USC @ WSU

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:48 am

Van, Jimmah, is USC trying to give this game away?

21-15, USC, with about 12 minutes left in the 4th.

USC two turnovers so far, almost another one, just now.

Lucky, Lucky, Lucky.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:50 am

Glass dick.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:57 am

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Glass dick.

Where?

Fuck you, btw, I'm drunk.

Link me up so I can trots myself, ala USC.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:11 am

Justsayin you are a little late to this conclusion. I'm drunk too and need to be.

We are not very good.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:13 am

Memo to anyone that wants to beat us:

Throw the deep ball and:

a. Catch it
b. Get a PI call for 15
c. Go incomplete and then do the same play to achieve a. or b. above.

l to r: usc secondary

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:22 am

Pretty sure I've been predicting a lackluster USC win (at best) or an actual loss (at worst) this entire week...

In fact, checking the "Week 5 Pick 'Em" thread , yep, there it is. It says I picked WSU to cover here.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:24 am

You guys rearranging your furniture for good luck yet?

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:25 am

I feel like I'm humping a cheese grater right now.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:29 am

Here we go ...

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:29 am

<------ Developing a drinking problem

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:31 am

Nice win USC. Hell, I'll buy Jimmah a drink and Van a super-special water, or something.

RACK that game.

:Salude:

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:34 am

It's nice to win but make no mistake. We are NOT the number 2 or 3 team in the country. Similar to the 2003 season, we might be a lot better in late November...but we're not there now and the rankings are BS.

RACK the Cougs for exposing us tonight.

Schmeck · Post by **Schmeck** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:36 am

This may sound like a Marcus Allen type comment, but USC's abilily to convert 4th downs won that game. And, Carroll's decisions to go for those 4th downs.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:38 am

Nice game by WSU.

No matter how negative Jimmah and Van try to be, SC is top 5 unless and until they lose a game.
Scoreboard is scoreboard. You don't have to blow everybody away, you just have to win all your games.

That said, SC's pass defense looked dazed and confused most of the game.
They really miss 619.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:40 am

Schmeck wrote:This may sound like a Marcus Allen type comment, but USC's abilily to convert 4th downs won that game. And, Carroll's decisions to go for those 4th downs.

Absolutely. But don't tell Cuntsburger. You all know that when USC plays ND, it's going to be all about "The risk-taking genius vs. the risk-taking genius, folks. Who's going to win?"

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:14 am

To wit: "Troy Smith, everyone's leader for the Heisman."

Another steller job in forgettable "play-by-play" calling.

Run into a tree the next time you drink and drive, bitch.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:33 am

RF, why, that's rather harsh of you!

:-)

USC shouldn't be #2 or #3 right now. Definitely not. Just doesn't feel right.

One problem. If not USC, then who?

Auburn was in bigger trouble last night than USC. USC was never really in danger of losing or getting caught tonight, not like Auburn was last night when they escaped a probably O.T. game strictly because a S. Carolina WR dropped an absolute lay up of a game tying TD. As blah as USC looked tonight they still looked a bit better than Auburn.

Florida stuggled in The Swamp against a very average 'Bama team that would be hard pressed to score an offensive TD against Middle Tennessee St.

W. Virginia still hasn't played anybody.

Michigan? Okay, maybe I might buy Michigan right now, at least in terms of ranking them above USC and Auburn. Michigan's played consistently better football so far and they do have one really good marquee win.

Michigan might have better balance than either USC or Auburn. Right now at least, yeah, I'd say they do.

Can't see leapfrogging them to #2 right now though, not from #6, not when the teams ahead of them all won, albeit in varying degrees of ugly.

Seems to me that there's OSU and then a pretty big gap to whoever's #2. I guess that off of Auburn's lucky escape job last night I'd have to barely place USC ahead of them right now at #2. Also, after opening up with three of their first four games on the road USC now gets a couple of home games, where they ought to play better and fatten up.

USC, #2 right now? Yeah, I guess so, by default. USC at #2 right now...the fact of which should tell anybody all they need to know about the low quality of play so far this season in CF.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 am

B-t-H, you may now commence with being really disappointed in SC.

Can't say you weren't warned though.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:51 am

Van wrote: USC, #2 right now? Yeah, I guess so, by default. USC at #2 right now...the fact of which should tell anybody all they need to know about the low quality of play so far this season in CF.

Low quality? It's this little thing called parity, Van. It's what makes it interesting. Most games that I've watched have been entertaining, to say the least. Why must you term it low quality?

I call it fun.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:12 am

Id put Michigan at 2 and USC and Auburn both somewhere behind them

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:25 am

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote: USC, #2 right now? Yeah, I guess so, by default. USC at #2 right now...the fact of which should tell anybody all they need to know about the low quality of play so far this season in CF.
Low quality? It's this little thing called parity, Van. It's what makes it interesting. Most games that I've watched have been entertaining, to say the least. Why must you term it low quality?

