USC Looked Scary Good Against ND

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:53 am

Just gotta wonder how a nine year layoff between the Michigan game and the title game will work for/against Ohio St when they come up against a battle hardened USC team just itchin' to win back the one they feel they blew last year...

I also wanna see how USC reacts to being an underdog (slight though it'll be) for the first time since 2001...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:20 am

88 wrote: I hope it is idle talk, but don't be surprised if you read something unflattering about him in the next two to three weeks. Just sayin.

DUI in a new Escalade decked out complete with spinnters?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:26 am

Hopefully he'll carve something really self serving and banal into his shaved 'do. That's always a good sign of maturity-in-the-moment.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:42 am

Believe the Heupel wrote:Notre Dame is what they are.

Now, by "is what they are," do you mean "what they are," or is it more like "they are who we thought they were"?

Just wondering.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:45 am

But damn, if you don't bring your A Game on D against ND, they'll light you up something fierce.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:49 am

Watching Quinn scamper for sixty yards...not cool, especially with Troy Smith watching from the wings.

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:51 am

Believe the Heupel wrote:I meant "what they are."

Which is nowhere near where they're polling.

Notre Dame could be 0-12 and still be in the Top 25... tell me you knew.

It's part of the contract they have with the BCS....... errrrr NBC.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:56 am

B-t-H wrote:Yep. A good QB and a good WR with great offensive gameplanning will do that for you.

Troy Smith...Ted Ginn Jr...Anthony Gonzales...

JDB...Dwayne Jarrett...Steve Smith...Patrick Turner...

Eeeash!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:20 am

I'll tell you what -- Jarrett gets all the pub, and for good reason, but damn, Steve Smith is something else. Maybe Carolina should draft him whenever that time comes, then they could have a bitchin 1-2/Steve Smith punch. I can only imagine a liquored-up Madden trying to cover those games. The amount of yellow on the Telestrator after Madden got done outlining a crossing route might crash the production booth.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:59 am

88, maybe you are just pimping the opposition but I don't worry about this game. And USC didn't let one slip away last year, #10 showed who was the best CFB last year and #10 will do it again this year.

USC beat Arkansas and that is their only key win of the year IMO. Beating ND bad at home doesn't say much. Well let me rephrase, apparently it means more than UM whupping them at their house. UM loses to the #1 team in the land and rapes ND in front of TD jesus. USC loses to an unranked bottom feeder and rapes ND in their "can't quite fill all the seats" colliseum. I don't know why that makes USC the better team. I don't want to see UM vs OSU again but I don't really understand why USC gets the nod ahead of them. Beyond UM losing later in the year, I don't see a big difference.

If USC closes out against UCLA, I can't wait. There isn't a team I fear except for UM (and only because it would require beating them twice). USC is good but not that good. Additionally, no one can slow down OSU's offense.

Sig bet anyone?

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:52 pm

88, I'm not sure where the "scary good" comes in???

Most of us in the PAC 10 were laughing/talking about how bad $C looked in this game.

After $C went through their PAC 10 schedule... ND was like Toying with a Baby.

Notre Dame would be a lower tier team in the PAC. Take a look at the UCLA v ND game in South Bend. UCLA is one of the worst teams in the PAC.

Take a look at $C's games in the PAC this year... I maybe wrong, but the only team they beat more convincingly than ND was Stanfurd.

That being said... Ohio State has a very good chance against $C.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:30 pm

Sky wrote:88, maybe you are just pimping the opposition but I don't worry about this game. And USC didn't let one slip away last year, #10 showed who was the best CFB last year and #10 will do it again this year.

USC beat Arkansas and that is their only key win of the year IMO. Beating ND bad at home doesn't say much. Well let me rephrase, apparently it means more than UM whupping them at their house. UM loses to the #1 team in the land and rapes ND in front of TD jesus. USC loses to an unranked bottom feeder and rapes ND in their "can't quite fill all the seats" colliseum. I don't know why that makes USC the better team. I don't want to see UM vs OSU again but I don't really understand why USC gets the nod ahead of them. Beyond UM losing later in the year, I don't see a big difference.

