as you say. I will state that the Pac 10 is not as top heavy right now but there is a tremendous amount of speed and talent and the Pac 10 beats each other up just like every other conference. I know I know, no matter what the record of Ohio State they are the best team in the nation. Four losses? Doesn't matter, they are still the best team in the nation. Some kind of conspiracy. Remember you guys chocked to Mack Brown, nuff said. Great game tho.
No matter who you root for, college football has had a great year so far. I love watching football from all the conferences. As an SC fan, of course I believe we are the best team in the land and believe that we would go undeafeted in ANY conference. If we lose, that is what college football great, anyone can beat anyone on any given day. I'll tell you this, as a fan that watched or went to EVERY single SC game during the dark years, this is sooo much fun. We are going for our third straight title, how cool is that.
Good luck if we meet on the field!!
Alexander said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:00 AM — 67.127.6.105 — link — abuse?
I read all of these posts and here is my take:
A. I am an SC Alum
B. My older brother won a National Championship @ UCLA
C. My childhood best friend is a FSU Alum
Ready.......PAY CLOSE ATTN YA'LL**SC would have, and already has proven, that LSU and Auburn and anyone else would have been rolled during the past couple years. END OF STORY. Don't make yourself look foolish!!!!
1. ACC 2. SEC 3. PAC 10: Strongest ConferencesCumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:02 AM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Greg,
If one considers all the polls, USC actually has shared 16 NCAA Div. 1A national championships. I guess your total of 11 USC championships depends on which polls you are considering.
As for my team, the University of Tennessee has shared 7 national championships by the same criteria I have used to attribute 16 titles to USC.
I have repeatedly said USC is a great team. In fact, I admired the great Trojan teams in the 1960s and 1970s.
The focus of my discussion, however, is the misguided notion that USC is going for a three-peat. It irritates me to no end that all these announcers on ESPN and CBS and the other major networks just simply want to sweep under the rug the fact that LSU was undefeated and won the BCS championship in 2003-04 and that Auburn was undefeated in 2004-05 and did not get the same recognition from AP that USC got the previous year when LSU won the BCS.
Anyone with any football knowledge knows that comparative scores between common opponents is no sure-fire way to prognosticate the outcome of a USC-LSU matchup in 2003-04 or a USC-Auburn matchup in 2004-05.
USC could have just as easily lost to Virginia Tech as Auburn could have against the same Virginia Tech team in 2004-05. If you watched both games closely with all honesty, you would acknowledge that fact.
The other point I have hoped to drive home is that the competition in the SEC is consistently superior to the overall strength of teams in the Pac 10 year in and year out.
How many national titles does the Pac 10 hold outside of those attributed to USC?
How many national titles are spread out among a variety of teams in the SEC?
USC's current squad simply has three titles in the Morris poll from 2002-04, two AP titles in 2004 and 2005 and ONE BCS title in 2005. You and the media can cry three-peat all you want, but that is not the reality.
Gerald,
It's good to see a knowledgeable, well-researched and thoughtful post minus all the emotional histrionics of most people.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:38 AM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Big Ten is delusional. You sound like one of those Japanese WWII vets who are lost in the jungle and still think the war is on.
And what idiot would compare the Trojans to the Yankees? It is nowhere near the same thing. That's a bit like these jerks that claim USC could hang with the bottom-feeders in the NFC West. Come on, use your brain.
jin said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:05 AM — 207.190.60.1 — link — abuse?
USC won outright or part of the national championship the last two years and are favored to win there third championship in a row.
switch USC with LSU Auburn Vandy Duke or even UC davis for all I care. It would have been the same story no matter who was in USC's position.
Think about it. If LSU won last year instead of the trojans then they would have been going for a 3-peat. Same with Auburn two years ago. The fact is that no matter what team it could have been, the media would be saying the exact same thing.Why do casual fans jump on the badwagon? It's because the media does it first.
JB said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:34 AM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
BIG TEN wrote:
"Are you kidding the pac 10 is as competitive as the big 10. If USC had to play teams even close to being as good as Ohio St., Michigan,Michigan St., Iowa, and Purdue they would get so banged up they would not make through the season with less than two losses"2002 Orange Bowl: USC 38 - Iowa 17
2003 Rose Bowl: USC 28 - Michigan 14
2004 Orange Bowl: USC 55 - Oklahoma 19
(Oklahoma was overrated? They were being hyped as the best team ever - Maybe USC was underrated?)BIG TEN says:
"Instead they play teams like oregon and washington who are probably some of the worst teams in college football right now"2001 Holiday Bowl: Oregon 35 - Texas 30
2001 Rose Bowl: Washington 34 - Purdue 24
2001 Fiesta: Oregon State 41 - ND 9
2002 Sun: Wash St. 33 - Purdue 27
2002 Fiesta: Oregon 38 - Colorado 16
2003 Insight: California 52 - Virginia Tech 49
2003 Holiday: Wash St 28 - Texas 20
2004 Sun: Arizona St. 27 - Purdue 23I guess those lame Pac-10 teams can't beat anyone from those "elite" conferences...
And once again Cumberland, LSU only got the crystal football and the "new" version of the national championship because the coaches were contractually bound to vote for them as the winner. They didn't want to, and the media knows this. The much older and independent (read: no conflict of interest)AP poll went to USC. Technically LSU shares the national championship, but everyone outside of Louisiana and Auburn agrees it's all USC's.
ERIC said:
posted on September 21, 2005 10:11 AM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
College Football could be the #1 Sport in America - if an 8 team tournament was instituted. Have the 6 conference winners plus 2 at-large teams compete for a national championship ON THE FIELD. Use the 7 biggest bowl games to decide the winners in the tourney...and let the rest of the bowls be used as a reward for teams that go 7-4 (or better.)
USC can't win a 3-peat
because LSU won the BCS in 2003!Auburn should've won in 2004 - but the media didn't want AU to whip USC (they chose a weak OU team instead.)
The fact that LSU was snubbed in 04 and USC was snubbed in 03 should be reason enough to institute the NCAA D-1 tourney!
Until then, you really don't know which team is the best!!!
TOny Tiger said:
posted on September 21, 2005 10:21 AM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
LSU won the BCS in 2003
Auburn was the undefeated champ of 2004
Can USC finally win something in 2005?
The Sportswriters, Coaches and Computer polls need to be eliminated from the college football landscape. A post-season tournament is sorely needed. In fact, which other collegiate sport does not have a tournament at years end?
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 10:58 AM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
"Auburn should've won in 2004 - but the media didn't want AU to whip USC (they chose a weak OU team instead.)"
Conspiracy theorists- rejoice!
My word, if you people's lives weren't so singularly wrapped up in college football and little else, you'd have the ability to look at things in perspective. Only when that happens will you be able to see that this BS you LSU 2003 drum bangers keep playing simply doesn't carry a tune. The media didn't want to see USC lose? Do yourself a favor, buy a tape recorder and record yourself spouting the drivel you spout so well for 24 hours. Then send it to half a dozen state psychologists (outside of SEC territory) and wait for the men in little white coats to arrive. It'll only hurt for a second.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:08 AM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
"Auburn was the undefeated champ of 2004"
If you are going to call LSU the 2003 champion based only on the BCS, then you must do the same for USC in 2004. USC got left out in 2003, and Auburn got left out in 2004. It sucks - accept it and move on. Do you guys know how moronic you sound sometimes?
As has always been the case in this absurd debate, you Auburn/LSU/SEC apologists adjust the rules in whichever way you can to benefit yourselves. It works so well for you to discount SC's championship in 2003 due to the fact that they were at the short end of a contactual obligation, yet you have no problem discounting SC's championship in 2004 even though they won based on your own idiotic criteria. I'm a Gator fan, and you guys embarrass the hell out of me. It's a sad fact that if it weren't for this idiotic subject, you guys would have little else to discuss.
Randy said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:19 AM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
USC TROJANS:
#2 Largest Market in America
No NFL team to compete with in LA marketSouthern Cal and it's fans are the biggest joke in the country! They say they're #1 - yet nobody wants to actually show up and watch this team play! Until Southern Cal and it's miniscule fan base actually "sells out" a home game, the real SC still plays in Columbia, SC. The Trojan nation (all 4 of them) can not rationally justify why Southern Cal fans come dressed as empty seats - every home game.
Southern Cal may have been something good back in the good ole days...but nobody wanted to see the Old Trojans then & nobody apparently wants to see those Trojans now either!Get over it Trojans - your only a paper champ that the media has created over the past 2 yrs. LSU was clearly better than USC in 03...when LSU won the REAL national title. Auburn was clearly better than USC on 2004 - yet Petey Carroll and his backroom shenanigans allowed USC to play the weak OU...instead of the undefeated AU Tigers. In reality, Karlos Dansby, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown and Jason Campbell are clearly better than anyone on Southern Cals 04 team. The Tigers would've "mopped up" the Trojans and exposed that team for what it really was!
Southern Cal "Paper Champs"
ThomasT said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:40 AM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
SC FAN really shows the lack of football knowledge shared by all Trojan fans:
"The Pac-10 is the best conference in America as far as talent goes. Just look at the number of Pac-10 players that play on Sundays."
To test SCFan's hypothesis, I checked the roster of my favorite team - The Buffalo Bills. Maybe that would shed some light on SCFan's theory of PAC-10 NFL PLAYER DOMINATION.
Here's the Bills players from the PAC-10:
Tim EUHUS - Oregon
Rian LINDELL - Wash St
Lawyer MILLOY - Wash.
Ryan NEUFELD - UCLA
Now here's the Bills palyers from the SEC:
Rashad Baker - UT
Justin Geisinger - Vandy
Jabari Greer - UT
Mario Haggan - Miss St
Shane Matthews - Fla
Eric Moulds - Miss St
Jason Peters - Ark
Josh Reed - LSU
Constantin Ritzmann - UT
Shaud Williams - Ala
Trey Teague - UT
Takeo Spikes - Aub
George Wilson - ArkSCFan, I can't help but notice that there are only 4 Pac-10 players on the Bills. There are over a dozen SEC players on the Bills. Heck, there's 4 ex-Volunteers...matching the total number from the whole Pac-10 conference!!!
SCFan, your typical Trojan comments are not passing my "smell test."
Just stick to playing other weak Pac-10 teams and leave the NFL talk to the Pros.
Go Bills!
Scrub said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:47 AM — 165.251.12.36 — link — abuse?
Say what you want about LSU/USC, but the comments about Auburn beating USC are funny!
Auburn 17, USC 24 (Sep 2, 2002 quotes)
"They started putting nine in the box, and when they do that, you've got to throw it," Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville said. "We couldn't throw it and catch it well enough. We had two drops that hurt us."
"I can't say what happened in the second half. It just seemed like we fell apart," Carnell Williams said.
Auburn 0, USC 23 (Aug 30, 2003 quotes)"They beat us in the trenches, which is what you have to do to win," Auburn running back Carnell Williams said.
"A good defensive line can dominate a football game," Jason Campbell said. "That is exactly what happened tonight. They did it in the second half to us last year, and did it the whole time tonight."
Troy Champs said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:02 PM — 204.44.186.129 — link — abuse?
Schedules are determined 3-10 years a head of time, USC would like to have known how great they were going to be so they could have planned a harder schedule.
Auburn- SC whooped em 2 years in a row, not just scraped by. Auburn beat OU and then we showed the country how to whoop OU.
Be happy, SC will go drop losses (plural) starting next year. The best talent's getting tired of competing so hard with other top talent, and the Offense is graduating. Everyone likes to drag down a winner....Ignorance is bliss in NY said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:07 PM — 204.44.186.129 — link — abuse?
TomT's ignorance is so obvious...
Pick your team? Who cares, use the numbers of the whole NFL, just as the intitial writer stated. SC does have the most historically...Iv'e met Bills fans, and consider them generally intellgent, hope they are not aware of you. Please don't go swimming in the gene pool, you'll just dirty it up....
Do you have your mommy's permission to use the computer?
posted on September 21, 2005 12:13 PM — 72.146.27.200 — link — abuse?
Wow!!
"the real SC still plays in Columbia, SC"
That is amazing!! I agree to a certain degree that the BSC is stupid and I personally think that college football should come up with some form of playoffs. Although, I'm sure that we could find a way to complain about that too... but come on... "the real SC" ? Look, I don't know if the lack of sense started in your tariler park in Auburn or if it just spread there. Either way, it has messed up your head. Did you see what Bama did to "the real SC" last Saturday? They do have a great coach but he isn't going to see that SEC Championship this year or next...
Randy-Yep said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:13 PM — 204.44.186.129 — link — abuse?
Gerald is well spoken, his points are correct.
Pac-10 does not have the talent as the SEC does, or ACC for that matter. There are simply more football colleges in those regions of the country.
Look at Academic figures between the SEC and the Pac-10 and it will explain a lot.Randy is ignorant - yea, we DO have the biggest market but we have lives here, there is so much culture and things to pursue, SEC towns, what the hell else you going to do? We have lives, and that just pisses you off. We love NCAA footbal, but, in spite of it, we have other lives.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 12:33 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
ThomasT makes an idiotic argument. First, whenever you do something like what you did, back it up with empirical evidence. I picked 4 random teams and did a 2005 roster check (Baltimore, New England, Chicago and Green Bay). 3 of those 4 had larger player representation from the Pac-10 vs SEC, and New England shows SEC and Pac-10 representation to be equal (I did a quick count, so forgive me if I'm off by one here or there). Of course, there will be cases where it's more in favor of one or the other, and I'm certainly not about to say that the SEC is "better" than the Pac-10 or vice versa because of NFL representation (who can really tell?), but this is a non-starter. That's as dumb as saying the Pac-10 is the strongest conference just because USC is the best team in America right now. I wish someone could present a well-thought argument here instead of just blind passion.
Hog Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:00 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
You can't honestly expect us to believe that B.S., I just don't buy that people in L.A. don't go to USC games because they would rather go to the art gallery or opera. USC doesn't sellout because people just don't care about football, believe me if they did care the NFL would have a team in there quick. Now granted one of the factors is that L.A. sports fans also have the Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, and Angels among others to choose from but they choose to follow a different sport not not go to the theater. Besides I've been to L.A., and if you took half the people that are out shopping and put them in the stadium they'd have overflow. So what, you don't think we have malls down here. Devoted fans go to games no matter what.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:03 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
While we're on the subject of blind passion vs informed debate, how about this nugget:
"Oh, and speaking of Michigan, oh how the media just LOVED to claim that USC beating #10 ranked Michigan in USC's OWN STADIUM was somehow the equivalent of LSU beating #2 ranked OU. How the media declared USC "the people's champ" despite LSU beating more ranked teams and higher ranked teams."
First, and I'm not one to nit-pick, but the game was NOT played on USC's own field. USC plays in the LA Memorial Coliseum. The Rose Bowl is played in, um, the Rose Bowl. The Coliseum is in Los Angeles, the Rose Bowl is in Pasadena. They are 20 miles apart. UCLA plays their home games in the Rose Bowl. Unless USC is actually playing in the January Rose Bowl game, they only play in the Rose Bowl once every two years, when they play UCLA, and everyone knows that, by design, attendance at that game is split 50/50 between USC and UCLA.
Furthermore, anyone who was actually at the Rose Bowl in 2004 (for the 2003 season) knows that there were more Michigan fans in attendance than USC fans (yes - they are fairweather fans out here - but I've been to many a game in the late 80's Swamp that weren't sellouts either). The point is that there was, decidedly, NO home field advantage for USC in that particular Rose Bowl game.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:08 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
It's kind of pathetic that USC fans continue to refer to the Trojans's wins over Auburn teams that went 8-4 and 7-5. Each of the years that USC beat Auburn, at least three or four SEC teams beat Auburn.
LSU and USC each have ONE BCS championship in the past five years.
I don't hear anyone from USC saying the coaches were "obligated" to vote for USC because the Trojans beat an overrated Oklahoma team for the BCS without having to play undefeated Auburn.
The NFL scouts obviously thought well of Auburn in selecting Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, etc. in the first round of the NFL Draft.
The coaches were no more "obligated" to pick LSU in 2003-04 than they were to pick USC in 2004-05.
USC is NOT going for a three-peat!
Scrub said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:28 PM — 165.251.12.36 — link — abuse?
Cumberland, you of all people are the one who likes to pull up win statistics from decades ago for the SEC (I can pick out dozens of posts from you counting games more than 2 years ago). You also say USC can't play defense, yet the direct quotes from the Auburn players say otherwise. The USC-Auburn games were RECENT and had pretty much the same personnel on both sides (Leinart, Williams, Campbell).
William Rainey said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:32 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Hey guys quick question, As a hog fan I'm sitting here in Little Rock, Arkansas and I'm hearing all these people calling in to the local sports shows and when they aren't demanding for the coaches to be fired after two of the most embarrissing loss I've ever seen, they are either bashing USC and Pete Carroll for throwing the ball late in the game and running up the score, or saying it's not their fault they had the scrubs in and we should have stopped them. Just for the record most feel we should have stopped them and I agree, but some of the older fans are upset and are calling USC classless. What do you guys think?
Flaussen,
Since you took offense to my comparing USC with the Yankees I feel I should explain myself just in case no one else got it either. Two Things:#1: They are similiar to the Yanks because just about every non-yankee fan wishes their favorite team could have the players or at least the payroll the Yankees have(maybe not this year).
#2: If a losing team(such as the Devil Rays) somehow beats the Yankees in the season series its the highlight of their season. Much like if a team that ends up 5-6 somehow beats USC it will be the highlight of their season.
Get it now?
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:46 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
"Randy is ignorant - yea, we DO have the biggest market but we have lives here, there is so much culture and things to pursue, SEC towns, what the hell else you going to do? We have lives, and that just pisses you off. We love NCAA footbal, but, in spite of it, we have other lives."
Come on, I mostly agree with you, but one of the best years of my life was the year I spent at Mississippi doing graduate work. Give Oxford credit - it's a jewel. And Athens is great as well, but it's no Oxford, IMO.
And anyone who doesn't give credence to the notion that an abundance of diversions, be they sport or otherwise, has anything to do with attendance at individual college football games in SoCal is just ignorant. It's narrow views like that make me boil. Average attendance at all college football events combined in Southern California is routinely more than any other area in the country on a weekly basis (assuming all teams are home). In addition to more things to do in general, there are also 3 colleges I can think of that field football teams in southern California. Just USC and UCLA had nearly 150,000 people last week, and even in down years routinely pull around 100k. That's pretty good considering the irrefutible fact that there is so much else to do here. Take the college football out of SoCal and life goes on. Take the college football out any of half-a-dozen SEC environs and that environ's identity goes with it.
Leonard said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:48 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
Randy-Yep's comments are classic SouCal dribble - let's do a double take on his lunicy:
Exhibit A:
"Pac-10 does not have the talent as the SEC does, or ACC for that matter. There are simply more football colleges in those regions of the country."First of all, it's the high schools that provide the talent for the Pac-10. There are more high schoolers in California alone than Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky & Arkansas combined! Now, consider that those 7 southern states have no less than 20 Division 1-A football programs competing for that smaller talent pool (not to mention dozens of historically black colleges and universities within the region.) The Pac-10 is weaker in football because they do not have the same level of commitment. Look at the numbers America, the top SEC and ACC teams can go to California, Washington or Arizona and hand-pick the best players for their teams. The college football fans at places like UT, Georgia, GaTech, Alabama, LSU & Auburn is much more passionate than any Pac-10 fan! The total football experience at a ballgame in Baton Rouge or Knoxville or Athens is much more enjoyable and anything the Pac-10 can conjure up. Those Southern Cal Trojans wouldn't even know what a "sell-out crowd" even looks like!
Exhibit B:
"yea, we DO have the biggest market but we have lives here, there is so much culture and things to pursue, SEC towns, what the hell else you going to do? We have lives, and that just pisses you off."Do you think the SEC is just about football? America's best track teams are from the SEC. The best women's b'ball teams are in the SEC. This year's College Baseball World Series had more SEC teams than any other conference.
Randy-Yep thinks that Hollywood has cornered the market on culture...I think not! It's true, many Angelinos are pretentious jerks. They think they have the best of everything.
We see how your Southern Cal Trojans like OJ get away with murder - all the time. We see how your cops beat Rodney King - without being punished. We see how your inner-city thugs beat up Reginald Denny...and never got punished for it. We saw your neighbor taking his WWII tank for a drive - then being killed by the LAPD (without a trial mind you.) We also see your cops using their famous "pit maneuver" to sideswip cars - and kill many innocent civilians too. Who could forget your famous BankofAmerica shootout - where the badguys we're finished off by the cops (and then left to die for over an hour while the police played judge, jury and executioner.)
One man's idea of culture is another man's idea of hell-on-earth.
Enjoy LA and where your FLACKJACKET you moron!
One day you too will see the light and move to an SEC town near you!!!
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 1:50 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
For an accurate account of SEC and Pac 10 players in the NFL drafts from 1980 to present, visit www.nfl.com/draft
USC won the BCS championship in 2004-05 season. Auburn went undefeated that same season. In round one of the 2005 NFL draft, NFL teams selected FOUR players from Auburn and TWO players from USC. Ten SEC players and Three Pac 10 players were selected in the first round. Do you still want to argue that undefeated Auburn was not a worthy opponent for USC?
LSU won the BCS championship in the 2003-04 season. USC won the #1 ranking at season's end in AP.
2004 NFL draft Round One
USC 1 player LSU 1 player
SEC 6 players Pac 10 3 players
2004 NFL draft Round Two
LSU 2 players
USC 2 players
I might add that one former Auburn running back who tranferred to Southern Illinois was drafted by the New York Giants and saw good playing time in the Giants' win over the New Orleans Saints.
Still want to argue that LSU did not have the players to beat USC in 2003-04?
Four polls out of 15 declared USC "1 in 2003. The BCS and the remaining 10 polls declared LSU the national champion in 2003.
LSU is the ONLY BCS champion NOT to win a "1 ranking in BOTH the AP and BCS.
Media hype helped USC in 2003!
