Well, looks like all we need is for Ohio State to beat Penn State, and for LSU to take care of Alabama. This will finally leave us with the perfect BCS National Championship game: Southern Cal vs Texas in a rematch of the 05' game. This will give my guys a chance to kick the "cow stink" right off of them thar Horns.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am not sure your team's PAC 10 schedule can keep the teams between them and Florida from passing them if they win out. USC may get passed once or twice before the season is over.
Some of us are still hoping USC loses another game along the way. California and Stanford are still ahead. Arizona is not a sure thing, but the Washington schools are close. UCLA and Notre Dame fit in there somewhere. While your team has the easiest remaining schedule of anyone in the top 13 (remaining current top 25 BCS teams on schedule), they still have opportunities to fall from their high horse.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
Your always too serious. Of course, we'll need for both Florida and Oklahoma to lose another game, also. All the rest of them are well behind. Besides, if Ohio State wins out, that would pretty much seal the deal. Virginia has been playing better of late also. I'm not counting on Notre Dame helpin' us any though - especially after we blast that team into the next century. No, we'll need for Penn State, Alabama, Oklahoma and Florida to all lose one more time. That may not happen either.
grover
· 1 year ago
I still want an 04 rematch. An OU win over Southern Cal would do *wonders* for the programs lack of confidence in the big game ever since the K-State loss in '03.
bamaboy990
· 1 year ago
What you just said won't happen. think about what you just posted. There is no way Ohio State beats Penn. State. It's hard for any team to win with a freshman QB. And as far as LSU beating Alabama, while possible, I think our defense is just to good for LSU. Lastly that perfect BCS picture you presented, is a fantasy. First that match up would never happen, there is no way an SEC team doesnt make it into the National Championship. Second, if somehow that match up did happen there is no way USC beats Texas if yall cant even beat Oregon State
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
bamabi990:
It's just a rant. Read my last five words: "That may not happen either". If you can't read - what are you doing on this post? It's all made just to get a rise out of some poor dumb peckerwood like you. Of course we could never beat Alabama or Texas. We can't beat anybody.
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
I think PSU blows out OSU at Ohio Stadium. And Penn State has never beaten OSU since they've joined the Big 10(11).
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
Tommy
You dont really think Texas is going undefeated do you?
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
AUtigerman:
Texas has about five more brutal games to play. It's very unlikely. But, as I mentioned, I surely would not mind.
Ryan
· 1 year ago
Heres my 2008-09 College Football Rankings (Week 7)
1.Texas 2.Alabama 3Penn State 4.Florida 5.Oklahoma 6.USC 7.Texas Tech 8.Oklahoma State 9.Georgia 10. Utah
2008-09 College Football Bowl Projections (Week 7)
BCS National Championship (BCS #1 vs. #2)
#1 Texas V.S. #2 Florida
Sugar Bowl (SEC vs. At-large)
#4 Alabama V.S. #7 Utah
Orange Bowl (ACC vs. At-large)
#10 Virginia Tech V.S. #8 Pittsburgh
Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 vs. At-Large)
#5 Oklahoma V.S. #9 Boise State
Rose Bowl (Big Ten vs. PAC-10)
#3 Penn State V.S. #6 USC
Comments welcome guys
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Here's an interesting factoid - 10 out of 20 teams ranked in the initial top 2 annually have appeared in the BCS championship game. Stay tuned - the official rankings will be out next week.
Unbiased
· 1 year ago
First of all, USC shouldn't even be in the top ten. Secondly, its doubtful that Texas will win 3 of their next 3 games, but if they do they will still have to win the Big 12 Conference Championship.
USC is way, way, way overrated.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Unbiased:
I knew that I could get one of you "cock-a-roaches" to come out with that rant. It works every single time. Too bad we can't see who your team is. But, your unbiased opinion has been well received. Thanx for sharing. We'll keep it in the archives as one of the better thought out arguments.
Unbiased
· 11 months ago
Tommy_Trojan:
I officially rescind my statement from 2 months ago about USC. You guys looked AWESOME in the Rose Bowl, and your conference proved it was for real during the bowl games.
Congrats on a great season.
Skip
· 1 year ago
Why even have the computers? The polls operate in lockstep and are 100% determinant of the final game.
Tyler_Tech
· 1 year ago
Trojans dont deserve to play in the nat champ after losing that game.....thats just the way it is. Not that your team is not talented, they just dont deserve it.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Tyler:
So if we're 11-1, and everybody else has lost two games, then the Trojans don't deserve to go? What if Penn State only has one loss and it's to Ohio State? Do you think that Florida's loss at home (to Mississippi) is any more impressive than USC's loss to Oregon State on the road? Do you really think that Mississippi is better than Oregon State? Would you have a problem with Florida playing for the National Championship? If you don't - then your criteria is meaningless. Do you think that if LSU only lost one game - that they would deserve to go? How bout if Alabama only lost one game, and it was to a team who lost by 31 to Florida, who couldn't beat Mississippi? Would Alabama deserve to go? You know, you can take the chains of losses for all teams all the way out, to where nobody deserves to go - unless they go unbeaten. So, after all teams have lost one or two games, who would deserve to go? Would it be Oklahoma - who could not win the Big 12 South? Would it be Missouri - who could not beat Oklahoma State? It might be a good idea, to wait until the season is over, before you start making declarations about who does and doesn't deserve to go.
bamaboy990
· 1 year ago
That is very possible for you to go 11-1 because all the games you have yet to play are against complete joke teams. And as much as i hate florida, i have full comfidence that ole miss could beat more than half of the Pac-10 tesms and every team in the SEC could beat Oregon state. Face the facts, USC wil not play for the national championship, and the pac-10 sucks. Better luck next year.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Oregon State is good. They would beat Tennessee for sure.
Probably either of the Mississippi teams and Arkansas to boot.
California is not a joke team, Stanford and Arizona will be hungry.
The sad fact is if USC wins their remaining schedule they likely will slip in the back door to the championship. Imagine USC vs Penn State for the title? Sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
Be a real shame slippin' in that back door. Would almost be like LSU did last year. Oh wait, we would not be able to lose a game real late in the year and do that, would we? That's reserved for teams like LSU and Oklahoma only.
Personally, I'm not looking too forward to another beatdown of a Big Ten team. The only mitigating factor in that one would be: that Penn State actually wins Bowl games. They might be a problem. But, I would not count on it.
JB
· 1 year ago
Please dont even pretend to think that you were gonna imply that LSU gets any bias from the media voters. Just because everyone else choked doesnt mean that we were favored.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
JB:
I was implying that we choked in 2006 (losing to UCLA in our last game) and did not get into the NC game. It was not stating that you were "favored" - I was implying how "not favored" that we are. We have to win every single game to get into a National Championship game. The only two times that we've been "invited" - we've had to be unbeaten. Most all other teams get to lose one. LSU got to lose two games last year. Now, granted, had we only lost one in 2006, we probably would have made it. But, it seems as though we have got to lose at least one less than anybody else does.
JB
· 1 year ago
That has to do with the weakness of your conference schedule. And i am pretty sure that USC is highly favored among the media. Think about it ..they didnt even play in the NCG in 2004 and they somehow were AP National Champions.....sounds like favortism to me
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
JB:
That was 2003. And, USC was rated # 1 in both polls, and the BCS system picked LSU and Oklahoma to play in the game. That was a total shaft and everybody knew it - except for you. That's why the AP voted for USC as the # 1 team in the nation - regardless of what the "BCS system" had determined. There were even some coaches from the "coaches poll", who were bound to vote for the BCS Champion, who voted for USC as being # 1 instead. That's how ridiculous the whole situation really was. Go back and learn your history befor continuing to babble on about things that you know nothing about. USC is only favored by "the media" as long as we are undefeated. That's it.
JB
· 1 year ago
I never dispute that USC shouldve joined LSU in New Orleans. The fact is that the werent. What i am saying is that if we arent going to honor the system then why are we gonna have it. And the games were in 2004.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
JB:
Oh, okay, the NC game was in 2004. Sorry about that. You were referring to the 2003 season in general. I don't see as to where we're in disagreement on too much. I just look at things in a different way than most people do. The problem that I run into - is that my team is the USC Trojans. I do try and be as impartial as I possibly can - but it's real tough for me to do. I believe that there are a few very good football programs out there - that very much rival ours. But, I do not believe that certain teams can make the quantum leap, all the way to the top of the heap with just one good year. We saw what happened to Hawaii against Georgia last year. That is a classic example of how some team has one really great year, goes up against an established power, and just gets pasted. The same thing happened to Illinois when they ran into Southern Cal last year. It's happened to Notre Dame every time they've had a decent team. The only school that really broke that trend, IMHO, was West Virginia in the last few years. They actually have gone out and won two BCS bowl games - while emerging from obscurity. Boise State got lucky one year. Kansas won a game last year. Utah won a game once. Sometimes, a non-traditional team, can beat a traditional National power. But, it's not very often. Happens about once a year. I'm not too sure that Penn State can come from where they have been in the last couple of years - all the way to the top of the heap. They may get plastered if they make it. Those are my arguments about the whole system in general. I would make the statement, "that if Texas Tech was unbeaten and ranked # 1 in the country, and that USC was only 10-2 and ranked 8th, that USC would beat that team by twenty points". That's just the way that I see college football. I would also make the claim that LSU would beat them down as well.
JB
· 1 year ago
I totally agree about all of that. I dont think we should praise BYU or Utah or TCU yet..untill they beat a quality team. Same with Texas Tech.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
"...Do you really think that Mississippi is better than Oregon State?..."
Of course...Ole Miss is a SEC team; Oregon State is not...dummy!
GO GATORS!!
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
"What if Penn State only has one loss and it's to Ohio State?"
LOL! You're asking a lot out of Ohio State this season.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Tom:
I'm counting on Ohio State or Iowa to take those guys out. But, I hear that there is some rumblings amongst the players and that they want Boeckman reinstated. I don't like to go on just what we hear in the National media. Any truth to those rumblings? Is the team getting ready to revolt? What's up with that?