If USC closes out against UCLA, I can't wait. There isn't a team I fear except for UM (and only because it would require beating them twice). USC is good but not that good. Additionally, no one can slow down OSU's offense.

Sig bet anyone?

I love this post. Possibly a little overconfident here, IMO. Gonna have to save it for January 8 and see if it comes back to smash you in the face.

The selective stats and reasoning that people pull up to convince themselves just crack me up. UM was slightly more dominant over ND than SC was -- so what? They only lost to the #1 team -- they didn't win their own conference, either. SC lost to a terrible (bottom feeder?) Oregon State team -- one that finished the regular season 8-4 and ranked 24 in the BCS, higher than any Big 10 team besides UM, OSU and UW.

Try this on...

USC's OOC schedule had three teams whose final rankings were in the top 20 in all major polls, and two of those were in the top 10 BCS, and a combined record of 29-7. They beat these opponents by a combined score of 122-48.

UM's OOC schedule had three teams who were unranked anywhere (Ball State?), and a combined record of 17-19. Combined score - 102-50. From this, it looks like UM is a bunch of pussies.

I'm not saying that SC is a better team than UM. What I am saying is that you can build a case either way. Your post makes you look like a blithering fool.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:03 pm

ooops...I did leave the UM-ND game out of my little OOC analysis.

Still, UM's OOC looks like this: 4 teams, one ranked, with a combined record of 27-21 and combined score of 149-71. UM's average OOC score was 37-18, while SC's was 41-16 against a much harder schedule. UM lost to their conference champion and didn't even play the only other decent team in the conference.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:23 pm

Let's let USC get through UCLA first but for the sake of conversation let's just assume they do and we get USC-Ohio St for all the marbles...

...which, in the Big Picture, would be one of the great title game match ups of all time, pitting two of the all time classic programs against each other, and two of the most recently successful programs, with the two most recently successful big game coaches...

...well, if I'm Ohio St Fan, yeah, maybe I'm thinking we ought to maybe just go ahead and play the game first, just in case, before I pop off too much. Beating USC in a bowl game has never been something to sneeze at for Ohio St and USC under Pete Carroll presents a unique set of problems for anybody looking to beat them late in the year.

To wit, since 2002 USC has lost precisely one game and one game only once we flipped the calender to November...last year's Texas game. They nearly won that one too.

Yeah, maybe we ought to go ahead and play the game, just in case.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:55 pm

Mikey wrote:I love this post. Possibly a little overconfident here, IMO. Gonna have to save it for January 8 and see if it comes back to smash you in the face.

The selective stats and reasoning that people pull up to convince themselves just crack me up. UM was slightly more dominant over ND than SC was -- so what? They only lost to the #1 team -- they didn't win their own conference, either. SC lost to a terrible (bottom feeder?) Oregon State team -- one that finished the regular season 8-4 and ranked 24 in the BCS, higher than any Big 10 team besides UM, OSU and UW.

Try this on...

USC's OOC schedule had three teams whose final rankings were in the top 20 in all major polls, and two of those were in the top 10 BCS, and a combined record of 29-7. They beat these opponents by a combined score of 122-48.

UM's OOC schedule had three teams who were unranked anywhere (Ball State?), and a combined record of 17-19. Combined score - 102-50. From this, it looks like UM is a bunch of pussies.

I'm not saying that SC is a better team than UM. What I am saying is that you can build a case either way. Your post makes you look like a blithering fool.

Great post, Mikey.

Van, I don't think the layoff is going to hurt OSU one bit. Tressel's too good of a coach to not have his team prepared for this game. The long layoff will mean these guys will be "overly" fresh, hungry, amped up and ready to go by the time that January night comes. Perhaps a little too hungry, but I'm sure they'll settle down early enough. Plus, as Carroll and Co. are preparing for UCLA this week, that's just one more week Tressell has to figure out SC.

Obviously this will be a great matchup, but what makes it even better is the coaching matchup. The two best coaches in the game today going at each other for all the marbles? Epic stuff, right there.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:01 pm

You mean Charlie Weis is not the best coach in the game?