I call it fun.

The NFL also calls mediocrity "parity".

The game is simply watered down this season. Too many of CF's best players are playing on Sundays this season instead of playing on Saturdays, like they would still be doing if we just dialed the clock back two years or more.

Too many other major games this season have been decided not by great plays but by bungled plays, by both the players and the refs.

USC is ranked somewhere near the top of the heap right now. This USC team wouldn't stand a chance against any of USC's last four teams, but now they're still likely to arrive 8-0 to the Oregon game. They're sooo ripe for the picking, but they'll likely just keep on winning anyway, at least until the very end of the season.

Parity. Mediocrity.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:38 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:Id put Michigan at 2 and USC and Auburn both somewhere behind them

I would too, but really, you can't. When nobody that's ahead of them lost this week you can't jump a team from #6 to #2, just for posting a routine, workmanlike win over mediocre Minnesota.

Fucked up system, already having teams ranked at this point. Too many teams have sparkling records due to already having beaten three doormats. Too many other teams who dared play a real game early in the season already have a loss.

Just in terms of what I'm seeing on the field though, irrespective of reputations and pre season rankings, I think it currently oughtta look something like this....

1-OSU

2-Michigan
3-USC
4-Auburn
5-Florida
6-LSU (I really think LSU is the equal of Auburn and they're both better than Florida but fair is fair.)
7-Texas
8-W. Virginia (And it pains me to include them at all, since they've done nothing so far.)
9-Louisville (Ditto)
10-Oregon

quacker backer · Post by **quacker backer** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:35 am

we are gonna take it to USC later this season....

it hurts but I am more afraid of next weeks game at Calllllll sad to say

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:16 am

Cal is looking strong now. Too bad they crapped themselves early, with the entire nation watching.

I'll get piled on for saying this and that's fine but I daresay that if Cal were to play Tennessee again they'd beat the Vols. Definitely, if it were in Berkeley. On a neutral field, I'd favor Cal right now by about three.

Problem is, it's Cal. They just can't stop crapping themselves when it matters most. They should be called the Cal WouldaShouldaCouldas...

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:24 am

quacker backer wrote:we are gonna take it to USC later this season....

it hurts but I am more afraid of next weeks game at Calllllll sad to say

After a slow start Cal is playing some very hardnosed football. They probably wouldn't have had to scabdick by WSU tonight.
But Oregon looked nasty as well, destroying ASU and really screwing my fantasy team by leaving Rudy Carpenter with a freaking negative point. I can't say it enough today since he cost me a win against an undefeated team, FUCK YOU CARPENTER.

Since the game is at Cal, I gotta lean slightly toward Lynch-and-company winning a nailbiter. Too bad Cal doesn't get to play USC at Berkeley.

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:00 am

At least my prediction made it past the women's tees.

Wow! What a good football game! Washington State had to play flawless to have a chance and they almost did. Woulda been nice to find away to stop Steve Smith for isolating against a linebacker though.

Congtats Jimmah, Van and the USC crowd. A few years ago I never woulda thought that I would see one school put the conference on such a lockdown. But tonight was a good reminder to USC that the rest of the conference is still around, waiting for their chance. For WSU, now that Auburn and USC are out of the way, I would like them put it to the rest of their schudule. If they run the table, 10-2 with losses over just Auburn and SC would look pretty good. Oregon and Cal will be tough though. Especially Oregon. I see WSU having problems with Jason Williams like they did with Steve Smith.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:07 am

Too bad Cal doesn't get to play USC at Berkeley.

They did, early on in the 2003 season.

I have the picture of the scoreboard from that game saved on my hard drive. I also have it in a little glossy, inside my car's sun visor. My back? I have that scoreboard pic tattooed there. Kinda like Steve-O's back, only it's that scoreboard pic.

Telegraph Ave? I paid $3,427.34 to have that scoreboard pic plastered on a billboard over Blondie's Pizza.

I named my daughter We Beat USC Once, By A Cunthair, In Triple O.T....

Sure, she gets weird looks from the other kids. Yeah, her name never fits in the little spaces provided on applications and shit.

Don't matter. 'Bode, me. Now I dance!

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:25 pm

Van wrote: Auburn was in bigger trouble last night than USC. USC was never really in danger of losing or getting caught tonight, not like Auburn was last night when they escaped a probably O.T. game strictly because a S. Carolina WR dropped an absolute lay up of a game tying TD. As blah as USC looked tonight they still looked a bit better than Auburn.

...and South Carolina is a better team than WSU. Auburn dispensed of WSU with more ease than the score indicated.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:41 pm

I'm not surprised that USC's secondary was exposed. Hell, they hadn't even been tested until last night.
They didn't pass the test. I really, really, really wish that the corners would learn to turn and actually look for the ball.
That would be a good start.

