Hey Van

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:19 pm

Much as you pooh-poohed ND's recent series with Syracuse, it looks like your boys are in for one as well. http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec ... 09aal.html Of course, my Domers are going back for a four-game set as well, but in fairness, that does replace the six-game series with UConn that was recently dropped.

But in fairness to Syracuse (and I have to confess that I was shocked to learn this), Syracuse ranks 14th all-time in wins among BTPCF programs. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/mi ... a_wins.php Not saying that makes them an elite program (in fact, I don't believe that they are), but from an historical perspective, one could make a case that EVERY program ahead of them on that list deserves that distinction. And fwiw, Syracuse ranks considerably ahead, both in terms of wins and winning percentage, of both Iowa and Wisconsin -- two schools which, according to you, ND needs to play more often.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:57 pm

Couple things there....

-ND signed up for a series, including games at ND. USC didn't. USC only signed up for the roadie to the Meadowlands -that's three time zones away, SEC and Cal fan!! - to help inaugurate the new stadium. That was more the doing of the Meadowlands Stadium brass, who basically decided ND and USC were the two programs they most wanted to bring to New Jersey.

-That's a blight on USC's schedule. These days, on ND's schedule, that'll be hyped as a marquee game between two 'storied programs'. It will also have the added allure of being a 'revenge game' for ND. USC will never find themselves in the position of needing to exact revenge against Syracuse.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:03 pm

Van wrote:USC will never find themselves in the position of needing to exact revenge against Syracuse.

And ND won't on Stanford.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:03 pm

Killian wrote:
Van wrote:USC will never find themselves in the position of needing to exact revenge against Syracuse.
And ND won't on Stanford.

except for Ty W, maybe.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:48 am

Killian, what are you talking about? ND has lost to Stanford this decade. In fact, if ND keeps playing Stanford, they'll lose to them again, soon. Hell, they may be seeking revenge against Stanford as early as next season. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see this year's Stanford team beat ND, in the final game of the year.

You might, but there's no way you'd consider it to be too big of a shock.

On the other hand, USC could play Syracuse until Charlie Weis gains some humility on his way to winning Dancing With The Stars, and they'd never lose.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:41 am

Unless USC was favored by 41. Then Syracuse has a great chance.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:57 am

Nah. USC nearly always wins when they're heavily favored. ND probably would too. The trick for them is to simply figure out how to ever become heavily favored.

Remember what that was like?

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:59 am

Van wrote:Nah. USC nearly always wins when they're heavily favored. ND probably would too. The trick for them is to simply figure out how to ever become heavily favored.

Remember what that was like?

No he doesn't, he's too young. His dad has to tell him about the good 'ol days that Irish fans are still jerking off to.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:06 am

Good call, JON. You're on a roll tonight.

What Van, join the Pac10?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:17 am

Nah. The Pac 10 rarely plays San Diego St, or Army, or Navy, or Syracuse.

You can bet your house though that when USC does play Syracuse, they won't lose.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:25 am

Unless USC has injuries then all bets are off, right?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:42 am

Of course. You can make jokes all you want, but we both know that there is not a chance in hell USC loses that game if not for massive injuries in key spots.

Yes, Pete fucked up, and he should've responded differently to those injuries, but the fact remains: If USC doesn't suffer those injuries, they comfortably win that game.

Do you deny this? Are you saying injuries weren't the reason Stanford had an opportinty to win that game? Do you really think Pete makes the mistake he made, were it not for injuries?

Killian, it's way too easy to throw out vacuous cliches, and say, "USC's second stringers vs blah blah blah," and "Everyone suffers injuries."

Great. That's all well and good, and it doesn't change a damn thing. If USC doesn't suffer those injuries, and they were numerous and key, they handily win that game.

Call it an excuse, call it whatever you want, but it's a fact, and you know it. They don't lose that game, not if JDB doesn't get hurt, along with all those offensive lineman and all their CBs; all in the middle of the game. If those guys don't get hurt then Stanford doesn't score their points, USC scores more points, and USC wins by a wide margin. No two ways around it.

Yes, sometimes injuries have everything to do with why a team loses. USC played poorly, and their coach made a mistake, both due to mid-game injuries.

They still should have overcome those injuries, I agree. They still should have won, I agree. The thing is, if it weren't for those injuries, there were no 'should haves' to overcome. They just play the game, JDB doesn't throw four second half picks, their offensive line dominates, their CBs make a halfway decent effort at covering someone, and they win.

They lost by one point, at the buzzer. Yeah, I think it's safe to say that were it not for injuries, it's a comfortable win for USC.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:52 am

I can't believe USC fan is actually trying to blame injuries for a loss over one of the worst teams in the country.