Sin,

The Media last year hyping him to no end

You mean Urban Meyer isn't the best coach in the game?

Sin,

TRIX as he goes back for more Urban GOO

You mean Kirk Ferentz isn't the best coach in the game?

Sin,

Jon as he caresses his Ferentz's bobbleheads balls...

just adding some levity Domers don't go flaming on me...

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:04 pm

also I am not a huge believer in this layoff crap...

In every bowl game with the exception of his first Tressel has had his troops ready...preparation and planning are the key...sure the layoff helps with getting healthy but all the kids can do is continue to practice and hopefully stay out of trouble...

the long layoff didn't seem to affect SC and Texas last year and we got a hell of a game...I could only hope SC (if it happens) vs tOSU is as good of a game...of course I hope tOSU is the winner but you know what I am saying...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:15 pm

Yeah, I just don't see that layoff stuff negatively affecting teams of this caliber. Maybe they'll be rusty for the first and/or second set of downs, but it's not like they'll have forgotten how to play the game. It's not like they weren't practicing, and scrimmaging, and simulating, during the weeks prior to the game.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:24 pm

Mgo, I completely agree about Tressell. He'll do the best job possible of having 'em ready at the right time.

Still, a 57 day layoff? That's practically unheard of in American sport. No matter how great of a job Tressell does his kids are still just kids and they still might be prone to coming in tight (if not flat) and thus suffering from the usual big game/early in the game jitters and mistakes.

Also, until we see it on the field I'm still going to wonder about each team's motivation/mindset. I've gotta believe there's at least a chance that some of the OSU kids will read the press clippings and feel that with their win in the latest Game Of The Century they've already won the title. I've also gotta believe that USC coming in with a major chip on their shoulder and a lot of momentum will have the psychological advantage here. USC's never gotten to play the role of the "dissed" underdog and they're going to have to listen to a month of chatter from Michigan Fan and possibly Florida Fan about how they don't belong there.

USC, playing with an "It's us against the world!" underdog's mindset! Pretty sure Pete will get tons of mileage with his players out of that one. Couple that with their feeling that they had last year's title game in hand and they let it slip away at the end and yeah, that's a unique mindset to have for a USC team and it's one I really like for them to have against a team potentially coming in a bit fat and happy off of such a long layoff.

Not saying it will happen that OSU comes in tight and making mistakes early on but it certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened and if it does happen they could easily find themselves falling far behind the last team in the world they want to trail in such a big game...

Then there's the other obvious factor, which is that USC just plain has the athletes to match up with and maybe even overmatch Ohio St. That's really what I think it'll come down to: USC's talent and outright balls vs Ohio St's experience and steady, heady play. Thing is, I usually favor the latter in those match ups. I'll take heady play over athletic ability just about every time. So, it's just a question of how heady and mistake free of a game can USC's young talent manage? They're definitely in this game a year early so Ohio St should have a big advantage there with their senior leadership but who knows, maybe the cream is simply rising to the top and all those thoroughbreds will simply prove impervious to the pressues of the situation?

I still like OSU though, barely. Gotta go with the norm, not the possible exception.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:54 pm

tOSU has been phenominal this year. The game is interesting because you have two teams with a killer one-two WR combo. Jarrett/Ginn are the headliners, and Smith/Gonzales are the workmen. Running game looks pretty comparable. Hard to say which QB's style will be more effective against the other team. Defensively both squads are fast and athletic.

What a game this would be. If we beat ucLabia this Saturday you can get ready for the hype machine to get going at a nauseating pace.

[Brent Pussberger]Two of the best programs in the nation over the past five years...Tressell, Carroll...one offensive genius, the other defensive... Smith... Booty... Ginn... Jarrett... this year's Heisman winner... next year's Heisman hopeful... and let's not forget Gonzales and Smith... two unsung heros who work in the shadows behind their headliner teammates... and then there's the defense... the power up front for the Buckeyes is no secret... the speed and athletecism of the Trojans... Ohio State... USC... one championship... who will win tonight? [/Brent Pussberger]

:vomit:

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:05 pm

^^^^^^^^^

rack...

wait though Jimmah the game will be on Fox not ABC...so we get a set of newbies to break in...