Memo to rest of the Pac 10 teams remaining on the schedule...pick on #28. He's not very good right now.

Having said that, I'll gladly take the road win. I agree with Jimmy. This team will improve and get better as the
season progresses. We USC fans have been so spoiled the last couple of years. I'm pretty sure SC fans on this board knew this going into the season. They are not gonna put up points in huge numbers and games are gonna be a lot closer.

This isn't the number 2 team in the country. I'm thinking maybe closer to 6.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:56 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Van wrote: Auburn was in bigger trouble last night than USC. USC was never really in danger of losing or getting caught tonight, not like Auburn was last night when they escaped a probably O.T. game strictly because a S. Carolina WR dropped an absolute lay up of a game tying TD. As blah as USC looked tonight they still looked a bit better than Auburn.

...and South Carolina is a better team than WSU.

Says who?

I'm not just going to assume this, and neither should you. Neither team is ranked and there's no reason to assume S. Carolina is any better than WSU.

Auburn dispensed of WSU with more ease than the score indicated.

Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.

Combine this with all their injuries and their inexperience and yeah, many USC fans saw this performance coming from a mile away. Even so, USC was never in danger of losing. Auburn was headed to the crap shoot that is O.T. and they escaped that scenario through nothing but sheer luck.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:16 pm

Van wrote:Says who?

I'm not just going to assume this, and neither should you. Neither team is ranked and there's no reason to assume S. Carolina is any better than WSU.

South Carolina had a better defense, better receivers, a better line and a much larger running threat in Newton than anything WSU had at their disposal. They definitely had better coaching.

Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.

Auburn plays on the road. You PACers just don't like to recognize it unless it comes again a top 10 OOC every year. I'm certain playing it in LA would have made three touchdowns of difference.

Combine this with all their injuries and their inexperience and yeah, many USC fans saw this performance coming from a mile away. Even so, USC was never in danger of losing. Auburn was headed to the crap shoot that is O.T. and they escaped that scenario through nothing but sheer luck.

It happens. Auburn has their fair share of injuries too, and Steve Spurrier took advantage of a fairly glaring mismatch as a result. I find it amusing, though, that USC going on the road and pulling out a close one against a mid-tier conference foe is somehow more impressive than Auburn doing pretty much the same thing. I think back to '04 at the host of squeakers SC had against the likes of Stanford. It didn't seem to matter then...but we all know the NCAA has that SEC bias, right? :wink:

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:33 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Van wrote:Says who?

I'm not just going to assume this, and neither should you. Neither team is ranked and there's no reason to assume S. Carolina is any better than WSU.
South Carolina had a better defense, better receivers, a better line and a much larger running threat in Newton than anything WSU had at their disposal. They definitely had better coaching.

You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?

Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.
Auburn plays on the road. You PACers just don't like to recognize it unless it comes again a top 10 OOC every year. I'm certain playing it in LA would have made three touchdowns of difference.

I'm pretty certain of it too.

As for Auburn playing on the road, no, they really don't. Not much, anyway. No road wins OOC in nine years pretty much attests to this fact. Then there's the fact that like LSU, Alabama, Florida State and far too many other ridiculous southern programs Auburn only has four road games this year, against eight home games.

So, no, Auburn really doesn't play on the road. They do every last thing possible to minimize the number of roadies they're forced to endure...to the point of absurdity.

There will never be any excuse for this. We all know exactly why programs engage in this nonsense and there's nothing the least bit honorable about it.

It's pure greed and cowardice. Don't wanna risk any losses, don't wanna give up any home gate.

Combine this with all their injuries and their inexperience and yeah, many USC fans saw this performance coming from a mile away. Even so, USC was never in danger of losing. Auburn was headed to the crap shoot that is O.T. and they escaped that scenario through nothing but sheer luck.
It happens. Auburn has their fair share of injuries too, and Steve Spurrier took advantage of a fairly glaring mismatch as a result. I find it amusing, though, that USC going on the road and pulling out a close one against a mid-tier conference foe is somehow more impressive than Auburn doing pretty much the same thing. I think back to '04 at the host of squeakers SC had against the likes of Stanford. It didn't seem to matter then...but we all know the NCAA has that SEC bias, right? :wink:

I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.

Neither team looked good. Auburn simply looked a little bit worse. To me, Michigan looks better than both.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:50 pm

Van wrote: You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?

Well, showed up and played a better game than WSU against the same opponent, I guess?

I'm pretty certain of it too.

As for Auburn playing on the road, no, they really don't. Not much, anyway. No road wins OOC in nine years pretty much attests to this fact. Then there's the fact that like LSU, Alabama, Florida State and far too many other ridiculous southern programs Auburn only has four road games this year, against eight home games.