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
Double T:
If you're referring to the ESPN story, I think it's a story where the writer of the article had an approaching deadline and needed an angle. Voila! QB controversy!
Are the players frustrated? Yeah. It would help the team if they'd just keep their mouths shut and play ball though. Truthfully, all the issues they have start with the O-Line. They've been terrible this year, and I honestly believe Steve Rehring is the worst lineman in college football. Plus, the receivers don't get open because they're not running their routes well, they aren't exactly speed demons, and when the ball is thrown their way they tend to drop it. It would be helpful if the QBs would look at the wide open TEs once in a while, but the problems they have aren't truly QB related. Poor QB play is a symptom, not a cause, in this case.
Here's another way of looking at it. Terrelle Pryor is the starting QB because he erases mistakes made by the O-Line. Todd Boeckman needs perfect protection to play well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and I think this writer is trying to blow the situation out of proportion.
If there is a locker room problem, I don't believe it's any worse than any other locker room in College Football right now. And if I'm wrong and it is, all that has to be done is for Boeckman, as a team captain, to call a team meeting and put an end to it all. Especially if he means what he says in the press about caring more about winning than playing.
So that's the scoop as I see it.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
bamabi990:
So, your just another inbred hillbilly, right? Some dumbshit who don't know nothin', right? I'll give you a clue.
Since 2002: USC is 28-2 against all OOC opposition - while outscoring those teams 41.3-16.3 per game. USC is also 13-2 against teams that were rated in the AP Top 20 - outscoring those teams 37.0-18.1 in the process. Those teams had a combined record of 150-38 (or about 10-2.5 per year). Think about it, azzwipe, USC outscores the average 10-2 team 37-18. Has Alabama won thirteen games against Top 20 teams in the last six years? I didn't think so. If you can find me one more team that has this kinda record over the last 6 1/2 years - I'll shut my mouth. Or, if you can show me where Alabama has beaten all their opponents (good and bad) by 18.9 ppg in any year, I'll shut my mouth. But, sadly, you won't be able to. So, just go on back to drinkin' that shine (and try not to bother your sister too much), and leave the football stuff to people who know what they're talking about.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
Tommy, I think you guys ,year after year, have an awesome team. I think that the difference between the SEC and the PAC TEN is the competition in recruiting. I may have mentioned this in a past blog, but the talent in the area of Florida, Georgia, Tenn, Ala, SC, etc is split between many teams. Georgia would have loved to have had Eric Berry, from GA who went Tenn, A. J. Harmon went to Clemson, Tray Blackmon went to Auburn, Calvin Johnson who went GT a few years ago. USC seems to have no competition out there in recruiting. I think Florida, Calfonia, Texas, and a distant fourth Georgia are the top NFL producing States. There are plenty of teams drawing from Florida, Texas, and Georgia, not so many drawing from California. If USC had to recruit head to head with Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tenn, Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, etc. I think your world would be different. Neverless USC has tremendous talent, we would have loved to have played USC in the Rose Bowl last year. We might have lost but, the Dawgs would have loved the opportunity never the less. We've been rewarded with Sugar Bowl match ups, a bad Florida State, a good West Virginia team, and Hawaii. The good West Virginia team was an unknown, no upside for us. There is no doubt in my mind if you were in the SEC, USC would be in the hunt every year, "As Is", but if you had to recruit head to head it would be much tougher. No disrespect intended.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
blackdawg:
There is no question that there is more talent in the Southeast of the US of A. The SEC will put more players in the NFL. The ACC likewise will put lots of players in the NFL. It's not that California doesn't have tons of talent also. Those players get dispersed all over the PAC 10 conference. FACT IS: USC gets the cream of the crop. Why? Because we're the only "Football Factory" out here. That's it. That's all. It's been that way forever. Even when we had not so great years, it was because of poor coaches, and not a lack of talent. I've never had a problem with understanding how good the teams down south are. What we have is a problem with certain "experts" down south - who really don't understand how good USC is or the PAC 10. I've shown everybody all the stats to back it all up. But, everybody just wants to pretend that it isn't happening. This is a fact: the PAC 10 has the best overall record against all OOC, since the beginning of the BCS format in 1998, until the present day. That is a fact. Look it up. Is the conference propped up by Southern Cal's record. Of course it is. But, it's not propped up that much. Are there more great football programs in the SEC? Yes there is. But, that also means that your weaker teams are much weaker than our weak teams. That's what it means. The upper echelon of the SEC has no peers - unless it might be the Big 12. But, the PAC 10 is not a weak conference. And, I get real tired of uneducated "football fans" who want to continually rant about how Southern Cal plays in a weak conference, when they have no idea what they are talking about. There is a reason that we lose PAC 10 games. It's the same reason that you guys lose SEC games. It's because we have to play these guys every single year, and they know everything about us, and their good enough that sometimes they just kick our azz. It's just like any other conference. Obviously, from your above post, I'm never gonna have to consider you as an "uneducated" football fan. You certainly seem to understand the whole situation. I can't find a single thing that is not factual about your post. Thanx for that.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
Without the post season single elimination tournament, many of the dark corners of college football will always be 80% perception and 20% reality, I'm guilty of mixing reality with perception, I have no other choice at this point. Fortunately for USC, most realize your talent. I doubt that you will get cheated out of your opportunity for NC.
I was talking with a local GA high school football coach yesterday who was at the GA game Saturday. His kids were whinning about GA not getting any breaks in the polls, (now these are kids). He told them, now if your life depended on a team winning out who would you pick, GA? His two boys wouldn't give an answer. He said if I had to pick, I don't care if they already have a loss, I would pick USC. This is from a UGA fan. We don't look like a top ten team right now, still got plenty of room for improvement.
.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
blackdawg:
For the last two years Georgia has suffered devastating loses to their interior linemen. This year - it has just been ridiculous. The OL was already very young coming in. Now, you've lost another LT just today. What's that? Four down already? You've lost your best OT in camp I believe - and now have lost the only upperclassmen in your group. This causes shifting all over the OL. Georgia is a great football program. But, when these kinda things occur, there isn't a whole lot you can do. I respect that Richt makes no excuses and just moves forward. He says that he thinks this line can still gain enough experience to be good. Let's hope so. I need for you guys to beat Florida.
I was at the game where Southern Cal was playing Arizona State. Our offense looked terrible. Sanchez had a gimpy knee and they actually played him. He looked awful. I don't know why they even risked him in that game. They should have just played Mustain and Corp. Nevertheless, Sanchez threw three picks and fumbled once. I simply could not plant off his injured knee. But, as bad as that offense was, the defense was simply overpowering. That defense, when they play like that, cannot be scoed on. Now, if you look at this team, you can certainly see a few chinks in the armour. But, if that defense plays like they are capable of, no matter how poor the offense was - I don't think anybody could score. But, Oregon State ran over the top of us with that little tailback.
The truth is: no college football team plays at the same level of intensity every single week. It's just not even possible. You have good games and you have bad games. Florida had a very good game, and LSU had a very bad game, all on the same day at the same field. That's how that happened. Next time, it could be LSU that rolls up Florida. Next time, it could be Georgia, that rolls up Alabama. It's the level of consistency, that is gonna determine, who are the very best teams. When Southern Cal plays good - they play very very good. When they play bad - Stanford could beat them. This goes with many teams. I make my claims based on the fact that I have never seen the Trojans, under Pete Carroll, not show up for a "very Big Game". That has not happened yet. We have lost to Oregon in a Big game. But, we were in the game, with our 2nd QB. We have lost to Texas in a Big game - but they had Vince Young. Our teams are always just about the same. We have won ten straight OOC games without Reggie Bush or Matt Lienert. It has not been any different since those guys left. We have beaten five straight Top 20 OOC opponents since those guys left. If people think that USC happened yesterday - they are quite mistaken. Our defense is very superior to anything that we've had in the past. We had many injuries in 2006 and 2007 also. Those injuries may have cost us a couple of games.
Georgia is a very Top Flight football program. Definately in the Top Five overall. This year you have some key injuries. I don't count this program out. It's about the program. It doesn't matter if the faces change. It's still Georgia and you guys are capable of winning any game at any time - just like we are.
JaredIsKing
· 1 year ago
"....and leave the football stuff to people who know what they're talking about."
So then all of us here at fanblogs should neglect your inputs with regard to "football stuff" I presume?
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Jared:
Is everybody on here a dumbshit? Or, are you the qualified spokesman for all people who read these blogs? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I've only stated the facts. If you don't believe that they are the facts - then look them up yourself. Otherwise, you can continue to hide your head in the sand like an ostrich, and continue to be "the spokesman" for all those who don't really want to know what the facts are. And, BTW, is BamaBi a relative of yours? Or, are you just out to defend all things that are idiotic?
ROLLTIDE_73
· 1 year ago
Well I will say this USC is and always has been a great football program NO doubt about it. the PAC -10 as a whole is not so great.there are more Championship caliber teams in the SEC if there isn't two teams undefeated in the end a one loss USC team has as much a argument as any one.I do think the big -12 and sec get a advantage by having the championship game.two one loss team from those two conferences at 12-1 I think pass up a 11-1 USC team
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
RollTide73:
Here's the problem: let's all pretend that the PAC really does suck. Why would any one team be punished for the inadequate play of other teams. Is it USC's problem that the PAC 10 sucks? What difference does it make about how bad the other teams are? That should not even be the criteria. You can't punish a team for the bad play of the other teams around them. That's just pure BS. You know that just as well as I do. And, it's a pathetic argument to make. The teams that need to play for the Championship need to be the two best teams - period. It doesn't matter if one is 12-1 or one is 11-1. When that Conference Championship game happens, guess what, somebody has to win. It doesn't mean that that is the best team in the country just because they won a conference. This whole argument of the SEC Champion is the best, because we play in the best conference, is not quite right. The best team in the country may have been playing in the Sunbelt Conference for all we know. Someday, North Texas might be the best team in the country, and nobody will ever know it because they are too close minded to what the truth is. The only way that any of these arguments will ever be ended is through a playoff. So to me, it's completely idiotic, for anybody to make statements like we're the best (without a doubt) and we play in the best conference. Those things can never really be determined. On any given Saturday - any good team can beat any other good team. That's the way it really is.
