LOI Day, how is your school going to fare?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:48 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:
Believe the Heupel wrote: I've got my first-year internship lined up already (contingent on class standing), so I'm feeling pretty good at this point.
Interning down this way...or back in Alaska?

Come on Sam. You know once a student reaches the Southeast, they don't see another plane for 4/5 more years.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:51 pm

BTH, my point is that the only way USC gets in is when they have a perfect record. The other teams can suffer a loss (or two) and still get in but unless USC is perfect they alone "stepped on their dicks" so they can't get in.

Their loss on the road to Oregon St? Inexcusable. They're out.

Florida's loss at home to Ole Miss? No biggie. Gandhi promised he'd make amends. They're in.

Would I like to see a change in this system? Of course I would. I'm sick of the SEC and Big XII always being selected as the beauty pageant winners whenever the decision comes down to choosing between teams with losses. Florida and OU did no more than PSU or USC to deserve the shot this year. In the case of Utah they did less.

I want an eight team playoffs, with the eight teams chosen solely by the final rankings, not through automatic conference tie ins. I want the USCs, Penn Sts, Utahs and '04 Auburns of the world to have a chance to play for a real championship.

'Spray, why on earth would the Pac 10 want a conference tournament, except as a transparent money grab? Most years, conferences who have a CCG shouldn't. It was entirely unnecessary. Their champion was already rightfully determined during the regular season. Either the two teams from different divisions ended up with different conference records or they already played each other, or both. It's not all that often that we see two teams who didn't play each other end up with the same conference record and that's the only time a CCG should ever be played...when it's to break a tie in the conference standings.

The Pac 10 has it down perfectly. Every team plays every other team. The tie breaker is automatic: head to head results. In the case of a three way tie a CCG wouldn't help anyway. All you'd get is the debacle we saw with the Big XII South this past season.

If the Pac 10 ever expands to twelve teams, sure, then they'll add a CCG. Even then though I'd hope they'd only play it when it'd be necessary to break a tie in the standings. That isn't what they'd do, of course, but that's what they should do.

Just like the '05 Big XII CCG it'd just be flat out stupid to have 9-0/12-0 USC, the winner of the Pac 10 South, have to play 7-2/10-2 Utah, the winner of the Pac 10 North, for the supposed "championship." It'd be even dumber if USC had already played Utah that season.

So, what, Utah is now the conference champion if they beat USC in the rematch? They'd then be tied 1-1 head to head and USC would still have a better conference record and a better overall record. Why on earth should Utah even be given a chance to play for the title in that scenario?

Let's say Texas had won the BCS coin flip with OU this year, to win the Big XII South. Why on earth should Texas then have to go ahead and risk the conference championship and the (correctly) presumed BCS title game berth by playing Mizzou in the Big XII CCG? Texas had a better conference record than Mizzou, a better overall record and they'd already killed Mizzou head to head during the season.

NO reason to even play that game. Texas already won the conference. Mizzou already lost the conference.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:05 pm

Van wrote:BTH, my point is that the only way USC gets in is when they have a perfect record. The other teams can suffer a loss (ot two) and still get in but unless USC is perfect they alone "stepped on their dicks" and they can't get in.

Their loss on the road to Oregon St? Inexcusable. They're out.

Florida's loss at home to Ole Miss? No biggie. Gandhi promised he'd make amends. They're in.

Screw what other people were saying for a moment. Based strictly on objective reasoning, who do YOU think should've played -- taking into account overall merit.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:26 pm

Utah vs Texas. No brainer.

I think USC and Florida were the two best teams and they were the two teams who would've ended up meeting in the title game if we had a legitimate playoffs but based strictly on merit and resume Utah has to get in and Texas deserved to get in over Florida and OU.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:09 pm

Nah. USC had already played and beaten Oregon. Beating them again wouldn't have helped USC much. If they played Oregon St in the CCG and beat them it wouldn't have helped them much either since nobody believed USC wasn't already better than Oregon St. Confirming the first meeting was just an aberration wouldn't have told anybody anything about USC they didn't already believe.

USC was done, just as soon as they lost. They only way they stood a chance after that would've been if:

-Missouri would have beaten the Big XII South winner in the CCG

-Florida St would've beaten Florida

-Florida would've beaten Bama in the CCG

Both the SEC and Big XII winners would've needed to have two losses before their champions would've been denied the title game.