You PACs qualify OOC and are very careful to do so. Again, do you think the SEC is the only conference maximizing home gate? Does SC have to play the likes of LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc. every year? Do you think, regardless of ranking, they could and remain undefeated? Do you think they could then survive a conference championship game that the PAC doesn't play? Maybe the PAC should get a conference championship. Maybe the PAC should try and recruit a couple of teams to provide a little more competition than the Stanfords, Washingtons, Washington States, Arizonas, Arizona States and Oregon States of the world. Maybe then this perceived media bias they get toward their conference would end. Maybe then people would stop pointing at SC's top-heavy lightweight schedule. It's easy to go OOC when the conference situation is a Sunday walk in the park.

So, no, Auburn really doesn't play on the road. They do every last thing possible to minimize the number of roadies they're forced to endure...to the point of absurdity.

Feel free to take a look around at the other conference heavies' schedules and see what they're doing. You'll find a similar thread.

There will never be any excuse for this. We all know exactly why programs engage in this nonsense and there's nothing the least bit honorable about it.

Honorable?

Get a conference championship. Get a real conference.

It's pure greed and cowardice. Don't wanna risk any losses, don't wanna give up any home gate.

Welcome to economics 101.

I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.

You looked blah against a team Auburn torched by a three TD margin. You haven't played Carolina. PS - by that logic, Marquis Gunn gave away an easy win for Auburn when he fumbled a sure TD off a turnover runback.

Neither team looked good. Auburn simply looked a little bit worse. To me, Michigan looks better than both.

Without a playoff - and this includes all arguments above - we'll likely never know.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:00 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Van wrote: You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?
Well, showed up and played a better game than WSU against the same opponent, I guess?

Do you truly think S. Carolina plays that same game if it'd been in Jordan-Hare?

No, you don't. WSU had the ball in the fouth quarter against Auburn, down by only eight or nine. S. Carolina wouldn't have managed any better than that and more than likely they wouldn't have managed anywhere near that well. Auburn, at home, against the doormats of the SEC like S. Carolina? They usually win 34-0.

WSU played 'em every bit as well as S. Carolina would've played 'em.

Conversely, make Auburn pack up and travel to Pullman to play a fully healthy WSU (which they decidedly weren't when you faced 'em) in their own house and see what happens.

Apples and oranges here, Buc, and you know it.

As for Auburn playing on the road, no, they really don't. Not much, anyway. No road wins OOC in nine years pretty much attests to this fact. Then there's the fact that like LSU, Alabama, Florida State and far too many other ridiculous southern programs Auburn only has four road games this year, against eight home games.
You PACs qualify OOC and are very careful to do so.

Hardly. We define "OOC" as meaning "a team that isn't in your conference."

Apparently though SEC fan does qualify "road wins" to their liking. See, with the glaring exception of m2, Pac 10 fans define an "OOC road win" as meaning you packed up and traveled to an OOC team's home stadium and beat them there.

Pac 10 teams do it all the time. SEC teams...generally don't. Auburn in particular most certainly doesn't.

Again, do you think the SEC is the only conference maximizing home gate?

Hell no, which you'd know if you'd hang around here more. I've beeb wailing against this bullshit all over this place. The Big 12, Big East and the ACC are equally guilty of this shit.

Doesn't make it any less cowardly and gluttonous.

Does SC have to play the likes of LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc. every year?

No. What about it? They also don't get to play the likes of Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and S. Carolina every year. Nor do they get to play teams with bloated rankings which in turn bloat their own rankings every year. Lastly, they also don't get to play Troy, Buffalo and N.W. Louisiana Automotive Tech three times per year.

Bottom line, USC nearly always ends up having a very high SOS ranking, even though the teams they play (with the exception of ND) don't benefit from the artificially bloated rankings found all over the incestuous SEC.

Do you think, regardless of ranking, they could and remain undefeated?

Auburn has, so yeah, I do. Of course I do. During Pete's run here USC has had better talent than anybody in the SEC. If Auburn could do it and hapless offenses like Georgia and Alabama can swing it for most of the year then hell yeah USC could also do it.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that USC would see it as a pleasant surprise, getting to add three home game scrimmages to their W-L record every year. Sure, let USC replace ND, Nebraska and Arkansas with three home games against drunk chicks from a Girls Gone Wild video. USC's already proven their ability to go on the road and win, including the SEC.

Conversely, I'd sure love to see how a sheltered Georgia or Auburn would do if every year they had to play three real OOC games before embarking on roadies to the Coliseum, Berkeley, Seattle and Autzen Stadium. Pretty sure they wouldn't be starting off every season 3-0 before they ever play a game, like they do now.

Let USC play eight home games per season, against only four roadies?

FUCK.....YEAH. Bring it on.

Do you think they could then survive a conference championship game that the PAC doesn't play?