ROLLTIDE_73
· 1 year ago
True...my point was not that by winning a conference championship game make a one loss team the best, but that is give you a advantage by having a extra win and the national spotlight while other one loss teams are at home not playing.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Rolltide73:
There are many problems with the National spotlight. I'll give you one. Texas has ascended to the # 1 position. Alabama has ascended to the # 2 position. Now, we know that Alabama's win over Clemson is somewhat skewed by now, as Clemson has lost two other games and had to fire their coach. So, what if Georgia were to drop another two games? Now, if Clemson and Georgia really were not that good, how in the world did Alabama climb to # 2? Do you think that they'll ever drop accordingly in the polls - as these other teams lose? No, they will not. They will have to lose games in order for that to happen. Meanwhile, what if Oklahoma goes and loses two more games? Does Texas ever drop out from the top spot? No. Never. They will have to lose first. The point is: that unreasonable assumptions are made about wins early in a season - that can very well determine the outcome of a season. Let's take USC for example. They were immediately crowned after demolishing Virginia and then enshrined after pounding Ohio State. Were they overranked at that time? Maybe - but they looked like the real deal. Then they lost to Oregon State, and were punished, by dropping ten spots in the rankings. Really? Now two weeks later, after crushing both Oregon and Arizona State - they are back up to # 4 in the coaches poll. My question is this: since we know that every team is gonna lose a game here and there - why are teams punished so hard when they do happen? Does this make any sense? If we know that Georgia is gonna end up at 11-2, win some kinda bowl game, and finish in the Top Five - then why did we punish them so hard for losing to Alabama? Why has LSU dropped out of site, when they just lost to one of the very best teams in the country, on one of Florida's best days? Do we really think that BYU is better than LSU? I sure don't. I just think that Florida is that good. But, remember, we had to punish Florida because they lost to Mississippi. All this nonsense creates another situation called, "It's better to lose early than late". Why? Does it really make a difference? No, it doesn't. But, if Texas loses later on, then Oklahoma will leap frog Texas. Therefore, even though Texas beat Oklahoma soundly, Oklahoma can still outrank Texas later on. Why? Because of when they lost. There are all kinds of things that are wrong with the whole system. It's been going on for years. It's caused by alot of people with no common sense. Just because somebody loses a game - does not mean that they aren't any good anymore. It just means that they had a bad game. All teams have them.
These are the best teams in the country, period:
SEC - Florida, Georgia, LSU and Alabama
Big 12 - Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas and Missouri
Big 10 - Penn State and Ohio State
Pac 10 - Southern Cal
That's it. Twelve teams. Sorry, BYU, Oklahoma State, Boise State, Utah and anybody else. These are the best football programs in the country right now. Our National Champion will be coming from one of these twelve teams - just about every year. The list actually narrows then. The only really strong perenial programs here are: LSU, Florida, Georgia, USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Ohio State. Those are your top seven. If your team isn't one of these seven teams - your probably not gonna win a National Championship this year. Your chances are real slim. The best bets are Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and USC. Why? These seven teams all have more talent than any other teams do. They can all beat each other at any time. The rest of the teams in the country - can only get lucky in order to beat one of these seven teams. So, why all the monkeying with the polls every week? Let's see if these twelve teams end up at the top and if the top seven aren't there also. I think when all the smoke settles - they'll be just like this.
Wardboy3
· 1 year ago
I have to disagree with LSU, GA, KS being the 12 best but that being my opinion...
But I do agree with Tommy_Trojan on a few other things...I am sick of hearing SEC people think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread...when USC played Auburn & Ark the excuses are that AUB & ARK "weren't that good those years". I even had one person swear up & down that it would have been a different game for ARK is McFadden had played...HE DID PLAY & so did Felix (who fumbled 3 times in the 2nd game vs USC)...
As far as recuriting...I thnk both generally stick to their own backyards but USC has been known to go into SEC country & get their "best" players (Joe McKnight from Louisana & Patrick Turner from TN both where #1 in their state coming out are two that come to my mind).
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
'I'll remind you that KU lost so SFla and barley squeezed by IA St a team that got destroyed by Baylor. Ok State should be included for two reasons #1 they are undefeated #2 they are in a tough conference
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Tomcat:
I'm generally talkin' about the last few years. Kansas has looked pretty good in the last two years. South Florida is usually pretty tough at home - and Kansas did cover the spread. I actually won money on that game. Remember it well. Seems like SF was favored by six if I'm not mistaken. Oklahoma State looks improved this year. But, they generally start off strong, and fade out at the end. Happens every single year. And, I can't see it not happening in this year either. And, furthermore, you shouldn't be ranked higher "because you play in a tough conference". You can be ranked in the Top Ten when you beat all those teams that are in the tough conference. Oklahoma State has only beaten one good team. And, coming from you, where is all this "man-love" for Oklahoma State coming from? They don't play in Texas - do they?
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Look I dont like Mangino or the Jayhawks I dont like OK State or Texas Tech I would have included OK State instead of KU IMHO thats all Tommie-the long and short of it Texas Tech and OK State usually faulter- somebody is gonna win and somebodys going to lose because the B-12 south is sick- every game every week anybody can beat anybody- there is no clear favorite- like what exist in the PAC-10 BTW you were right about BYU who lost to the Frogs
Greathaze
· 1 year ago
Tommy Trojan:
I think everyone in the nation would agree that USC has some of the best talent and best coaches in the nation. year after year they have by far the best freshman coming in. It seems like usc is always getting atleast 25 % of the top 100 prospects every year. so they're probably getting about 25 players from the top 100, and that number could even be higher. so that leaves about 75 (give or take 5) projected top 100 players to all the other teams in the country. On top of that, it seems that they are putting 4 to 5 players in the 1st round of the nfl draft every year. When ever ur bringing in the best talent and then shipping out the best talent into the nfl every year, then u better be one of the best and most talented team in the nation. Now after saying all of that, i just can not understand why a team that has the best freshman and atleast 4 future 1st round picks doesnt just dominate every team every game. Sure, they will beat 90% of the teams they play by 50, but why is it that they always, or atleast since 2005 seem to blow it in conference play. Losing to teams that are not even in the top 25 and sometimes teams not even in the top 50. losing to stanford last year would be like texas or oklahoma losing to baylor, or like florida or lsu losses to mississippi st.. Which hasnt happend the them in i dunno how long. So when ever they do lose one games its always hard for usc to get into the bsc championship, and it should be. look at the pac 10. U say ur a football expert and u act like u know alot. and im sure u do. But even you ( a true college football fan) can say that the pac 10 is probably one of the 2 or 3 weakest conferences in the bcs conferences. Really, just look at the rankings. You have the big 12 who have 6 teams in the top 25 and 4 of them are in the top 7. wow thats unbelievable. and then u have the sec who has 5 teams in the 25. Even the big 10 has 3 teams in the top 25, and up untill just this week usc was the one and only top 25 team outta the pac 10, and now u have cal who is like 25 or 24. Why would u try and say that usc should be looked at first out of all the one loss teams. Really i think they should be looked at after all the big 12 and sec teams that have one loss. oh and by the way im not sure if its the mountain west or the wac or whatever but whatever conference that tcu, byu, and utah, that small conference has more top 25 teams then the pac 10. It just shows that usc is a monopoly on the west coast. They recieve all the best talent every year, but seem to blow it against standford or other weak teams year after year. Man with a team that is mostly soon to be nfl players playing against teams that maybe just maybe might have 1 st round talent on the team and maybe just a couple future nfl players. its like taking a minor league nfl team and playing them against the stanfords of the world. They should never lose those games, and if they do lose those games then they shouldnt be invited to the bcs championship, im sorry but i dont want to watch a team that lost to stanford or whatever weak team play against the cream of the crop outta the big 12 and sec. ohio st. has shown that flaws of the big ten and pac 10 the last 2 years. ohio st. is alittle like usc in the fact that in the last 3 years the have by far been the dominate team in the conference. theyve had the best talent and beat every team convincenly, kinda like usc does. but then ohio st. goes to the championship with 0 losses or 1 loss after playing and beating all the weak teams in the conference by alot (just like usc) and they go up against a sec team. and what has happened the last 2 years. This team that was just so talented and just ran through their conferences got blown outta the water 2 years in a row by teams that werent even undefeted. Sorry for the rant but everyone is tired of hearing how much talent a teams has, and even though they have lost a game their still the best and they should get a shot at the championship even though they only have 1 (ohio st.) top 25 team they have to play all year. i dont care what u look like on paper but the fact is that usc already blow their chance and now its to late cuz theirs no good teams left for them to play to make a point. so lets see a good bcs championship for once and lets get a sec team florida vs a big 12 team texas. Oh and by the way tommy. i do live in texas and i am a huge huge texas fan, and the single greatest moment of my sporting life was the bcs champion ship in 2005. Do u remember. ill remind you. Usc, the best team of all time, they havent lost a game in 3 years, and they have the last two heismen trophy winners on the same team. wow 2 of the last 2 college mvps are on the same team and on the team that has the best surrounding players to play beside those 2 great players. and then they played a big 12 school, texas, who had not one mvp on the team, was not being called the best team in the history of college football. they went all the way to ur house, played in cali. which was basically a road game and played the best team every with the 2 best college football players in the nation. Guess what happen. texas and i mean vince young took yall out. shut everyone of those high and mighty usc fans up. he just showed how much better he was then everyone on usc's teams including their two mvps. That day was they start of the world noticing that the pac 10 wasnt all that great. well good luck this year, maybe you can pull off a win against stanford this year. atleast you still have something to look forward too.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Greathaze:
Man, you've got to chill on the purple haze, dude. Vince Young was probably the best player in the nation, 2005 Texas is rated the # 3 team in history, and the PAC 10 has had the best record since the BCS era began against all OOC competition. Also, USC has played and beaten more Top 25 teams in the last several years, than anybody else has even played. That's why their SOS is always rated so high. You are quite wrong about everything that you have mentioned. Do you need me to back it up one more time? Oh, looks as though Ohio State is gonna do pretty well this year. And, here we got another guy who can't put a team avatar up there. Looks like another disgruntled BYU fan - or possibly Boise State.