Even if you guys had beaten Bama it wouldn't have mattered. Had one loss/late loss Bama then gone on to beat one or two loss Florida in the CCG Bama probably still gets in.

Penn St had no chance against the other one loss teams. USC had no chance against the other one loss teams, other than Penn St. Utah obviously had zero chance, not unless all but one other team had at least two losses.

It was always going to be the SEC vs the Big XII this season, unless they both came up with two losses. USC's only chance was perfection. They had to have a better record, not just an equal one.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:03 pm

Nobody considered Taco Tech the equal of either Texas or OU, not after they all played each other. Short of receiving major help Taco Tech was no longer in the running for the BCS title and even they knew it.

With the knowledge that only crappy Mizzou stood in the way of a date in Miami the debate was for the BCS title game, not the logjam in the Big XII South. The debate was clearly between Texas and OU and anybody who says differently is being disingenuous. They're hiding behind protocol, same as LSU fans who attempt to argue that LSU's share of the "title" in '03 wasn't merely a contractually obligated farce.

The debate was OU vs Texas. We all know this, despite what some of us are willing to admit. Texas beat OU by double digits, on a neutral field. The two teams ended up with the same records.

Texas was also the only team there which didn't get a home game in the little round robin. Their loss occured on the road, on the final play, at the conclusion of the conference's toughest four game stretch in recent memory.

They beat OU on a neutral field, by double digits. That's the ultimate tie breaker, since nobody bought Taco Tech any longer.

If the situations were all reversed and OU had beaten Texas by double digits there would be no doubt as to OU fan's loudly voiced feelings on this matter...and they'd be correct.

I have no dog in that fight. Most of the people I've talked to have no dog in that fight. Nobody I've talked to, from anywhere in the country, feels OU should've gotten the nod over Texas.

Computers and flawed protocol won out over common sense there.

Oh, and Utah got completely shafted.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:56 pm

The dates on the calender corresponding with each team's loss is the only reason OU ended up ahead of Texas in the polls. Reverse the dates of the RRS and the Texas-Taco Tech games and Texas clearly receives the nod from the voters and we're not even having this discussion.

No, between OU and Texas I had no dog in the fight. I don't root for either team and either team was a fait accompli to get in over my team.

In fact, my whole life I've almost always rooted for OU in the RRS, and in most OU-Nebraska tilts too. It's only when OU is a huge favorite and they're possibly going to be in USC's way that I root for the underdogs in those series.

Nothing disingenuous about that at all. This year, I didn't care which of those teams got in to play Florida. I just felt Texas got robbed and no, their situation wasn't the least bit analogous to USC's. USC won their conference outright but they lost a game so they were out of the running. Despite their loss in Lubbock Texas would've still made it to the title game had Baylor beaten Taco Tech and had Okie St beaten OU.

USC was never going to be allowed to get in over a one loss OU, Texas or SEC team.

Completely different situations. I just thought common sense didn't prevail in the Big XII this year, or in the BCS title game match up. USC didn't get screwed nearly as badly as Texas got screwed, granted, and Texas didn't get screwed nearly as badly as Utah got screwed.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:05 pm

USC losing to Oregon State, Stanford, Oregon, Kal, is stepping on their dick. They are vastly more talented than those teams and they should beat them most every time. If they lose to OSU or Texas, they lost a game. No shame in that.

Florida stepped on their dicks against Ole Miss. But then Lord Tebow circumcised the wound and made everything better.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:23 pm

USC is located in Compton the same way Cal is located in Richmond or Oakland. now had mtool said Inglewood, Culver City or huntington Park he would have been geographically closer and made close to the same point but Compton? Come on, act like you have been to LA before trying to say stupid shit about LA, USC is closer to Beverly Hills than it is to Compton.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:44 pm

Time to go m2 all up in this bitch.

Gentleman, I give you The University Of Southern Compton...

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:20 am

Oh, wait. You meant the surrounding neighborhood, not the actual campus.

My bad. Okay, here ya' go...

But hey, they're working on it!

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:32 am

Papa Willie wrote:God damn - I laughed at that, Van. :D

'Spray, I know you had to like the Dave Chappelle ghetto baby pic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLSHwzFUyz8

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:52 am

Van,

The most striking picture in all you posted (excluding the fake SoCal residential pics), was the half empty football stadium. Somehow all that heisman bronze and glass encased trophies couldn't make up for it.