Southern California has the advantage of being in Los Angeles, the third largest media market in the U.S. By contrast, undefeated Auburn in 2004 enjoyed no such media hype because it is NOT in a large media market. Pure and simple.
Prove your superiority on the field USC Trojans.
BCS champs are:
1998 UT
1999 Fla. St.
2000 Okla.
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio St.
2003 LSU
2004 SoCalI think those Miami teams of 2001 and 2002 compare favorably with the USC teams of 2003 and 2004. Let's not forget that Miami came very close to repeating as national champs in 2001 and 2002 and Ohio State in 2002 was a much better team than Oklahoma in 2004.
USC will face even weaker competition this year because the SEC and Big Ten are in down years.
No dynasty for the current USC Trojans!
TonyT said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:02 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
This post slamming RANDY-YEP says it all! Bravo to the writer & I dare any SC fan to reply
________________________________________________
RANDY-YEP's comments are classic SouCal dribble - let's do a double take on his lunicy:Exhibit A:
"Pac-10 does not have the talent as the SEC does, or ACC for that matter. There are simply more football colleges in those regions of the country."First of all, it's the high schools that provide the talent for the Pac-10. There are more high schoolers in California alone than Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky & Arkansas combined! Now, consider that those 7 southern states have no less than 20 Division 1-A football programs competing for that smaller talent pool (not to mention dozens of historically black colleges and universities within the region.) The Pac-10 is weaker in football because they do not have the same level of commitment. Look at the numbers America, the top SEC and ACC teams can go to California, Washington or Arizona and hand-pick the best players for their teams. The college football fans at places like UT, Georgia, GaTech, Alabama, LSU & Auburn is much more passionate than any Pac-10 fan! The total football experience at a ballgame in Baton Rouge or Knoxville or Athens is much more enjoyable and anything the Pac-10 can conjure up. Those Southern Cal Trojans wouldn't even know what a "sell-out crowd" even looks like!
Exhibit B:
"yea, we DO have the biggest market but we have lives here, there is so much culture and things to pursue, SEC towns, what the hell else you going to do? We have lives, and that just pisses you off."Do you think the SEC is just about football RANDY-YEP? America's best track teams are from the SEC. The best women's b'ball teams are in the SEC. This year's College Baseball World Series had more SEC teams than any other conference.
The truth is, many Angelinos are pretentious jerks. They think they have the best of everything.
The truth of the matter is:
We see how your Southern Cal Trojans like OJ get away with murder - all the time. We see how your cops beat Rodney King - without being punished. We see how your inner-city thugs beat up Reginald Denny...and never got punished for it. We saw your neighbor taking his WWII tank for a drive - then being killed by the LAPD (without a trial mind you.) We also see your cops using their famous "pit maneuver" to sideswip cars - and kill many innocent civilians too. Who could forget your famous BankofAmerica shootout - where the badguys we're finished off by the cops (and then left to die for over an hour while the police played judge, jury and executioner.)
One man's idea of culture is another man's idea of hell-on-earth.
Enjoy LA and wear your FLACKJACKET!
One day you too will see the light and move to an SEC town near you - just like your local football talent did!!!
Emo said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:02 PM — 64.165.33.2 — link — abuse?
Tony Tiger's comments show what a bitter old fart he is. Trojans are 2 time champs, live with it, and for god sake, shut up. As far as scheduling, Jeremy M, at least Arkansas was D1. You need to look no further than the SEC "powers" to find early season non-conf juggernaut opponents such as the Citadel, Louisiana Monroe, Tulane et al. The only place the Trojans lose is in your silly little smack sessions on blogs, they win on the field and win big, and the only reason you talk trash is because you know deep down their better than (insert your favorite SEC team or any team for that matter) and you're thanking your lucky stars you dont have to face them...you'd be their next victim upon whom they would hang their next 50 points.
Casey said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:16 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
College Football could be the #1 Sport in America - if an 8 team tournament was instituted. Have the 6 conference winners plus 2 at-large teams compete for a national championship ON THE FIELD. Use the 7 biggest bowl games to decide the winners in the tourney...and let the rest of the bowls be used as a reward for teams that go 7-4 (or better.)
----------------------------------------------Eric's earlier post is right on! Until then, I vote that the ACC and SEC should sign an agreement to have their conference champions play each other in the SuperBowl of the South. The best football in America is played in the South and many college football fans don't care about the weaker conferences like the Pac10, Big10, or Big12. Let those others "duke it out" by drawing straws or the Harris Poll or whatever. Football is too important in the south!
College Football deserves an on-field champ...instead of crowning a paper tiger like last years USC team.
Auburn got hosed!!!
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:24 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
If you are going to throw out an AP championship from 2003 because it's supposedly invalid or "mythical", then throw away ALL AP championships from the poll's inception. I'll take the history of the AP over the history of the BCS any day. Funny how you never hear anyone from the SC side claim that LSU shouldn't share. Also funny that the NCAA's own website refers to both LSU and USC as national champs in 2003. Every credible organization refers to SC and LSU as co-champs. You don't hear anyone complaining about 1997, so why the double standard? They ARE going for a third championship.
William Rainey - Perhaps I jumped the gun in my assumption that you were referring to the Yankee's acquisition of players by paying whatever it takes to get them ("buying championships"), which is precisely why they are as hated as they are these days, IMO. USC got their players the same way everyone else did (read:fair and square), which is why I took exception to your comment.
Five opposing coaches this year (two from Hawaii, two from Arkansas, and one already from Oregon) have proclaimed USC as the best team they have ever or will ever face, not just this year - ever. Last I checked, Arkansas plays in the SEC, so why are their statements seen as invalid?
"They are the best I've seen, best I've ever coached against. On film it's one thing ... but ... uh ... it's another thing to see them in person." I assume by "ever", Nutt's including Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Texas, and yes, LSU. And I also assume he's not conveniently ignoring the entire 2004 schedule, either. A comment made from personal experience, not uninformed and misguided passion.
alphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:32 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
This comment proves the point that (many) SEC and ACC fans are simply delusional good ol boys who live in their own little football fantasy world:
"I vote that the ACC and SEC should sign an agreement to have their conference champions play each other in the SuperBowl of the South. The best football in America is played in the South and many college football fans don't care about the weaker conferences like the Pac10, Big10, or Big12. Let those others "duke it out" by drawing straws or the Harris Poll or whatever. Football is too important in the south!"
----------------------------------------------------
God forbid southern teams should face off against any other region in the country. Might ruin the fantasy of them being the best...
Hog Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:36 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Casey says:
I vote that the ACC and SEC should sign an agreement to have their conference champions play each other in the SuperBowl of the South.I agree, that would be a sweet deal but we can't just ignore the other teams in the rest of the country. Oklahoma will rebound eventually and Texas will take their place for now. USC, whether we like it, or not is becoming such a force that they will have a say in the national championship picture for a long long time and the Big Ten is a solid conference with at least one contender every year. So while I'm with you 110% for the "SuperBowl of the South", we must make sure we get the two best teams on the field for the championship and not just the best teams from the top two conferences.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 2:47 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
"Enjoy LA and wear your FLACKJACKET!"
Another misguided comment from someone who has never been to LA and chooses to blindly spew ignorance rather than take the time to inform themselves. The South has the highest murder rates in the country, year in, year out. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia all have higher murder rates than California. By city, the "safe" south had 13 cities in the top 20 murder rates in 2003. Los Angeles was 19th in 2003. New Orleans was 1st, followed by such Southern safe havens as Pine Bluff, Memphis, Jackson, Savannah, Shreveport and Birmingham. Who really needs the flack jacket?
But what does that have to do with football?
posted on September 21, 2005 2:49 PM — 168.166.54.11 — link — abuse?
"But what does that have to do with football?"
Good question...
Constantin said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:06 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
agree, that would be a sweet deal but we can't just ignore the other teams in the rest of the country.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++HogFan your missing the point! Auburn did get ignored by by the rest of the country. We in the south all saw how Jason Campbell blossomed into the #1 QB in America during 2004 (just as David Greene "laid an egg" in 2004 - after playing so good in 2002 and 2003.) We in the south all saw how Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown developed into College Football's best RB's during 2004. We in the south all saw how Auburn's defense (led by Karlos Dansby) had developed into the #1 defense in America.
We'll all be sitting here 2-3 years from now talking about Cadillac, Ronnie, Jason and Karlos and the great NFL Careers they are having.
Yet, the current powerbrokers of the NCAA will try and convince you that Leinart was better than Campbell and Reggie Bush was better than Cadillac or Ronnie. It's all nonsense - SC got the free pass to play OU...
MOST OVERRATED THINGS IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL:
1. USC - the empty stands on home games tell me everything I need to know about Trojan football. All-hype no substance!
2. N Dame - come on people. NBC needs you to think ND is great. The boys at NBC think you'd better watch those Irish. I think the Irish need to harken back to the rubber helmet days of football - to remember when they were good.
3. Harris Poll - sure, we need another poll telling us who the best 2 teams in america are. The whole idea of polls deciding things, instead of a tournament is crazy. If it's good enough for 1-AA and every other sport in america, it's good enough for D-1 Football.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:26 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Hey Emo! Arkansas might be a D1 team but we sure didn't play like it last Saturday!
No argument that the SEC plays some weak teams but everyone does and if you want I could provide you with some schedules were SEC teams played very tough games within the past two years.
ILoveLA said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:30 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
FLaussen has lost his mind!
Another misguided comment from someone who has never been to LA and chooses to blindly spew ignorance rather than take the time to inform themselves.
______________________________________________This is the mindless dribble those WestCoasters are capable of. I spent years in California during my Marine Corps days - protecting our country (including idiots like FLaussen.)
LA is the armpit of America. They have the horrible traffic jams, bad gang problems, ruthless crooked cops, etc...
TV camera crews "cut in" on TV shows daily - just so Angelinos can watch the daily car chases between the cops and robbers. The only culture in LA, is the "crime culture!" LA's crime culture should be an embarrasment to the people of LA.
LA gave us:
1. Rodney King - great police work guys
2. Reginald Denny - the LA homies are nice folk
3. OJ - Any other SC alums doing great things?
4. Shootout at the B of A - your suburbs are fun
5. The Watts riots - now thats pride in your town
6. The Bloods - America thanks you for that gift
7. The Crips - Oh Great, another LA successReally, who can blame your football talent for leaving THE GREAT CITY in search of a life. The only life in LA is "THUG-life"
John Q Public said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:37 PM — 68.59.183.110 — link — abuse?
Don't look now FLaussen but the LAPD is performing "pit maneuvers" 2 blocks north of your current location. Better hope your wife and kids are not walking down the sidewalk - are they could be next family killed by the LAPD. With cops like the LAPD, who needs crooks?
Best cops in america:
1. New Orleans - the luting cops caught on film during Katrina are classic N.O.P.D.2. LA - These guys are bonafide killers! However, they don't care if your innocent of guilty. They shoot'em down or run'em over...whichever is easiest.
Hog Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 3:43 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Constantin, I see exactly what you're saying and I agree with almost all of it. But there are two main reasons Auburn didn't play for the national championship. 1. The voters didn't move OU down in the polls even though it was obvious that they weren't the second best team in the country. Anyone who watched the OU-TAMU or the OU-OKST game last year shouldn't have been surprised that USC threw the ball all over the field. I knew the beating of OU was coming and warned my buddies not to pick them. 2. Auburn's relatively weak non-conference schedule cost them points in the BCS poll. The ironic thing is that at least one of the schools Auburn was supposed to play dropped them and picked up games with OU(I think it was Bowling Green, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and that move ended up deciding who played for the title.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 4:04 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Will the 2005 USC Trojans face one formidable, tough defense during the regular season?
Erik said:
posted on September 21, 2005 4:16 PM — 216.163.247.1 — link — abuse?
SC is a great team, but they have proven nothing against the cream of the crop in the SEC. When was the last time USC played a divisional Champion much less a Conference Champion IN THE YEAR THEY WON IT! (don't give me Auburn, Ole Miss beat auburn in 2003)
USC lost to Cal in 2003, LSU lost to a much better Florida team. Spitting hairs people!
USC has not proven in the last two seasons that they could beat the best of the SEC (LSU '03, Auburn '04) Cause they haven't had the chance to play them. Sucks, but that's how f'ed up college football is.
SEC football is the benchmark by which all other conferences are judged. Number 1 in attendance, talent, and Championships. The best, top to bottom.
fact:
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/conf_rankings.phpAlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 4:46 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
Cumberland and everyone else crying about the PAC-10:
Do you want a Div I playoff instituted? Or do you want to keep things the way they are-- so you can cling to the glory years when your conferences were the best?
A playoff is really the only way to settle anything. But somehow I get the feeling that idea is a little frightening to you. Might turn your world upside down. (the world where Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss St., South Carolina and Arkansas comprise the toughest division in college football)
What a joke.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 4:52 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Will the 2005 USC Trojans face a great team during the regular season?
Which 2005 USC regular season opponents have a great offense and defense? NONE.
Which 2005 USC regular season opponents have a great offense? Maybe California, Arizona State, Notre Dame and Fresno State.
Which 2005 USC regular season opponents have a great defense? NONE.
Which 2005 USC regular season opponent has a great pass defense? NONE.
Which 2005 USC regular season opponent has a great run defense? NONE.
Which 2005 USC regular season opponent has a great offensive passing game? Maybe Arizona State, Cal and Fresno State?
Which 2005 USC regular season opponent has a great offensive running game? Anyone have an answer?
Great teams face challenges week in and week out and beat other great teams. Can the 2005 USC Trojans make such a claim at the end of this regular season?
USC Fan 1 said:
posted on September 21, 2005 4:53 PM — 61.27.221.115 — link — abuse?
It’s been shown that the smaller the city, the more the college football stadium is filled on a regular basis….
USC’s habit of destroying non-Pac 10 Top 10 teams really should answer any questions about USC playing in other conferences. Without looking up the information, I’d bet that USC’s margin of victory over non-Pac 10 ranked teams is higher than their margin of victory over Pac 10 teams.
The SEC isn’t the better conference, the SEC just has more famous teams. Also, since they refuse to play a good OOC schedule it’s impossible to tell how they stack up against other conferences. Please don’t give me your one bowl game analysis…..
SEC fans know nothing about college football outside of the SEC other than team names and the tradition that goes along with those names. Their entire opinion about the strength of a Pac 10 team is based on their opinion of the school’s football program overall, not by what’s currently happening on the field. Stanford could go 12-0 and win by 60 points every game, and all they would say is, “Stanford #1? You’ve got to be kidding me.” Conversely, they believe the more famous the tradition the more difficult it is to play against that team. Somehow playing a 5 loss Florida team turns into “Yeah let’s see you go into the Swamp and win.” For them, a team like Alabama will always be seen as better than a team like Washington State just because, well, you know, it’s Alabama!
SEC fans can’t see past their own ego and have opinions that are mostly worthless in the college football world…
USC would have gone undefeated in the SEC last year. All SEC teams would have finished 3rd in the Pac at best, and would have been locked out of a BCS Bowl behind Cal and USC.
Playing in a conference that has no offense isn’t the same as playing in a conference with great defenses…
If USC wins the title this year, it will be accepted as a 3-peat. There’s nothing you or anyone else can do to overcome that, regardless of what formulas you’ve developed. It probably won’t happen, but if it does, it will be labeled as such…
In the end, USC and the Pac don’t need your respect. We’re going to take the title without your blessings whether you respect it or not….
USC has played and beaten more ranked OOC teams in the past 3 years than the entire SEC conference combined….
I’ll repeat the above…. USC has played and beaten more ranked OOC teams in the past 5 years than the entire SEC conference combined….
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:10 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
"Funny how he forgot the top half of the conference."
HOG FAN:
Obviously teams like Florida, LSU and Tennessee are good teams. Just like USC, Cal and ASU are good teams in the PAC 10. My point was simply that if you're going to talk sh*t about an entire conference, look at the whole conference... I'd take UCLA, Oregon, Oregon St., Washington St., even U of A over Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss St., South Carolina and Arkansas... (I'll give you that Stanford is a complete embarrassment this year--they're god awful).
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:14 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Alpha Drive,
Yes, I would like to see a Div. 1A football playoff.
In fact, I'd even like to propose a 2005 Pac 10-SEC CHALLENGE.
Who are the best teams in the Pac 10 in 2005?
1. USC
2. Arizona State
3. CaliforniaWhat are the best teams in the SEC?
1. LSU
2. Florida
3. Tennessee (maybe Georgia or Alabama)Right now USC can probably beat LSU, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. Not so sure by season's end.
LSU and Arizona State are pretty evenly matched right now, but LSU beat ASU in a close game in Arizona.
Tennessee will play California next year and the following year, but that does not say anything about 2005. Right now I'd say Cal has a much better offense than UT and UT has a much better defense than Cal.
By year's end (maybe even now), I think Florida, LSU and Alabama could beat Stanford and Washington State as badly as USC beat Arkansas.
The weakest SEC teams are:
1. Miss. St.
2. Arkansas
3. Ole Miss
4. KentuckyKentucky gave Louisville a good game.
The weakest Pac 10 teams are:
1. Stanford
2. Washington State
3. Washington
4. UCLABy season's end, I think the best SEC teams would win a playoff with the best Pac 10 teams. Most of the worst SEC teams can beat the worst Pac 10 teams now.
What do you think?
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:31 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
Cumberland,
I agree with most of what you said, except I'd substitute UofA for UCLA. The Bruins are a lot better than they're getting credit for. Problem is, when they kick the crap out of a team like Oklahoma, that's it. From now on they're playing all PAC 10 teams. So that gives everyone from southern divisions permission to call it a fluke or just say OKlahoma wasnt good this year.
As for the hypothetical matchups between PAC 10 and SEC:I'd say ASU and LSU are essentially a wash. Piss poor special teams cost the Devils that one. But a W is a W--LSU gets the nod.
USC would indeed whip any SEC team right now, hands down. sorry.
Cal I'm not sold on yet. That Illinois game is a head scratcher. Then again I think Tennessee is pretty overrated too.
Bama has been average for years. It's just a fact that people have to accept. Georgia is amazing one week, halfway decent the next... (hey, sort of like PAC 10 teams)!
So it all comes down to the bottom tier. As much as you might disagree, teams like Oregon, Oregon St., UCLA and even Wash St. are solid teams. I honestly can't say I feel the same about Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, Kentucky or even "undefeated" Vandy)
Got to go with the PAC. At the very least for entertainment value.
BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PLAYOFF!
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:40 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
USC Fan 1,
Yes, let's take a look at what the Pac 10 teams are doing THIS YEAR!
USC is 2-0 with wins over Hawaii (63-17) and over one of the worst teams in the SEC right now in Arkansas (70-17).
Arizona State is probably the second best team in the Pac 10. The Sun Devils lost to LSU. Their other two opponents are very weak, Temple and Northwestern. Northwestern scored 21 and Temple scored 16 against ASU. LSU scored 28 points in the fourth quarter alone against ASU. We all know the hardship LSU endured before playing against ASU.
Cal is another good Pac 10 team. Cal has beaten one of the worst Pac 10 teams this year in Washington, Sacramento State and a mid-level Big Ten team in Illinois.
Despite its 1-2 record, Arizona may prove to be the next best Pac 10 team. Arizona played well against Utah and Purdue, both good teams and they beat a weak team in Northern Arizona.
Oregon is a pretty good team. They beat Fresno State, but their other two opponents were weak, Div. 2A Montana and Houston. Houston scored 24 points against Oregon. Where's the defense?
UCLA is another pretty good team. Yes, I know the Bruins are 3-0. But they gave up 21 points to San Diego State, 21 to Rice and 24 to a very weak, overrated Oklahoma. Again where is the defense?
Washington is poor but not as bad as Washington State and Stanford. Washington is 1-2. They got blown out by Cal. Cal scored 56 points. I guess Washington's defense is about as bad as Arkansas's. Washington also lost to Air Force. Their only win was over Idaho.
Washington State is also 3-0, but they are a bad team. Idaho scored 6 points against Washington State. Idaho scored 26 points against Washington State. Washington State gave up 21 points to Nevada and 7 points to Grambling State. Has any SEC team played a team as bad as Idaho and Grambling State?
Now we get to the bottom of this year's Pac 10, STANFORD. The Cardinal beat Navy 41-38. Quite a defensive struggle there. UC Davis BEAT Stanford for God's sake.
Pac 10 better than the SEC overall? Pac 10 has better defenses than the SEC? Pac 10 plays a tougher non-conference schedule than the SEC? Give me a break.
UAB and Southern Miss would make mince meat of the lower ranks in the Pac 10. They could probably even beat the mid-level and some of the top-ranking Pac 10 teams except for USC, Cal and maybe ASU.
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:47 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
HOG FAN,
Granted that Oregon St. loss to Louisville was a whooping.
But Kentucky also lost to Indiana by 20+ points. Is Indiana really good this year?UofL vs. Kent is a rivalry, and we both know those games are usually closer.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 5:51 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Alpha Drive,
I think you are wrong about Alabama. The Tide's success this year will depend on keeping Brodie Croyle healthy. Croyle is a gutsy kid and an excellent QB. Unfortunately, he's on a couple of reconstructed knees.
Bama has a lot of depth at running back and they have a good defense, though maybe not a proven defense against the best in the SEC this year.
The Tide gave UT a scare a year or so ago.
Bama may win the SEC West. Bama vs. LSU should be one dandy of a game this year.
UT fans hate Bama. It's our biggest rivalry, but Bama is good this year. We'll see how good Shula is as a coach in 2005.
Hog Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 6:10 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Bama plays Arkansas Saturday. If Bama is as good as you think, will the final score be the litmus test on how good USC is?
Not necessarily AlphaDrive, USC plays a completly different style than us and as a quick strike offense(even still four TDs in eight plays is just ridiculous). We play a similiar style to Bama and could keep it close if we don't pull out the victory. We seem to play with more intensity in conference anyway.
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 6:11 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
I think it will take a good defense to beat USC, especially a good pass defense. Any team that beats USC will also need a good offense, especially a good running game to take time off the clock and keep USC's offense off the field.