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
Tommy
Whos pretenteding....na just kidding. My hopes are that a one loss USC team gets left out and heres why.
When a team with the clout of USC or Notre Dame starts to get screwed then change has to be on the horizon.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
AUtigerman:
Yes, I'm not even in disagreement of that. It's all a "Mythical National Championship" anyway. There was change to the system after the 2003 season. That was a farce. Fact is: USC did play a weaker schedule than LSU and Oklahoma did and were duly punished by the computers for it. Nevertheless, it didn't make them any worse because the competition was. So, the system was tweaked. Now, the "voter polls" include about 2/3 of the weight in determining who should play the game. Still flawed? Of course it is. It's now more like it was in the "old days". So, why do we even have a BCS System? We'll only know who is really the most deserving teams, after a short playoff, and the winner takes all. That is gonna be the only way of ever knowing exactly who was the best team in any given year. I would surmise that at the end of any season, there are still about 4-5 teams, that have displayed the ability to be just as good as anyone else out there.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Looks like a win over TCU will come right in time for BYU. Come on Cougs take it to the National Championship!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am hoping for a very close game with BYU winning. This will allow both teams to stay where they are. A TCU win would be good too.
I really think TCU is overvalued. If BYU deserves there rank they should destroy TCU like Oklahoma did.
Glass_Joe
· 1 year ago
TCU looked pretty bad against CSU on Saturday. Is that more TCU playing poorly or CSU starting to get it together? I'm surprised the line is only -1 BYU in Thursday's game.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Yeah I was wondering about that myself, Utah had better be careful with CSU. Anyways I am scared about this game, TCU's tough, fortunately their strong suit on defense is stopping the run which the cougs don't rely on as much. Still its gonna be tough, TCU knows they're not out of a BCS game. Beating a top ten BYU team and then a top ten Utah team would more than be enough to put TCU in the top 12 and ahead of Boise State.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The TCU CSU game last week left alot of questions that will be answered this week when CSU playes Utah and TCU plays BYU.
If our teams both win convincingly this week an undefeated showdown at the end of the year looks to be a lock for a BCS berth. With a close game the loser of that game could still be BCS eligible. With a little help from parity in the Big 10 the MWC could feild 2 teams in the BCS this year.
If either of our games are close the one of us with a close game will be suspect to fall between now and then, while the team that made the game close would be suspect of being able to knock out the other one of us.
If either of our teams lose their ranking will be seriously diminished.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Good point!! Looks like GodBowl IV is going to be one to remember!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Eggs, chickens, counting...
Should have listened more when we were younger...
JaredIsKing
· 1 year ago
Q: "Is everybody on here a dumbshit?" A: No. Just you and a few others.
Q: "Or, are you the qualified spokesman for all people who read these blogs?" A: No such qualification exists.
Q: "Do you have a mouse in your pocket?" A: No mouse, just one massive rocket.
Q: "And, BTW, is BamaBi a relative of yours? Or, are you just out to defend all things that are idiotic?" A: He is no relative of mine; i'm from california. I am clearly not out to defend all things idiotic since I contest nearly everything YOU have to say.
Texas Penn St is going to be a very entertaining national championship game.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Jared:
Well, I would even agree that Texas and Penn State might be a real possibility. Other than that - I'm glad that you cleared the rest of that up. So Jared, being from Cali and all, am I safe to presume that your are a Bear of one sort or the other? Is that why you can't put your team moniker up there? Don't be shy. If your a California Golden Bear or a UCLA Bruin - it's all the same to me.
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
Trying to stay out of range of this pissing contest. I do have a thought to float on it all though. I suspect usc west might be the last school to experience the full effects of "parity". But, experience it you will. So enjoy while you can So cal fans. You will inevitably have to start sharing those top recruits with the rest of your conference. I look forward to the day when you sun dazed, movie making daisies, start sounding like the current disgruntled Clemson fans.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
UofSC1978:
Why in the world would Southern Cal experience parity in the PAC 10? When is it that anybody in the PAC is gonna outrecruit us? If you understood the landscape - you'd understand why that is impossible. I'm not gonna go into demographics here, but I can assure you, that every superstar player wants to play in South Central. UCLA plays in Westwood - it's an upscale area. Nobody but sissies play there. You gotta have brains to go to Stanford. And, you've got to be a communist to want to go to Berkeley. If your just a great football player - you go to USC. It's just that simple. Your scenario of parity will never happen and hasn't ever happened. There is zero chance of that. Not here.
DC_Chick
· 1 year ago
Tommy, I commend you on your team spirit and dedication. I think it makes you a great fan. But I also think you need to face the music... your team may be a tad overrated. Not a whole lot, but definitely maybe a little.
Much love.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
DC_Chick:
Appreciate all the love, but, I'll give you an example of how overrated USC really is. The LVSC rates USC as the best team in the country. These guys set the lines for 90% of all casinos in Las Vegas. Last week, they recommended that USC open as -20 favorites, against Arizona State. That line quickly moved up to -27. That means that even more of the betting public thought that Southern Cal would cover. It means that the betting public believes that the LVSC has USC rated too low. Now, the betting public is playing with their own money. They aren't exactly just "fanbloggers" flappin' their lips. Alot of these people are professionals. What happened? USC won the game 28-0 and covered the spread - even though they played a poor game. So, the smart money won this one. This week Southern Cal will be favored by -43 over Washington State. Do you think you can get that high of a line when your overrated? I don't think so. People who play with their own money have a pretty good idea of who's overrated and who isn't.
Porcine
· 1 year ago
So the professionals think that USC will dominate their inconference opponents, but the pac-10 is not weak? Or is it that they are both just so good? I seem to think of a conference fanbase that has been accused many times of this line of thinking. Looking at the Fanblogs pickem' the biggest spread involving SEC teams is Georgia at 14.5 over Vanderbilt. i guess these professionals are expecting tougher competition for the SEC teams this week than USC is facing this week and faced last week.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Porcine:
Try and get this stuff - it isn't that hard. What happened to your beloved Pigs the last two times they played USC? Well, they same thing happens to most teams.
So, there are ten teams here, and the PAC 10 has five of them - and so does the SEC. Now, clearly, overall the SEC holds an advantage of a few points per team.
Sagarin would rate the teams in this manner:
1.) U.S.C. 106.07 8.) California 86.25 9.) Oregon State 85.95 15.) Arizona 84.09 26.) Oregon 81.18 49.) Stanford 74.61 58.) Arizona State 72.85
Again, you should notice that there is not a whole lot of difference between the best teams in these conferences. But, there are more good teams in the SEC. There are not huge differences, in over all ratings for this particular year, although the SEC has a slightly higher rating per team of just a few points. Depending on what rating you want to look at, the SEC could be better, or the PAC might have a little more strength at the top. Flip a coin! We'll never know because we never meet in Bowl games. It's against the rules dontcha know!
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
So if the playoffs started this week: 8 Virginia Tech@ 1Texas 5 Georgia @ 4 Oklahoma State 6 BYU @ 3 Oklahoma 7 Missouri @ 2 USC 8 Michigan State @ 1 Alabama 5 Utah @ 4 Florida 6 Ohio State @ 3 Texas Tech 7 Boise State @ 2 Penn State
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Utah vs Florida looks good to me!
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Desriable match-ups:
1. SEC champ v. USC; 2. SEC champ v. Big XII champ; 3. SEC champ v. anyone (other than tOSU); 4. So Cal v. Texas ('05 rematch);
Undesirable matchups:
1. tOSU v. anyone; 2. USCw v. anyone (other than Tex or SEC champ); 3. Big 10 champ (unless it's Penn State) v. anyone; 4. BYU v. anyone (except SEC champ);
GO GATORS!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
How do you ignore the fact that Utah is ahead of BYU in the BCS standings at the top of this page? At least say BYU/Utah or better yet use MWC champ.
Possible match-ups, roughly in order of most to less likely:
SEC champ vs Big XII champ Big XII Champ vs Penn State SEC Champ vs Penn State Oklahoma, not conference champ vs SEC champ or Penn State SEC champ vs USCw Big XII champ/Oklahoma vs USC w Oklahoma vs BIG XII Champ Penn State vs MWC Champ Big XII champ vs MWC Champ SEC vs MWC Champ USCw vs MWC Champ
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
No disrespect intended. Just very impressed with BYU's 59-0 thrashing of UCLA. Utah is solid and very respectable--and yes, ranked higher than BYU--they just haven't squashed anyone like BYU squashed UCLA.
GO GATORS!!
Glass_Joe
· 1 year ago
Ben, If both BYU and Utah win this week, do you think BYU is ranked higher in the first official BCS Standings? In last week’s mock standings that you posted, the gap between the two was .0952. BYU beats New Mexico and Utah beats Wyoming and BYU narrows the gap this week to .0357. Since BYU plays a much higher ranked TCU this week, do they close that gap all the way? One perceived advantage was that BYU got some help in the Harris Poll, moving up one spot while Utah fell one spot but yet Utah received more votes in this week’s Harris Poll and still managed to fall from 13 to14.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
BYU is ahead in the poll while Utah is well ahead in the computers. I expect both of these components to become closer as time progresses. Basically our teams will be ranked as essentially equal until we play or one of us loses. I don't see either team taking a lead over .08 BCS points over the other until then. WE will both move up together though as teams fall down ahead of us.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TG:
Not bad. I can go with this. I can't understand why you would want to watch the SEC Champ gut BYU though. Did you pull wings off of flies when you were younger?
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
TT:
Well, I didn't exactly say I wanted BYU v. SEC champ--just carved out an exception to the "undesirable" list. That said, BYU's pasting of UCLA is damn impressive. I don't care how bad UCLA is--59-0 is an ass whoop'n reserved for division II opponents. No D-1 opponent should be ever lose to anyone by that kind of a margin--especially not be shut out. That's just nuts.