Give me 20 three stars, 10 walk-ons, and fans who fill the stadium in single digit, blustry Novembers and you got a REAL program. You will never have "beloved" status at USC.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:28 am

H4ever, that's not a half empty stadium. The sections in the peristyle end of the Coliseum are blocked off because the temporary stands down on the field block the view.

This has been discussed many times here before but the Coliseum has undergone many seating reconfigurations down through the years, including a lowering of the playing field. The bowl is so large and shallow that it used to be possible to sit an entire football field distance away from the end zone, if you were behind the end zone in the peristyle end.

Notice the banners? They cover the blocked off portions of the stadium and those banners (their number and location) have changed over the years.

The Coliseum currently has an official seating capacity of 93,607 for football and the place is always full now. (Yes, I know this wasn't the case before the arrival of Pete Carroll. I realize USC has a buttload of bandwagon fans.)

This is the view if you're right next to the blocked off portions...

The place is full. Oh, and yes, USC certainly can have "beloved" status. Do they have the same number of die hards filling the stadium every year as Nebraska? Nope. They do have their die hards though and you simply cannot compare L.A. to a one horse town and state like Lincoln, Nebraska.

I mean granted, the bird watching in Nebraska might be top notch and all but there's just a little bit more to do in L.A. on a nice Fall day than watch college football or birds.

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:37 am

Look for a repeat in 09....

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:43 am

I thought you said Cal would kill USC this year? Now you're saying it'll be a shaky win requiring three O.T. periods and some shanked USC FG attempts?

Hmmm. I see you're already back pedaling. Dude, it's only February. Cal hasn't even begun to choke yet this season. Chill out. Hope still springs eternal.

Also, might I remind you that in 2003 USC ended up 12-1 and they won the national title. Cal ended up 8-6, with a nice and tidy 52-49 win over 8-5 Va Tech in the Insight Bowl.

You want 2009 to be a repeat of 2003?

Hmmm. We're breaking in a new QB again too, just like in 2003. So, what you're proposing is we win another national championship and you repeatedly shit the bed again on your way to another forgettable six loss season of Cal football?

Okay, cool with me.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:11 am

Van wrote:Mgo, I'm never too confident about a CF team's chances when they go into a season having to replace a multi year starter at QB. In MSU's case you can also add the fact that their entire offensive identity centered around a guy who's no longer there.

I already addressed that as one of my points in favor of MSU. They should have the assets to start balancing out their offensive identity more. By any reasonable standard that is a GOOD thing. Ringer was pounded so much in part because he was good, but also because they had few other options. Hoyer was...well, Hoyer, and the receivers were young. The O Line - marginal at best. Next season there will be competition for the starting RB and QB positions, but no matter what happens, there will be solid depth and solid young talent. And aside from a small handful of departing marquee type names, the team will not be depleted by any stretch - they will return many key contributers on offense and especially defense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for a Big Ten title or anything. The program, with this incoming class, is two years away from being pretty good. Next year's roster however should provide a good blend of both experienced players with young, but talented players. They could quite easily do better next year, especially when you factor in their favorable schedule.

Having a firm identity is a huge asset, even if it does make you predictable.

Having a firm identity because you have few other options isn't a good thing, imo. Having a firm identity because nobody can stop it, well that's entirely different. That wasn't the case, as you already pointed out.

JTR's got a "firm identity" playing pillars and gigantic immobile Red Hots in shitty movies and TV shows. Sadly, with his limited, uhh, "skills," he's got few other options.

That's not the make-up of a very good actor nor is it the make-up of a very good football team.

MSU isn't going to suddenly have superior talent so it's still better to have some definite "go to" strengths.

Well, with this incoming class they will suddenly have superior talent. The question is moreso when and if the talent will come together to make a difference on the field. Some of that I think will be seen next year, but it won't fully take form until the following season.

Having to search for an identity and consistent execution whle only having equal talent at your disposal is usually not a recipe for sustained success.

Remember, we're STILL only talking about beating Notre Dame, right?

Beating ND in South Bend, mind you, which is practically home field advantage for MSU.

Seriously - I don't think offensive "identity" will be much of an issue next year. Execution is more of the concern, but with this coaching staff I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.