Let's take a poll.
What team from any conference has a defense that can stop USC's passing game?
I think several SEC teams have good run defenses, but I'm not sure that any of them have the great pass defense it will take to beat USC.
What team from any conference has the run defense to shut down Reggie Bush?
Perhaps, a team will develop the defenses necessary to beat USC by the BCS championship, but now I don't see many solid candidates defensively among the Top 25.
What do you think?
Please nominate your best defensive teams for 2005.
Please nominate the team with the best running game on offense other than USC.
Please nominate the best passing offense other than USC.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 21, 2005 6:24 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Best Defensive Team for '05: Florida State:their talent and depth at LB is just scary and they would be the best pass defense too but their best corner got hurt in the preseason
Best Running Game: North Texas:the last two national rushing leaders(Patrick Cobbs and Jamario Thomas) are both on their roster, how that happened I don't know
Best Passing Game: Texas Tech: 584yds per game enough saidAlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 6:38 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
You nailed it, USC's offense is just better than the best defense in the country. That's it. It's not that their defense is incredible... it's good but it's no where near their offense. That's why they're still vulnerable to an upset in the PAC 10. (even this year)
In fact, that's pretty much the story for the whole PAC 10... pound for pound they're the best offenses in the nation--year after year. When any given team in your conference can hang 35 points on you, upsets are going to happen. I think that's why fans from other conferences dont give the PAC the respect they deserve. Because if you watch Tennesse or Ohio St. or some other perennial powerhouse shut down opponents year after year--no matter how weak the offenses are for those opponents--you start to think of the Ohio St's and the Tennessee's of the world, and those conferences for that matter, are invincible.
THAT'S WHY A PLAYOFF SYSTEM WOULD BE SO DAMN INTERESTING!!!
Hog Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:10 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
AlphaDrive I agree, the reason some fans may not give Pac-10 teams credit is that they pretty much concentrate on offense which may not be fair. I give the Pac-10 credit for basically bringing the spread offense to college football(please correct me if I'm wrong). But if a given team's offense doesn't show up to play they have little or no chance to win. One of the trademarks of a great team is at least a good defense. Most of the last few national championship teams that were loaded offensively had a defense that at one time or another had to bail the offense out after a bad start or bad game. And the loaded teams that don't have a solid defense usually end up like 10-2 or something.
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:19 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
HOG FAN,
This IS getting scary, because I'm starting to agree with you guys. haha.
SEC and other conferences, by and large, play a more old-school, smash-mouth type game that results in defense winning games. (think Ravens or Bucs from recent years) (duh, right?)PAC 10 teams are just the opposite. Huck it down the field all day long and see if the other guys can catch you. Which would win out? Who the hell knows?
But getting back to the subject at hand, USC is just the best team right now all around. They play PAC style though, which is a big problem for some loyal to the defensive style of play...
Maybe that's why everyone's so fired up about them being "paper" champs or whatever nonsensical crap they can come up with.
Bottom line, watch USC play. They just dismantle other teams. Like it or not, we're all witnessing greatness.
The SEC man said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:24 PM — 70.153.136.175 — link — abuse?
Ask the NFL which conference is #1
Those moronic SC fans seem to think The Trojans are God's gift to the NFL. So, I took time to research the stats to see how well the mighty SC stacks up to an SEC school.
Since 1984, SC had produced 100 players in the NFL draft. Now, for comparison's sake, I checked the draft picks for an SEC school. The University of Tennessee has had 118 players drafted during this same span. With all the tough competition Tennessee faces within the SEC (from UGa, Ala, Aub., UF, LSU, etc...) why in the world has Tennessee sparked more NFL careers than SC.
Tennessee's pipeline to the NFL can be matched (player for player) by other powerhouses of the SEC. If USC can't stack up to Tennessee, what does that say abouth the rest of the PAC10's recruiting efforts.
SEC = BigBoy Football
Pac-10 = KindercareNow dispute those NFL Draft facts you chronies!
Thomas said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:35 PM — 70.153.136.175 — link — abuse?
SECman makes valid point
_______________________________"Since 1984, SC had produced 100 players in the NFL draft. Now, for comparison's sake, I checked the draft picks for an SEC school. The University of Tennessee has had 118 players drafted during this same span. "
I went over to nfl.com/draft and checked it out for myself. Georgia, Tennessee and LSU all sent more players to the pros in the last 20 years than USC did. But back to the topic, usc isn't ruining the game of football. It's the NCAA's refusal to play a tournament!
USC is just this years glamour team.
Just like OU was last year and in 2003.Who knows how good SC is. I know they're good enough to beat Arkansas and be 3-0. But so is Vandy! Maybe the media "hype machine" can match those 2 up in the title game.
My money's on Jay Cutler
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:38 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Alpha Drive,
No, I do NOT think Alabama vs. Arkansas will be a litmus test for how well Bama would do against USC.
USC is a great team now. Bama is a team with a relatively new coach, key players coming off major injuries from last year and a system coming off a lot of internal management problems.
By year's end, a healthy Bama team may have the potential to beat USC. I think Florida, LSU and Tennessee have that potential, too, but none of them would be able to beat USC now.
I do not claim to have a full knowledge of all the potentially good teams in 2005 that might be able to upset USC.
Whatever team does upset USC will have to have the following:
1. Good QB - Texas, Florida, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Michigan State, ASU and Alabama all have good, experienced QBs.
2. Good running back. I'm not sure which teams have the best running backs apart from USC.
3. Good pass defense. I'm not sure such a team exists right now. Maybe later in the year. It's certainly NOT LSU or Tennessee right now. No to Texas, too. Not sure about VaTech.
4. Good run defense. Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, LSU in the SEC. I do not know enough about the run defenses in the other conferences yet,
5. Good management of field position and time of possession. It will take a good running team do achieve these goals,
6. Good special teams. Tennessee is the WORST in this category among major teams now!
Got any nominees in any of these categories?
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:40 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
I did my own bit of research (I'm bored, what can I say?) on the conference-to-NFL thing and cannot argue that the SEC currently has more players in the NFL than does the Pac-10. However, when you only count current NFL starters, the number is much closer than even I thought it would be. Of the current NFL starters, 122 are from the SEC and 109 are from the Pac-10. Taking into account that the SEC has 12 teams to the Pac-10's, uh, ten, that's a ratio of 10.16 players per SEC team starting in the NFL vs 10.9 per Pac-10 team starting in the NFL. What does this mean? Who the hell knows? I'm not one to think that the number of players a particular conference has in the NFL has anything to do with the actual strength of that conference, but my findings were pretty interesting, at least I thought!
Another thing I found interesting is that while Miami has a hell of a lot of players in the NFL (duh), San Jose State was very well represented! Go Spartans!
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:45 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
"Since 1984, SC had produced 100 players in the NFL draft. Now, for comparison's sake, I checked the draft picks for an SEC school. The University of Tennessee has had 118 players drafted during this same span. "
-------------Once again, it comes back to hanging on to glory days and crying about the present reality...
USC is a BETTER TEAM THIS YEAR THAN ANY SEC TEAM. It might hurt, but deal.Oversimplifying everything by saying that the PAC 10 conference are a bunch of kindergartners, and the SEC are all unstoppable powerhouse teams is a kindergartner's arguement.
Willis said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:54 PM — 70.153.136.175 — link — abuse?
Say what you want about SC's non-conference schedule. They don't play tough mid-majors and their non-conference schedule is usually suspect.
Tennessee, for example, has scheduled teams like Marshall, Fresno State, Louisville, SOuthern Miss, etc... within the past few years.
Tennessee has also played games against ND and Miami on the road. Heck, the Vols finally got Cal to schedule a couple games in 2006 and 2007.
Until SC can stepup their level of competition during the season - we will always question how good they really are.
Take a page from UT and schedule a few games SC!
This year UT plays:
at Florida
at LSU
vs Georgia
vs Alabama
vs Notre DameWhy can't USC play anyone but ND out of conference? (and don't try to mention the once-in-a-lifetime Auburn "home and home" series) Auburn wanted to continue the series but USC backed out! Typical!
AlphaDrive said:
posted on September 21, 2005 7:57 PM — 67.155.113.146 — link — abuse?
"Got any nominees in any of these categories?"
After that LSU game, I'd say ASU's special teams would give Tennessee a run for the worst in the country. (and I'm a Devils fan)
As for who could upset USC, it would come down to clock management, absolutely. If they lose this year, it'll be because someone finds a way to run on them.
I never considered Va Tech, but that would be an interesting match up. Espcially from a special teams point of view. We all saw from the ASU LSU game how a few blocked kicks can turn a game upside down. And god knows Va Tech can block kicks...Don't know bowl matchup wise if this could possibly even happen under any circumstances, but then again, all the more reason for a playoff system.
FLaussens daddy said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:03 PM — 70.153.136.175 — link — abuse?
FLaussen is in rare form today
"I did my own bit of research (I'm bored, what can I say?) on the conference-to-NFL thing and cannot argue that the SEC currently has more players in the NFL than does the Pac-10. However, when you only count current NFL starters, the number is much closer than even I thought it would be. "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I really liked the way he had to "water down" the truth by counting ONLY THE STARTERS! Are the bench players not in the NFL FLaussen? Today's 2nd string RB is tomorrow's Willie Parker.
The reason the Pac-10 has less NFL talent is because the Pac-10 is an inferior conference. If you wanna play BigBoy football then go to a BigBoy league. The Pac-10 are telling you what you refuse to beleive...the Pac-10 is not BigBoy Football.
The stats don't lie
The NFL rosters don't lieLA-Monroe Fan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:14 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
SC nonconference schedule is weak? Notre Dame yearly, Va-Tech, Michigan, Iowa, Oklahoma (yes I'm counting bowl games because they are WINS), Fresno State, Colorado, K-State, and future games against Nebraska, Ohio State, and others. And I will include Auburn twice. Why does that suddenly not count? Auburn magically wasn't part of the vaunted SEC in the years that USC beat them? That argument is tired - and no, USC did not "back out" - check your facts. You always have some snappy excuse when the fact comes up that Auburn was beat twice, but nothing when it's brought up that Auburn's OOC schedule is putrid.
Say what you will, but USC does not schedule D1-AA opponents like the vaunted SEC teams do (props to Tennessee and Arkansas, though). Where was Auburn last year in the SS rankings? Like Texas Tech this year.
Flaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:18 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Snappy comeback, dad.
I also ran the 2-deep. Same story. Ratio is 7.08 for SEC vs 7.5 for Pac-10. Ratios theoretically should be higher overall, but some positional charts are only one deep, hence the lower numbers.
And as I said - I just thought it was interesting. I'm not putting any stock in it.
FLaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:30 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Of course, those ratios should tilt even further in the P-10's favor after this current class enters the draft. Leinart, Bush, Smith, Malone, Bing, Jutice, White, Lewis, Havner, London, Ngata, Hagan, Day, Miller, Hass, Merz, Phillips, among others all have 1st-round potential.
Trouty said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:43 PM — 68.186.113.11 — link — abuse?
usc fight on. Anybody who thinks usc has not been the best team in college football the last three years is either high constantly or something else whatever it doesnt matter all the matters is usc football this world will have to live with it. the pete's just keep coming and theres nothing anybody's can do about it. COunt them with me 2pete 3pete maybe 4 who knows the way sc recruits it could be like that forever bizznitches. anybody can say all this crap and bring out all these stupid illogical stats but the fact is that sc will beat any team they play period.
SCTrojan said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:47 PM — 68.181.229.64 — link — abuse?
What's with the suggestions that USC games leave a ton of empty stands? I've been an every home game for the last two years - since when is 90,000 people in a stadium leaving a bunch of empty seats? The capacity is 92,516, at many games we have had 92,000+.
USC Fan 1 said:
posted on September 21, 2005 8:51 PM — 61.27.221.115 — link — abuse?
AlphaDrive…. Nice comments, but I think you’re using too much perception in your decision-making process. It was USC’s defense that really put us where we are today. You still seem really focus on the “Pac-10 no defense” blanket statement without really looking at USC’s run over the last couple of years.
USC Fan 1 said:
posted on September 21, 2005 9:17 PM — 61.27.221.115 — link — abuse?
The fact is that in any given year both conferences are difficult to play in.
What I’ve seen is the conferences switching in terms of their dynamics. I think in the 90s you had an SEC where the top teams were very, very strong, and the bottom teams were very, very weak. In the Pac we had a lot of middle-of-the road teams but no one challenging for a title yet no team with 1-2 wins consistently.
Now, the Pac as teams like Cal and USC playing in BCS Bowls (well, not quite Cal, but that’s another story) and teams like Arizona and Washington falling to new lows. The SEC doesn’t really have a legitimate title contender, but we’re seeing a team like Vandy show improvement with Alabama gaining strength. The gap between best and worse has widened in the Pac and shrunk in the SEC.
So, which is more difficult to play in? My vote goes for the conference that has less of a gap between best and worst. In that conference, you have to play to your potential every week or else you might end up losing since the team you’re playing is closer in ability week in and week out. In the other type conference, you can sleep walk through most of your games, then focus on the 2-3 big games that you’ll need to play your best in to win. Basically, you need to play error free and to your potential more often in the first conference than the second.
In the 90s I think the gap benefited the SEC teams more and they had more title contenders. There’s more of a gap now in the Pac and I think that’s helping USC.
USC Fan 1 said:
posted on September 21, 2005 9:29 PM — 61.27.221.115 — link — abuse?
Cumberland Ave….
You’re taking the opponents scores and asking where the defense is in the Pac 10.
Can’t I use the offensive output of Tennessee against teams like UAB? Only 17 points at home? Where’s the offense? After asking “Where’s the defense” for the Pac 10 teams you use that to pull own the overall quality of the team. I’m just wondering if you’re going to apply the same standards to SEC schools.
You mention that UCLA gave up 21 points to San Diego State, but I’m wondering how you feel about Wyoming scoring 14 on Florida. Is 7 points the difference between a “bad defense” and an SEC defense?
Didn’t ASU hang 31 points on LSU?
Didn’t USC hang 70 on Arkansas?
Is UCLA allowing 24 points by Oklahoma really more of a defensive crime than Alabama allowing 21 from Southern Miss?
I’m not trying to use your methods to say that the SEC has weak offenses. I’m trying to use your methods to show how someone can make that claim just as easily as you are making yours.
The Pac vs. the SEC non-conference is a no-brainer. The SEC is famous for its weak non-conference schedule, even to the point where your undefeated team was shut out of the title game last year. It was USC’s tough non-conference schedule that got us a share of the title two years ago.
Chris said:
posted on September 21, 2005 9:49 PM — 24.3.147.81 — link — abuse?
I have beena USC fan since I was little. I grew up in L.A. and all my friends parents were Alumni, and bottom line USC has the best team in the country. They have earned that through hard work. Let them shine until someone can take them out. As for comparing teams from the Pac10 and SEC it is irrelevant. Take any team, SEC or not, and match them up against USC and they will lose. They have superior players, Heisman Trophy candidate Reggie Bush-dubbed the most electric player in college football, Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinert, Darnell Bing, Dwayne Jarret, Steve Smith, Desmond Reed, LenDale White, Winston Justice, Dominique Byrd and the list goes on. Unbelievable team speed on both sides of the ball. They also have superior coaching.
Yah they may have had a couple of close calls in the past, but so do all teams. Look at the Patriots, they lost two games last season. Is anyone going to argue that they were not the best team in the NFL last year. They got blown out by the Steelers, and came back and won in the AFC Championship game. The game that counted, USC vs. Oklahoma was a blowout. Do you really think after a dominating 55-19 performance any team wanted to play them. Yah right.
It all comes down to jealousy. Everyone, except USC fans, wants what they can't have. And it is pathetic to hear people bad-mouthing a team that has worked hard, and got good recruiting, to get there.
Flaussen said:
posted on September 21, 2005 9:54 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
I was wondering about that comment as well re: the empty stands. I've been to virtually every home game this decade and can't recall more than patches of empty seats over the last two years. It's certainly not like it was pre-Pete (neither was Florida pre Spurrier). Heck, there were over 90k for Colo State last year, and that was about as intriguing as watching milk sour.
posted on September 21, 2005 10:44 PM — link — abuse?
According to the link in Fanblogs post, USC averaged 77,5804 as late as 2003 but the 3-year trend was an increased.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 21, 2005 10:54 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
As a fan and resident here in the SEC, I can tell you why most fans are upset. It's not that people give USC credit, but they seem to have forgotten about LSU. No one outside of the SEC even remembers that LSU won a share of the title as did USC. Everyone is talking about the 3-pete or whatever as if LSU had an 7-4 year. I hate writing this as a razorback fan because LSU is our main rival but they deserve recognition for they're phenomenal season. Meanwhile I don't disagree that USC is the best team in college football(how can I, I watched last week's game), but I don't know any fans here that are jealous(we certainly are embarrassed). I personally admire Pete Carroll for the job he is doing and the fact that he can get the best players to come despite having an All-American at his position. What I do resent is people who were nowhere to be found ten years ago now popping up and bragging to me about how they are devoted USC fans. As I stated earlier these people make me sick. I however applaud fans like Chris who stuck with their programs through the down years and have earned the right to brag as much as you like. I know I can't wait for Arkansas to return to the level it was at under Frank Broyles. And even though I'm only 18 and wasn't born yet I know we will reach that level one day. Until then I'll have to bit my lip and wait for basketball season.
3-PETE said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:52 PM — 132.1.207.21 — link — abuse?
Will Rainey says "Best passing game - Texas Tech" They friggin played Sam Houston St....WHAT??? USC gained 700 total yards vs Arkansas. Against Sam Houston - holy crap!!!! In your best Keith Jackson voice..."Woa Nelly, at the end of the 1st qtr USC 49 SHS 0......puhleze!!!! Don't bring up that weak-ass, overrated Big-12 in real CFB talk!!!
BJR said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:57 PM — 68.223.121.218 — link — abuse?
I'm a Trojan who moved to Atlanta two years ago. I love being at ground-zero for the SEC. I can get to nearly any game within a three-hour drive and there seems to be a great matchup each week. No question that the SEC has more tradition and more rabid fans, but the talk stops there. For those of you LSU & BCS proponents, remember that the BCS picked a Chokelahoma team that didn't even win its conference. How LSU prides itself after barely beating a shell of a team in a poorly played game (10+ penalties for each team, 8 punts each, and 5 total turnovers) is beyond me. We beat preseason #1 Auburn 23-0 in their house, we beat Oklahoma 55-19 at the top of their swagger, and we scored 4 TDs in 8 plays against Arkansas. We play our toughest opponent 5 days a week in practice. The conference we play in, whether you think it is tough or easy, is irrelevant. If USC were to play in the SEC, now that would ruin college football , because we would not only run the table year after year, but we would destroy some programs in the process with consistent, repeated thumpings. All you SEC fans should pace yourselves. Pete intends to "own" the Rose Bowl and he can recruit talent right out of your backyard. Don't piss him off because he hasn't even broke a sweat yet. You all are going to be bitching for five to ten years until you can put a team together that can hang with us for at least one quarter. Fight on.
SPORTFAN said:
posted on September 21, 2005 11:59 PM — 132.1.207.21 — link — abuse?
Willis says "Auburn wanted to continue the series with USC but the Trojans backed out" Well, hell yeah, USC got sick of kicking their ass!
For CUMBERLAND, et al.....3 PETE, 3 PETE, 3-PETE!!!! Deal with it.
You can't listen to reason but that is why you are SEC fans cuz your living with your moms and dads, and sisters, and your kids from your stepmoms, spittin chew with Aunt Betty.
Jebus - all football is cyclical (sorry for the big words SEC fans!) It's USC's time now. You all talk about LSU, Auburn etc. and this stems from 2003 and on but look at the whole conversation. USC is the constant in the whole thing. 2003: LSU, Oklahoma, USC. 2004: USC, Auburn, Oklahoma 2005: USC, LSU(maybe), Texas (that's too funny - Mack Brown is still the coach and he'll screwed that up somehow.
'Nuff said.....
William Rainey said:
posted on September 22, 2005 12:02 AM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
3-Pete,
Granted Texas Tech has played absolutely no one this season but the question was BEST PASSING GAME OTHER THAN USC. Other than Louisville I just don't see anybody that can fling it like USC and just in case you didn't notice, Tech lead all of CFB last year.SEC rules said:
posted on September 22, 2005 12:20 AM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
Anybody who thinks USC or any program in history would run the table year after year in the SEC just doesn't know college football and should take his head out of Pete Carroll's ass. The man's a great CFB coach but Arkansas' defense is probably the worst in the conference right now so don't assume the rest of the SEC would have similiar results if they played your trojans, the trojans might win but the total number of points scored probably wouldn't be 70. Plus the way they played was a once in a lifetime kind of game. Lets not forget the fact that the trojans had two weeks to prepare for that pitiful defense. SPORTFAN you are right, USC's run is similiar to what FSU had during the 1990's when they finished in the top five like every year. But look where they are now. So enjoy it while it lasts USC fans.
Link said:
posted on September 22, 2005 2:02 AM — 68.181.247.173 — link — abuse?
A once in a lifetime game, eh SEC rules? Tell that to Hawaii. One less touchdown, just as explosive, and their offense didn't even take the field until a minute and a half left in the first quarter. That sounds like two consecutive games in a season in my Book. I know, I was there for both of 'em.
As for the initial topic, as to whether they're going for a 3-peat or not, the clear and simple answer is yes. They were voted by the AP, the source which voted for college football champions before the BCS ever existed to be the Champion in 2003. In 2004, both the BCS and the AP said USC was Champion. Thats a repeat. If they indeed win (and they will, but only if the secondary gets it shit in gear) it will be a threepeat. Three national championships. Whether they can compete with the SEC schools day in and day out is irrelevant with regard to the actual point of this argument. My feelings aside, It sucks that Auburn got left out in the wind last year, but shit happens.
So, wait until someone brings USC down, or admit that they deserve it. Either way, they still ARE going for a threepeat. Have a nice day.