Yeah, about like Texas "survived" their "conference championship game" last season. USC has been markedly better than the team they'd ultimately face in such a game. It wouldn't be even be a road game. They'd roll them a second time too.

Maybe the PAC should get a conference championship.

No need. Serves zero purpose, except as a very cynical money grab. The regular season will prove the conference champion, as it's supposed to do. There's no sense in awarding a conference title to some 8-4 team, not when there's a 12-0 team already in the same conference. The 8-4 team already had their opportunity to take down the 12-0 team. Didn't happen.

Maybe the PAC should try and recruit a couple of teams to provide a little more competition than the Stanfords, Washingtons, Washington States, Arizonas, Arizona States and Oregon States of the world.

You offering up Vandy, S. Carolina, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and Mississippi State? Or, are you offering up N.W. Florida, La Monroe and The Mississippi School For The Incontinent? Better yet, let us build our rankings off of wins over overrated programs such as 'Bama, Tennessee and Georgia.

Whatever you want.

Maybe then this perceived media bias they get toward their conference would end. Maybe then people would stop pointing at SC's top-heavy lightweight schedule. It's easy to go OOC when the conference situation is a Sunday walk in the park.

Auburn wouldn't know. Neither would Georgia, or 'Bama, or...

See, they don't go OOC and they play in a conference that's just about the equal of or just slightly better than the other conferences. Between their three game OOC dessert "schedule", six confirmed pastries in conference plus another few artificial "big games" to bloat your ranking it must be nice starting the season with an automatic 9 wins and a Top 12 ranking.

Gotta also be nice to know you'll only need to pack your suitcase four times per season, and even then you only need to pack lightly since you're probably not going to travel more than a couple hundred miles at worst.

So, no, Auburn really doesn't play on the road. They do every last thing possible to minimize the number of roadies they're forced to endure...to the point of absurdity.
Feel free to take a look around at the other conference heavies' schedules and see what they're doing. You'll find a similar thread.

Yep, and it's disgusting. Doesn't let you off the hook though.

Balanced schedules...six home games...six roadies...

Demand it. Make it mandatory, for everybody. Nothing less.

There will never be any excuse for this. We all know exactly why programs engage in this nonsense and there's nothing the least bit honorable about it.
Honorable? Get a conference championship. Get a real conference.

Conference championships equate to "honor"?? Yeah, 66-3 and a stadium entirely filled with burnt orange was really honorable. The Pac 10 and Big 10 have been around forever. They do it just fine, thanks. No cynical money grab charades necessary.

It's pure greed and cowardice. Don't wanna risk any losses, don't wanna give up any home gate.
Welcome to economics 101.

SEC style...Big 12 style.

I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.
You looked blah against a team Auburn torched by a three TD margin.

That final score wasn't indicative of the closeness of the game, and you know it. You also played 'em in your back yard. WSU traveled, injured, three thousand miles to play that game.

BFD.

YOU nearly lost to a team that barely beat Wofford. You nearly lost to a team that got destroyed by toofless Georgia, who themselves got exposed at home by...Colorado!!

Do you really wanna play the Kevin Bacon Game??

Bottom line, you nearly lost to a bad team and their back up QB. We looked blah against WSU but we were in control of the game and we were never in danger of losing, like you were.

We both looked blah. We just looked a bit better than you. No great shakes there.

You haven't played Carolina. PS - by that logic, Marquis Gunn gave away an easy win for Auburn when he fumbled a sure TD off a turnover runback.

Dude, quit already. Were it not for the refs and some horrific calls you would've already lost a game this season, at home. LSU outplayed you. S. Carolina owned you in the fourth quarter. You've had two tests this season, one of them only a very minor test, and you didn't look all that impressive in either one. You escaped in both, through sheer luck.

Neither team looked good. Auburn simply looked a little bit worse. To me, Michigan looks better than both.
Without a playoff - and this includes all arguments above - we'll likely never know.

True, and since it's only Week 5 right now it doesn't matter yet anyway. Michigan has looked better than USC and Auburn so far but who's to say that they won't pull a Michigan and go lose somewhere before the OSU game? They're Michigan. They always find a way to lose somewhere they shouldn't.

It's just Week 5 though, so we'll see. Right now, I'd call it OSU, Michigan, USC and then Auburn. "Right now" doesn't matter a hill of beans though, except insofar that those teams have still managed to remain unscathed so they're all still firmly in the hunt...

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:05 pm

it also has a lot to do with Allbarn having not won a road game OOC since 1997, the last win prior to that was in 1987... in 20 years Allbarn managed to win just 2 OOC games away from home.

I did find it odd that in 1988 Auburn played 8 out of 11 games at home, so they have been pussies for decades

Scheduling, like what is done in the SEC is the reason the NCAA can have no playoffs. Not until there is NCAA generated schedules with equal amounts of road and home games. And as long as the SEC continues to schedule 8 home games a year for their teams, I have NO PROBLEM with the BCS snubbing them for teams that played 6 home game schedules

you can cry "economics" all you want, the rest of the world knows you're just pussies

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:16 pm

SoCalTrjn, is that stat for real???