If USC lost all 22 starters, they still should win by at least 10 so I'm not buying this.

Why can't you just admit that Petey didn't have them ready to play? You didn't lose because of injuries. Good lord......IT'S STANFORD!!

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:09 am

C'mon Van...

Even the waterboy, towel beotch, and team manager was rated 5 stars by Rivals.

Should have been a comfortable win with the the talent on that team, especially when the #1 ranked team was a 40+ point favorite at home. Most objective CFB fans would agree.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:12 am

FLW Buckeye wrote:C'mon Van...

Even the waterboy, towel beotch, and team manager was rated 5 stars by Rivals.

Should have been a comfortable win with the the talent on that team, especially when the #1 ranked team was a 40+ point favorite at home. Most objective CFB fans would agree.

I agree.

Sincerely,
Logic

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:35 am

FLW Buckeye...

Simple question: Does USC lose that game, or is it even close, if not for those injuries? JDB doesn't bust his hand, all three O lineman play the whole game, and they have their full complement of CBs. Does USC still lose that game?

"No, of course not," would be the only correct answer.

It doesn't matter that they should have won anyway. Nobody disputes that. By the same token, nobody with even a semblance of a brain can argue that injuries were not the catalyst for that loss.

socal · Post by **socal** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:11 am

Van wrote:Call it an excuse, call it whatever you want, but it's a fact, and you know it.

Nope. Fact is USC lost.

[stripes]"That's a fact, Jack!"[/stripes]

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:13 am

That's a different fact.

[bill clinton]That depends on the definition of 'is'.[/billclinton]

:D

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:52 am

Van,

You missed the simple question. If Pete and his staff made the correct calls, does the depth of the available talent on the sideline give USC a high probability of winning the game? Yes. You've overhyped the injuries bit ever since the Stanford loss came up this off-season.
The factor that made the difference in the game was good coaching, or lack of it. Injuries played a much smaller part until coaching lapses compounded the problem. And the Stanford D tossed in a complication or two. :doh:

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:55 am

Van wrote:Nah. The Pac 10 rarely plays San Diego St, or Army, or Navy, or Syracuse.

No, just Washington, Washington State, Stanford, and Arizona (which finally started to show signs of life last year).

USC plays as many creampuffs as anybody else. They just get a pass for it because those creampuffs happen to be in their conference.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:13 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Van wrote:Nah. The Pac 10 rarely plays San Diego St, or Army, or Navy, or Syracuse.
No, just Washington, Washington State, Stanford, and Arizona (which finally started to show signs of life last year).

Don't you play 3 of those 4 teams this season?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:18 pm

FLW Buckeye wrote:Van,

You missed the simple question. If Pete and his staff made the correct calls, does the depth of the available talent on the sideline give USC a high probability of winning the game? Yes.

I didn't miss anything. I already conceded that they should've won anyway, and that Pete's coaching in that game cost them the game.

You missed the most basic premise: Were it not for the injuries, Pete isn't in that position, and he doesn't make the mistake. Were it not for the injuries, USC scores more points, Stanford scores fewer points, and we're not having this discussion.

Cause, and effect. The cause was the injuries. The effect was poor play, then poor decision making in response to that poor play.

Until you acknowledge that most basic premise, you're simply twisting the argument, and you're avoiding reality.

You've overhyped the injuries bit ever since the Stanford loss came up this off-season.

It came up long before this off-season...

...and no, I'm not overhyping anything. I'm stating fact. The injury to JDB in the middle of the game led to four seemingly inexplicable second half picks. The injuries to 3/5ths of the O line in the middle of the game led to a collapse of effectiveness of the O line, which negated their ability to run the ball. The injuries to their entire roster of CBs led to their inability in the second half to cover the right side of the field.

All that talent on the bench didn't matter, not when the injured QB was still out there throwing picks. All that talent on the bench didn't matter, not when they hadn't played any snaps together as an offensive line unit. All that talent on the bench didn't matter, not when none of them were CBs.

Pete should've managed the game differently, once the injuries occured. He should've won the game anyway, by going conservative and grinding out the clock. He didn't, and that's on him. That loss is on him.

He doesn't have to worry about any of it though, if not for the injuries. There are no two ways around that. I'm still waiting for even one person to attempt to say that USC still loses that game, even if none of those injuries occur.

It won't happen. Nobody here is that stupid. Sure, someone may say it, just to troll, but nobody in their right mind can look at what actually happened in that game and come away from it with the conclusion that a healthy USC doesn't change that point differential in their favor by at least two.

The factor that made the difference in the game was good coaching, or lack of it.

Give me a non-injury related example of this poor coaching.