FTFO, FEBUETC,
UTRob said:
posted on September 22, 2005 2:07 PM — 204.213.139.150 — link — abuse?
USC is the real deal-It appears no one can stop their passing game. The only chance anyone has against them is to eat up the clock and score touchdowns-not field goals on those drives. USC is going to get their points but somebody needs to smack them in the chops. They look like the damn Harlem Globtotters they score so easy.
For pure entertainment I'd like to see Texas Tech play USC. Where would the over/under start?
125?Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 22, 2005 4:24 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
USC fans,
There is a prerequisite for a three-peat.
It's called back-to-back BCS championships.
NO team has achieved two consecutive BCS championships yet in the short history of the BCS.
If the USC Trojans win a BCS title in 2005-06, you can crow all you want about a possible three-peat.
For now, USC fans are merely howling into an abyss.
JB said:
posted on September 22, 2005 4:54 PM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Cumberland, who says we have to go by your rules and definitions?? I think the rest of us are talking National Championships, and not flawed "BCS Championships" anyways. The AP poll has been around a hell of a lot longer than the BCS...if you refuse to consider the AP Poll champion the "National Champion" then you can go ahead and take away LSU's 1958 national championship banner. And in fact, the NCAA, on their own website, lists LSU as the 2003 Bowl Championshiop Series Div. 1A Champion...and USC as the 2003 Consensus National Champion. "Consensus", by the way, means: 1."general agreement" 2."group solidarity in sentiment and belief". In other words, the NCAA is in general agreement that USC is the 2003 National Champion, which means they repeated last year. So this year would be a 3-peat.. Fair enough?
'JB says' has figures, undiluted said:
posted on September 22, 2005 7:19 PM — 204.44.186.129 — link — abuse?
That's what i'm saying, rather closr to what i was going to say! The SEC and ACC love to bend the facts when it is convenient but can't hold themselves to it when it benfits others!
YES, we will enjoy being the big Dog, because we won't always be there, no one does, it's college, it's cyclical, it's the nature of the sport we love.
SEC'man' obviosuly took his logic and debate classes at 'one dem soooouthern schools...'
Chris said:
posted on September 23, 2005 8:29 AM — 66.109.65.19 — link — abuse?
The reason USC is ruining football is because their fanbase sucks aS*. The people in So Cal have no passion for football and its a shame that they are so good for such an undeserving fan base. Liberals and football don't mix.
Stryk11 said:
posted on September 23, 2005 11:21 AM — 24.5.103.54 — link — abuse?
Liberals and football don't mix? What? Posts about LA riots and Rodney King? Huh? I thought this site was about college football, and that commentors would, y'know, discuss the stats, and who beat whom, and promote reasoned arguments about why one team is better than another using those stats, but instead I read trash talk about southern California crime and political affilition, as if that had ANYTHING to do with the discussion at hand. Aren't people in college (and grads) supposed to be reasonably intelligent? Are you all like fifteen years old?
If liberals and football don't mix, than conservative southerners and reasoned argument/intelligence certainly doesn't mix, at least not on this thread.
Now, could we please talk about football?
Senor Pez said:
posted on September 23, 2005 11:30 AM — 63.162.183.2 — link — abuse?
"Someone even posted an accusation a while ago saying the reason why USC was #1 was because of the Bush administration, LOL."
You do realize, of course, that USC has a running back by the name of "Bush," right? And he's a huge part of their offense?
Just checking.
As for ruining football? I don't think USC is doing that. Over the years, there have been countless warnings of teams ruining leagues. In the NFL, it's been the Patriots, Buccaneers, Ravens, and Michael Vick. In college, it's teams like USC. But the game goes on. The game is bigger than teams and schemes.
What will ruin it is when folks start changing rules as a response. The NFL's ridiculous "points of emphasis" for illegal contact are a great example of this. Mediocre recievers are now given every benefit of the doubt, while the shutdown corner is rapidly becoming extinct.
That's ruining football. Not USC playing blowout ball.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 23, 2005 12:10 PM — 144.167.40.166 — link — abuse?
Senor Pez, couldn't have said it better myself but I do think the NFL eliminating the tackling receivers ny the collar was necessary. That play puts to much pressure on the wrong parts of the runner's leg and gives the offensive player no warning to brace himself.
Scrub said:
posted on September 23, 2005 12:30 PM — 165.251.12.36 — link — abuse?
Senor Pez, see posts at this link.
Dave S said:
posted on September 23, 2005 12:59 PM — 208.178.61.90 — link — abuse?
Nice thoughts, all. As a Cali native, I ABSOULUTELY CAN'T STAND USC. The absolute worst fans in the country are those supporting USC, with Stanford a very close second. SC, like most So Cal folks, are very, very bandwagon. Unlike SEC, Big anything, ACC fans, the West Coast folk only go to games when their team is at the pinnacle of the game. Cali teams should check their attendance records, and they'll see big dips in weak or losing years. The sports culture in Cali is all about winning. It is not about the game, the sport, or allegiance to your team.
That said, SC is so dominant, they could take the field against any team in the country next weekend and win by 2 TDs minimum. Their coaching is amazing, and their talent level is incredibly deep. Someday, SC will lose and their dominance will end. But for now, they are light years ahead of the rest of college football.Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 23, 2005 3:46 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey JB says,
First, "the NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division 1-A football and is not involved in the selection process."
I refer you to www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_pastchamps.html
Yes, the BSC was only established in 1998 and the AP poll is much older. The establishment of the BCS poll was supposed to establish an "official" Division 1-A football champion. The consensus opinion was and still is to accept the BCS champion as the national champion. Otherwise, why do we even need a BCS championship system and BCS championship title game. The establishment of the BCS in 1998 in no way discounts the results of polls prior to 1998, so my comments about USC only being the AP champ in 2003 in no way reflects badly on the 1958 LSU champion or any other previous champion.
As for your suggestion that USC was a consensus national champion in 2003, I beg to differ with you and I certainly would like to see a link to an NCAA Web site that states that USC was a consensus champion in 2003.
The fact of the matter is that USC was selected the Division 1-A college football champion in 2003 in the AP, Eck, Matthews and The New York Times polls only.
LSU was selected the 2003 champion in the BCS, Billingsley, Colley, Devold, Dunkel, FACT, Massey, NFF, Sagarin, Seattle Times and USA/ESPN polls.
Yes, LSU won the 2003 national championship in 11 polls and USC won in only 4 polls in 2003.
How then does one establish any factual consensus of opinion that USC was the 2003 NCAA national champion? There is no consensus to establish it except a consensus of opinion among those voters in the AP, Eck, Matthews and The New York Times polls for 2003.
You asked me if your findings were fair and my answer is no because your comments are not grounded in FACT!
Cumberland Ave said:
posted on September 23, 2005 4:29 PM — 24.215.202.246 — link — abuse?
Hey JB says,
The whole point of establishing the BCS system was to attempt to establish an "official" Division 1-A college football champion and to do away with conflicts between the two predominant polls, namely AP and USA/ESPN.
There has been a consensus between the BCS, AP and USA Today/ESPN polls every year from 1998-2004, except 2003.
In 2003, BCS, USA Today/ESPN and eight lesser polls declared LSU the Division 1-A national champion.
If you want to say USC is going for a three-peat in the AP poll, I have no problem with that assertion because it is grounded in fact. USC won the AP polls in 2003 and 2004 and if the Trojans win the AP poll in 2005, they will three-peat as AP champions.
What is the point of establishing the BCS championship as an "official" championship, though, if we are still going to hold up the AP poll as the ultimate poll? It makes no sense.
2004 exposed a flaw in the BCS system and the other polls because a great, undefeated Auburn team was not recognized as a national champion in any of the polls. My feeling is that this oversight was largely due to media hype about Reggie Bush and Matt Leinhart, about Leinhart winning the Heisman, about the matchup of two Heisman winners in the 2004-05 BCS championship game between USC and Oklahoma, the huge win by USC over Oklahoma, the narrow win by Auburn over Virginia Tech and the excellence of USC. I also think that USC's wins over lesser Auburn teams in 2002 and 2003 contributed to the failure to recognize a much superior Auburn team in 2004-05.
I would have liked to have seen an undefeated USC play an undefeated Auburn last year. Unfortunately, it did not happen and I think it was a disservice to Auburn when the War Eagles received no recognition in the polls in 2004-05.
Someone said:
posted on September 23, 2005 5:02 PM — 70.180.42.94 — link — abuse?
USC was the official national champion last year wahoo go trojans. To bad your going to have to win the big game two years in a row now to three-peat. Oh you want to say they won two years ago? I beleive that was LSU, I dont think USC won the Nokia Sugarbowl National Championship. Infact I know they didnt because I went to that game. If you want to say they did get a share or the Chapmionship were was Auburn's share last year? cumberland ave you hit it right on the nose nice job
chase said:
posted on September 23, 2005 5:27 PM — 206.124.196.122 — link — abuse?
The only reason SC is going for a "three-peat" is because Pete Carroll whined on the Bowl Selection show before the 2003 Sugar Bowl about how his team was playing for their own chanmpionship. Coach Saban came on before that show and said that his team didn't take care of their business (the one loss to UF) and if they didn't go to the Sugar Bowl, it was their own fault. Would I have liked to have seen LSU and SC square off in a "plus-one bowl," heck yeah, but it didn't happen. Leinart's good, Bush is better, Carroll is worthless (Norm Chow is a genius as far as I am concerned). The sad part is that LSU (especially if they beat UTenn), UT, VaTech, etc could beat top-25 teams all season long and never be considered to take the #1 spot regardless of who SC plays. I'll step off of my soapbox.
TrojanReeta said:
posted on September 24, 2005 2:51 AM — 24.130.177.13 — link — abuse?
You guys are the biggest group of haters I've ever seen in my life. I have a headache after reading all of this stupid shit. Why can't we just enjoy college football and let them play it out on the field? I've been a Trojan fan since 1998 and I've only missed 4 home games since then. I've witnessed us lose to every piece of shit school from last minute losses to Stanford to losing bowl games to Utah and TCU. I don't give a damn if you think the Pac-10 is the worse conference in the history of life, the TRUE Trojan fans are enjoying the success that we are having so leave us the hell alone. Let's get some things straight:
1. All the idiots who say that we've never had a sell-out crowd should have been at the Colesium last Saturday. It took me almost two hours to get in the stadium through the student entrance and there were so many people there that people were in the aisles. However people started leaving when we started kicking Arkansas' ass like people do every game when we start killing people. We can't help it, we have better shit to do then watch your team get embarrased.
2. Football is NOT life in LA. We all know this. But all of you idiots who have been calling LA "the armpit of the world" need to shut the fuck up. If you don't like LA then fine. But what the HELL does that have to do with the fact that USC has a great football team? You people have officially run out of shit to say so you've resorted to knocking the entire city. Every fucking city has their problems. We may have to claim OJ and Rodney King, but you fuckers all voted for George W. Bush. Consider it a wash...
3. True trojan fans hate bandwagon ones just as much as all of you haters do. I have to admit that I enjoyed games at the colesium a hell of a lot more when I could get any seat in the place and enjoy a good football game instead of having to fight drunk frat boys for seats who then leave before half-time to go do keg stands at the house. ALL TROJAN FANS ARE NOT BANDWAGON FANS. I've been a diehard fan since I was 17 and I don't plan on leaving them high and dry any time soon. I sat through the 6-6 seasons as well as the 13-0 ones. I'll be the first to admit that we have some stupid people in LA who jump back and forth from USC to UCLA faster than a Trojan scoring drive in the first quarter against Arkansas. But I will say that I PERSONALLY am taking offense to the fact that you people think that we're all a bunch of bandwagon fans. True members of the Trojan family will be here until the end. You're only a Bruin for four years, but you're a Trojan for life.
4. Life is not fair. All of you fuckers whining about how USC doesn't play anybody hard can shove it. It's life. When USC says that we won a National Championship in 2003 then you all say no we didn't because the true Champ is the BCS champ which is LSU. Then you tell us that it's the system that we all chose and we should stick to it. So fuckers follow the system. You play the games in your conference and we'll play the games in ours. Whoever comes out with more wins will get to say they're the champs. We can't tell now who's going to be good out of our conference. Our damn schedule is already made through 2009. BTW Ohio State is on the schedule for a home-home series in 2008 and 2009. The haters can start now coming up for reasons why OSU will be overrated after we beat them, since every great team we play becomes MAGICALLY overrated after we beat them.
5. USC football sucked through the 90s until the arrival of Pete Carroll. We all know that and we agree. So please stop using statistics from this time period when arguing about how overrated USC is today. Despite the fact that the teams were garbage we have produced almost as many NFL players as most SEC teams despite the fact that our team had less success (your stats, not mine). USC Football in the late 90s was about as prolific and USC Men's Basketball today. We get the picture...stop bringin up old shit.
6. People are arguing that USC was classless in scoring last minute touchdowns in the game vs. Arkansas. That shit wasn't our fault. No one expected our THIRD string quarterback to throw a touchdown pass to the THIRD string Tight End. Dammit people play DEFENSE. Walk-ons were getting more playing time than half of Stanford's starters. Two more minutes of playing time and the waterboy, the drum major, 3 yell leaders and a song girl would've gotten to play. Hell Marcus Allen was on the sideline, give that man a jersey. Nick Lachey was there too. Hell he's only 5'4" but put him in too. What did you want us to do? Matt Leinart was half way home and hell even Traveler was tired of running through the stadium. Classless would have been keeping the 1st string in the whole game. Pete Carroll was just trying to get his back-ups some playing time. PLAY DEFENSE PEOPLE!!!
7. Only really slow people don't understand the concept of the 3-Pete. Intelligent USC fans (you know, people with education) know that our run this year is to 3-Pete as winners of the AP National Championship Trophy. Would it make you feel better if that's what the T-Shirts say, because we're going to print them regardless. Pardon us for getting lazy in our frequent mention of it by shortening "3 time AP National Championshihp" to "3-Pete". You can whine, bitch and complain all you want, but in the end you can't refute the facts. No other team has done this, and that is why it's a historical season. PERIOD.
8. Liberals and football don't mix? Hmmmm...I wonder how the New England Patriots feel about that one? And like one person stated above, USC has more Republicans than Democrats...you should have seen the demonstrations on campus when Michael Moore spoke on campus.
9. Back to all of you USC haters who say that our school is crap, I'll admit we've had some people graduate from here that we aren't exactly proud of. So what if OJ did it. There are SO many other Trojans that have made YOUR lives better that you might wanna pipe down with all the hating. For instance:
- Neil Armstrong: One small step for man...one large step for mankind...
- Andrew Viterbi: Founder of Qualcomm (don't like it, give me back your cell phone)
- Steven Sample: Patented electronic microwave controls (Can't cook without us)
- Steven Spielberg: ET Phone Home
I could go on and on but this has nothing to do with football. Bottom line, if you don't know shit about USC or Los Angeles, keep our names out of your mouth.Now that I've addressed all of the haters I would like to thank the people on here with some sense for at least trying to have a REAL conversation about college football. Let the REAL dialogue continue....
JB said:
posted on September 24, 2005 4:01 AM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Ok Cumberland, here's your link.
And I'm sorry, I haven't heard of half the polls you mentioned. The only ones that I've ever thought mattered were the AP and CNN/whoever Coaches Poll, and we all know the coaches wanted to chose USC but weren't allowed to. It was a near unaminous choice of USC #1 the week before the 2003 BCS Sugarbowl, and USC's win was much more convincing than LSU's - that being said it's obvious the coaches wouldn't have changed their votes had they not had to.
You're also a few years late on the flawed BCS. It's been flawed every year of it's existence, to the point of major changes each year. The most egregious was 2003 however, when the #1 team in the AP and the CNN Coaches Poll didn't make the title game - USC. (a handful computer programmers ultimately decided the pairing - much to the chagrin of the AP pollsters and coaches.) So, again, LSU (or OK) won the chance to play for the BCS on a technicality.
Now, on to your other claim. The whole point of the BCS was to do away with split national champions, not to create an "official" D1 Champ like you said. In fact your own post alludes to this. The official governing body, the NCAA, says "the NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division 1-A football and is not involved in the selection process." so, nothing official. And low and behold, 2003 was split anyway, even with the best efforts of the BCS. The most respected of all the polls, the AP, made sure of that. Now I find it unbelievable that you would begrudge USC calling themselves the national champions in 2003, especially considering that your 1958 LSU champs were split as well! Are the '58 Tigers not allowed to call themselves champs??
As for last year, when Auburn didn't get in over Oklahoma...Oklahoma looked better and more dominant than the year before when they barely lost to LSU in the "faux-title" game. Should they have gotten in over OU? There is no beef with USC there, take it up with Oklahmoa for the right to have been crushed by SC.
And everything I've written so far in these posts are pure facts, whether you chose to believe them is up to you.
Finally, you're grasping at straws Cumberland, give it up with dignity.
posted on September 24, 2005 10:59 AM — link — abuse?
Dave,
I'd say it's 1997 based on the one drill sergeant that used it and the term player-hater all the time when I was at basic training.William Rainey said:
posted on September 24, 2005 4:41 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
JB says:
As for last year, when Auburn didn't get in over Oklahoma...Oklahoma looked better and more dominant than the year before when they barely lost to LSU in the "faux-title" game.Lets look at some scores.
2003 season:
#3 OU 77
NR TAMU 0#3 OU 52
#22 OKST 9#3 OU 65
#5 TEXAS 132004 season:
#2 OU 42
#22 TAMU 35#2 OU 38
#20 OKST 35#2 OU 12
#5 TEXAS 0Do you still think OU was better in '04 than '03?
JB said:
posted on September 25, 2005 12:54 AM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Why don't you take the time to list the whole schedule? 3 teams prove nothing. Those 3 teams could have improved by 2004. I know Texas was, that was their only loss in 2004, and they had 3 in 2003. Tamu had 5 losses in 2004 and 8 in 2003, so they improved as well. OSU was about the same. Those scores don't tell me the whole story.
Update, one of the better SEC teams beat Arkansas (remember last week) by only 11 points. Does that say anything or is Alabama highly over-rated?
And...Street & Smith's "50 Greatest College Football Programs of All Time," came out. "Notre Dame University tops the list, with USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Nebraska rounding out the top five. Michigan, Yale, Ohio State, Texas and Princeton complete the top 10." That superior SEC shows one team, two spots behind a PAC-10 team. Wow, the SEC is so dominant...
And for those of you who think Auburn should have been in the BCS Champ game instead of Oklahoma, read this...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/arash_markazi/11/24/dear.auburn/
...I have to say it's fun laying the smackdown on all you good ole boys...
cumberland ave? said:
posted on September 25, 2005 2:45 AM — 68.5.106.223 — link — abuse?
cumberland ave-
Trev Alberts, SEC fanatic, whoever you are....Wow real impressive with all your stats, web pages, and scores of past games. How about now? SC dominates Arkansas, who pretty much barelyl loses to Bama, a top 25 SEC team...explain that. And the stuff about ya SC might win the national championship, but only because there is no competition....that just sounds desperate to try anything to bring down a team's (maybe) title just because you don't like the team or conference or whatever. Stop being a pathetic loser posting 100 blogs about the same stuff over again when just about 90% of people disagree with you. SC is real.
posted on September 25, 2005 8:48 AM — 66.186.235.209 — link — abuse?
I don't really have time to do the research today, but I'd be interested to see, over the same time frame, a comparison of SEC vs PAC 10 on things like
-national championships
-major bowl appearances and wins
-record vs. top 10 opponents
-record vs. top 25 opponentsThat would probably be more illustrative of which conference is better overall.
Topkick said:
posted on September 25, 2005 1:12 PM — 142.68.100.107 — link — abuse?
After reading all the comments here, I have come to the following conclusions.
Schedules are made YEARS in advance, making it impossible to know if an opponent will be weak or strong.
USC has dominated in RECRUITING the past few years, and that is why they are where they are today.
JB said:
posted on September 25, 2005 2:36 PM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Easy enough...
PAC-10 - 16 National Championships
SEC - 16 National ChampionshipsDoes that prove SEC dominance yet???
Pac-10 BCS and National Champs
2004 Southern California
2003 Southern California
1991 Washington
1978 Southern California
1974 Southern California
1972 Southern California
1972 Southern California
1967 Southern California
1962 Southern California
1954 UCLA
1932 Southern California
1931 Southern California
1926 Stanford
1922 California
1921 California
1920 CaliforniaSEC BCS and National Champs
2003 Louisiana State
1998 Tennessee
1992 Alabama
1980 Georgia
1979 Alabama
1978 Alabama
1973 Alabama
1965 Alabama
1964 Alabama
1964 Arkansas
1961 Alabama
1951 Tennessee
1930 Alabama
1926 Alabama
1925 Alabama
1908 LSU
DEO from sin city said:
posted on September 25, 2005 6:54 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
I'm a Raider and an SC fan since I've came to the U.S. in 87. I played high school football in san diego, and i know all about fair weather fans i.e. charger fans superbowl chumps in 94. coming out of the woodwork but nowhere to be seen in prior years. Like Rita, i hate all you haters, and especially all you bandwaggoners. SC rules bad or not.
finally to the point, topkick said it best, SCHEDULES ARE MADE YEARS PRIOR, I REPEAT, SCHEDULES ARE MADE YEARS PRIOR. SO some team may suck one year and be good the other, stop hating on SC, because they're dominating like the 90's CANES and NOLEs or any other team in. that era. And please, stop saying the schedule is weak. SCHEDULES ARE MADE YEARS PRIOR do i have to repeat that. If Arkansas was ranked 10 and had a good defense and Sc still lit them up with 70+, would you admit they are good or just say that Arkansas is overrated just like OU.
FACE IT, you guys are haters, just like I was of the CANES in the 90's and NINERS of the eighties and every other team besides the SC and the Raiders. so just shut up and enjoy the games, and if god is nice enough and tired of your guys bullshit, there will be an SEC, Pac 10 showdown, and SC will whup that ass, or are you guys going to make an excuse for yourselves, and say that team was overrated. But the way things are going right now it looks like Texas instead of an SEC team is going to meet SC to the Rose Bowl.