Trust me, from a guy who saw every down last year of MSU football - the team will ultimately be better off NOT playing 1 on 11. :)

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:21 pm

we signed a bunch of slow kids from Ohio and PA...got a couple fast kids from FL but we still will get butt fucked in the mouth in a BCS game...

I was at USC v OSU...I will say this...the HOTTIES...WOW...the tail gating was pretty epoch...

but young college kids picking on some old dude wearing OSU gear...not cool (no matter who you are) I was standing behind a dude waiting in line to use the pisser...he had to be later 60's...and a bunch of USC fans are getting in his grill saying FUCK OSU...etc...not much I could do as I was out numbered...that wouldn't be cool for ANY school or fan base...

but sadly I think these kids were relatives of SCHMICKS...you know NO FUCKING CLASS...

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:25 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:
buckeye_in_sc wrote: but young college kids picking on some old dude wearing OSU gear...not cool (no matter who you are) I was standing behind a dude waiting in line to use the pisser...he had to be later 60's...and a bunch of USC fans are getting in his grill saying FUCK OSU...etc...not much I could do as I was out numbered...that wouldn't be cool for ANY school or fan base...

but sadly I think these kids were relatives of SCHMICKS...you know NO FUCKING CLASS...
Sadly, drunk no class assholes are on every campus.

If your Buckeyes ever hook up with Bama in a home-and-home, I can guarantee you excellent treatment by the fans. Tide fans respect traditionally good schools and their fans.

The Bama trip was by far and away one the best football trips I have ever made a few seasons ago.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:28 pm

Well I must say in general most of the USC fans were cool...as were the LSU fans I sat with/near for the title game...so I don't think it is realistic that just USC has those types of fans...heck I have seen and stopped OSU fans from doing shit like that...just stupid...good smack talk is one thing...

but some of the shit is another...

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:38 pm

buckeye_in_sc wrote:but young college kids picking on some old dude wearing OSU gear...not cool (no matter who you are) I was standing behind a dude waiting in line to use the pisser...he had to be later 60's...and a bunch of USC fans are getting in his grill saying FUCK OSU...etc...

That is truly disgusting. I'm not even an alumnus and I'd be embarrassed for USC and I'd be apologizing to that old dude on behalf of USC.

I'd also expect to see idiots like that get escorted away (or worse) by other USC fans.

LSU is known to have the dirtiest, meanest and nastiest fans in all of CF. They're supposed to be right up their with Buckeye fans during Michigan Week.

Sure didn't see any evidence of it when I was there, for Bama Week. It was nothing but friendly, hospitable people everywhere, outside the stadium. All the Bama fans were invited into the tailgating tents for grub and football games on tv.

There was some good natured razzing but everybody was having fun with it and the only incident I saw the entire day was during the game when some shitfaced LSU fan kept trying to tell this one Bama fan who was sitting by himself in our section to sit down and shut up.

The Bama kid wasn't having it. He stood his ground and told the drunk that he worked a second job for three months to be able to afford that ticket and that road trip and he was damn sure going to stand up and cheer and support his team.

The LSU drunk got really pissed but his buddies kept him in check. By the end of the game (an LSU win) the kid was receiving back slaps and "good games" from all the LSU fans, and he was inviting 'em all back to Bama for next year. Even the drunk gave him his due.

Seeing LSU on game day was a very cool experience, all the way around. You'll never get me to say anything bad about SEC hospitality.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:39 pm

Yep! They were a little fatter and a little drunker for the experience but they were all allowed to come and go as they pleased.

Here's what would basically happen...

Bama fans would come strolling by, in packs of threes and fours...

"Tiger Bait! Tiger Bait!" chants would greet them from various and sundry packs of laughing, purple polo shirt wearing Norman Rockwell "Joe Campus" throwback types holding court over a bar-b-que or a pot of jambalaya. Those guys would wave their salad tongs or spatulas at the Bama folk, inviting 'em over for some grub. Everybody would laugh and immediately say, "What's everybody drinkin'?" or "Man, you cajun boys don't know how to bar-b-que!" and then there'd be more laughter.

Once everybody would get their hands loaded with a plate of food and some sort of drink everybody would then repair to the tents, where all the TVs were hooked up and running on generators. It was all SEC games on tv and everybody there would root for whichever team was the underdog. In one game Florida nearly lost to one of the Mississippi schools, IIRC. There was a big ol' "Awwwwwwww" right at the end, when Florida pulled out the game.