Over twenty years the only OOC road win for Auburn came nine years ago against dogshit Virginia??

That's it?? One win, and one win only, and that was their one win??

That just can't be right. That's literally unbelievable.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:23 pm

it is absolutely true.
from 1987 to 1997 they only played 1 or 2 OOC games on the road and lost them. (they beat North Carolina in 1987)
since 1997 they stepped up a bit and have played a total of 3 OOC games on the road, losing all 3 of them to Syracuse, USC and Georgia Tech.
In typical cowardly Southern style, they have yet to win a game outside of Klan Land since 1980 when they beat Texas Christian, but calling Texas something other than the South is a bit of a stretch, they still say "ya'll" there
in 1978 they beat Virginia Tech on the road giving them a total of 3 road wins OOC over 28 years, 2 in Virginia and 1 in North Carolina.
Starting to assume there is no way in hell those hillbillies are going to return to Pullman to play Wash St on their turf, I think they should play in Pullman in late November to allow the Cougs the same type of home field advantage that Auburn had at Jordan Hare in early September.
78 was an oddity for Auburn as they also beat Kansas State on the road, in 77 they lost to Florida Statein Talahasse, 76 they lost to Memphis and Arizona on the road, 75 they lost at Florida state again. Seems that in the mid 70's Auburn had balls, but losses every year to the likes of Arizona, Memphis State and Florida State neutered them, and its that neutering from the 70's that has more to do with current schedule decisions than economics

actually finding a smidge of respect for SEC teams Arkansas, LSU, Alabama and Tennessee since they seem to have been the only teams willing to take the show on the road from that conf. I dont count Vandy, MSU or Ole Miss since those are sun Belt schools

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:56 pm

Van wrote: Do you truly think S. Carolina plays that same game if it'd been in Jordan-Hare?

Probably not, but I'm also not so delusional to think a home crowd is worth three touchdowns difference. With two weeks to basically relax and plan and with the particular injuries Auburn was sitting, I'm not so sure the outcome of the game would have been glaringly different in Auburn.

No, you don't. WSU had the ball in the fouth quarter against Auburn, down by only eight or nine. S. Carolina wouldn't have managed any better than that and more than likely they wouldn't have managed anywhere near that well. Auburn, at home, against the doormats of the SEC like S. Carolina? They usually win 34-0.

If you watched that game, Van, you'd see it was never close. Auburn was on their side of the field all day long, and only a lot of offensive ineptitude kept it where it was until late.

WSU played 'em every bit as well as S. Carolina would've played 'em.

Believe it if you like.

Conversely, make Auburn pack up and travel to Pullman to play a fully healthy WSU (which they decidedly weren't when you faced 'em) in their own house and see what happens.

Auburn wins. Probably a little closer, not much.

Apples and oranges here, Buc, and you know it.

Not so much as you enjoy making it out.

Hardly. We define "OOC" as meaning "a team that isn't in your conference."

So?

Apparently though SEC fan does qualify "road wins" to their liking. See, with the glaring exception of m2, Pac 10 fans define an "OOC road win" as meaning you packed up and traveled to an OOC team's home stadium and beat them there.

Do you really think a road win out of conference against the Hawaiis and Arkansas of the world is really that terribly much more impressive than beating LSU in death valley or Florida in the swamp?

Pac 10 teams do it all the time. SEC teams...generally don't. Auburn in particular most certainly doesn't.

Pac 10 teams get their asses kicked on the road too. See Cal, Arizona, Washington State and just about any team not named 'USC'. You wonder why you PACers are about the only ones harping on this particular aspect of the game? Maybe because it's the only think you have to hang onto?

Hell no, which you'd know if you'd hang around here more. I've beeb wailing against this bullshit all over this place. The Big 12, Big East and the ACC are equally guilty of this shit.

As is the Big 10 and as would be the PAC if their SOS would not plummet into the basement otherwise.

Doesn't make it any less cowardly and gluttonous.

It's business, cat. It's why other conferences don't have such a feast of slappies like the PAC. They grow. They build. They recruit.

No. What about it? They also don't get to play the likes of Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and S. Carolina every year. Nor do they get to play teams with bloated rankings which in turn bloat their own rankings every year. Lastly, they also don't get to play Troy, Buffalo and N.W. Louisiana Automotive Tech three times per year.

Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and South Carolina have been competitive a lot more recently than the PAC basement dwellers and will become so again sooner. There's a lot of MNCs among the "bloated" SEC ranks. There's a lot more collective achievement in the SEC than the PAC can claim. You won't find very many outside the PAC homer ranks arguing the SEC isn't usually the toughest conference to play in in the country.