Or are you guys whining that Texas is overrated too. every team has it's ups and downs, right now SC is on their ups, eat it, stuff under your pillow, or throw it in the thrash, but just live with it.
By the way, RAIDER NATION rules, and FIGHT ON TROJANS.
posted on September 26, 2005 9:28 AM — 70.183.214.147 — link — abuse?
I understood the message; I just don't take messages seriously when they come from questionable sources. People who talk like idiots are questionable sources.
You really expect me to give weight to any "message" coming from someone who says "Like Rita, i hate all you haters"?
Stu said:
posted on September 26, 2005 9:33 AM — 67.34.4.167 — link — abuse?
I will not contest that USC deserves consideration as the best team the last TWO years. But there are a few USC people who claim that they were the best team the last THREE years. And that's just bogus.
Let's be realisic, folks.
2002
Ohio State 14-0
Miami 12-1
USC 11-2The best team in 2002 was Ohio State. The facts are found in the records. If USC had gone undefeated, they could claim 2002. But they didn't, and there are some who believe that USC was in fact the THIRD best team that year.
Let's try to be objective.
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 26, 2005 1:42 PM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
USC is OVERRATED. Their conference is a joke and so are their fradulent national champion claims. Auburn and LSU would have destroyed USC. Let's just hope a Pac 10 scrub can knock them off so we don't have to see another fraudelent claim on the NCAA title, or at least if they make it to the national championship, they have to play the best team in the nation. Does anyone really think USC could win like they have if they had to play in a legitamate conference like the ACC SEC BIG 10 or BIG 12. If you do your intoxicated with the OVERATED bug that is causing most to put an asterisk next to the so called dominance that is USC football.
James Millsap said:
posted on September 26, 2005 4:10 PM — 204.52.131.22 — link — abuse?
Pimpo:
Perhaps you better research (ie read) before making such patently ignorant statements....USC played Auburn in consecutive years (2002, 2003), and destroyed them both times (the latter being a shutout at Auburn)....how about checking the polls for scheduling (hmm....Arizona State, UCLA, California, Notre Dame....all ranked....Oregon was until SC came to town....in past years, since schedules are made far in advance....Notre Dame, yearly....Auburn....Kansas State....Florida State....Virginia Tech....and as for bowls....how about the results against Iowa, Michigan, and Oklahoma the last three years? compare this to the typical SEC/ACC proclivity for scheduling three blind mice....I mean Appalachian State, Troy State, etc.)....and perhaps look at current and past NFL rosters....or the NFL and College Hall of Fames....or the list of Heisman winners....all while attending a school that requires academics....
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 26, 2005 5:18 PM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
Hey Jamie relax sweetheart. I'm not talking the entire college football history, I realize USC has tradition, but some of the outlandish claims by you and your trojan bandwagon that you dominate like hurricane or seminole teams of the recent past did. That's what I'm talkin about. You better recognize. You shared that first title by dodging LSU your second was granted after dodging unbeaten Auburn and you play in a weak conference. YES WEAK WEAK like your posting.
SEC ignorance said:
posted on September 26, 2005 6:17 PM — 68.224.174.78 — link — abuse?
Pimp Daddy- you, along with many SEC have their heads so far up their ( o ), you have no concept of reality.
The Pac 10 is consistently the most underrated conference in america. Your Tigers were beaten up and down the field by ASU, and but for several incredibly fortuante plays, they would have lost by three TDs.
As for USC; stop denying them their glory. They can't control who they play against in BCS games, they simply go beat the piss out of whomever they are matched up with. They would have beat up on Auburn last year, or LSU the year before just the way they killed Iowa and Oklahoma. They are the greatest college team of our generation.
Look what they did to your Razorbacks, when was the last time an SEC beat UA that badly?? Everyone in the SEC points to the 50 years ago to validate how great they are. Wake up!! Bear Bryant doesn't coach anymore.
JB said:
posted on September 26, 2005 6:35 PM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Dave, Pimp, Cumberland, et al...You all are like little kids with your hands over your ears yelling "NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Check earlier posts. All your silly little claims are completely and undeniably refuted.
Sammy Davis said:
posted on September 26, 2005 7:35 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Message 133 - too bad OSU didn't have Iowa on their schedule in 2002. They both squeaked by some of their games in '02 and the results could have gone either way (and Iowa manhandled a team or two that OSU had trouble with). In any event, that 38-17 USC beatdown of Iowa was more lopsided than the score suggests. Like I said, too bad, because now we're only left with what-if's.
posted on September 26, 2005 7:54 PM — link — abuse?
I love it when people bring up the 'Noles teams of the 90s.
Sammy Davis said:
posted on September 26, 2005 8:01 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
I think Ole Miss was #2 that year. I only say that because my uncle played for Minnesota in the late 60's and is like a pseudo-historian. I believe Minnesota was #1 in 1960. Of course, that was when final polls were taken before the bowls, and Minnesota lost theirs. Don't know what Rebs did - suppose I could look it up.
Sammy Davis said:
posted on September 26, 2005 8:42 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
DDawg - If this doesn't cry out for the need for some standardization, nothing does!
Are we going by FWAA, AP, or both (or more) in years prior to BCS? If FWAA, then Alabama didn't win in 1961. I think the general consensus is AP in pre-BCS years, right? If so, Minnesota was AP champ in 1960.
My head hurts. Until we agree on a standard, who can really claim what?
Sammy Davis said:
posted on September 26, 2005 9:19 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Sorry DDawg - wasn't trying to strip you of your title. Just trying to clarify, since clarity is the ONE thing that's lacking in this whole absurd mess.
As an earlier poster said, Oxford deserves all it can get because that place is amazing. Square Books, City Grocery, and the Oliver-Britt House were my hangs for many a day.
posted on September 26, 2005 9:23 PM — link — abuse?
No dissing the FWAA, sayeth the FWAA member.
Link said:
posted on September 27, 2005 12:02 AM — 68.181.247.173 — link — abuse?
As for everyone who said "LSU is going to dominate" in this post, and raved about the tigers, they just lost to Tennessee. So the vaunted, pedestal sitting SEC team lost to another SEC team, and now, it looks like Florida is going to become your new hero if you want in to the BCS game.
As it stands, I think Texas and VA Tech as looking way too solid for anything short of a phenomenal SEC season to overtake. Especially because of UT's nonconference win over OSU, and VT's win over GT. Those are pretty darn solid, and their conferences are the one thing you guys haven't been bagging on. The Big 12 and the ACC both have some damn good teams (k, the big 12 south does...the big 12 north is just...there right now)
So we'll see how the season plays out.
FTFO!!!
Naked Busty Porn Star said:
posted on September 27, 2005 12:08 AM — 68.105.85.165 — link — abuse?
The whole "best team I've ever seen" is what the coach on the losing end of a 53-point loss always says. He's trying to divert attention from his terrible preparation, from the ass-whipping.Hmm....ass whipping....
deo from sincity said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:56 AM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
well, I'm sorry mr. frey, should I speak with the queens english, or perhaps with an english accent, will help. You think you would be able to take me seriously then. pip pip.
I say Mr. Frey, do you think a fine institution like USC will lose to other lesser institutions like the ones in the SEC, I say not, and stop picking your nose, it's not very gentleman-like. pip-pip
Oh wait you're probably from the south, huh, maybe I should speak southern, should I sugah/!!!!! oh wait i'm sorry that's how women talk, men talk like this right, "yo pah quit smoking my cigarettes."
why don't you get whatever thing that's stuck up your ass, probably your brother's dick, and just lighten up, hahahahaha, sorry for the redneck humor, you do get that though right??????
deo from sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 4:19 AM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
oh, this is for MR. PIMPDADDY, the only thing your pimpin right now is your moms, and I do recognize the canes and the noles, but honestly, they suck right now, like the way you're sister was doing me last night, and the PREZ and CO. will light up both teams if they were playing either team right now.
do you actually think devin hester with that old fart coker W/ the canes can beat SC, or the so called 3-0 noles with that fat ass bowden can beat SC right now, dude, your not only on crack, but you have some serious mental trauma going on with your head.deo in sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 4:28 AM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
oh yeah, i forgot to mention that, I guess LSU won't be your knight in shining armor for the SEC anymore huh, I guess it's Florida, with Urban Meyer. by the way, congratulations on getting him by the way, or else, LSU would probably go to the Rose Bowl, if Texas don't make it, and probably get embarassed by SC. At least with Urban Meyer coaching Florida, if they make it, will probably make it a challenge for SC in the Rose Bowl.
Alaska said:
posted on September 27, 2005 6:03 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
First I would like to say somthing to peaple like pimpdaddy and deo in sin city.GROW UP. With posts like that you both look stupid and I hope that peaple dont think that all fans in the pac-10 and the SEC are like you assholes. Now about this pac-10 vs. SEC thing. If post#163 is correct than the pac-10 has the edge. Neather con. has been dominant. THATS FACT!!!!! I hope at the end of the year USC ends up playing a SEC team so that thay can CRUSH them(I think-I have been rong before-lol)so that you will have one more team to call overated. I have to admit that I love the pasion SEC fans have when it comes to somthing that they know is verry hard to argue case, when the pac-10 fans have all the right stats. Keep on fighting SEC. I love a good show!!!
J-bo said:
posted on September 27, 2005 7:54 AM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
If the point of all of this debate about national championships is arriving as close to the truth as is possible, in light of the ridiculous NCAA Division IA "no playoff" system....then all should actually think through these so-called "national championships," and not just look at the listing....
For instance....Alabama's national championships that the SEC fans are citing....1978: Beaten by co-champion USC in head-to-head match-up played in Birmingham, 24-14 (score not indicative of severity of the beating)....1973: Beaten by co-champion Notre Dame in head-to-head match-up in the Sugar Bowl....Florida State's 1993 national championship....beaten by evental #2 Notre Dame in head-to-head match-up....
The one thing that we are all, intentionally or not, pointing out is that the IA system has been and continues to be fatally flawed, and this fact is perpetuated by special interests (a microcosm of our government? haha)....and the arguments put forth by the NCAA are illogical and easily refuted (IAA plays a four round, 16 team playoff that doesn't appear to present undue hardship to the players, since it's the players who the NCAA always hide behind)....and to arrive at a legitimate playoff system, it is a given that standardized scheduling would have to be enforced (otherwise, teams will play the weakest schedule possible)....and this would entail either a break-up of the conference-affiliation scheme, or making that scheme honorific - even NCAA IA Basketball suffers from the retention of a conference scheme, finding itself forced to rely on the alchemy of the "RPI".
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 27, 2005 9:29 AM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
Hey, Cleo in Sin City? I'd like to say maybe I got carried away, but you, you are a complete joke. I'll end it at that cuz anything more isn't even worth it as far as your concerned. All those passionate SC fans getting riled up cuz they know deep down their paper Trojans need to recognize, just stop and come to grips without getting so sensitive like little Cleo in Sin City. #1 I'm an ACC man and everyone knows our conference is dominating this year top to bottom. #2 I will stop talking about the paper Trojans until they play somebody legit, and their 5th or 6th ranked conference in football. #3 I'll stop dumbing down my postings to the level of paper Trojan fans like Cleo in Sin City whose Mom is being pimped out all over Sin City without any takers, on her ugly ass. Sorry little Cleo yo Mama is UGGGGGLY, just like your paper Trojans chances this year.
J-bo said:
posted on September 27, 2005 10:43 AM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
Pimp Daddy:
As in any forum....facts, and only the facts....you've stated none, and wasted a lot of space in so doing (or not, as the case may be)....by the way, you're powerhouse ACC champion from last year, VA Tech....yes, they lost to USC, in what was virtually a home game....that's a fact.
cdmor said:
posted on September 27, 2005 11:04 AM — 20.1.4.171 — link — abuse?
I think the three year references to USC that included 2002 were intended as an opinion that by the end of the season, USC was the best team in the country because of the way they dominated Notre Dame, UCLA, and IOWA, all nationally-televised games. However, since USC had early-season stumbles (Wash St and Kans St I think both overtime losses), there was no way they would be given the chance to compete for the championship. I thought the same thing at the end of the season, but we'll never know, will we...
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 27, 2005 11:17 AM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
J-Bo:
Fact how many teams does the Pac 10 have in the poll. I think its almost about as many as the ACC have in the top 10. Fact Pac 10 is weak, its not USC's fault I don't blame them their paper Trojan status is relegated to their conference and the way they attained their two national championships by dodging Auburn and LSU. Fact 2 shared national championships does not equal dominance. Check the facts and while your at it suck my J Bo.
J-Bo said:
posted on September 27, 2005 11:37 AM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
Exactly the type of response I would expect from someone of your evidenced ilk....and need we remind you that your USC "dodging" statement is assinine (USC destroyed Auburn, at Auburn, 24-0, in 2003...virtually the same Leinart/Bush/White vs Campbell/Brown/Williams match-up as would have occurred last year).
Droughns Mom said:
posted on September 27, 2005 12:07 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
pimpdaddy - take off your shoe, turn it over, and look for the single-digit number on the bottom. That, dear friend, is your IQ, as evidenced by your moronic outbursts that are simply NOT based in fact and are contradictory.
If you are going to claim that the ACC is a superior conference based on the fact that they have more teams in the AP Poll (a poll, I might add, that is barely 4 weeks old), then you must do two things:
1) Concede that, going by your rationale, the best team in the country is USC because they sit atop the very poll you reference.
2) Concede that USC won a National Championship in 2003 by virtue of winning the very poll you now apparently extoll.
It's the same old thing with you people - manipulate the elements to create something that works in your favor. "USC is a paper champion because they only won the AP", followed by "ACC is the best conference because they have more teams in the AP". Brother, take some Xanax and everything will be OK.
It's too bad that some people are trying to elevate this blog by injecting some thoughtful debate, only to have idiots like you and deo from Sin City ruin it with your relentless, classless, based-on-passion-and-no-facts diatribe.
Droughns Mom said:
posted on September 27, 2005 12:15 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
And the silly thing is, I'm not even a USC fan - I went to Penn State! I just followed this link from SI on Campus, expecting to find some insight as to why USC might be ruining college football (I happen to think they are not and that the coach's comment was taken out of context). I was mistaken - very little thoughtful debate going on here, alas.
This is the problem with public forums - they let in all manner of micreant. Let's see how long before the link is pulled from SI.
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 27, 2005 12:48 PM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
Wooo wooo droughn Mom your quote "USC is a paper champion because they only won the AP", where did you get this cause it certainly did not come from me, go look it up and stick to facts instead of misquoting. They are a paper Champion based on who they play and share championships with etc. etc. Also I didn't realize this was a black tie affair only to be visited by uptight yankees such as your self. Lighten up Francis!!!
The AP is what it is. USC is what they are:
Wannabes. Solid program, but don't even come close to dynasty or dominating like the hurricanes or seminoles of recent past.
Hey droughns you and Jbo and cleo from sin city
better recognize that SI likes to keep it real and I suggest you lighten up and post like you gotta pair. Or adjust your panties and keep misquoting and reaching just like USC fans, reaching for what just ain't their.Willis said:
posted on September 27, 2005 1:00 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
Pimp - It's called paraphrasing, you idiot. It's done to dileneate between something the writer is saying or suggesting and something you said or suggested (not necessarily verbatim). Before you start playing blog police, I suggest you pick up book called "Elements of Style", by Strunk and White. That is, assuming you can get past 4th-grade grammar. My gosh, why do you have to continue to insult people? It only serves to make yourself look more and more like the fool you are.
J-bo said:
posted on September 27, 2005 1:20 PM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
William:
Sensitive on this point, are we? Your argument, though fair, is unpersuasive....lacking a head-to-head match-up, the only relevant evidence available is the result from the previous year's match-up....further, what they did against SEC teams is an apples-to-oranges (apologies for including a reference to oranges) comparison....and lest we not forget, they also beat Auburn in 2002....
Stephen is my name... said:
posted on September 27, 2005 1:22 PM — 205.156.188.254 — link — abuse?
This whole argument will be a moot point on October 15th, when the Fighting Irish stun a SoCal football 'dynasty' as they did to a UCLA hoop dynasty in the 70s. (Though that WAS a dynasty.) Go ahead, laugh, make fun, that's OK. Just remember that you read it here 1st when it happens.
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 27, 2005 1:34 PM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
Moot point in deed what about ASU this week could become a moot point even earlier. Hey J-On My Bone you got Willis pullin for ya. He likes dudes too. Does anyone think that USC could hang with any of the Florida teams?
kav said:
posted on September 27, 2005 2:07 PM — 69.169.54.124 — link — abuse?
can anyone tell me who the hell we have to beat that we havent beat in the last three years whether they be from the big ten, big 12, or the sec...as if beating teams like oklahoma, michigan, iowa, notre dame, auburn, va tech wasnt enough. lets face it people that the only teams that come close to beating usc are the ones from the pac-10. all the rest of them we beat, and we beat them pretty badly. just face it...until we get knocked from the top spot everyone else will continue to be second place.
SM said:
posted on September 27, 2005 2:16 PM — 192.45.72.26 — link — abuse?
I don't really understand what everyone is complaining about here. I am a diehard Seminoles fan who went to Florida State and now live in Los Angelos. There is no debating that USC is the best team in the country right now but I think all of the USC fans are jumping the gun on calling their team a dynasty. The have 2 straight National Championships, no debating that. But I don't think 4 years of having a pretty good team makes a dynasty. And I wouldn't be so quick to hand over this year's championship to USC. I'm pretty sure everyone remebers 2000 when FSU was HEAVILY favored against Oklahoma for the championship but was pretty much dominated in the championship game. There is a reason why teams play the game and they don't hand championships out on paper. And come back in 3 more years with sustained excellence and then we can talk about a dynasty like FSU used to be.
deo in sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 2:31 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
to all the people in hear that posts comments, i apologize for my actions and my fingers, literally. I've been an SC fan since '87, and most of all i'm an alumnus. I've always backed them up 1000%, even when they were stinkin up the Pac 10, but now that they are winning, people want to call them "paper champions," and it just irritates me. To pimpdaddy, I apologize for the moms and sister remark, that was not me, that was a passionate fan out of control. Hey, you heard from me first, about giving props to your Canes, and Noles, but realistically, if any of those teams played SC right now. Sc will literally run circles around those teams i.e. bush in the oregon game.
and you know what, unless theres a playoff system, you will just never know huh?!!!!
oh for the SC dodging Auburn and LSU remark, your sending your message to the wrong people, you need to talk to the people doing the schedules for both PAc 10, SEc, and NCAA for out of conference games.
and like I said before, if you people would pay attention, THE SCHEDULES GET MADE YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT YEAR. (this is strictly hypothetical by the way)-so if SC didn't play Arkansas till late of the season, after Arkansas goes undefeated all over the SEC, and SC hands them the 70+ points they gave em two weeks ago, would you still call them the paper champs, or finally concede and say they are the best in college football right now, i reiterate, RIGHT NOW, just like any team, they go in cycles, they're good now, but they might suck next year, who knows.
anyways, I apologize again for my out of character actions and will not light up these blogs with neanderthal-like jargon.
FIGHT-ON SC
deo in sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 2:37 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
Like SM says, and coach herman edwards say, "that is why you play the game, you play the game to win," until they get knocked out, SC will always be no 1, so instead of putting on ridiculous comments in this blog. just watch the games the whole year.
William Rainey said:
posted on September 27, 2005 2:50 PM — 68.47.141.188 — link — abuse?
J-bo,
I understand the reason for bringing up the '03 game, but I have grown sick of seeing that score as if that means that USC would have automatically won the '04 rematch. The Auburn team in '03 had a good defense but very little offense and played inconsistently. The '04 team's offense was better mainly because they hired Al Borges who made the offense much better by putting last year's best running back tandem on the field at the same time(if you disagree with this just look at what Cadillac and Ronnie did just last week against NFL defenses). As well as putting Cambell in a position to use his athletic ability. While the defense got much better. And played well week after week. Would Auburn have beaten USC? I don't know but I'm sure it would have been much closer than the USC-OU game.JB said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:00 PM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
A voice of reason, finally.
SM says:
"There is no debating that USC is the best team in the country right now but I think all of the USC fans are jumping the gun on calling their team a dynasty. The have 2 straight National Championships, no debating that. But I don't think 4 years of having a pretty good team makes a dynasty. And I wouldn't be so quick to hand over this year's championship to USC"There is no reason to hand over the title for a 3rd (traditionally relevant AP #1 - also don't forget that the NCAA considers USC the 2003 Consensus National Champion) and a 2nd straight undisputed National Champ (BCS and AP - Remember again, the BCS wasn't created to be the official determination, but to bring together the polls and do away with the split championship) as of yet. But it's next to impossible to dispute USC as the #1 team right now. The experts that study football and watch all the games consider it so almost unanimously. Do I think they're correct over a bunch of amateur and biased fans from the SEC, hell yes. But it don't mean jack until the final game of the season.
And stop with the dodging comments - USC wanted to play whoever was considered the best oponent in the title game. The experts picked Oklahoma. While Oklahoma was embarassed in that game, Auburn struggled to get by Virginia Tech, two teams that USC had beaten in the previous couple of seasons. I think successive arguments are now moot.
deo in sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:00 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
oh by the way, besides the harris poll, there is also the coaches poll if you guys aren't paying attention to the site. and let me see, how many #1 votes are there for SC (60) and two 1 to two other teams, probably mack brown and frank beamer voted for their teams, so that's two non-SEC coaches voting for their own team, geez I wonder, where some of those SEC votes went to, oh my god it can't be. some SEC coach right now is saying SC is #1 besides MR. houston Nutt. now for those SEC fans and any other fans besides texas and vt, whose coaches probably voted for their own team to be #1, how are you going to argue with the coaches poll, who probably knows more about football in their little pinky, than all of us in this whole stupid blog
J-bo said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:09 PM — 204.52.131.22 — link — abuse?