Notice I still got USCw v. SEC champ at the top? So many years in the making....
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TG:
Well, yeah, I'm real good with your top choice. Maybe you could have put the USC/Texas matchup 2nd. I would have thought that you might be a genius had you done that. I realize that you just threw the MWC a bone with the BYU pick. But, it looks as though you really pissed Ben off. Maybe you should have made it Utah instead.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I'da been content with MWC champ
g
· 1 year ago
Cal leads the Pac 10 right now, not USC
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Cal plays USC still and is ranked lower than USC.
Until Cal beats USC they will not be considered by most. Indeed Cal has less chance of a BCS bowl than an undefeated Utah or BYU. With a loss to Maryland I think this is warranted.
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
I understand the demographics. I stand by my statement. I recall wanting to play, not ride a bench. Thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of the Pac 10, you have furthered my understanding. Vandy seems to be doing pretty well with it's increasing parity. Looks to me like the traditional recent powers in the SEC are about to be replaced for a while. That is parity. I re-submit that usc west might be the last school to experience parity. But experience it they will, eventually.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
UofSC1978:
Are you telling me that Vanderbilt is gonna replace the traditional powers of the SEC? If not Vandy - then who? Who are these teams that are gonna replace Florida, Georgia, LSU, Alabama and Auburn? Yes, I consider that Alabama is a traditional power. Is it Kentucky and Mississippi? Or, maybe you think that South Carolina will slip in?
Usually, no disrespect intended, but players who "just want to play" - don't have any desire to win. Those are not the players that we would be interested in anyway. We want people who want to win. Who have the will to win.
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
Don't mis-quote me tommy. You added the "just" to "want to play". You know as well as I do that potential playing time is a powerful incentive for any athlete. Secondly, Alabama is not a "recent traditional power". Not unless you call the 70's recent. Take a look at these win-loss records.
As a matter of fact I do think the Cocks are headed for the top tier. As you can see, they are not far from it record wise, right now. But then again, most of the teams in the conference are not are not far from it, at this point. I predict LSU leaves Columbia with another loss. But we will have to wait for the game to see if I am right or wrong.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
UofSC1978:
I didn't misquote you. Your right, I added the "just", because to me it represents a player who either cannot play at a more talented program - or someone who is not real "team oriented". That's just my perception in general. Doesn't make it right all the time. There are exceptions of course.
Alabama has always had more talent than several of the other schools in the SEC. Now, what they did with that talent is a whole nother story.
The records that you are using above for criteria, represent about 2/3 of those games, being played against OOC competition. When all the dust settles in the SEC conference schedule - let's look and see where everybody stacks up then. I predict that it will be business as usual. Right now, I kinda halfway agree with you, in that Auburn and Tennessee seem to be losing their edge. That would leave the door open for two more teams to jump up into the Top Six. Those teams this year will come from either South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt or Mississippi.
If your guy Garcia can get outside containment - who knows? LSU better get ready to chase that guy around. It all depends on how easily he can read defenses and how much pressure he is under to perform. We'll see how he does. My inclination is to take LSU and lay the three points though.
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
Garcia is not "my guy". He is plan A, this week. No doubt about it though, he can get outside containment. Plan B, or even plan C, is within the realm of Mr. Spurrier's tactical brilliance. We will field a QB who performs. If that does not happen, don't be too surprised, if the punter ends up handling the snaps
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
California 4 1 Oregon 5 2 Stanford 4 3 Oregon St. 4 3 Southern Cal 4 1 Arizona 4 2 UCLA 2 4 Arizona St. 2 4 Washington 0 5 Washington St 1 6
Ok tommy, how would you suggest I post this. I cannot figure out a way, that makes your conference look worthy
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
UofSC:
This looks real good. You've done a great job. I can assure you though, for a fact, that the PAC 10 has played a tougher level of competition than any other conference has. Is the PAC 10 down this year? Yes, they are. They are currently rated as about the 5th toughest conference overall for this particular year. I would surmise, and watch out for Bowl season, because there are about three teams in here that are improving drastically every week.
U.of S.C.1978
· 1 year ago
Like the rest of the nation, I recognize how all the major talent in a ten team conference, has been concentrated,at one school. All that I am saying, is that inevitably, parity will see usc west ,sucking the hind teat. Mark my words boy. Several other coaches, will eventually contest for that talent.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
UofSC1978:
Several other coaches have been contesting that talent since time began. The only two guys who ever made an impact were Don James at Washington and Terry Donahue at UCLA. Those guys have been long gone for years.
Dan
· 1 year ago
How in the name of this green earth we live on does one place U SC above OU?
All Comments
Some of us are still hoping USC loses another game along the way. California and Stanford are still ahead. Arizona is not a sure thing, but the Washington schools are close. UCLA and Notre Dame fit in there somewhere. While your team has the easiest remaining schedule of anyone in the top 13 (remaining current top 25 BCS teams on schedule), they still have opportunities to fall from their high horse.
Your always too serious. Of course, we'll need for both Florida and Oklahoma to lose another game, also. All the rest of them are well behind. Besides, if Ohio State wins out, that would pretty much seal the deal. Virginia has been playing better of late also. I'm not counting on Notre Dame helpin' us any though - especially after we blast that team into the next century. No, we'll need for Penn State, Alabama, Oklahoma and Florida to all lose one more time. That may not happen either.
It's just a rant. Read my last five words: "That may not happen either". If you can't read - what are you doing on this post? It's all made just to get a rise out of some poor dumb peckerwood like you. Of course we could never beat Alabama or Texas. We can't beat anybody.
You dont really think Texas is going undefeated do you?
Texas has about five more brutal games to play. It's very unlikely. But, as I mentioned, I surely would not mind.
1.Texas
2.Alabama
3Penn State
4.Florida
5.Oklahoma
6.USC
7.Texas Tech
8.Oklahoma State
9.Georgia
10. Utah
2008-09 College Football Bowl Projections (Week 7)
BCS National Championship (BCS #1 vs. #2)
#1 Texas V.S. #2 Florida
Sugar Bowl (SEC vs. At-large)
#4 Alabama V.S. #7 Utah
Orange Bowl (ACC vs. At-large)
#10 Virginia Tech V.S. #8 Pittsburgh
Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 vs. At-Large)
#5 Oklahoma V.S. #9 Boise State
Rose Bowl (Big Ten vs. PAC-10)
#3 Penn State V.S. #6 USC
Comments welcome guys
USC is way, way, way overrated.
I knew that I could get one of you "cock-a-roaches" to come out with that rant. It works every single time. Too bad we can't see who your team is. But, your unbiased opinion has been well received. Thanx for sharing. We'll keep it in the archives as one of the better thought out arguments.
I officially rescind my statement from 2 months ago about USC. You guys looked AWESOME in the Rose Bowl, and your conference proved it was for real during the bowl games.
Congrats on a great season.
So if we're 11-1, and everybody else has lost two games, then the Trojans don't deserve to go? What if Penn State only has one loss and it's to Ohio State? Do you think that Florida's loss at home (to Mississippi) is any more impressive than USC's loss to Oregon State on the road? Do you really think that Mississippi is better than Oregon State? Would you have a problem with Florida playing for the National Championship? If you don't - then your criteria is meaningless. Do you think that if LSU only lost one game - that they would deserve to go? How bout if Alabama only lost one game, and it was to a team who lost by 31 to Florida, who couldn't beat Mississippi? Would Alabama deserve to go? You know, you can take the chains of losses for all teams all the way out, to where nobody deserves to go - unless they go unbeaten. So, after all teams have lost one or two games, who would deserve to go? Would it be Oklahoma - who could not win the Big 12 South? Would it be Missouri - who could not beat Oklahoma State? It might be a good idea, to wait until the season is over, before you start making declarations about who does and doesn't deserve to go.
Probably either of the Mississippi teams and Arkansas to boot.
California is not a joke team, Stanford and Arizona will be hungry.
The sad fact is if USC wins their remaining schedule they likely will slip in the back door to the championship. Imagine USC vs Penn State for the title? Sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.
Be a real shame slippin' in that back door. Would almost be like LSU did last year. Oh wait, we would not be able to lose a game real late in the year and do that, would we? That's reserved for teams like LSU and Oklahoma only.
Personally, I'm not looking too forward to another beatdown of a Big Ten team. The only mitigating factor in that one would be: that Penn State actually wins Bowl games. They might be a problem. But, I would not count on it.
I was implying that we choked in 2006 (losing to UCLA in our last game) and did not get into the NC game. It was not stating that you were "favored" - I was implying how "not favored" that we are. We have to win every single game to get into a National Championship game. The only two times that we've been "invited" - we've had to be unbeaten. Most all other teams get to lose one. LSU got to lose two games last year. Now, granted, had we only lost one in 2006, we probably would have made it. But, it seems as though we have got to lose at least one less than anybody else does.
That was 2003. And, USC was rated # 1 in both polls, and the BCS system picked LSU and Oklahoma to play in the game. That was a total shaft and everybody knew it - except for you. That's why the AP voted for USC as the # 1 team in the nation - regardless of what the "BCS system" had determined. There were even some coaches from the "coaches poll", who were bound to vote for the BCS Champion, who voted for USC as being # 1 instead. That's how ridiculous the whole situation really was. Go back and learn your history befor continuing to babble on about things that you know nothing about. USC is only favored by "the media" as long as we are undefeated. That's it.