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:14 pm

Fox??

Who will we get then to call the game? Al Bundy and Willie The Groundskeeper?

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:50 pm

Van wrote:Fox??

Who will we get then to call the game? Al Bundy and Willie The Groundskeeper?

On a serious note, my guess would be Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:40 pm

It's Thom Brennaman/ Barry Alvarez/ Charles Davis doing both the Fiesta and the NCG.

Link

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:28 pm

FLW Buckeye wrote:It's Thom Brennaman/ Barry Alvarez/ Charles Davis doing both the Fiesta and the NCG.

Link

Pat Haden? He's been doing ND games on NBC forever. Is his NBC contract up on December 31?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:05 am

he's likely only under NBCs contract during Notre Dames regular season.
How did a Trojan wind up doing all of Notre Dames home games?

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:52 am

FLW Buckeye wrote:It's Thom Brennaman/ Barry Alvarez/ Charles Davis doing both the Fiesta and the NCG.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the one thing we can all agree on regarding the BCS this year: It's very good that Cuntsberger isn't calling the MNC.

Thank God.

Otherwise Jimmah's imitation would be $

As it is though, I'll be trying to find out when the actual kickoff is. The last thing I'll want to watch is Bradshaw and the rest of those morons giggling and ass-grabbing each other for an hour, ala their weekly NFL pregame "show."

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:58 am

RadioFan wrote:
FLW Buckeye wrote:It's Thom Brennaman/ Barry Alvarez/ Charles Davis doing both the Fiesta and the NCG.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the one thing we can all agree on regarding the BCS this year: It's very good that Cuntsberger isn't calling the MNC.

Thank God.

Otherwise Jimmah's imitation would be $

As it is though, I'll be trying to find out when the actual kickoff is. The last thing I'll want to watch is Bradshaw and the rest of those morons giggling and ass-grabbing each other for an hour, ala their weekly NFL pregame "show."

lol

fucking rack!

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:01 pm

peter dragon wrote:
RadioFan wrote:As it is though, I'll be trying to find out when the actual kickoff is. The last thing I'll want to watch is Bradshaw and the rest of those morons giggling and ass-grabbing each other for an hour, ala their weekly NFL pregame "show."
lol

fucking rack!

lol'ers here too.

nice.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:45 pm

Not sure if the whole Fox crew will be at the MNC game...when they interviewed Tressel Sunday after the Michigan game...the only one who said he was doing pre-game was Jimmah Johnson...I mean it would make sense that the guy who COACHED at a major college program would be the lead pre-game dude for Fox...dunno just sayin'

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:27 pm

88 wrote:Damn, dude. Maybe you ought to temper that enthusiasm. I believe I saw Michigan hang 39 on the vaunted Ohio State D in Ohio Stadium a couple of weeks ago. I think most would agree that USC's offense is much better than Michigan's offense.

Ohio State should be able to score some points on USC, but I wouldn't get too confident just yet.

The only way this would be overconfidence is if tOSU decides to turn the ball over 3 times. If we do that, it will be a game. However, I think it is fairly obvious USCs D is not near as good as UMs and we moved the ball all over UM. They scored 10 pts off of two TOs (with very short fields). Our other turnover was at their 30.

Without those it would not have even been a game IMO.

Mikey wrote:I love this post. Possibly a little overconfident here, IMO. Gonna have to save it for January 8 and see if it comes back to smash you in the face.

The selective stats and reasoning that people pull up to convince themselves just crack me up. UM was slightly more dominant over ND than SC was -- so what? They only lost to the #1 team -- they didn't win their own conference, either. SC lost to a terrible (bottom feeder?) Oregon State team -- one that finished the regular season 8-4 and ranked 24 in the BCS, higher than any Big 10 team besides UM, OSU and UW.

Try this on...