William:
No arguments with that line of reasoning....Auburn would have provided a more difficult match-up (due mostly to the coaching staffs, as you've astutely alluded to....Oklahoma's shortfalls in the past two years were more of an indictment on the coaching staff, rather than on the players - flaws in their offensive scheme and defensive letdowns when the offense didn't quickly light up the scoreboard in accustomed fashion) - certainly, the 2002 game was extremely competitive, and Auburn had some horses of their own....as they usually do.
The aggravation being evidenced by the SC fans here is in reference to undefendable, illogical, and non-factually based statements being made by some others....
Hopefully, in light of what has transpired thus far, Texas will stumble (although it doesn't appear OU will be much help in that regard this time around) along the way (not to slight the Big Ten, but don't believe Michigan State, Penn State, Minnesota or Wisconsin will avoid a loss or two), and we will get what most of us would really like to see: USC vs an undefeated SEC or ACC champion, settling the issue on the field at the end of the season....
Until the powers that be see fit to solve the systemic/underlying problem, that's the best we can hope for.
Allen B Smithee said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:14 PM — 24.205.90.247 — link — abuse?
how are you going to argue with the coaches poll, who probably knows more about football in their little pinky, than all of us in this whole stupid blog
True that. But many coaches admit that, particularly with regards to west-coast games, they vote based on score and not on what actually happened on the field because the games end so late. I think the ASU-LSU game is a perfect indicator of that. Sure LSU won, but ASU gave them a hell of a game. And even though SC beat Oregon by a large margin, everyone knows it was much closer than the score indicated. In my opinion, Oregon should not have slipped out of the rankings. Neither should GT have slipped out of the Harris poll for their VT loss. But that's just my opinion.
Speaking of the Harris poll - why is nobody else shocked that 0-4 Idaho got five votes? I think that is a bellweather of things to come.
deo in sin city said:
posted on September 27, 2005 3:15 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
to Mr. smithee
you know what, i'm not going to dignify that remark with an answer. but it's okay, you can keep talking like that to make yourself feel better because of the inadequate lives your living in, probably because a baboon has a higher SAT score than you do, and you being a high school dropout yourself, is probably doing some menial job like a Mcdonalds manager, or probably do not have a job at all. But keep trying there mr. Smithee your probably on a roll.
brady said:
posted on September 27, 2005 5:52 PM — 69.220.130.11 — link — abuse?
Listen USC is by far the best team in the nation and it is not ruining college football. SEC is the best conference in college football. OK!! Stop making rediculous comments on whether SC would run the table in the SEC. Who cares!!!!!! Oh and whoever wrote the Big Ten was the most overrated conference in the history "blah blah blah" of football. You might be the single most retarted human being on the planet. The Big ten is year in and year out one of the top conferences in the nation!! The Pac-10 on the other hand is the weakest of the 4 major conferences
pimpdaddy said:
posted on September 27, 2005 11:48 PM — 69.134.131.167 — link — abuse?
Yo cleo I don't think your retarded just a little slow, like paperTrojan fan is to realize that their overhyped dynasty bubble is about to burst, big time. Did you really graduate from USC cuz you sure sound like it, delusional. Hey Brady you need to lay off the meth pipe your smoking, cuz the ACC is the best conference followed by the SEC and then the Big 12 and Big 10 are a toss up for fourth. Do people even consider the Pac 10 a major conference anymore?
USC's overhyped teams are definitely ruining college football by giving deserving teams i.e. LSU and AUBURN who play in a real conference with real teams week in and week out no shot at dismantiling the media's made up mystique that is paperTrojan football. Let's see USC play FSU TENN GEORGIA ALABAMA just to name a few and then a SEC CHAMPIONSHIP or MIAMI FLORIDA VaTECH and then a ACC CHAMPIONSHIP does anyone really think USC would be where they are right now if they played in a true power conference i.e. ACC or SEC I didn't think so. This should definitly end the discussion, your welcom USC fans cuz you just got taught a free class in NCAA Football 101
The truth hurts USC fans, you all got exposed for the paper mache Trojan everyone in the country really knows that you are. Thank you and good night.
Link said:
posted on September 28, 2005 4:31 AM — 128.125.19.107 — link — abuse?
Pimpdaddy. Just stop. Your rhetoric offends the intelligent, and your "argument" has no facts, merely opinions. And why would the Trojans play both an SEC and ACC championship? I don't think even the teams in the ACC or SEC do that. In fact, they don't. Your vehemence is noted, your thought process is intelligible, and your bias is incredible. The only way to determine whether the argument is correct or not is to watch the next Pac-10 vs SEC/ACC game. Whether thats a bowl game this season, or a non-conference game next season, stop arguing a moot point with your opinion. And consider some fo the stats that people have been posting. It is not one-sided by any stretch of the imagination, and at the moment, the number one team in the nation, until someone beats them, is USC.
FTFO, FEBUETSEC
TFGGator said:
posted on September 28, 2005 1:38 PM — 138.162.0.46 — link — abuse?
The really sad part about all of this is that it might not be settled on the field, one again. USC and Texas will be favored every week this year, and they have very good chances at going undefeated. If an SEC team goes undefeated, it will probably be left out. That would be a shame because if a team can go undefeated in the SEC this year, that will be something. There might be 5 really good teams in there. Much as I hope Florida will do it, I would be very surprised if they did. Road games @ Bama & LSU, and then Georgia @ Jax - pretty impressive if they can manage it. They should beat everyone else o their SEC schedule (Miss St, Vandy, & South Carolina) though all appear to be improved, though certainly not great...probably not even good. But throw in FSU and the SEC championship game too...it's a tough road to get through unscathed. Even if they do, I expect an undefeated Texas would nudge them out of the championship game vs. USC.
As for VA Tech, if they can navigate the ACC undefeated, they certainly deserve a shot at the title. Wouldn't have said that two years ago, but now that VA Tech, BC, and especially Miami are in the mix, the ACC is finally a credible conference with 3 great programs (Va Tech, Miami, FSU) 5 good/solid ones (BC, Md, UVA, Ga Tech, Clemson) and then the 4 North Carolina schools, none of which have sustained any success in a long time though UNC and NCST have had a couple pretty good isolated seasons. Truly basketball country in Carolina.
Playoff, please.
J-Bo said:
posted on September 28, 2005 4:50 PM — 204.52.131.22 — link — abuse?
TFGGator:
Exactly the point I've been asserting, even though as an SC fan....
Without going into unnecessary detail....divide the country up into four regions (ie West = USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington State, California, Colorado....in some years, a Utah, BYU, et al....Southeast = Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, et al)....let the top four in from each region....end up with four regional champs playing in semi-finals....
Other possibility would be to just take the top 16 at the end of the regular season and/or conference championship games, and seed them, like in I-AA (that division has a great playoff system - as much as I love USC, Georgia Southern's I-AA program under Erk Russell and Paul Johnson was probably the closest thing to a true dynsasty in collegiate football history).
Good luck to the Gators....
JB said:
posted on September 28, 2005 7:46 PM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
I just can't resist the final word in here for all the folks that claim LSU is the only national champ in '03, and USC can stake no claim...I've already proven that the NCAA regards USC the 2003 Consensus National Champion, and LSU the the Div 1A Champ. But the BCS itself considers it a split title shared by LSU AND USC.
Straight from the BCS website
"For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl.The Conference Champions
Atlantic Coast: Florida State (10-2)
Big East: Miami (10-2)
Big Ten: Michigan (10-2)
Big 12: Kansas State (11-3)
Pac-10: USC (11-1)
Southeastern: LSU (12-1)Other Participants
Oklahoma (12-1)
Ohio State (10-2)The Matchups
Sugar: (2) LSU 21, (1) Oklahoma 14
Orange: (9) Miami 16, (7) Florida State 14
Rose: (3) USC 28, (4) Michigan 14
Fiesta: (5) Ohio State 35, (10) Kansas State 28The Result
A split decision: LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll; USC is No. 1 in the Associated Press poll.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=timeline
It just cannot be argued anymore...
VOLPIMP said:
posted on September 28, 2005 8:28 PM — 208.0.27.10 — link — abuse?
If given the opportunity to change spots with USC, and players, anybody who argues that USC is currently the best team would jump at the chance. No offence to my beloved Vols but I would take that trade like yesterday. 1. They are that good.
2. Until someone beats them noone else is. 3.The conference arguement is irrelavent, they've beaten other conference heavies as well. Are they MY team? No, but any intelligent football fan will give credit when it's due. The Pac 10 may or may not be strong, but the Trojans are. They are solid, and play smart. When somebody beats them we can all debate who is No. 1, but currently there's nothing to argue about.SCPimp_pappa said:
posted on September 29, 2005 12:27 AM — 67.127.233.200 — link — abuse?
These are the facts:
1.SC Trojans are the #1 team for the 2005
2. UCLA fans are all fags
3. USC can go into any stadium and any conference any town and beat anyone on their own turf in their own backyard.
That includes Auburn and LSU. Auburn gets my respects cause they went undefeated last year and didnt cry like those Bayou-Bitches from LSU. Who by the way are the only ones who recognize their win over OK as a chanpionship.
Are the trojans beatable? They sure are.
Can it be done this year? Most definately.
Until someone figures out on how to score touchdowns and maintain long drives that eat up the clock as well as the defense scoring some points, USC will find away to adjust and clamp down and score points. My resspects to the Big 10 , and last years Auburn team.
Go Trojans, Fight On!!!
Gerald said:
posted on September 29, 2005 2:18 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
When will USC play a team that has A) a good running game and B) a good defense? Hawaii and Oregon had neither; Arkansas could run the ball but can't defend (or for that matter throw). Arizona State can run and pass, but their defense is horrible. Ditto Notre Dame. UCLA has a great passing and running game but their defense, while fast and athletic, is undersized and will wear down. Washington, Stanford and Arizona? Please. Ditto Fresno, who is a good mid - major team but no threat to a top 15 program. I don't know much about Washington State except that they were bad last year. Cal was good last year, but not great (they were uninspiring against Southern Miss and dreadful against Texas Tech, their only quality nonconference opponents) and lost like 16 starters.
I am sorry, but it does not seem as if USC will face a major college team that is at least adequate in all five phases of the game (passing offense, passing defense, run offense, run defense, special teams) until the bowl game. On the other hand, are there any well rounded SEC teams? LSU? Nope. Auburn? Nope. Alabama? Maybe. Tennessee? Nope. Florida? Maybe. Georgia. Yes. So, in the SEC you have 1 yes and 2 maybes. I guess that matches the PAC - 10, with 1 yes (USC) and 2 maybes (Cal, Washington State) although I would put Alabama and Florida as higher scale maybes than Washington State, with Florida far higher. Not only did Alabama and Florida both go to bowl games last season, but Florida has a victory over a very good team (as opposed to Idaho, Nevada, and Grambling, all of whom would probably lose in the Division II playoffs).
Not that I am calling USC a fraud or anything. I just want to see them play a well rounded opponent to see what type of game it would be. As a matter of fact, in USC's 3.5 year run (going back to Carson Palmer's last year) what were the well rounded teams that they played, especially on defense? The two Auburn games? Nope, terrible on offense. Michigan? Average defense at best. Cal? Defense, not great. Iowa? I will give you that one. Kansas State too, except you lost that one (it was after Kansas State game that the run really began). Virginia Tech? No passing game. I will be generous and grant you Oklahoma (even though by the end of the season injuries had decimated their defense, see those shootouts against average teams). So, Iowa, Kansas State, and a gimme in Oklahoma. Anyone else?
J-Bo said:
posted on September 29, 2005 4:47 PM — 204.52.131.22 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
Good post....
Would point out that all of the "contenders" people are pointing to this year all fit the defintion of "limited" (flawed) team that you've articulated [NOTE: I would add coaching to this list, as well], with the possible exception of Florida. So I'd tend to agree with the Cal fan's posting that the best bet for an upset will occur in Berkley.
What's being asked for is a team that matches up well with USC, which is a well rounded/balanced team (speaking of which, people tend to forget that they've had one of the nation's best punters for a couple of years, Tom Malone) that exerts pressure on both sides of the ball on areas of the field for 60 minutes (speed/execution/depth, et al)....like the Miami teams of the recent past, or USC teams of the 70s.
Even though most are in a hurry to discuss the skill positions, football is won/lost in the line, period....anyone who's played the game knows this is an inconstestable fact...using the NFL for illustration, there have been many championship teams with subpar skill position players (Jeff Hostetler and the Giants....the first 49ers team with Mike Ring, Earl Cooper, and Ricky Patton at running back....that list could take volumes to detail)....and at the collegiate level, how many Heisman winners played for national championship teams? Exactly.
Barring weather, letdown, or Bellicik-like scheming combined with impatience by Leinart and/or Sarkisian, USC will go as far as those two new interior defensive linemen (and their subs) take them....judging by the results thus far, it would seem that they are in solid shape there, though it will be interesting to see what happens if SC's offense has a hiccup and allows their opponent the luxury of running the ball 40-50 times in a game.
Regan said:
posted on October 1, 2005 1:15 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Southern California is not ruining College Football. The Hype is. I have absolutely never seen more of a media love-fest over a team in my life. On TV and the Internet, this team is brought out and treated like gods.
Today, Herbstreit didn't even give his tips for how to stop the Trojans' offense. Should we be surprised? No...the hypemasters have given the Trojans the NC Trophy before the first snap, despite the fact that this team is a Reggie Bush injury away from having an 8-3 season.
For the 95% of us who love College Football but are not Trojan fans, the game is really being diminished by the sheer level of praise given to Southern Cal, and we are told to believe our teams are merely playing hard all season to earn a beating from Southern Cal.
I can honestly say that my enjoyment of this season has suffered because of it.
Miami's recent win streak from 2000-2003 lasted 37 games. At no point were they raised up by the press as anything other than a really good football team. It was suggested in '02 that they would probably repeat, but it was never ordained by the media the way the hypemasters have put up Southern Cal.
Enough of the "Best of All Time"; for God's sake, get a pro team in LA so these suckups can split up the creamfest.
JB said:
posted on October 2, 2005 4:59 AM — 68.5.134.191 — link — abuse?
Love fest? I seem to remember two years of OU being called the best team ever, until they got dismantled of course, and became "over-rated". And then the Miami greatest team ever spooge fest, and then FSU's day in the media spotlight. Did you just start watching CF the last 3 years??
J-bo said:
posted on October 2, 2005 9:49 AM — 68.54.166.85 — link — abuse?
Sounds as if she's just a bitter Bruin co-ed (the brunette jealous of the blonde syndrome)....
The media sustains its parasitic existence on the hype machine....
You've fallen prey to their ignorance by stating that USC would be 8-3 without Reggie Bush, which is also evidenciary of your lack of knowledge regarding football (see, they've had this guy named Lendale White who's led them in rushing yards and touchdowns the past two seasons, and yesterday he gave everyone a reminder....blah, blah, blah)....
Football is won/lost by offensive/defensive line play. Which is why they could plug virtually any back in and not experience a drop off.
deo in sin city said:
posted on October 4, 2005 5:41 AM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
good point JBO
it will take more than Reggie Bush getting injured for SC to get beaten, like you said it will take some sort of bellichick-type of defensive schemes, or if (still knocking on wood) both White and Bush get hurt, desmond reed is pretty good, but he's no bush, chuncey washington is also good, but not as strong as White. And also if Leinart gets hurt, he maybe the current heisman winner, and one of the best qb's in college right now, but if he was hurt and both white and bush are still healthy, john david booty can pick up were leinart left off.
So basically, all three, Leinart, Bush, and White has to be hurt in order for that offense to be slowed down (knocking on wood again). Or bellichick and crennel come down to college level and play against them, or like i said on the other post, if Norm Chow is taken away from the Titans for a bit and reveals SC's offensive secrets. So unless any of those circumstances happen ( hoping to god it doesn't), SC will probably be in the title game, and I'll be there cheering them on.
Oh regan..
you know what, the media has hyped up SC, but that's because SC can back up that hype. Obviously the voting coaches in college football thinks otherwise, making them seemingly legitimate, unless your telling me that they are buying to the hype. Because if the peers in college football, all pretty much agree on who is the number 1 team is except for two. And you say they are just going by the hype, then they should have no right voting and they should not be coaches, cause they don't know what they are talking about. And you, me, or anyone in this blog are just idiots, because if college coaches don't know what a number 1 team in college football should be, then you have no right to your opinion, because I'm pretty sure they know more about college football than you, me or anybody in here, and why they get paid the big bucks, and we're all just here complaining why this team is #1 and not this one.
I could care less for the AP, or Harris Poll, all I care about is the Coaches poll, and if they all agree except for probably, mack brown, and or frank beamer, that SC is #1, then SC is #1
and all the non-SC fans in the world can kiss my a-s-s.FIGHT ON, MEN of TROY
deo in sin city said:
posted on October 4, 2005 6:06 AM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
oh by the way,
a team has to be a patriot-type caliber team to beat SC, to make my blahh, blaah, blahh, blog short and sweet, and do you guys see anyone like that on college football right now, nope don't think so, and so does the sixty+ coaches who voted SC #1. so stop crying, to all you non-SC fans, your day will come, just not anytime soon.
oh, herbstreit probably has more football knowledge in his pinky than any of us put together. If Texas was #1 or Virginia Tech, and he said either one will be the BCS champ, is it just media hype, wait,..... think about it for a minute,........ you done thinking......, good,........ didn't think so. So I'm pretty sure I know where Herbstreit is coming from. So save the hate for your enemies or your teams enemies, and don't say the media don't know what they are talking about. They also get paid the big bucks and we don't.
FIGHT ON MEN of TROYRegan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 1:35 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Trouty:
You're right, it was 34; sorry I got the number wrong.As far as VT goes, the Trojans had some trouble with them last year, don't forget. Besides, the Pac-10 isn't much more tough a conference than the Big East used to be...
Regan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 2:08 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
J-bo:
If you say so. More easily containable backs have succeeded less in other offenses. Bush is highly talented, and is a break-out threat. The running game is the heart and soul of any offense. For Bush to give way to the next back, the edge would be lost. Also given the fact that the #2 RB would have to play four full quarters splitting time with the #3 back?Such an effect would make the Trojan's future opponents zone in and force them to carry the game on Leinart and the passing game. One-dimensional offenses (no matter how good) will net you losses down the road.
Not everyone would beat the Trojans, but my bet is that they will take a couple of hits, especially seeing as how their offense is the strength of the team.
Regan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 2:22 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Deo in sin city:
>>you know what, the media has hyped up SC, but that's because SC can back up that hype.
I do not disagree. Southern California is the best team in college football right now. They have the most talent and won it all last year.
These facts are not in dispute. My issue was that not all of us really care.
I'd like to just follow the game and the sites, and not have it thrown in my face ever so constantly that my enjoyment of the season is lessened.
With OU's "hype" in '03, Miami and FSU, I could still enjoy college football. FSU wasn't called "the Best Team of All-Time" in the '90's despite their run.
My point is, Trojan fans, the hype IS bad to those of us who don't care. I respect your team, but let those east of Orange County enjoy our teams' success too....
J-Bo said:
posted on October 5, 2005 11:13 AM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
Regan:
In SC's case, the number three back was one of their leading rushers in 2003 (has been in the doghouse ever sense), so depth would not be an issue.
Agree that losing a player like Bush wouldn't further their cause, as his "home run" potential on any play dictates certain constraints on the oppostion's defensive coordinator....this is in part mitigated by the fact that, in order to keep Bush happy, the SC offensive staff has made a concerted effort to make him the focus of play-calling, sometimes at the expense of what is best for the team.
The best current illustration of my point that I can refer to is the Denver Broncos - their rushing attack hasn't noticeably suffered during the past decade, even when losing a player of Terrell Davis' caliber (Davis, Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell, Quentin Griffin, Olandis Gary have all similarly prospered in their system, and points out that it is the system - ie the up-front blocking - that is key, not the player).
In the Pac-10's modern history, this phenomena has been evidenced at Washington (Mark Brunell won the Rose Bowl MVP, was seriously injured, and Billy Joe Hobert was installed and led the Huskies to a share of the national championship). At UCLA, in the '80s, Eric Ball, another Rose Bowl MVP, was injured and they plugged in Gaston Green. Somewhat analagously, USC substituted Mark Leinart upon Carson Palmer's graduation, and actually improved their W-L.
Again, though, your point is well taken that Bush is a unique talent, one possessing the ability to manipulate and stretch the defense, which is precisely what their attack is actually geared to do, so that the receivers can exploit gaps in zone coverages.
Herkthejerk said:
posted on October 12, 2005 5:02 AM — 71.37.6.216 — link — abuse?
USC, being the New York Yankees of D-1 football are not a team worth rooting for, empty stands at home games, pretty boy quarterbacks playing with celebrities. A lovely campus right in LA's beautiful south central neighborhoods. Being an SC fan is like going to a casino and rooting for the house!
J-bo said:
posted on October 12, 2005 1:18 PM — 144.243.4.2 — link — abuse?
Have you actually ever visited USC's campus, or are you appraising it based on television coverage of their games? You must be thinking of UCLA. And the Coliseum has had very few empty seats in recent times (although, admittedly, that has been the case in the past....but when your stadium seats over 90,000, and there are so many other diversions, it's not quite the same as Penn State or Auburn selling out every week).
By the way: USC 49 ND 27
Fight on!
Tommy Trojan said:
posted on October 18, 2005 10:56 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
I can't understand all the bickering over who is good and who is not. The SEC is a great conference - no doubt. But, with all of the good teams, the talent pool gets too evenly distributed, leaving few really great teams. That happens all over college football. USC has the advantage of being the only truly elite football factory out on the west coast - therefore, getting most of the great talent. The SEC gets alot of stud defensive players. The PAC10 gets just about every great Pro-Style quarterback. The next great one hails from Louisiana - John David Booty. Top player in his class coming out of high school. Much higher rated that Matt was. There are great football programs at the high school level in California. USC gets alot of those kids.