Bottom line, USC nearly always ends up having a very high SOS ranking, even though the teams they play (with the exception of ND) don't benefit from the artificially bloated rankings found all over the incestuous SEC.

Sorry Van, but the occasional diet of BYU, Hawaii and a Notre Dame squad who is only recently worth a damn doesn't exactly make me feel guilty Auburn only has to square up against several of the NCAA's perennial top teams every single year.

Auburn has, so yeah, I do. Of course I do. During Pete's run here USC has had better talent than anybody in the SEC. If Auburn could do it and hapless offenses like Georgia and Alabama can swing it for most of the year then hell yeah USC could also do it.

I'd give SC at least two losses every season.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that USC would see it as a pleasant surprise, getting to add three home game scrimmages to their W-L record every year. Sure, let USC replace ND, Nebraska and Arkansas with three home games against drunk chicks from a Girls Gone Wild video. USC's already proven their ability to go on the road and win, including the SEC.

But then they'd also have to replace six or seven annual mediocres with the likes of Florida, UT, Georgia and Alabama. Surely you aren't so delirious as to think there wouldn't be a severe change of pace.

Conversely, I'd sure love to see how a sheltered Georgia or Auburn would do if every year they had to play three real OOC games before embarking on roadies to the Coliseum, Berkeley, Seattle and Autzen Stadium. Pretty sure they wouldn't be starting off every season 3-0 before they ever play a game, like they do now.

They've done it before and were top 10s. They'll do it again. As for Berkeley, Seattle and Autzen...

Let USC play eight home games per season, against only four roadies?

FUCK.....YEAH. Bring it on.

Trust me, Van...it's all about who you play. USC wants none of it. I'm sure Pete's more than happy right were he is.

Yeah, about like Texas "survived" their "conference championship game" last season. USC has been markedly better than the team they'd ultimately face in such a game. It wouldn't be even be a road game. They'd roll them a second time too.

...or Oklahoma? It's another game, Van. Another game SC doesn't play.

No need. Serves zero purpose, except as a very cynical money grab. The regular season will prove the conference champion, as it's supposed to do. There's no sense in awarding a conference title to some 8-4 team, not when there's a 12-0 team already in the same conference. The 8-4 team already had their opportunity to take down the 12-0 team. Didn't happen.

Not always, Van. Ask Oklahoma. Ask LSU. It's one more game SC won't have to play.

You offering up Vandy, S. Carolina, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and Mississippi State? Or, are you offering up N.W. Florida, La Monroe and The Mississippi School For The Incontinent? Better yet, let us build our rankings off of wins over overrated programs such as 'Bama, Tennessee and Georgia.

I wouldn't trade any of the above for any PAC mediocre. They're competitive on a more frequent basis than the bulk of the PAC. They put more athletes in the NFL than the bulk of the PAC. They're ranked more often than the bulk of the PAC. They come away with bigger wins more often than the bulk of the PAC. The PAC has maybe three teams worth a damn on an annual basis, and the distance between two of those and SC is always fairly lopsided.

Auburn wouldn't know. Neither would Georgia, or 'Bama, or...

See, they don't go OOC and they play in a conference that's just about the equal of or just slightly better than the other conferences. Between their three game OOC dessert "schedule", six confirmed pastries in conference plus another few artificial "big games" to bloat your ranking it must be nice starting the season with an automatic 9 wins and a Top 12 ranking.

Again, outside of PACland, few see it this way. Looking over the history of the SEC, I'd say the last they'd need to answer to in terms of schedule is the PAC-10.

Gotta also be nice to know you'll only need to pack your suitcase four times per season, and even then you only need to pack lightly since you're probably not going to travel more than a couple hundred miles at worst.

The best football is played over here. Is it my fault SC is located on the west coast where few give a rat's ass about football? It is my fault they play on the graveyard shift for national TV? Is it my fault the top teams in America require a long roadie for the PAC to get to? We've got them right here. We play them right here. No apologies.

Yep, and it's disgusting. Doesn't let you off the hook though.

What hook? The only one imagining a hook is the PAC.

Balanced schedules...six home games...six roadies...

Demand it. Make it mandatory, for everybody. Nothing less.

I'd like to see it, but it won't happen. SC will end up following suit to keep up with the money flow, eventually. It's a money biz and the games go accordingly. Again, do you think as an Auburn fan I enjoy seeing La Monroe appear on the schedule? Our AD has gone out to get OOC games. They've had several opt out or buy out of their contracts. We've had others turn Auburn down on home and homes because of scheduling and money differences. You see, they're maximizing their home games too and it's hard to fill in the blanks with the stronger teams.

Conference championships equate to "honor"?? Yeah, 66-3 and a stadium entirely filled with burnt orange was really honorable. The Pac 10 and Big 10 have been around forever. They do it just fine, thanks. No cynical money grab charades necessary.