Oh, okay, the NC game was in 2004. Sorry about that. You were referring to the 2003 season in general. I don't see as to where we're in disagreement on too much. I just look at things in a different way than most people do. The problem that I run into - is that my team is the USC Trojans. I do try and be as impartial as I possibly can - but it's real tough for me to do. I believe that there are a few very good football programs out there - that very much rival ours. But, I do not believe that certain teams can make the quantum leap, all the way to the top of the heap with just one good year. We saw what happened to Hawaii against Georgia last year. That is a classic example of how some team has one really great year, goes up against an established power, and just gets pasted. The same thing happened to Illinois when they ran into Southern Cal last year. It's happened to Notre Dame every time they've had a decent team. The only school that really broke that trend, IMHO, was West Virginia in the last few years. They actually have gone out and won two BCS bowl games - while emerging from obscurity. Boise State got lucky one year. Kansas won a game last year. Utah won a game once. Sometimes, a non-traditional team, can beat a traditional National power. But, it's not very often. Happens about once a year. I'm not too sure that Penn State can come from where they have been in the last couple of years - all the way to the top of the heap. They may get plastered if they make it. Those are my arguments about the whole system in general. I would make the statement, "that if Texas Tech was unbeaten and ranked # 1 in the country, and that USC was only 10-2 and ranked 8th, that USC would beat that team by twenty points". That's just the way that I see college football. I would also make the claim that LSU would beat them down as well.
Of course...Ole Miss is a SEC team; Oregon State is not...dummy!
GO GATORS!!
LOL! You're asking a lot out of Ohio State this season.
I'm counting on Ohio State or Iowa to take those guys out. But, I hear that there is some rumblings amongst the players and that they want Boeckman reinstated. I don't like to go on just what we hear in the National media. Any truth to those rumblings? Is the team getting ready to revolt? What's up with that?
If you're referring to the ESPN story, I think it's a story where the writer of the article had an approaching deadline and needed an angle. Voila! QB controversy!
Are the players frustrated? Yeah. It would help the team if they'd just keep their mouths shut and play ball though. Truthfully, all the issues they have start with the O-Line. They've been terrible this year, and I honestly believe Steve Rehring is the worst lineman in college football. Plus, the receivers don't get open because they're not running their routes well, they aren't exactly speed demons, and when the ball is thrown their way they tend to drop it. It would be helpful if the QBs would look at the wide open TEs once in a while, but the problems they have aren't truly QB related. Poor QB play is a symptom, not a cause, in this case.
Here's another way of looking at it. Terrelle Pryor is the starting QB because he erases mistakes made by the O-Line. Todd Boeckman needs perfect protection to play well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and I think this writer is trying to blow the situation out of proportion.
If there is a locker room problem, I don't believe it's any worse than any other locker room in College Football right now. And if I'm wrong and it is, all that has to be done is for Boeckman, as a team captain, to call a team meeting and put an end to it all. Especially if he means what he says in the press about caring more about winning than playing.
So that's the scoop as I see it.
So, your just another inbred hillbilly, right? Some dumbshit who don't know nothin', right? I'll give you a clue.
Since 2002: USC is 28-2 against all OOC opposition - while outscoring those teams 41.3-16.3 per game. USC is also 13-2 against teams that were rated in the AP Top 20 - outscoring those teams 37.0-18.1 in the process. Those teams had a combined record of 150-38 (or about 10-2.5 per year). Think about it, azzwipe, USC outscores the average 10-2 team 37-18. Has Alabama won thirteen games against Top 20 teams in the last six years? I didn't think so. If you can find me one more team that has this kinda record over the last 6 1/2 years - I'll shut my mouth. Or, if you can show me where Alabama has beaten all their opponents (good and bad) by 18.9 ppg in any year, I'll shut my mouth. But, sadly, you won't be able to. So, just go on back to drinkin' that shine (and try not to bother your sister too much), and leave the football stuff to people who know what they're talking about.
There is no question that there is more talent in the Southeast of the US of A. The SEC will put more players in the NFL. The ACC likewise will put lots of players in the NFL. It's not that California doesn't have tons of talent also. Those players get dispersed all over the PAC 10 conference. FACT IS: USC gets the cream of the crop. Why? Because we're the only "Football Factory" out here. That's it. That's all. It's been that way forever. Even when we had not so great years, it was because of poor coaches, and not a lack of talent. I've never had a problem with understanding how good the teams down south are. What we have is a problem with certain "experts" down south - who really don't understand how good USC is or the PAC 10. I've shown everybody all the stats to back it all up. But, everybody just wants to pretend that it isn't happening. This is a fact: the PAC 10 has the best overall record against all OOC, since the beginning of the BCS format in 1998, until the present day. That is a fact. Look it up. Is the conference propped up by Southern Cal's record. Of course it is. But, it's not propped up that much. Are there more great football programs in the SEC? Yes there is. But, that also means that your weaker teams are much weaker than our weak teams. That's what it means. The upper echelon of the SEC has no peers - unless it might be the Big 12. But, the PAC 10 is not a weak conference. And, I get real tired of uneducated "football fans" who want to continually rant about how Southern Cal plays in a weak conference, when they have no idea what they are talking about. There is a reason that we lose PAC 10 games. It's the same reason that you guys lose SEC games. It's because we have to play these guys every single year, and they know everything about us, and their good enough that sometimes they just kick our azz. It's just like any other conference. Obviously, from your above post, I'm never gonna have to consider you as an "uneducated" football fan. You certainly seem to understand the whole situation. I can't find a single thing that is not factual about your post. Thanx for that.
I was talking with a local GA high school football coach yesterday who was at the GA game Saturday. His kids were whinning about GA not getting any breaks in the polls, (now these are kids). He told them, now if your life depended on a team winning out who would you pick, GA? His two boys wouldn't give an answer. He said if I had to pick, I don't care if they already have a loss, I would pick USC. This is from a UGA fan. We don't look like a top ten team right now, still got plenty of room for improvement.
.
For the last two years Georgia has suffered devastating loses to their interior linemen. This year - it has just been ridiculous. The OL was already very young coming in. Now, you've lost another LT just today. What's that? Four down already? You've lost your best OT in camp I believe - and now have lost the only upperclassmen in your group. This causes shifting all over the OL. Georgia is a great football program. But, when these kinda things occur, there isn't a whole lot you can do. I respect that Richt makes no excuses and just moves forward. He says that he thinks this line can still gain enough experience to be good. Let's hope so. I need for you guys to beat Florida.
I was at the game where Southern Cal was playing Arizona State. Our offense looked terrible. Sanchez had a gimpy knee and they actually played him. He looked awful. I don't know why they even risked him in that game. They should have just played Mustain and Corp. Nevertheless, Sanchez threw three picks and fumbled once. I simply could not plant off his injured knee. But, as bad as that offense was, the defense was simply overpowering. That defense, when they play like that, cannot be scoed on. Now, if you look at this team, you can certainly see a few chinks in the armour. But, if that defense plays like they are capable of, no matter how poor the offense was - I don't think anybody could score. But, Oregon State ran over the top of us with that little tailback.
The truth is: no college football team plays at the same level of intensity every single week. It's just not even possible. You have good games and you have bad games. Florida had a very good game, and LSU had a very bad game, all on the same day at the same field. That's how that happened. Next time, it could be LSU that rolls up Florida. Next time, it could be Georgia, that rolls up Alabama. It's the level of consistency, that is gonna determine, who are the very best teams. When Southern Cal plays good - they play very very good. When they play bad - Stanford could beat them. This goes with many teams. I make my claims based on the fact that I have never seen the Trojans, under Pete Carroll, not show up for a "very Big Game". That has not happened yet. We have lost to Oregon in a Big game. But, we were in the game, with our 2nd QB. We have lost to Texas in a Big game - but they had Vince Young. Our teams are always just about the same. We have won ten straight OOC games without Reggie Bush or Matt Lienert. It has not been any different since those guys left. We have beaten five straight Top 20 OOC opponents since those guys left. If people think that USC happened yesterday - they are quite mistaken. Our defense is very superior to anything that we've had in the past. We had many injuries in 2006 and 2007 also. Those injuries may have cost us a couple of games.
Georgia is a very Top Flight football program. Definately in the Top Five overall. This year you have some key injuries. I don't count this program out. It's about the program. It doesn't matter if the faces change. It's still Georgia and you guys are capable of winning any game at any time - just like we are.
So then all of us here at fanblogs should neglect your inputs with regard to "football stuff" I presume?
Is everybody on here a dumbshit? Or, are you the qualified spokesman for all people who read these blogs? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I've only stated the facts. If you don't believe that they are the facts - then look them up yourself. Otherwise, you can continue to hide your head in the sand like an ostrich, and continue to be "the spokesman" for all those who don't really want to know what the facts are. And, BTW, is BamaBi a relative of yours? Or, are you just out to defend all things that are idiotic?
the PAC -10 as a whole is not so great.there are more Championship caliber teams in the SEC if there isn't two teams undefeated in the end a one loss USC team has as much a argument as any one.I do think the big -12 and sec get a advantage by having the championship game.two one loss team from those two conferences at 12-1 I think pass up a 11-1 USC team
Here's the problem: let's all pretend that the PAC really does suck. Why would any one team be punished for the inadequate play of other teams. Is it USC's problem that the PAC 10 sucks? What difference does it make about how bad the other teams are? That should not even be the criteria. You can't punish a team for the bad play of the other teams around them. That's just pure BS. You know that just as well as I do. And, it's a pathetic argument to make. The teams that need to play for the Championship need to be the two best teams - period. It doesn't matter if one is 12-1 or one is 11-1. When that Conference Championship game happens, guess what, somebody has to win. It doesn't mean that that is the best team in the country just because they won a conference. This whole argument of the SEC Champion is the best, because we play in the best conference, is not quite right. The best team in the country may have been playing in the Sunbelt Conference for all we know. Someday, North Texas might be the best team in the country, and nobody will ever know it because they are too close minded to what the truth is. The only way that any of these arguments will ever be ended is through a playoff. So to me, it's completely idiotic, for anybody to make statements like we're the best (without a doubt) and we play in the best conference. Those things can never really be determined. On any given Saturday - any good team can beat any other good team. That's the way it really is.