Oklahoma should have never been in that game against LSU. Everyone knows that. Oklahoma got mauled by Kansas State and still made the game? Come on? USC showed everybody what Oklahoma was all about the following year. Nobody over here disputed that LSU deserved half of that title did - because they did. It wasn't their fault that USC was robbed of that game. The fact is that both LSU and USC pounded Oklahoma and deserved those championships. USC pounded Michigan in 03' and deserved half the championship also - as the coaches tried to right the wrong that was done in letting Oklahoma play for the championship. USC has beaten Auburn in both 02' and 03'. Virginia Tech went down in 04'. I'm sure that the Trojans would play any team that wanted a game. USC had an open date this year and wanted Auburn again. They would have none of it and Fresno State filled the slot.
Notre Dame just showed that the Trojans can be beat - but, you still have to play sixty minutes to do it. Until somebody can do it - USC deserves to stay number ONE. We look forward to TEXAS.Tommy Trojan
Gerald said:
posted on October 20, 2005 3:14 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommy Trojan:
Looks like there is a lot of propaganda going on concerning USC - Auburn. A lot of USC fans claim that USC wanted Auburn for their open date, but Auburn declined so USC scheduled Fresno instead. The problem with that story: the game with Fresno is November 19, when Auburn plays Alabama. Also, please. Auburn lost FB Ronnie Brown, RB Cadillac Williams, and QB Jason Campbell to #1 picks in the NFL draft where USC still has Leinart, Bush, and White. You guys would have been playing an Auburn team that will very likely have 4 losses (to Ga Tech, UGA, Alabama, and LSU), not the 13 - 0 team from last year. And before you say that you guys beat the same players that were on the 13 - 0 team from last year in 2002 and 2003, the same players yes, but not the same coaches. Just like USC was 6 - 6 and lost to some mid - major team in a bowl game that should not have even been played the year before they hired Norm Chow and went 10 - 2, Auburn hired Al Borges. (Actually, where USC was marginal before Chow, Auburn was halfway decent, beating major college teams in bowl games, before Borges). I still think that Auburn should have shared the title with USC last year because Auburn played more teams that finished ranked in the top 15 in LSU, UGA, Tennessee, and Virginia Tech. USC meanwhile played Cal, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. Games against top 15 teams is a lot more meaningful indication of schedule strength than is "you guys played a I - AA team!"
Chris said:
posted on October 25, 2005 7:43 AM — 12.27.205.69 — link — abuse?
I certainly don't agree with the statment that USC is ruining college football. They are a good team however all the media attention they get is becoming very annoying. Texas, VA. Tech, Georgia, and Alabama all play at teh same level as SoCal but they don't get half the recognition. I see that all the media attention has not swayed the BCS's computer ratings wich knocked the Trojans from the top spot this week.
SoCal will fall this year. All they have to do is run into a team with a strong defence and a decent offence. We all have seen that SC can't stop even the weakest teams from scoring on them. If they don't fall to UCLA in the last season game they will most definatly lose to Texas in the championship.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 25, 2005 11:34 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
You people kill me! The Big 12 is the sorriest conference of all! Who does Texas play - one dimensional Texas Tech? Who are they? Overrated by far! Nebraska? Oklahoma? I'll tell you what: same thing I said last year when Oklahoma got destroyed last year. Texas has seen nothing like USC. The weak schedule that they play will be their downfall. They look real good playing against slower teams. When they play that speed - they will lose. You cannot run on USC! So, that part of their game will be gone. Young will get picked off about three times. USC plays against great offenses all trying to catch up. They pass constantly. Gee, wonder why they give up so many yards? USC scores a touchdown every 15 seconds. Gee, wonder if the defense ever gets tired? It won't matter. Texas will not stop USC from scoring in that game - and, USC will get some stops. Reggie Bush is faster than anything Texas has ever seen and they'll never catch him. He is still faster than anyone out there. He'll still score three TD's. When the NFL draft happens: Leinart will be drafted ahead of Young. Gee, wonder why? You'll all find out in the Rose Bowl. Texas is an upstart at best - USC has been winning BIG GAMES for four years now. You don't go 40-1 without winning alot of huge games - including all bowl games. Iowa, Michigan and Oklahoma have all been destroyed in the last three major bowls. Texas is next! In fact, I'd be surprised if Young doesn't get killed out there. If he thinks he's gonna run around out there - he's gonna get smacked real hard by somebody. Prediction: USC 45 Texas 17. By the way: the oddsmakers have already installed USC as about a six point favorite - despite what the silly computer says. We all know Mack Brown likes to roll up the score. Well, he's gonna get what's coming to him.
Tommie Trojan
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 25, 2005 1:29 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Oh, I am so impressed that Texas was finally was able to beat Oklahoma. All that had to happen was for Oklahoma to lose about thirteen players to the NFL draft including the QB, all the WR's and the whole offensive line and Dan Cody. Wow! How special is it to beat somebody with a freshman QB, a whole new offensive line, and the top RB (Adrian Peterson) totally banged up.
Let's not forget what USC did to that first string that Texas could not handle! I think it was 55-19 if I'm not mistaken. Texas even lost Cedric Benson and people think they are a better team? Come again? How did they improve? Got a little older? Well, so did USC. People don't understand. All the great recruiting classes for the last four years are loaded with defensive players. USC will be the next great defense! And, it might even happen before the Rose Bowl. I think your gonna see the three freshman (HS all-americans) at cornerback soon. That will end everybody's passing game. The front four has been rock solid lately (USC doesn't have to blitz much) and all the injured DE's and linebackers are getting healthy. The D-line was supposed to be the weakness. It's the strength. Two starting corners were lost. They are slowly being replaced by the three freshman. The linebackers are monsters - and all are coming back. I'm sorry, you're all gonna get to watch Troy totally shut down the pathetic Longhorn team. These guys haven't played anyone. I honestly think that Virginia Tech would be the harder game - as the defense there does look stout. There is a great secret that I can't let any of you in on, that don't already know, because it would be the wrong thing to say. But, there is a reason that Matt Leinart will be the top pick and that neither Young or Vick will be. When the pressure is really on - happy feet does not win games! Happy feet gets hurt more often than not. Happy feet makes mistakes. They have big guys to protect the QB - there is a reason for that. USC's defensive ends are gonna be chasing whichever one of these guys that lives that long - all over the field. And they better be paying attention or else Lua, Rivers and Ware will decapitate them. This is gonna be the funniest National Championship game yet. My hat is off to the coach at Notre Dame (Charlie Weis) - that guy really is incredible. Too bad Texas and Virginia Tech won't have him as their coach. This is how it gets real ugly.Tommie Trojan
Happy Valley Fan said:
posted on October 28, 2005 12:59 PM — 65.115.141.154 — link — abuse?
I understand that everyone is probably frustrated, bent and tormented that USC did not go down to Notre Dame. A friend of mine told me with a serious opinion of his own that if USC was in the SEC or ACC, they would not be as good as their record. 1) It's not USC's fault that they are good and happen to be located in Southern Cal. 2) I'm not saying that USC would run the table in the conferences I mentioned above, but let's get over ourselves. USC has proven to the nation that they can go into a hostile environment such as South Bend and still win. I'm not saying that I'm a Trojan fan, but I watched that game and yes, Notre Dame took USC to the absolute limit and had them on the ropes; however, when the dust settled, USC found a way to leave South Bend with a victory over Notre Dame. Despite the ball control and brilliant clock management Notre Dame executed, USC still FOUND A WAY TO WIN. Good teams, find a way. Don't hate USC just because they win and are still ranked number one; hate the system and the fact that there are more than 110 Division 1A college football programs. It's all apples and oranges people. And I'm sure no one on this fanblog site has the best solution possible to determine a true national champion. Right now, it is what it is and according to the press and THE FOOTBALL COACHES, USC is NO. #1....until they go down,...and so far no team outside of the PAC-10 has proven that yet. USC is GOOD, get over it.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 1, 2005 5:42 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
In defense of the defense: just a little snippit for those who might need to re-evaluate (I get tired of hearing about Texas' vaunted defense).
Texas has had eight opponents (if you want to include LA-Lafayette) who have averaged 30.0 points and 397.6 yards per game (games against other opponents). Texas has held these teams to the tune of 18.0 points and 307.3 yards per game. That's 12.0 less points and 90.3 less yardage than those teams would roll up had they not been playing against Texas. Pretty impressive really - and against fairly good offenses.
Now, let's consider USC. They're opponents had been averaging 31.8 points and 451.9 yards per game. Now, clearly, these are better offenses that the Trojans have had to deal with. And yet, they have held them to 20.5 points and 337.8 yards per game! That is 11.3 points less per game and 114.1 less yardage per game than these teams would normally average.
Clearly, USC is harder to move the ball on. Obviously, Texas does indeed have a very talented defense. But, I hope nobody gets misled into thinking that it will be the Texas defense that saves the day - as it may very well be the USC defense that shuts down Texas.Tommie Trojan
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 1, 2005 9:56 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Here are some more fun facts! The Pac-10 is always the most underrated conference. It has been historically almost impossible to get through a Pac-10 schedule unscathed. Even some of the greatest USC teams might have a record of like 10-1-1 and still win a National Championship. It has been very tough to get through without a blemish. Therefore, few marquee Bowl games after the advent of the BCS system. It has a tendancy to reward teams that play a weak schedule and punish those who do not. Therefore, SEC and Big 12 schools love to schedule division II teams to fill out their schedules. Less chance of taking a loss that way.
I am going to list the Bowl results for the last 27 years or so, that PAC-10 teams have been involved in, using only the five major bowls (Rose,Orange,Cotton,Sugar and Fiesta). I will also include the "old format" of Big-10 vs Pac-10 teams.
First off, between 1966 and 2001, the Pac-10 managed to win 23 of 36 Rose Bowl games against the very best that the Big-10 or Big-12 had to offer (many times an unbeaten un-tied team). Interestingly, the Sugar Bowl has never allowed for a PAC-10 team to participate in modern times. Wonder what that is all about?Rose Bowl Results (under BCS):
2004 USC 28 Michigan 14
2003 Oklahoma 34 Washington State 14Cotton Bowl Results:
1998 UCLA 29 Texas A&M 23
1996 Colorado 38 Oregon 6
1995 USC 55 Texas Tech 14
1989 UCLA 17 Arkansas 3
PAC-10 (3-1) Average score: 26.8-19.5
Note: PAC-10 not invited back.Fiesta Bowl Results:
2002 Oregon 38 Colorado 16
2001 Oregon State 41 Notre Dame 9
1994 Arizona 29 Miami(Fla.) 0
1985 UCLA 39 Miami(Fla.) 37
1983 Arizona State 32 Oklahoma 21
1982 Penn State 26 USC 10
1979 Pittsburgh 16 Arizona 10
1978 UCLA 10 Arkansas 10
PAC-10 (5-2-1) Average score: 26.1-16.9
Note: even the great Miami(Fla.) teams go down!Orange Bowl Results:
2005 USC 55 Oklahoma 19
2003 USC 38 Iowa 17
1985 Washington 28 Oklahoma 17
PAC-10 (3-0) Average score: 40.3-17.7
Note: What can you even say?I mentioned that the PAC-10 had won 23 of the 36 Rose Bowl games played against Big-10 competition. In addition, against all other teams in the other major bowls, the PAC-10 sported a 12-4-1 record. The average score of those games was typically not even close, 28.2-18.5 per game.
The great point is: that the PAC-10 is probably the strongest conference, and when one of it's teams does make it into a marquee Bowl game, it will more than likely stomp the opposing team. Clearly, this has been going on for a long time. And, it will happen again this year. SEC fans are just lucky that they have not had the misfortune of having had to play a PAC-10 school in a major bowl game. If they don't like it - they should put pressure on their Sugar Bowl representatives to invite a PAC-10 school to participate in one of their Sugar Bowl matchups. I'm sure that any PAC-10 school will show up!Tommie Trojan
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 2, 2005 6:10 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
Bunch of BS - and you know it. USC had a bye week earlier in the year and Auburn was clear to play on that day. They just didn't want the game. Fresno only had an open date later in the year - hence, the late non-conference game. And all the crap about losing Williams, Brown and Campbell - so what? Does that mean Auburn doesn't have to play anyone until they get better? What a joke! SC replaced Palmer with Leinart and kept right on going. Leinart will be replaced by Booty and Booty by Sanchez ..... blah, blah, blah! Mike Williams and Keary Colbert were replaced by Steve Smith and Dwayne Jarrett. Justin Fargas was replaced by Reggie Bush. Troy Polamalu was replaced by Darnell Bing. Do you get it? What kinda program are you girls runnin' down south? If you can't recruit - get off the field or go back to Division II or whatever you got to do in order to be competitive. Yeh, just keep scheduling games against Lamar and LA-Monroe and North Texas State. Wow!
You SEC peeps are some sorry *** fans! I wish SC could play some of your sorry schools. I'll make you a bold prediction. And, this is what you better watch out for: Ed Orgeron (ex-USC defensive coach) at Mississippi is gonna kick the crap out of all your pathetic teams within just a few years! Mark it down! I notice that USC isn't even recruiting Mississippi as a favor to one of their favorite sons. I'm sure he picked the SEC as it would be one of the easiest conferences to make an impact in. He also coached at Miami - so, I figure that has to be the angle. Anyway, I predict, that Mississippi will blow all of the SEC teams away shortly. And, then and only then, will an SEC team be brave enough to schedule USC for a home and home.Tommie Trojan
William Rainey said:
posted on November 7, 2005 1:49 AM — 68.47.135.89 — link — abuse?
Tommie, in case you haven't noticed, Arkansas is in the middle of a home and home with SC and just finished a similiar agreement with Texas.
With luck Ole Miss will be good in ten years. The only reason they are on the map at all is Eli Manning, look at their record since he left.
You are right, losing great players is no excuse for anybody, but it is a lot harder to recruit when you have to fight ten of the richest and most tradition laden football programs(Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Miami, FSU, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn) for the same talent. It is a lot easier for SC to keep California players in house while fighting UCLA and the rest of the PAC-10. Speaking of which, look at what Mike Stoops just did to the Bruins. Besides USC won't be the same without Bush.
tim seale said:
posted on November 7, 2005 11:05 AM — 65.197.19.246 — link — abuse?
Hey Tommie, It's so easy to cut down the SEC, when you know that USC will never actually have to play the SEC champ for the title. They have won two national titles ( really only one ) by escaping a showdown with the best the SEC has to offer. Looks like this year will be the same. Thank God for the Big 12, right.As for tough conferences to play in, in the past ten years, the SEC has had three different teams win national titles.( Florida, Tennessee, LSU ) could have been four if Auburn had been permitted to play last year. When you have to play in a conference like that, year in and year out,it 's not so easy. That is what a real tough conference is like. That's why the SEC deserves your respect.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 8, 2005 11:26 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
The SEC does get my respect. There isn't any question that top to bottom - they are the strongest conference historically. I have already stated that USC gets all of the cream out west - while SEC teams all have to recruit against each other - and Miami and Florida State!. That creates no really greatly talented teams. Alot of good teams, yes! Great, no! Bravo to Arkansas then. I don't believe that 2005 has been a very good year for the SEC. These things are cyclical. Most years the SEC is right near the top. Sometimes, it has been the BIG 12. The ACC might just be the best conference this year.
I just get tired of everyone down south making idiotic excuses for why they are not on top. For instance - they would claim that LSU got robbed when they had to split the NC. Well, USC is who really got robbed. Oklahoma gets drilled by Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship - and then gets to go on and get hammered by LSU? The BCS blows and everyone knows it. Auburn got robbed last year and USC proved once again - that Oklahoma had no business being in that game. You want to blame someone - blame the BCS people who seemed to be enamored with Big 12 schools. I like Miami this year and always have. USC is going to slaughter Texas, but, Miami would give them a much better game (similar to what Notre Dame was able to do). Miami showed you just what to do with Marcus Vick and USC will do the same thing to Vince Young. I have already stated these things. A one dimensional team cannot deal with a balanced team with talent all over the field. There is no question that SEC teams have that kinda talent all over the field. The truth is: they do not have the kind of quarterbacks that we have in the PAC 10. And, if you aren't able to just run over the top of USC - you are gonna be in big trouble if you can't throw the dayum thang. That is what Notre Dame was able to do. With Quinn and the two big receivers and great TE - they were able to play Pac 10 football with USC and almost pulled it off! Unless, there is a team in the SEC with those kinda QB's (and I don't see any and don't tell me about Alabama's QB) - then there would be no chance for any of those teams to have any chance against USC. That is reality people.
USC will eventually lose. Probably next year if Bush, White and Leinart all go pro. Same thing that happened with Auburn. Notre Dame could kick the crap out of them if Quinn stays in school. Miami will be really good next year. USC will be good next year - but they will struggle more than they have lately. I like the QB at Auburn - he looks like he could become a stud. If he improves - then Auburn might be right back in the mix next year. Perriloux at LSU will probably end up being a stud in two years. But, like I said: the SEC has great talent all over the field - but until they recruit some really great QB's they'll never get to the top.
Now, as to losing Bush or White or Leinart. It's not gonna matter all that much. Booty is ready to take over. Has a 157% passer rating with two years behind him - and that's playing with the second string. He'll be playing with the top receivers in the country next year. The top five runners in high school are all lining up to come to SC next year. We'll probably land at least three of em'. Two are right here in LA. The best junior runner in the country (the next Reggie Bush) - is right here in LA. And, even if not one of these guys shows up: Dennis, Washington, Reed and Coleman will all be back for sure. What? You think that just because USC might lose the two best runners in college football that there might not be a couple of pretty good players on the bench? Washington was regarded as just as good if not better than White. The cupboard is not bare people. Oh, and just about the whole offensive line will be back - and the second string will be better than this group. Yeh, they might lose to Notre Dame next year - but, they will still end up 12-1 at the very minimum.Tommie Trojan
Dan said:
posted on November 14, 2005 12:37 PM — 129.1.253.50 — link — abuse?
You know, we can all talk **** about how USC is not the best team, but if they do win the championship, they will be noted as one of the best teams in College football history. Their offense is one of the best ever at this moment, and I have to say blowing out teams left and right doesnt always show how good a team is. Many great teams have had very close games with teams that are mediocre. What makes a real good team is a team that knows how to win (it doesnt matter if they win 40 straight games and have had 10 of them within 5 points) they still are undefeated and are the champions. Right now, Texas is regarded as #1 to many fans. Me, I'm not a Texas fan in any sort, and its definitely going to be USC vs Texas for the championship. They are the two best teams in College Football. I think the reason Texas is regarded as #1 to the fans is because they have scored and blew out their opponents in these last few weeks better than USC. Honestly, that doesnt account for ****.
Me, I still put USC as #1, and Texas as #2, and that won't change until Texas beats USC.
And if USC took on Miami, USC would win in my opinion.I think if their was a four-way for the championship, where the #1 took on the #4, and the #2 and #3 ranked teams took on eachother, that many wouldn't "hate" the BCS. This would truly show which is the #1 team, then again, there will always be someone complaining that their team isn't ranked far enough.. blah blah blah.. get over it. If your team is #5 in both polls and in the BCS, just live with it, ****.
Mark Anderson said:
posted on November 14, 2005 5:44 PM — 216.38.183.231 — link — abuse?
This SEC/PAC10 debate is tiresome. These are the 6 schools that have the most players in the NFL, Florida,Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Tennessee. Does that mean anything? Only
somewhat, Texas A&M comes in at number 7, talk
about underachieving. USC comes in at number 12. I guess it must be the coaching that makes them
so great. The Miami players that are in the NFL
become stars of the NFL(look what Portis and Moss
have done for Washington. It's just too bad Miami can't play
USC this year, it would be a very good game but
I believe that Miami has more balance and better
athletes overall and would win. However having
said that, USC has more experience and Coker
has kept his offense pretty close to the vest.
The problem with the whole system is that to
play for the national championship you almost
have to be undefeated and most undefeated
teams will come from a conference
that is having a down year.Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 14, 2005 6:33 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
There just isn't any way out of the debate. I like Dan's ideas - but, they simply won't work out. If you took USC,Texas,Miami and Penn State and let them play off - then LSU,Alabama,Virginia Tech,TCU,West Virginia,Oregon and any other team that finished with only one loss would have a legitimate gripe. There won't be that many teams left undefeated in any year - but, there will always be several one loss teams. So, the current system is preferable to the four team playoff situation. The only other solution would be to playoff every team with one loss or less. Maybe they could eliminate these ridiculous conference playoffs and go to this kind of playoff system. Where do you draw the line? Oregon has only lost one game to #1 USC. Does that mean that they should be invited to the four team playoff? If not - they certainly might have a complaint. I like the human polls more than the computer polls. The computer simply cannot figure out when a team pulls its starters, wins despite injuries, and wins games under very adverse conditions. Georgia lost one game while the starting QB was out. Did the computer factor that in? Oregon has won despite losing it starting QB. Do you think the computer takes that in? Fact is: computer takes into account nothing but final game statistics and can't even properly analyse those numbers. The human element is always more knowing than any computer ever will be. I think between all of the polls - they have always come pretty close to figuring out who might be the best two teams at the end of any year. The third team maybe should have just played a little bit better in some situations. Although, I do think that there does exist a bias against any team that loses even one game. And, I don't necessarily beleive that a one loss team is not worthy of a National Championship shot. I have never thought that just because you did not lose a game (against zero competition) you were worthy of that shot. We have seen this in the Big 12 for three years in a row now. Big 12 team goes out and wallops eleven other pathetic teams in their league and gets invited to the "Big Dance". Sad thing is: Big 12 team is not ready to play a good team (as they haven't played even one all year) - and get destroyed by whatever good team they play. But, a good team like Miami will not even get a sniff at that game - because they lost the 1st game with a new starting QB. I would put Miami of Penn State in that game a long time before I would throw Texas out there. They are just going to be humiliated. New poll just out: 51% of all morons out there think that Texas will beat USC. Looks like all the same idiots who elect a representative to make changes - and then defeat all of his proposals for change because it might have an adverse affect on them. They have never figured out that it is them that needs to be changed. Oh well, that is another sad story.