It might've been Georgia, but I think it was Florida.

I probably have the teams wrong but that's how it always went: loud support for the underdogs and silent acceptance of the final scores.

Once the food was eaten and the beer had been downed the Bama guys would usually eat and run but nobody seemed to mind in the least. The LSU guys would just repeat the drill a short while later with the next group of passing Bama fans...or LSU fans.

It didn't matter.

You'll love this. Actually, 'Spray will love this more. Among most of the LSU people there was agreement that right about then they all hated USC more than any SEC team! They didn't really feel that Bama was anything like a "blood rival" and there was debate over whether Auburn or Florida was really LSU's biggest rival?

There was no consensus, other than for the fact that it wasn't either Mississippi school and they all agreed that the SEC's transparent attempts at manufacturing an Arkansas/LSU rivalry really weren't working either. These guys just couldn't agree on who was LSU's main rival.

(Keep in mind, this was whle Saban was still with the Miami Dolphins. These guys didn't even consider Bama to be worth working up a lather over as a "rival.")

"We hate 'em all!" was their main chorus, but USC was the one team that got these guys to drop the laughing and the joking. When USC would get mentioned (never by me, btw...my wife and I just observed) these guys would get genuinely pissed, or at least genuinely serious. The anti USC/anti Pac 10 stuff was universal and it wasn't accompanied by the joking bon homme that came with all the SEC Rivals talk...

Drivng back from the game with my host, he instructed me to pay attention to the bumper stickers and even the clothes people were wearing. Yep, other than anti Bama stuff (since it was after all Bama Week) there was more anti USC stuff than anything else.

It blew me away.

Talking to his dad and his brother back at their house, that was quite enlightening too. These are wealthy folks. Very well mannered. Perfect southern gentlemen. The dad is straight out of central casting as the Southern Patriarch. The brother is an orthopedic surgeon. The brother played offensive line for LSU and the dad is an alumnus too.

You should've felt the change at their very formal dinner table when talk of USC came up, over dessert.

The dad went into this strict stentorian rant about "Those boys from Southern Cal undoubtedly have themselves a fine program, but..." and even the mother actually tutted (she literally tutted, like in old movies!) at the mention of the "'03 Incident," which was the one subject that was sure to create palpable anger in the room.

It was like a still open wound, even three years later. It was really quite remarkable.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:20 am

Exactly. There you go. To LSU fan fan '03 is still this incredible sore point. To USC fan it's just a given that yeah, we got screwed out of the other half of the title. We know it's not LSU's fault though. We don't hold it against them or their fans.

We just know we got screwed by the system at the time. We also know we're co-national champs for '03. We know we won the only legitimate title that year since ours wasn't contractually mandated and it wasn't awarded to us by people who had to vote against their own consciences in order to award it to us. We know we would've gotten both shares of the title if the coaches had still been free to vote honestly, the way they still were for the final regular season vote.

Oh well.

'03 is a bit like sister kissing but it's how it played out so that's that. You don't see a lot of visceral anger in USC fan over it, and certainly none towards LSU over it.

In fact LSU generally isn't even on USC fan's radar. Drive around L.A. and the Coliseum any day of the year and you're not going to see a bunch of anti LSU bumper stickers and t-shirts. You'll never see any. Hang around USC fans at a USC game or in a USC sports bar and LSU won't be the one sore subject or the one team everybody hates.

When I was in Baton Rouge I didn't have the heart to tell my hosts, "Folks, this anger you have, this feeling of a rivalry with USC, it's strictly a one way street. USC fans don't even think about LSU. They're just LSU. They could be Auburn, for all we care..."

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:57 am

Van wrote:H4ever, that's not a half empty stadium. The sections in the peristyle end of the Coliseum are blocked off because the temporary stands down on the field block the view.

This has been discussed many times here before but the Coliseum has undergone many seating reconfigurations down through the years, including a lowering of the playing field. The bowl is so large and shallow that it used to be possible to sit an entire football field distance away from the end zone, if you were behind the end zone in the peristyle end.

Notice the banners? They cover the blocked off portions of the stadium and those banners (their number and location) have changed over the years.

The Coliseum currently has an official seating capacity of 93,607 for football and the place is always full now. (Yes, I know this wasn't the case before the arrival of Pete Carroll. I realize USC has a buttload of bandwagon fans.)