There are many problems with the National spotlight. I'll give you one. Texas has ascended to the # 1 position. Alabama has ascended to the # 2 position. Now, we know that Alabama's win over Clemson is somewhat skewed by now, as Clemson has lost two other games and had to fire their coach. So, what if Georgia were to drop another two games? Now, if Clemson and Georgia really were not that good, how in the world did Alabama climb to # 2? Do you think that they'll ever drop accordingly in the polls - as these other teams lose? No, they will not. They will have to lose games in order for that to happen. Meanwhile, what if Oklahoma goes and loses two more games? Does Texas ever drop out from the top spot? No. Never. They will have to lose first. The point is: that unreasonable assumptions are made about wins early in a season - that can very well determine the outcome of a season. Let's take USC for example. They were immediately crowned after demolishing Virginia and then enshrined after pounding Ohio State. Were they overranked at that time? Maybe - but they looked like the real deal. Then they lost to Oregon State, and were punished, by dropping ten spots in the rankings. Really? Now two weeks later, after crushing both Oregon and Arizona State - they are back up to # 4 in the coaches poll. My question is this: since we know that every team is gonna lose a game here and there - why are teams punished so hard when they do happen? Does this make any sense? If we know that Georgia is gonna end up at 11-2, win some kinda bowl game, and finish in the Top Five - then why did we punish them so hard for losing to Alabama? Why has LSU dropped out of site, when they just lost to one of the very best teams in the country, on one of Florida's best days? Do we really think that BYU is better than LSU? I sure don't. I just think that Florida is that good. But, remember, we had to punish Florida because they lost to Mississippi. All this nonsense creates another situation called, "It's better to lose early than late". Why? Does it really make a difference? No, it doesn't. But, if Texas loses later on, then Oklahoma will leap frog Texas. Therefore, even though Texas beat Oklahoma soundly, Oklahoma can still outrank Texas later on. Why? Because of when they lost. There are all kinds of things that are wrong with the whole system. It's been going on for years. It's caused by alot of people with no common sense. Just because somebody loses a game - does not mean that they aren't any good anymore. It just means that they had a bad game. All teams have them.
These are the best teams in the country, period:
SEC - Florida, Georgia, LSU and Alabama
Big 12 - Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas and Missouri
Big 10 - Penn State and Ohio State
Pac 10 - Southern Cal
That's it. Twelve teams. Sorry, BYU, Oklahoma State, Boise State, Utah and anybody else. These are the best football programs in the country right now. Our National Champion will be coming from one of these twelve teams - just about every year. The list actually narrows then. The only really strong perenial programs here are: LSU, Florida, Georgia, USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Ohio State. Those are your top seven. If your team isn't one of these seven teams - your probably not gonna win a National Championship this year. Your chances are real slim. The best bets are Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and USC. Why? These seven teams all have more talent than any other teams do. They can all beat each other at any time. The rest of the teams in the country - can only get lucky in order to beat one of these seven teams. So, why all the monkeying with the polls every week? Let's see if these twelve teams end up at the top and if the top seven aren't there also. I think when all the smoke settles - they'll be just like this.
But I do agree with Tommy_Trojan on a few other things...I am sick of hearing SEC people think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread...when USC played Auburn & Ark the excuses are that AUB & ARK "weren't that good those years". I even had one person swear up & down that it would have been a different game for ARK is McFadden had played...HE DID PLAY & so did Felix (who fumbled 3 times in the 2nd game vs USC)...
As far as recuriting...I thnk both generally stick to their own backyards but USC has been known to go into SEC country & get their "best" players (Joe McKnight from Louisana & Patrick Turner from TN both where #1 in their state coming out are two that come to my mind).
#1 they are undefeated
#2 they are in a tough conference
I'm generally talkin' about the last few years. Kansas has looked pretty good in the last two years. South Florida is usually pretty tough at home - and Kansas did cover the spread. I actually won money on that game. Remember it well. Seems like SF was favored by six if I'm not mistaken. Oklahoma State looks improved this year. But, they generally start off strong, and fade out at the end. Happens every single year. And, I can't see it not happening in this year either. And, furthermore, you shouldn't be ranked higher "because you play in a tough conference". You can be ranked in the Top Ten when you beat all those teams that are in the tough conference. Oklahoma State has only beaten one good team. And, coming from you, where is all this "man-love" for Oklahoma State coming from? They don't play in Texas - do they?
I dont like OK State or Texas Tech
I would have included OK State instead of KU IMHO
thats all Tommie-the long and short of it
Texas Tech and OK State usually faulter- somebody is gonna win and somebodys going to lose because the B-12 south is sick- every game every week anybody can beat anybody- there is no clear favorite- like what exist in the PAC-10
BTW you were right about BYU who lost to the Frogs
I think everyone in the nation would agree that USC has some of the best talent and best coaches in the nation. year after year they have by far the best freshman coming in. It seems like usc is always getting atleast 25 % of the top 100 prospects every year. so they're probably getting about 25 players from the top 100, and that number could even be higher. so that leaves about 75 (give or take 5) projected top 100 players to all the other teams in the country. On top of that, it seems that they are putting 4 to 5 players in the 1st round of the nfl draft every year. When ever ur bringing in the best talent and then shipping out the best talent into the nfl every year, then u better be one of the best and most talented team in the nation. Now after saying all of that, i just can not understand why a team that has the best freshman and atleast 4 future 1st round picks doesnt just dominate every team every game. Sure, they will beat 90% of the teams they play by 50, but why is it that they always, or atleast since 2005 seem to blow it in conference play. Losing to teams that are not even in the top 25 and sometimes teams not even in the top 50. losing to stanford last year would be like texas or oklahoma losing to baylor, or like florida or lsu losses to mississippi st.. Which hasnt happend the them in i dunno how long. So when ever they do lose one games its always hard for usc to get into the bsc championship, and it should be. look at the pac 10. U say ur a football expert and u act like u know alot. and im sure u do. But even you ( a true college football fan) can say that the pac 10 is probably one of the 2 or 3 weakest conferences in the bcs conferences. Really, just look at the rankings. You have the big 12 who have 6 teams in the top 25 and 4 of them are in the top 7. wow thats unbelievable. and then u have the sec who has 5 teams in the 25. Even the big 10 has 3 teams in the top 25, and up untill just this week usc was the one and only top 25 team outta the pac 10, and now u have cal who is like 25 or 24. Why would u try and say that usc should be looked at first out of all the one loss teams. Really i think they should be looked at after all the big 12 and sec teams that have one loss. oh and by the way im not sure if its the mountain west or the wac or whatever but whatever conference that tcu, byu, and utah, that small conference has more top 25 teams then the pac 10. It just shows that usc is a monopoly on the west coast. They recieve all the best talent every year, but seem to blow it against standford or other weak teams year after year. Man with a team that is mostly soon to be nfl players playing against teams that maybe just maybe might have 1 st round talent on the team and maybe just a couple future nfl players. its like taking a minor league nfl team and playing them against the stanfords of the world. They should never lose those games, and if they do lose those games then they shouldnt be invited to the bcs championship, im sorry but i dont want to watch a team that lost to stanford or whatever weak team play against the cream of the crop outta the big 12 and sec. ohio st. has shown that flaws of the big ten and pac 10 the last 2 years. ohio st. is alittle like usc in the fact that in the last 3 years the have by far been the dominate team in the conference. theyve had the best talent and beat every team convincenly, kinda like usc does. but then ohio st. goes to the championship with 0 losses or 1 loss after playing and beating all the weak teams in the conference by alot (just like usc) and they go up against a sec team. and what has happened the last 2 years. This team that was just so talented and just ran through their conferences got blown outta the water 2 years in a row by teams that werent even undefeted. Sorry for the rant but everyone is tired of hearing how much talent a teams has, and even though they have lost a game their still the best and they should get a shot at the championship even though they only have 1 (ohio st.) top 25 team they have to play all year. i dont care what u look like on paper but the fact is that usc already blow their chance and now its to late cuz theirs no good teams left for them to play to make a point. so lets see a good bcs championship for once and lets get a sec team florida vs a big 12 team texas. Oh and by the way tommy. i do live in texas and i am a huge huge texas fan, and the single greatest moment of my sporting life was the bcs champion ship in 2005. Do u remember. ill remind you. Usc, the best team of all time, they havent lost a game in 3 years, and they have the last two heismen trophy winners on the same team. wow 2 of the last 2 college mvps are on the same team and on the team that has the best surrounding players to play beside those 2 great players. and then they played a big 12 school, texas, who had not one mvp on the team, was not being called the best team in the history of college football. they went all the way to ur house, played in cali. which was basically a road game and played the best team every with the 2 best college football players in the nation. Guess what happen. texas and i mean vince young took yall out. shut everyone of those high and mighty usc fans up. he just showed how much better he was then everyone on usc's teams including their two mvps. That day was they start of the world noticing that the pac 10 wasnt all that great. well good luck this year, maybe you can pull off a win against stanford this year. atleast you still have something to look forward too.
Man, you've got to chill on the purple haze, dude. Vince Young was probably the best player in the nation, 2005 Texas is rated the # 3 team in history, and the PAC 10 has had the best record since the BCS era began against all OOC competition. Also, USC has played and beaten more Top 25 teams in the last several years, than anybody else has even played. That's why their SOS is always rated so high. You are quite wrong about everything that you have mentioned. Do you need me to back it up one more time? Oh, looks as though Ohio State is gonna do pretty well this year. And, here we got another guy who can't put a team avatar up there. Looks like another disgruntled BYU fan - or possibly Boise State.
Whos pretenteding....na just kidding. My hopes are that a one loss USC team gets left out and heres why.
When a team with the clout of USC or Notre Dame starts to get screwed then change has to be on the horizon.
Yes, I'm not even in disagreement of that. It's all a "Mythical National Championship" anyway. There was change to the system after the 2003 season. That was a farce. Fact is: USC did play a weaker schedule than LSU and Oklahoma did and were duly punished by the computers for it. Nevertheless, it didn't make them any worse because the competition was. So, the system was tweaked. Now, the "voter polls" include about 2/3 of the weight in determining who should play the game. Still flawed? Of course it is. It's now more like it was in the "old days". So, why do we even have a BCS System? We'll only know who is really the most deserving teams, after a short playoff, and the winner takes all. That is gonna be the only way of ever knowing exactly who was the best team in any given year. I would surmise that at the end of any season, there are still about 4-5 teams, that have displayed the ability to be just as good as anyone else out there.