Tommie Trojan
Gerald said:
posted on November 14, 2005 6:56 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Mark Anderson:
"The problem with the whole system is that to
play for the national championship you almost
have to be undefeated and most undefeated
teams will come from a conference
that is having a down year."Not true! When Nebraska won national titles in 1994, 1995, and 1997, the Big 8/Big 12 had some very good Kansas (Minnesota's Glen Mason was coach, and back then his teams could play defense), Kansas State, Texas, Texas A&M, and Colorado teams, plus some decent Missouri, Iowa State, and Texas Tech teams.
Also, Auburn went 13 - 0 last year and the SEC most definitely was not down! UGA and Tennessee both won 10 games, LSU won 9, Florida won 8, and Alabama won 6. (Yes, Auburn played and beat them all). While that is not up to the standard that the SEC has set the last few years, it is much better than the SEC that Steve Spurrier dominated. It is also much better than the 8 - 4 "conference champions" that the Big 10, Big East, and (yes) PAC - 10 have produced in several of the last 10 years, and better than the ACC when FSU lost like 2 conference games in 10 years (one on a questionable goal line call, another due to an injury to their star QB). What is a "down year" for the SEC is a great year for most other conferences in most years. And if you think that is being a homer, check the NFL talent list again!
Gerald said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:27 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
Why on earth would you equate Marcus Vick with Vince Young? Because they are both black running QBs? That is all they have in common! Please. Let me compare Vick and Young for who are unaware. One is 5 inches shorter, much weaker, slower, has a lesser arm, has only 9 starts after spending a year suspended from football and doing nothing before then, has lesser players around him, plays in an offense that doesn't fully utilize his skills, his biggest victory was over West Virginia in a game that he didn't even play well, and if not for his much better brother you wouldn't know who he is. The other is the guy that USC will be playing for the national title on the same field that he single - handedly won a BCS bowl game last year. Or to put it in terms that maybe you can understand, the difference between Matt Leinart, a #1 overall draft pick, and Aaron Rodgers, a guy who was lucky to go in the first round. And even that isn't fair to Rodgers (or to Young or Leinart), because Rodgers started almost two entire seasons (and was a JUCO star before then), played great in big games (not counting Texas Tech), and played in an offensive system as good as or better than Leinart's (give Tedford Carroll's players and Carroll Tedford's and see who'd win)!
And even if there was some possible way to equate Vick with Young, USC's defense with Miami's is CERTAINLY no comparison! Since Miami doesn't play in the hated SEC, you can't get away with attributing their great defense to playing bad offenses. Never mind that SEC defensive players tend to do better than PAC - 10 ones in the NFL, and as a matter of fact so do the offensive ones ... compare Carnell Williams and Ronnie Brown to J. J. Arrington! And with all the hype over Carson Palmer, folks forget that the last good PAC - 10 QB before him was MAYBE Drew Bledsoe. Sure, the SEC hasn't produced any good NFL QBs outside the Manning family in that time (although they do count!), but as you yourself said, we are not the QB conference! Then again, I am not so sure that we are not the QB conference after all, because the guy who broke Manning's record for career wins ... UGA's David Greene. And David Greene wasn't even the best QB in the SEC during his career. His junior year he was outplayed by national champ Matt Mauck, his senior year he was outplayed by national champ should have been (and first round draft pick) Jason Campbell, and Matt Jones (also a #1 draft pick) was the best of them all! Furthermore, former Parade All - American D.J. Shockley will have a better NFL career than college one, as he spent most of it on the bench behind Greene. Had Shockley gone to, say, Oregon State, he would be a 4 year starter Heisman candiddate (remember oh so hyped OSU star Derek Anderson? So bad he was cut in training camp; couldn't even beat out Kyle Boller, another PAC - 10 bust, who has since given way to Anthony Wright, and undrafted SEC QB.)
And go ahead ... knock the SEC QB play when virtually every QB in the conference is a an underclassmen first year starter! When you lose guys like Matt Jones, David Greene, and Jason Campbell - all 4 year starters - in one year after losing Matt Mauck (who had another year left and should have kept it), Jared Lorenzen (another 4 year starter, now with the Giants), Casey Clausen (4 year starter on a practice squad somewhere) and #1 overall draft pick Eli Manning the previous year, that happens. It also happens when you lose a bunch of 1,000 yard rushers like Joseph Addai (LSU, injury), Cedric Houston (Tennessee, Jets), Carnell Williams, and Ronnie Brown. How is the PAC - 10 going to look next year without Kellen Clemens, Matt Leinart, Matt Moore, and that Olsen kid at UCLA? And without Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Jerome Harrison, and possibly Maurice Drew? Probably the same way that Cal looks without Rodgers. Now what was it that the West Coast media called Ayoob before the season started? Ah yes, "the white Michael Vick." Come to think of it, maybe that is why you folks think that there is no difference between Vince Young and Marcus Vick. It has nothing to do with race ... you all just don't know anything about QBs! (How else can you explain Oregon State playing Derek Anderson for 4 years and then playing Matt Moore, or UCLA choosing Corey Paus over J. P. Losman, and Washington playing Casey Paus? And then there were the frauds that Cade McNown, Rob Johnson, and Chad Hutchison perpetrated on the world in the 1990s! PAC - 10 great quarterbacks my foot!)
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 16, 2005 9:44 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Gerald,Gerald,Gerald:
Calm down son! Nobody ever said that there weren't good QB's in the SEC. Of course there has been. Let me make one thing clear: all of my future and past statements refer to "college programs" or "college systems". I am not refering at all to what some dude goes on and does in the pros. That does not count when it comes to evaluating good or great college "teams". Many great college players have gone and flopped in the pros. Many obscure college players have become stars in the pros. I am not talking about anything that may happen in the pros. I will promise you that USC will put many more people in the pros over the next few years than any other team. Will that sway you then? It shouldn't if Texas were to go and beat them! It's about what happens on the college field that we are talking about. Look at all the great Florida, Miami and Florida State QB's that failed in the pros. Does that mean those weren't great college players? Of course not! They were indeed great players. Some pro systems are just horrible. They make the greatest players look bad. Was David Carr really that bad? Most scouts didn't think so! But, Houston really is bad. Peyton Manning would look like Cody Pickett if he had to play for Houston. So, who cares what happens in the pros. Fact is: a very small percentage of great college players go on to become great pro players. It is the "system" that they play under in college which enables them to become great college players. My discussions are limited to that.
Vince Young will not be in the same "system" on the pro level. He will not be running for 280 yards a game at the pro level. It is the "system" that he plays under which affords for him to be "the star". Further more, I predict that USC will switch to a 3-4 defense for that game and limit his mobility to the outside. The tremendously fast outside linebackers and defensive ends at SC' will contain Young and force him to throw the ball. I put Young into the catagory as a "running QB" as I do Vick. It's their running ability that opens up their passing game. When they can't run the ball, which is their strength, they will be forced to stay in the pocket (where they can be caught). USC is about #2 in the country in picks. That's their game. Pressure the QB into making mistakes. I'm only saying that Mr. Young is going to have more pressure on him than he has ever seen in his life. If he can handle that kind of pressure - then, maybe he will go on to become a very good NFL QB. That is what separates the men from the boys at the NFL level. It's the amount of pressure coming at you that makes you have to speed up your decision making process. If you can't handle it - then you make lots of mistakes. I just think that Young has had way too easy of a time for what is going to be happening to him on that great day. If he can adjust: great! If not - it's going to be a very bad day for Texas. They may really get blown out! I have seen way too many of the "running QB's" panic when things start to not be "easy" anymore. When you have to throw the ball, and they know you have to, you just better be able to do it anyway. That is the trick. I'm betting everything I have that Vince Young will not be able to throw the ball like he's Peyton Manning against USC. And, if he can't, Texas will get stomped all over the field. If you don't like what I am saying, wait until game day, and you'll get to see it all unfold before your very eyes.Tommie Trojan
Gerald said:
posted on November 16, 2005 11:35 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
First off, there are FAR TOO MANY good SEC tailbacks and linebackers in the pros AND a conspicuous lack of good PAC - 10 ones to make the claim that there is no correlation. Conversely, there are far more PAC - 10 QBs in the NFL than there are SEC QBs. So there is a correlation there too. The SEC's clear advantage in tailbacks and linebackers (as well as wide receivers, defensive backs, and linemen on both side of the ball) indicates that there is a clear talent advantage in the SEC because SEC schools emphasize recruiting, strength and conditioning, and being excellent on both sides of the ball. The PAC - 10's clear advantage in quarterbacks indicates that the PAC - 10 emphasizes the passing game. Now, because of Pete Carroll, Jeff Tedford, Mike Stoops, and I would even argue Walt Harris and possibly even Karl Dorrell (who at least TALKS about recruiting well and defense, and his teams have played better in the second half than the first this year indicating that they are well - conditioned, Dorrell probably learned about the importance of conditioning from Shanahan with his stint from the Broncos because we know that he did not learn it from Rick Neuheisel or Bob Toledo), that is going to change, as those guys are going to force the rest of the PAC - 10 to pay more attention to recruiting, strength and conditioning, and defense. So no longer will the PAC - 10 be represented by an 8 - 4 conference champion like Oregon in 1994 and Stanford in 1997. (Which means that Tyrone Willingham will NOT succeed at Washington and Dirk Koetter will NOT succeed at Arizona State!) Welcome to the party of REAL FOOTBALL PAC - 10!
By the same token, the SEC has had an influx of quality head coaches and coordinators on the offensive side of the ball. Every team in the SEC is now running either a pro - style offense or the spread. Most of the head coaches or coordinators either have NFL backgrounds or PAC - 10 ones (including Al Borges, the guy who turned Auburn from an 8 - 5 program to a contender, a fact which USC fans insist on ignoring). So, the SEC will soon be able to match the PAC - 10's record of producing top quarterbacks.
I actually believe that such will harm the SEC, however, because high school football in the deep south does not produce as many good quarterbacks as high school football on the West Coast. They just don't have the knowledge or tradition, and the vast majority of the high schools in the southeast are these tiny numbers where the head football coach is also the P.E. teacher, math teacher, and assistant principal. Also, where the PAC - 10 schools basically get the best West Coast talent pretty much unchallenged, if you are in the SEC East you have to compete with the ACC and Big East, and if you are in the SEC West you have to compete with the Big 12 and Big 10. The SEC would actually be better off sticking with their run - oriented systems and letting the media criticize them until they show who is REALLY the best in bowl games, like Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and LSU did in beating Miami, FSU, FSU, and Oklahoma. I am just upset that Auburn never got the chance. That national title game should have been between Auburn and USC, and everyone knows it!
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 16, 2005 1:21 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Now that's more like it Gerald:
Good stuff there. Only argument would be that PAC-10 receivers are pretty good, especially this year, and that the top three or four runners in the country are in the PAC-10 this year (Bush,White,Harrison,Lynch).
I respect your take on Auburn and agree. No way that Oklahoma was the second best team last year. USC would never have piled fifty-five on Auburn, last year or this year. I'll bet they put fifty on Texas though! My only complaint was that SC wanted to play them early this year and they would not take the game. Look at them now. I got them pegged as the best in the SEC right now. The defense is stout as always. Irons looks like the next great runner and the QB situation looks pretty solid. I swear that Auburn would beat Texas right now! No doubt. That defense would completely shut Texas out!
If you check out my previous blogs you'll see that I have already talked about most of the things that you have said. I don't think that a good program has to stoop so low as to have to play Division 1-A teams in order to pile up victories. I think that a solid program should have the confidence to beat any team anywhere. I like Fresno State for that reason. They will play anybody, anywhere, anytime. That is why they are a rising power out west. They are rising up to the level of competition that they will have to compete with in order to recruit. Miami and Florida State did a masterful job of this several years ago and became the big time powers that they are today. It wasn't always that way. But, they forced the issue by beating some big time schools. If you want to be the best - play the best!
As for the physical nature of the PAC-10. I agree. USC is for sure dominating on the line of scrimmage. All anybody ever pays attention to is the QB, runners and receivers. And they think that just happens. Pay attention. Leinart is standing back there all day long. Jarrett and Smith have all day to get open. Bush and White are running through gaping holes half the time. The front seven on defense is the same way. Other teams just have to pass continuously in order to even save any kinda face. California could not pass and Lynch was totally shut down. Cal had no chance. Oregon has monstrous lineman. That is a huge team. I don't think the skill people are all that great - but, the linemen are massive. They would surprise alot of teams. They don't look too impressive, but, they just might beat you up.Tommie Trojan
Gerald said:
posted on November 16, 2005 1:47 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
First off, running QBs win national titles all the time. The guy whose record you are trying to beat is Tommie Frazier's! Geesh. The last guy to beat USC before they started their run ... Ell Roberson of Kansas State. You guys couldn't stop him as a runner OR passer, and back then your defense was much better than it is now. And it was Ell Roberson who the next season beat OU in the Big 12 championship game, and it was another running QB, LSU's Matt Mauck, who beat OU for a share of the national title. Vince Young, who will be a high NFL 1st round draft pick AS A QB, is better than Ell Roberson (undrafted) AND Matt Mauck (undrafted) PUT TOGETHER, and even if you throw in the guy who was put a scare into USC last year before that phantom pass interference call (Virginia Tech's Bryan Randall, also undrafted) he is still better.
Second, I defy your claim that Vince Young is not a capable passer even apart from his running ability. He has 2400 passing yards in 10 games, and will certainly surpass 3000 (and 30 TDs) by the time the season is over and perhaps even before the bowl game. If he does, that will put him only 230 yards and 5 TDs behind what Leinart put up in 2003, except that Young doesn't have any receivers in the class of Mike Williams and Keary Colbert (let alone Dwayne Jarrett or Steve Smith).
By comparison, Marcus Vick has 1650 passing yards and 11 TDs. Vick will barely break 2000 passing yards, and he won't get anywhere near 11 TDs. Heck, he may not even get to 15! Yet Vick has only 1 fewer INT than Young and twice as many sacks. No, Marcus Vick just is not in Vince Young's class as a passer. You guys will find that out in the Rose Bowl. You will still win, though, because unlike, say, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Virginia Tech, or a healthy UGA, Texas has no answer for LenDale White. Not saying that all of those teams could BEAT Southern Cal, as they would still have to stop Leinart, Jarrett, and Smith AND score points of their own. But unlike Texas, they do have a defense capable of stopping both a big tailback and an explosive passing attack at the same time. If Texas still had Derrick Johnson, they'd have a great shot, but as it is they can stop either USC's passing game or stop White but not both!
Now Auburn last season had the ability to defend the pass (Carlos Rogers, #9 pick in the draft), defend the run (top 3 in rushing defense) AND put points on the board. They also had a pocket passer who could run a little bit (Campbell, #26 in the draft, and Young will finish with far more passing yards than Campbell). Despite the hype, though, Texas is not as good as Auburn last year even if they are better than OU last year.
Gerald said:
posted on November 22, 2005 5:51 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
I disagree about Auburn beating Texas this year. Look, this Texas team has nothing to do with the failures of past Texas teams and especially the failures of Nebraska and Oklahoma in past championship games.
Mack Brown is at his best coaching the "running the football playing defense" style. That is how he built woeful Tulane into a bowl team and perhaps even worse UNC into a 10 win team. But he listened to the "experts" who told him that the passing game was the way to go. He tried to convert UNC into a passing team and failed. Blaming the talent, he went to Texas where he figured that he could get better talent, but he failed there too (mainly because he could not figure out the difference between a great dedicated college QB in Major Applewhite and a guy basically biding time until his NFL birthright in Chris Simms). And he also refused to fire his totally incompetent defense coordinator!
But finally after years of pressure, he replaced his defensive coordinator with Greg Robinson, who wasn't great but good enough to hold OU to 12 points and get UT to the Rose Bowl. Then Greg Robinson was hired away, and Brown hired an even better one in Chizik!
But the main thing: Brown has a running QB again. Not only that, probably the best pure runner the college game has ever seen. Michael Vick was faster, but not as strong or durable. Tommie Frazier was an pure option QB, not really much of a runner. And Eric Crouch? Totally overrated. Where Eric Crouch was a total NFL bust, Vince Young could be an NFL Pro Bowler at 3 positions (QB, RB, WR) ... 4 if they could find a way to use a 6'5" 220 lber on defense!
So do not be mistaken. Texas is running much more fundamental schemes on both sides of the ball, and Mack Brown finally has a team that fits his coaching. I am picking you guys to win it, but you guys are in for a fight, especially if Brown has the good sense to break down and analyze what has been carrying USC this season ... the deep ball, forcing turnovers, and Reggie Bush. If they kick away from Bush and can knock your WRs off their routes, you guys may be in trouble, especially if Vince Young decides that scrambling is better than throwing red zone picks. Paul Pinegar and Sam Keller did not have that option, but Young does ...
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 22, 2005 11:45 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
You are very knowledgeable and insightful, but, Fresno State just tried all that. Reggie isn't killing the game with kickoff returns. They are handing it to him. Are you watching the games? Fresno shut down the deep ball - as they have outstanding cover people. There wasn't even that much pressure on Matt. USC got the TO's, five of em', with four being picks. Coach Carroll is the one who always finds the weakness. In this case, the outside backers were just a tad slow, and Bush burned em' over and over again. They just could not get there. It was the game plan from the very beginning. LenDale only got seven carries and they never even bothered to try and throw it down the field. It was the first time that I ever saw SC just rely on Bush. Man, nobody will ever stop that guy! And, he got drilled by Fresno. I mean they tagged him hard and he'd just bounce right back up. He was hit.
What I'm saying is that Vince Young is finally gonna get hit also. You may think that SC has no "D" - but, that would be a big mistake. Troy just plays against the best offenses in the country week in and week out. Even Arkansas is #2 in total yardage in the SEC and just runs the crap out of it. They are a decent offense. Texas passing game will be nothing compared to the teams that are out west. They will shut Young down and force him to throw the ball. USC is second in the country in picks - that's the name of the game. This guy will toss four to Bing and Ware just like all the rest of em' do. And, he isn't gonna be running so much cause he's gonna be behind by about 21 after the first quarter. Did Texas really improve so much by losing Cedric Benson and Derrick Johnson? Who replaced them? Charles? Get out of here! What did they beat Michigan by in last years Rose Bowl? One point? Do you realize that Arizona State demolished Northwestern 52-21? And, that Northwestern beat Michigan who beat Penn State who beat Ohio State? So, what if Texas beat Ohio State by three lousy points - who are they? SC would stomp all over any BIG 10 team - always have! So, who has Texas played? Anybody? Texas Tech? Come on! Oklahoma? UCLA destroyed them! Get a clue, Gerald. USC has #1 pinned to their jerseys. Every single week they take somebody's best shot and still come out on top. It's happened 33 times in a row and for 44 of the last 45 games! That's not luck, Gerald. Any good team could be expected to go 9-3. They might lose those three tremendous tussles each year where a good team has a bad game against another good team. The difference is: USC never losses those games and never plays bad enough for even a good team to beat them. And, I'm am not so sold on the idea that Texas is all that. I want to see what they got when they are getting the crap kicked out of them by someone other than Oklahoma State. I can guarantee you that if USC gets them down by twenty points - they aint ever getting back into the game.
I'll give you one thing, Gerald. I am impressed with the way Auburn has come on. Now, that kinda stuff impresses me. And, I look for them to be right back in the game next year. I'm interested in seeing if LSU can beat Arkansas by around fifty-three points. I doubt if they can. In fact, since USC beat Oregon by thirty-two, I would say that if LSU can't win that game by more than twenty-one - then Oregon might just be a little bit better than LSU. Nevertheless, I think that Auburn just might take LSU or Georgia right now. Let's see how LSU handles Arkansas. I think any of the top three SEC teams would give Texas all that they could ever handle.
Your problem, Gerald, is you'll just make anybody your favorite team in hopes of bringin' down USC. Hey, why don't you become a Bruin? You got a week and a half to make UCLA your next National Champion. No, seriously, stick with Auburn going into next year. With Brandon Cox and Irons coming back with many young defensive studs - their gonna be okay. Hey, maybe we'll just roll on in to that one with a forty-seven game winning streak and give you the thrill of your life. Nevertheless, give USC what they've earned (respect) and when it's your team on top we'll all try and do the same for you.Tommie Trojan
J W said:
posted on November 28, 2005 12:50 PM — 209.142.12.122 — link — abuse?
I am a longhorn fan but my money is on USC. I,M sad to say that. Pete Carroll is a far better coach than Mack Brown and USC will be ready for Texas. If Texas played the game of their lives and got some breaks they might have a chance. Short of that their only option would be for God to be a rapid Longhorn fan and for HIM to rain down fire and brimstone on the Trojans as they came out of the tunnel.
jayk said:
posted on January 20, 2006 1:26 PM — 69.168.250.68 — link — abuse?
hahaah i love all yous saying how bad texas is and how usc is gonna demolish them....all you guys do is go by scores....some teams play bad some games you cant just do that...but apparently usc isnt the "best team ever" congrats texas...u relly shut up this board being mostly usc fans by beating them..haha not 1 comment since
Kelley said:
posted on September 13, 2006 8:02 PM — 216.108.220.241 — link — abuse?
In response to the USC fan. They have a great footbal tradition, so does Alabama. The Tide has over 20 SEC Championships and most importantly 12 National Championships, I repeat 12 National Championships! Enough said!
matt said:
posted on September 28, 2006 11:29 PM — 216.64.24.21 — link — abuse?
If the might USC trolls had to play in a real conference year in and year out like The SEC with the the likes of my DAWGS, Auburn, LSU, Bama, Florida and last but certainly not least Tennessee (haha they beat the crap out of that power house out west called Cal what a joke PAC-10 haha. And have to suffer the punishment most of the season. Where they enjoy kickin each other around. Forget finesse and style we play football here like they say its a barbaric sport. This stupid USC board wouldn't even be on here. Then it would be one of those other weak conference discussion board teams being talked about. End of discussion.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Jeremy M said:
posted on September 19, 2005 4:00 PM — 192.138.70.245 — link — abuse?Play some real teams USC? Who did this scheduling? This is a joke.