It's all about money, Van. Do you think Pete Carroll is really going on the road for "honor"? He's doing it because he has to. He has to to get on TV. He has to to get exposure. He has to to fix an abysmal SOS otherwise.

SEC style...Big 12 style.

Look harder. NCAA style.

That final score wasn't indicative of the closeness of the game, and you know it. You also played 'em in your back yard. WSU traveled, injured, three thousand miles to play that game.

BFD.

...and they were just as injured when SC played them. It isn't three TDs, Van. Even oddsmakers don't go there.

YOU nearly lost to a team that barely beat Wofford. You nearly lost to a team that got destroyed by toofess Georgia, who themselves got exposed at home by...Colorado!!

Syvelle Newton was not the QB against Wofford or UGA. It changed the game. If you know anything about football, you know planning against a glorified speedster WR in a Spurrier offense with two NFL WRs to defend is much more complicated than a new blood, hapless, slow drop-back snail that those played. Auburn looked bad. Are they bad? I don't know. USC looked bad. Are they bad? I don't know. Both teams have won against top competition. Both have looked bad against lesser competition. I'll still put a win against LSU up against anything SC has accomplished this season...and that and a quarter still won't buy very much.

Bottom line, you nearly lost to a bad team and their back up QB. We looked blah against WSU but we were in control of the game and we were never in danger of losing, like you were.

Losing? Auburn never trailed. Auburn had as many failed opportunities to score as SC. At best the game could have gone into OT, but it didn't.

We both looked blah. We just looked a bit better than you. No great shakes there.

Believe what you will.

Dude, quit already. Were it not for the refs and some horrific calls you would've already lost a game this season, at home. LSU outplayed you. S. Carolina owned you in the fourth quarter. You've had two tests this season, one of them only a very minor test, and you didn't look all that impressive in either one. You escaped in both, through sheer luck.

Van, you apparently didn't watch the LSU game and apparently don't understand the rules of college football. If LSU had outplayed us, they would have won the game. Lay off the fantasy football a bit.

True, and since it's only Week 5 right now it doesn't matter yet anyway. Michigan has looked better than USC and Auburn so far but who's to say that they won't pull a Michigan and go lose somewhere before the OSU game? They're Michigan. They always find a way to lose somewhere they shouldn't.

As usual, there are a few teams vying early. Michigan didn't exactly look like world beaters for a good bit of the Vandy game, either, but wins and losses are what matters. In the end, some bullshit poll is going to conduct a popularity contest and hand someone a trophy and it still isn't going to mean much of anything until there's a playoff, which there likely will never be...so I just enjoy the season and debating this worthless bullshit ad nauseum with other fine fans like yourself. If the BCS has done anything worthwhile, it's give fans something else to bitch about.

It's just Week 5 though, so we'll see. Right now, I'd call it OSU, Michigan, USC and then Auburn. "Right now" doesn't matter a hill of beans though, except insofar that those teams have still managed to remain unscathed so they're all still firmly in the hunt...

Agreed.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm

Did an Auburn fan run off with your girlfriend or something, SoCalCondom?

I can see why.

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:11 am

Should we rename this thread USC v. Auburn?

As a WSU fan I'm flattered that the BCS has apparently been replaced by how teams fare against my school. As fan of said school, my thought on this matter are as follows:

1. A couple of plays go the other way and WSU-Auburn score is much closer than 40-14. Auburn ran a fake punt from their own territory late in the 3rd leading 26-14. HAd they not pulled it off WSU may have made it 26-21 with a quarter to go (looks a lot like 28-22 doesn't it?). WSU's D Line was depleted by fall camp injuries and Auburn wore them out in the fourth to get 2 more touchdowns. WSU offense struggled after Woolridge had to leave game in 2nd quarter. Tardy had not found his rythm yet like we saw yesterday.

2. A couple of plays go the other way, and the WSU-USC margin is much wider. Trailing 28-13, WSU valiantly scored again, but had they turned it over or stalled USC could've added another before the end and made it 35-13 (looks a lot lke 40-14 doesn' it?.) Had USC had Jarrett, things may have been more comfortable for USC as both he and Smith would've been jsut too much for WSU.

3. Based on the two games I saw, I would give Auburn the edge over USC at RB, O line, D line, secondary, and special teams. I give USC the edge at QB, WR, linebacker.

4. Most years the SEC has more elite teams than the Pac-10, but the Pac-10 is deeper and the meat of the conference is better. Almost all programs are strong enough to attract good players which leads to parity on the field. USC is starting to stockpile though. But since 1993 every Pac-10 team except one has won at least of share of the Conference Championship. BTW, guess which is the ONLY school NOT to win at least a share of the Conference Championship since 1993?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yup it's Cal.