USC's OOC schedule had three teams whose final rankings were in the top 20 in all major polls, and two of those were in the top 10 BCS, and a combined record of 29-7. They beat these opponents by a combined score of 122-48.

UM's OOC schedule had three teams who were unranked anywhere (Ball State?), and a combined record of 17-19. Combined score - 102-50. From this, it looks like UM is a bunch of pussies.

I'm not saying that SC is a better team than UM. What I am saying is that you can build a case either way. Your post makes you look like a blithering fool.

Good point about Oregon St, I thought they had a worse record than that.

However, when looking at their common opponent I don't think you can say SC is better than UM. USC is built to score large numbers of points, UM is not. USC is a better passing team and I think that leads to more points. UM is a running team and I think that leads to less points. Saying USC is better because they outscored the OOC opponents to a greater degree that UM doesn't mean a lot to me. I have no problem admitting that USC's OOC schedule was more difficult but when considering their loss to Oregon St, I don't think it adds up that USC is automatically better than UM. If the pollsters don't want to see a rematch, fine, neither do I. But I don't think you can flatly say USC is better than UM.

Mikey wrote:ooops...I did leave the UM-ND game out of my little OOC analysis.

Still, UM's OOC looks like this: 4 teams, one ranked, with a combined record of 27-21 and combined score of 149-71. UM's average OOC score was 37-18, while SC's was 41-16 against a much harder schedule. UM lost to their conference champion and didn't even play the only other decent team in the conference.

UM didn't play Wisconsin? Hmm, 27-13 ring any bells?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:34 pm

I haven't read the whole thread so someone else may have said this but...

ND had 2 quality opponents this year and got disemboweled by both.

Maybe USC looking "scary good" against ND isn't that big a deal.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:55 pm

I think it is fairly obvious USCs D is not near as good as UMs

I think it's fairly obvious that there's no way in hell anybody should say such a thing.

Michigan's D played precisely two offenses that were any good this year, Ohio St's and ND's. Ohio St completely ruined Michigan's D and ND (thanks to a cosmetic TD during the final moments of garbage time) only scored three more points on USC than they scored on Michigan.

USC's D is faster than Michigan's D and USC defends the pass better. Even against the run, hell, nobody really runs on USC. They rarely give up a 100 yard game to any running back. The only rushing attack that truly causes USC's D fits is the broken play QB scramble. Yeah, USC is susceptible to those, as is every other D in America, but USC wouldn't have to worry about that if they ever played Michigan and Chad Henne.

Even in USC's one loss Oregon St didn't exactly dominate USC's D. OSU got short fields off of turnovers and they got big special teams play.

I won't categorically say that USC's D is better than Michigan's but there's no way in hell anybody in their right mind can say, "Michigan's D is obviously better than USC's." At best for Michigan it's very close, with no real edge going to either squad.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:00 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I haven't read the whole thread so someone else may have said this but...

ND had 2 quality opponents this year and got disemboweled by both.

Maybe USC looking "scary good" against ND isn't that big a deal.

In and of itself, no, maybe not, but when you add in their performances against two other potential BCS conference champions plus their dominating wins over Cal and Oregon then the picture becomes a little clearer.

Still, Ohio St is "scary good", regardless. Assuming USC gets through UCLA both teams in the title game will very definitely have their work cut out for them.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Van wrote:I won't categorically say that USC's D is better than Michigan's but there's no way in hell anybody in their right mind can say, "Michigan's D is obviously better than USC's." At best for Michigan it's very close, with no real edge going to either squad.

Well, it is probably a good thing you don't categorically say USC's D is better given the facts:

UM D:
Run 1st
Pass 76th
Total 6th
Scoring 9th

USC D:
Run 17th
Pass 66th
Total 28th
Scoring 13th

And Van, I don't care how bad USC or UM beat ND. I don't care if UM won by 24 and USC by 23. All I was saying was this: With their common opponnent, UM whupped ND away and USC whupped them at home. Beyond that, UM lost to the #1 team in the nation while USC lost to an unranked. While I am happy to play USC in the title game I don't think there is clear reasoning behind saying USC is better than UM (beyond not wanting a rematch).