This is the view if you're right next to the blocked off portions...

The place is full. Oh, and yes, USC certainly can have "beloved" status. Do they have the same number of die hards filling the stadium every year as Nebraska? Nope. They do have their die hards though and you simply cannot compare L.A. to a one horse town and state like Lincoln, Nebraska.

I mean granted, the bird watching in Nebraska might be top notch and all but there's just a little bit more to do in L.A. on a nice Fall day than watch college football or birds.

Van....Props to you for acknowledging all the bandwagoning USC fans the last 5 years. I do believe you have the die hards, too and I stand corrected on the photo I took to be a half empty stadium. No props for the one-horse state and geographical smack, though. This is 2009...there's plenty to do out here.

Sure, there are lots more things to do in LA but you also have 20 times the population in that area of urban sprawl vs. the entire state of Nebraska. Considering that and USC's recent success....there is no excuse for not filling that stadium every time the Trojans set foot on their home field. Remember, we're only talking 6 or 7 saturdays out of the year. That's one da out of the freaking week. Hell, a 4-6 Nebraska team filled every seat for a home game, just as every NU team since 1962 has been doing. You cannot compare to that. USC couldn't sell out against a I-AA team in 40 degree weather if they marked the tickets half off. You know that. Especially if they were coming off a losing season with no bowl game.

USC will never have that love and it's not because of the distractions of having a beach and Hollywood close by. There's more than enough people out there to fill every pro and college stadium, every home game. You just don't have the love. And 5 star recruits at every position and 5 MNC's in a row won't buy it either. That's all I'm saying.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:17 am

That's all true but it has nothing to do with USC and everything to do with L.A.

In terms of supporting their sports teams L.A. doesn't support losers, or even mediocrity. They're not going to consistently sell out anything for a .500 team, whether it be the Coliseum, Dodger Stadium or the old Fabulous Forum.

Again, why should they? It's L.A. Half the people in L.A. aren't from L.A. They have no ties to these teams. Hell, these days half the people in L.A. aren't even from America.

Also, yep, the Coliseum is located in a part of town not usually frequented by the affluent of L.A. The Coliseum isn't Mecca in L..A., like Memorial Stadium is in Lincoln. Most people in L.A. would prefer it if USC played anywhere but the Coliseum.

The Raiders couldn't draw for shit there, and they were damn good when they were in L.A. They had to get the stadium reconfigured down to 65,000 just to avoid having every home game blacked out in L.A.

Make no mistake though, if like you said USC wins five national championships in a row tickets to a USC game will then become harder to get than a straight answer from m2 or an honest one from TVO. USC sells out every game now. They have no problem filling a 96,000 stadium, because they are USC and because they are winning.

L.A. truly only supports the Lakers, the Dodgers, USC football and UCLA hoops. They'll also support the Angels and Kings when they're good, but not like they support USC football or Lakers basketball and they won't support those teams to the tune of non stop sell outs unless they're winning big, with Star Power.

Oh, and no, no matter how you wish to slice it there isn't a lot to do in Lincoln, Nebraska; not compared to L.A. That's an apples and syphilis comparison. Memorial Stadium becomes the third largest population center in all of Nebraska every time they hold a Huskers football game there. If you're anywhere near Lincoln on game day what the fuck else are you going to do but get involved with Huskers football?

They're the very definition of a one horse town. Lincoln is like Green Bay, Wisconsin. Their football team is all the place has and everyone had the Packers and Huskers jammed down their throats from birth.

You can't compare these places to L.A. and it has nothing to do with the teams. You could drop the '95 Huskers and the '27 Yankees in L.A. and if those teams began to suck their stadiums would suddenly empty out.

Jeez, Dodgers and Lakers fans arrive late and leave early even for good teams. L.A. will never be a die hard sports town, not for team sports. They're more likely to get behind a Mexican boxer than a 7-5 football team.

It has nothing to do with the character of Nebraska's program or anything whatsoever to do with the USC football program.

It's L.A. Fuck abuncha Bruce Hornsby but that's just the way it is...

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:34 am

Van
Beyond the birds....if you like zoos, there's none better on the planet earth (sans the San Diego Zoo) than Omaha's zoo. Theyre open on Husker game days as are several centers for performing arts and a quite a few museums. But, yeah....we ain't got shit on LA. I think I understand you're points on the fanbase out there now. Good points.