I really think TCU is overvalued. If BYU deserves there rank they should destroy TCU like Oklahoma did.
If our teams both win convincingly this week an undefeated showdown at the end of the year looks to be a lock for a BCS berth. With a close game the loser of that game could still be BCS eligible. With a little help from parity in the Big 10 the MWC could feild 2 teams in the BCS this year.
If either of our games are close the one of us with a close game will be suspect to fall between now and then, while the team that made the game close would be suspect of being able to knock out the other one of us.
If either of our teams lose their ranking will be seriously diminished.
Should have listened more when we were younger...
A: No. Just you and a few others.
Q: "Or, are you the qualified spokesman for all people who read these blogs?"
A: No such qualification exists.
Q: "Do you have a mouse in your pocket?"
A: No mouse, just one massive rocket.
Q: "And, BTW, is BamaBi a relative of yours? Or, are you just out to defend all things that are idiotic?"
A: He is no relative of mine; i'm from california. I am clearly not out to defend all things idiotic since I contest nearly everything YOU have to say.
Texas Penn St is going to be a very entertaining national championship game.
Well, I would even agree that Texas and Penn State might be a real possibility. Other than that - I'm glad that you cleared the rest of that up. So Jared, being from Cali and all, am I safe to presume that your are a Bear of one sort or the other? Is that why you can't put your team moniker up there? Don't be shy. If your a California Golden Bear or a UCLA Bruin - it's all the same to me.
Why in the world would Southern Cal experience parity in the PAC 10? When is it that anybody in the PAC is gonna outrecruit us? If you understood the landscape - you'd understand why that is impossible. I'm not gonna go into demographics here, but I can assure you, that every superstar player wants to play in South Central. UCLA plays in Westwood - it's an upscale area. Nobody but sissies play there. You gotta have brains to go to Stanford. And, you've got to be a communist to want to go to Berkeley. If your just a great football player - you go to USC. It's just that simple. Your scenario of parity will never happen and hasn't ever happened. There is zero chance of that. Not here.
Much love.
Appreciate all the love, but, I'll give you an example of how overrated USC really is. The LVSC rates USC as the best team in the country. These guys set the lines for 90% of all casinos in Las Vegas. Last week, they recommended that USC open as -20 favorites, against Arizona State. That line quickly moved up to -27. That means that even more of the betting public thought that Southern Cal would cover. It means that the betting public believes that the LVSC has USC rated too low. Now, the betting public is playing with their own money. They aren't exactly just "fanbloggers" flappin' their lips. Alot of these people are professionals. What happened? USC won the game 28-0 and covered the spread - even though they played a poor game. So, the smart money won this one. This week Southern Cal will be favored by -43 over Washington State. Do you think you can get that high of a line when your overrated? I don't think so. People who play with their own money have a pretty good idea of who's overrated and who isn't.
Try and get this stuff - it isn't that hard. What happened to your beloved Pigs the last two times they played USC? Well, they same thing happens to most teams.
The LVSC rates a top 30: They are...
1.) U.S.C. 113.2
3.) Florida 111.1
7.) Georgia 107.8
8.) Alabama 107.5
12.) L.S.U. 105.0
13.) California 104.9
18.) South Carolina 102.0
21.) Oregon 101.5
26.) Arizona 100.8
28.) Oregon State 100.5
So, there are ten teams here, and the PAC 10 has five of them - and so does the SEC. Now, clearly, overall the SEC holds an advantage of a few points per team.
Sagarin would rate the teams in this manner:
1.) U.S.C. 106.07
8.) California 86.25
9.) Oregon State 85.95
15.) Arizona 84.09
26.) Oregon 81.18
49.) Stanford 74.61
58.) Arizona State 72.85
2.) Florida 98.08
6.) Alabama 90.57
7.) Georgia 86.56
27.) Kentucky 80.02
29.) L.S.U. 79.63
32.) Vanderbilt 78.03
35.) South Carolina 77.6
39.) Auburn 76.72
44.) Tennessee 75.42
48.) Mississippi 74.78
Again, you should notice that there is not a whole lot of difference between the best teams in these conferences. But, there are more good teams in the SEC. There are not huge differences, in over all ratings for this particular year, although the SEC has a slightly higher rating per team of just a few points. Depending on what rating you want to look at, the SEC could be better, or the PAC might have a little more strength at the top. Flip a coin! We'll never know because we never meet in Bowl games. It's against the rules dontcha know!
8 Virginia Tech@ 1Texas
5 Georgia @ 4 Oklahoma State
6 BYU @ 3 Oklahoma
7 Missouri @ 2 USC
8 Michigan State @ 1 Alabama
5 Utah @ 4 Florida
6 Ohio State @ 3 Texas Tech
7 Boise State @ 2 Penn State
1. SEC champ v. USC;
2. SEC champ v. Big XII champ;
3. SEC champ v. anyone (other than tOSU);
4. So Cal v. Texas ('05 rematch);
Undesirable matchups:
1. tOSU v. anyone;
2. USCw v. anyone (other than Tex or SEC champ);
3. Big 10 champ (unless it's Penn State) v. anyone;
4. BYU v. anyone (except SEC champ);
GO GATORS!!
Possible match-ups, roughly in order of most to less likely:
SEC champ vs Big XII champ
Big XII Champ vs Penn State
SEC Champ vs Penn State
Oklahoma, not conference champ vs SEC champ or Penn State
SEC champ vs USCw
Big XII champ/Oklahoma vs USC w
Oklahoma vs BIG XII Champ
Penn State vs MWC Champ
Big XII champ vs MWC Champ
SEC vs MWC Champ
USCw vs MWC Champ
GO GATORS!!
If both BYU and Utah win this week, do you think BYU is ranked higher in the first official BCS Standings? In last week’s mock standings that you posted, the gap between the two was .0952. BYU beats New Mexico and Utah beats Wyoming and BYU narrows the gap this week to .0357. Since BYU plays a much higher ranked TCU this week, do they close that gap all the way? One perceived advantage was that BYU got some help in the Harris Poll, moving up one spot while Utah fell one spot but yet Utah received more votes in this week’s Harris Poll and still managed to fall from 13 to14.
Not bad. I can go with this. I can't understand why you would want to watch the SEC Champ gut BYU though. Did you pull wings off of flies when you were younger?
Well, I didn't exactly say I wanted BYU v. SEC champ--just carved out an exception to the "undesirable" list. That said, BYU's pasting of UCLA is damn impressive. I don't care how bad UCLA is--59-0 is an ass whoop'n reserved for division II opponents. No D-1 opponent should be ever lose to anyone by that kind of a margin--especially not be shut out. That's just nuts.
Notice I still got USCw v. SEC champ at the top? So many years in the making....
GO GATORS!!
Well, yeah, I'm real good with your top choice. Maybe you could have put the USC/Texas matchup 2nd. I would have thought that you might be a genius had you done that. I realize that you just threw the MWC a bone with the BYU pick. But, it looks as though you really pissed Ben off. Maybe you should have made it Utah instead.
Until Cal beats USC they will not be considered by most. Indeed Cal has less chance of a BCS bowl than an undefeated Utah or BYU. With a loss to Maryland I think this is warranted.
Are you telling me that Vanderbilt is gonna replace the traditional powers of the SEC? If not Vandy - then who? Who are these teams that are gonna replace Florida, Georgia, LSU, Alabama and Auburn? Yes, I consider that Alabama is a traditional power. Is it Kentucky and Mississippi? Or, maybe you think that South Carolina will slip in?
Usually, no disrespect intended, but players who "just want to play" - don't have any desire to win. Those are not the players that we would be interested in anyway. We want people who want to win. Who have the will to win.
Florida 5 1
Vanderbilt 5 1
Georgia 5 1
South Carolina 5 2
Kentucky 4 2
Tennessee 2 4
Alabama 6 0
LSU 4 1
Auburn 4 3
Mississippi 3 3
Arkansas 3 3
Mississippi St. 2 4
As a matter of fact I do think the Cocks are headed for the top tier. As you can see, they are not far from it record wise, right now. But then again, most of the teams in the conference are not are not far from it, at this point. I predict LSU leaves Columbia with another loss. But we will have to wait for the game to see if I am right or wrong.
I didn't misquote you. Your right, I added the "just", because to me it represents a player who either cannot play at a more talented program - or someone who is not real "team oriented". That's just my perception in general. Doesn't make it right all the time. There are exceptions of course.
Alabama has always had more talent than several of the other schools in the SEC. Now, what they did with that talent is a whole nother story.
The records that you are using above for criteria, represent about 2/3 of those games, being played against OOC competition. When all the dust settles in the SEC conference schedule - let's look and see where everybody stacks up then. I predict that it will be business as usual. Right now, I kinda halfway agree with you, in that Auburn and Tennessee seem to be losing their edge. That would leave the door open for two more teams to jump up into the Top Six. Those teams this year will come from either South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt or Mississippi.
If your guy Garcia can get outside containment - who knows? LSU better get ready to chase that guy around. It all depends on how easily he can read defenses and how much pressure he is under to perform. We'll see how he does. My inclination is to take LSU and lay the three points though.
Oregon 5 2
Stanford 4 3
Oregon St. 4 3
Southern Cal 4 1
Arizona 4 2
UCLA 2 4
Arizona St. 2 4
Washington 0 5
Washington St 1 6
Ok tommy, how would you suggest I post this. I cannot figure out a way, that makes your conference look worthy
This looks real good. You've done a great job. I can assure you though, for a fact, that the PAC 10 has played a tougher level of competition than any other conference has. Is the PAC 10 down this year? Yes, they are. They are currently rated as about the 5th toughest conference overall for this particular year. I would surmise, and watch out for Bowl season, because there are about three teams in here that are improving drastically every week.
Several other coaches have been contesting that talent since time began. The only two guys who ever made an impact were Don James at Washington and Terry Donahue at UCLA. Those guys have been long gone for years.
SC above OU?