When you compare the total offenses of the two leagues the Big 10 has the better overall offensive production:

Total offense Big 10 -

1 Purdue 10
2 Ohio St. 15
3 Wisconsin 28
4 Iowa 30
5 Michigan 32
6 Minnesota 41
7 Michigan St. 48
8 Penn St. 55
9 Illinois 57
10 Indiana 65
11 Northwestern 91

Total offense Pac 10 -

1 Oregon 8
2 California 12
3 Southern California 28
4 Washington St. 27
5 Arizona St. 43
6 Oregon St. 49
7 UCLA 70
8 Washington 76
9 Arizona 115
10 Stanford 118

And while USC did play Nebraska and Arkansas, UM didn't get to play the #115 and #118 ranked teams in the country. In case you were wondering, there are only #119 teams in D1 football.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:16 pm

And what does that say about Big10 offenses when Perdue just faced a real offense, and got out-track-meeted BADLY?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:18 pm

Oh I think USC is definitely #2. I even think they are pretty much on par with OSU.

However, I'll never pass up an opportunity to take a pot shot at ND. ;)

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:45 pm

Sky, the "clear reasoning" behind saying USC is better than Michigan (assuming they beat UCLA to finish with an equal record) is their S.O.S. vs Michigan's. That same superior S.O.S. that made it harder to compile the identical 11-1 record also made it harder to compile higher individual statistical rankings.

See, according to S.O.S., I'm pretty sure that if USC had substituted Michigan's schedule for their own the numbers for both teams would look very different right now and they'd be tilted more in USC's favor.

Also, let me make this very clear. In NO way am I trying to suggest that USC is far superior to Michigan. Nope. Wouldn't even try it. Michigan's obviously damn good and very possibly every bit as good as USC. Here's all I'll say about a one loss USC team vis a vis a one loss Michigan team, come season's end:

-USC has more team speed, especially on defense. Of this I have little doubt that too many people would disagree.

-Pete Carroll seems to be a better big game coach than Lloyd Carr. I think it's safe to say that most of us here would choose Pete over Lloyd if we had to pick a coach right now to win an individual game or even to build a CF program.

-A one loss USC team accomplished more than a one loss Michigan team and thus the one loss USC team was more deserving of getting the shot in the title game.

-By season's end a one loss USC team means USC also beat Ohio St. It won't matter how they beat OSU in the title game. ANY win there will do. At that point this debate ends and USC is declared better than Michigan by every last person here. Any exceptions will reveal themselves to be outright idiots.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:48 pm

Van wrote:-By season's end a one loss USC team means USC also beat Ohio St. It won't matter how they beat OSU in the title game. ANY win there will do. At that point this debate ends and USC is declared better than Michigan by every last person here. Any exceptions will reveal themselves to be outright idiots.

I started to take that post seriously until you said this. I guess you only have 40 some days to keep thinking that way so enjoy it while you can. USC couldn't contain #10 last year so why do you think they will be able to do it this year?

But seriously, UM probably would have lost to Oregon St as well so good point about swapping schedules.

Just one last question, does a 2-loss USC team still rank higher than a 1-loss UM team? I mean given that USC is superior in most ways, even if they lose it doesn't really count, right? Strangely, this feels like we are sliding into an m2 type conversation, maybe we should stop now. OK, but seriously do I care who is better between UM and USC, no. I don't want to play UM again so USC is fine.

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:53 pm

I'm not of the west coast bias but........................I see a statement on this thread that is total homer.....Ohio State and USC have a wash at the running game.....WTF, Jimmy, I respect you a a poster but have you not seen A. Pittman/C. Wells run the ball. Compared to the "Freshmen by commitee" and that guy who got Straight A's after 4 years of toil, there's no comparison. I'll give a little and say USC's defense has a slight edge but with that I'll say Ohio St. has a great advantage on offense. I don't see this as being a great game/instant classic aka 2002............

Sorry 88, don't see USC the same way as you....................................

T1B

USC Looked Scary Good Against ND

Re: USC Looked Scary Good Against ND