On personal note....I've been the bay area several times and I've also been to LA (flew in to Ontario, CA and stayed in Pomona) Going to Costco out there consumes your whole day thanks to the commute and hordes of people everywhere you go. I had to stand in line to use the fucking ATM out there! (we still call 'em bank-boxes) And the air is terrible.

Standing in line to use the ATM encapsulated every reason I would never live in a metro area of California. Life's too short and I ain't going to waste any of it standing in a line or stuck in traffic.

Oh yeah, and Lincoln's too far away!

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:48 am

One other thing, come to think of it...

It's not just L.A. either. No major U.S. metropolis is a die hard college sports town.

New York? Hell no. They have 20,000,000 people within twenty miles of all their stadia and they don't support college athletics for shit.

Chicago? They have their ND subway alumni but still Chicago is not a college sports town. Chicago is Da' Bears, the Cubbies, the Bulls, etc.

Minneapolis/St Paul? We have gophers here, yah, you betcha, but we'll still follow our Vikings, Stars and Twinkies, okaaay?

L.A.? Between USC football and UCLA hoops L.A. is actually the biggest college sports town of all the major U.S. cities.

Miami? Please. The 'Canes couldn't draw flies with AP's panties.

Houston? Fuckall. They supported Elvin Hayes and Akeem...a little.

Dallas? How 'bout 'dem Cowboys!!

Philly? Umm, no.

Atlanta? Not particularly. Hell, Atlanta is even a shitty pro sports town.

San Francisco? Eh. Cal football draws well. Stanford hoops does alright. San Francisco is very definitely a Niners and Giants town though and the Raiders also dwarf the college teams.

Seattle? They'll follow the Dawgs if they're killing it but Seattle is not a college town.

Boston? B.C. is barely even a news item there, compared to their pro teams.

That's just it. You want the kind of support that a Bama, Penn St, OU, LSU or a Nebraska receive? You have to be in a place like Tuscaloosa, College Park, Norman, Baton Rouge or Lincoln. You have to be provincial. You have to be a one horse town; usually a relatively tiny town, too. You can't be in a major metropolis trying to compete with a slew of professional sports teams.

Along with USC probably Ohio St and Texas would be the closest things to exceptions but with the exception of a moribund NHL hockey team Columbus and Austin are still one horse sports towns.

Tennessee? Auburn? Florida? Florida St? Iowa? Wisconsin? Michigan? Oregon? W. Virginia? Va Tech?

All rabid fan bases; all one horse towns located in relatively small cities.

USC is the only college team that actually rules the sporting landscape of any major metroplis, and even that's a very fleeting thing. As soon as USC falls off a little bit and Kobe takes the Lakers past the Celtics in an NBA Finals L.A. will revert back to being a Lakers town and USC will fall back down a rung or two...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:59 am

Philly? Umm, no.

Umm, yes.

Sin,

Big 5 hoops

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:20 am

Ummm, no.

Sin,

The Philly Phanatic and Michael Westbrook

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:17 pm

Van wrote:Chicago? They have their ND subway alumni but still Chicago is not a college sports town. Chicago is Da' Bears, the Cubbies, the Bulls, etc.

Van,

Of course, you know that the pro teams you mentioned here, by and large, are regional teams. Mace (Bears/Cubs fan in Iowa) out front should've told ya. For that matter, Indiana probably has more Bears fans than Colts fans. Northern Indiana definitely has more Bears fans than Colts fans.

With respect to the city of Chicago and its outlying suburbs, I'd say there's as much interest in Notre Dame football as there is in any of the aforementioned pro sports teams, unless one or more of said pro sports teams happens to be kicking ass and taking names at the time. Not bad for a school that is located 90 miles away and across state lines, and probably only sends about 10% of its alumni (the largest single concentration anywhere, but nothing remotely close to a majority of alumni) to that area.

New York? Hell no. They have 20,000,000 people within twenty miles of all their stadia and they don't support college athletics for shit.

I'd agree with this, although it's important to note that there's no FBS schools within city limits (Rutgers is probably the closest thing). The most heavily followed college team in NYC, again owing to the subway alumni thing, is ND.

Minneapolis/St Paul? We have gophers here, yah, you betcha, but we'll still follow our Vikings, Stars and Twinkies, okaaay?

Again, regional pro sports teams in this area. And the Gophers have never had significant long-term success in either football or basketball. If that were ever to change, who knows what would happen, especially since the Gophers are located right in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area?

As for the Stars, they've been gone since the early 90's. It's the Wild now. And Minnesota follows college, and even high school, hockey far more closely than the NHL.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:59 pm

USC won the 2003 National Title, LSU won the 2003 computer poll title

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:02 pm

Terry, Chicago is a pro sports town. Call it "regionalism" if you want but the end result is that success by the Bears or Cubbies is much bigger news in Chicago than success by ND.

The '85 Bears, the Bartman Cubbies and the MJ Bulls owned that town in a way ND football never will. There's no way in hell to say Chicago isn't primarily a pro sports town.

Sam, if Bama is going to expand they need to do it right and overtake The Big House. I always razz my LSU friend about how much bullshit it is that LSU doesn't have that #1 seating capacity in CF. He especially hates it that Tennessee has the most in the SEC.

Really though it's Bama who should be #1; if not in the nation, then at least in the SEC. So, don't puss out. If you're gonna do it go big. Gotta surpass Tennessee. While you're there you might as well pass Penn St and Michigan too.

110,000, minimum.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:05 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:USC won the 2003 National Title, LSU won the 2003 contractually mandated title

FTFY

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:07 pm

USC is a private school made up of kids from wealthy families in a city thats filled with low income people who pride themselves on being from somewhere else. You expect them to have the local support that a bunch of necks and farmers have for the public school that all the necks and farmers go to?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:24 pm

Van wrote:Ummm, no.

Sin,

The Philly Phanatic and Michael Westbrook

Philly is no mecca of college fanatacism, but of the major cities you listed, it definitely ranks near the top because of what I mentioned: Big 5 hoops. To have that many competitive D1 schools (and that doesn't even include Drexel) all within such a close proximity, with some really good rivalries and fans that actually go to school there and aren't transplanted alumni filling up Buffalo Wild Wings on gameday makes it much more of a true "big city" college town than most any other city you listed.

And it's not even close. College hoops is a big deal out east.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:59 pm

Maybe so. Maybe Philly is more of a college sports town than most big cities. They're still a pro sports town though, by a wide margin. When the Eagles play college hoops takes a back seat. When the Phillies are in the playoffs all bets are off.

My point regarding Nebraska vs USC still stands. The type of devotion for college football teams H4ever talks about with Nebraska can only be found in smaller, one horse towns. It's never found in major metropolitan areas which have pro sports teams. USC is unique in CF in that they may be the only college program to rule a major metropolitan city. I'm not sure who's bigger in L.A. right now, the Lakers or USC, but before last year and following the departure of Shaq it had definitely been USC.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:05 pm

Van wrote:Maybe so. Maybe Philly is more of a college sports town than most big cities.

That's the only point I was making, nothing more. You dismissed it rather easily, while making some cases for the others and that's why I chimed in. Of course Philly is a pro sports town, first and foremost.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:12 pm

I'd kinda like to try living in a one horse football town some time. See what's it like. It must be an awesome thing to be in Lincoln when Nebraska wins the title.

Man though, what must it be like in Green Bay or Lincoln when the football team is shit? It's winter on the frozen tundra and all across the plains so it's fucking icy and bleak and your entire year just went to shit. Next year likely will suck too now.

No wonder they have so many fat, alcoholic chain smokers.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:21 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: With respect to the city of Chicago and its outlying suburbs, I'd say there's as much interest in Notre Dame football as there is in any of the aforementioned pro sports teams, unless one or more of said pro sports teams happens to be kicking ass and taking names at the time.

huh? when are the cubs ever good? and when does chicago never care about them? that city is also absolutely fucking bonkers over the bears. then again, by "interest in nd football" you may have accounted for all the big ten alumni whose birthright it is to hate touchdown jesus.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:50 pm

The ND presence in Chicago...I haven't seen it since I moved here in September, at least not to the degree that TiC eluded to. I'm sure stats can back up the fact there's a sizeable ND alumni base here, but like the old saying goes, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? If there's a few thousand ND alums in one region, but none of them peek their ashamed heads out from the sand, do they really exist?

The Ohio St fan base here seems pretty strong. Those fuckers, unlike ND, are crawling everywhere I go...