Injuries played a much smaller part until coaching lapses compounded the problem.

Injuries caused the problem in the first place, then the coaching compounded the problem. It still begins with the injuries. Remove the injuries, there are no problems to overcome.

And the Stanford D tossed in a complication or two. :doh:

They don't provide too much of a complication, not if the O line is intact, as a cohesive unit, and the QB is able to accurately throw the ball. At that point, USC runs the ball more, and they don't throw all those drive killing interceptions.

If those components are in place, USC scores at least two more points that game. If those components are in place, USC comfortably buries Stanford. To say otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

The thing you're missing here is that two things can simultaneously be true: Pete's coaching cost them the game, and they don't lose that game, if not for injuries.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:12 pm

Van wrote:
FLW Buckeye wrote:Van,

You missed the simple question. If Pete and his staff made the correct calls, does the depth of the available talent on the sideline give USC a high probability of winning the game? Yes.
I didn't miss anything. I already conceded that they should've won anyway, and that Pete's coaching in that game cost them the game.

This is all you needed to say, and you could have stopped right after this paragraph. Of course injuries lead to changing a game plan, or ineffectiveness here or there. You were 41 point favorites. Injuries don't count for a 41 point + swing. After the second int, Carrol should have yanked JDB. The rest of your point is moot. It was fucking Stanford. Every team has injuries, and every team has to deal with them. Michael Floyd being out was a direct cause of ND's offense bogging down against Syracuse. It's still fucking Syracuse. Clausen played with a sprained ankle and the flu against BC. Both of those injuries had direct causes on shitty offensive performances. ND lost those games and the blame falls on Weis, not injuries.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:20 pm

Plus, wasn't Stanford playing a qb making his first start? How does that keep getting ignored? Was he really too much to handle for USC's second line?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:33 pm

There was no 'second line'. The guy he was picking on wasn't second string, or third strng, or fourth string. USC had NO CBs left on the roster. The guy he was picking on did not know how to play CB, never having played a down of CB in his life.

Anybody who knows football at all knows that safety and CB are not the same thing. Very different skill sets and techniques.

Killian, I'm not aware of the injury circumstances involved with ND in those games. From what you're describing, however, they don't even come close to the impact USC's avalanche of injuries had on the Stanford game, especially since they all occured during the game. It's not like they got to rep their second stringers, in preparation. JDB didn't come out, there were no CBs remaining, and the O line never could've approximated in practice what they were faced with during the game.

None of this matters. The point remains: cause and effect. Pete screwed up and cost them the game, but injuries were the reason for the poor performance, and the subsequent coaching screw-up. Minus those injuries, USC doesn't lose the game.

Also...

You were 41 point favorites. Injuries don't count for a 41 point + swing.

No, but they do account for a two point swing, and a two point swing is all that would've needed to occur, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Other than degenerate gamblers, nobody would've given a rat's ass about the final score, not as long as USC had won the game; which they would have, were it not for those injuries.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:36 pm

Van wrote: None of this matters. The point remains: Pete screwed up and cost them the game.

FTFY

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:39 pm

You were 41 point favorites. Injuries don't count for a 41 point + swing.
No, but they do account for a two point swing, and a two point swing is all that would've needed to occur, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Other than degenerate gamblers, nobody would've given a rat's ass about the final score, not as long as USC had won the game; which they would have, were it not for those injuries.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:51 pm

Van, I would totally buy your injury excuse/argument if you were playing a team worth a damn. You weren't, you were playing Stanford.

You're starting to sound like m2 with your "degenerat gamblers" line. It's a way to measure one team vs. another. You were a heavy, heavy favorite. Those injuries don't account a heavy, heavy favorite to lose, at home, to an awful team playing a back up QB.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:55 pm

Obviously, they do, since it happened.

Forget the point spread. Nobody here cares about point spreads, except for the Pick 'Em contest. History doesn't remember when a heavy favorite won, but failed to cover.

Does USC lose the game, were it not for those injuries? Yes or no? Don't spin. Don't give me 'shoulda'. Do they win the game? Yes, or no?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:04 pm

History doesn't remember when the huge favorite "almost lost", but it sure does when the huge favorite "loses".

Sin,
Michigan/App St.
NC State/Phi Slamma Jamma
Buster/Tyson
Namath/Unitas
Mine That Bird
we could go on and on...

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:07 pm

Van wrote:Does USC lose the game, were it not for those injuries? Yes or no? Don't spin. Don't give me 'shoulda'. Do they win the game? Yes, or no?

No one knows the answer to that. Not even you.

Those huge upsets I just listed happened without injuries involved. It'd be easy to say if Unitas went down that was the reason the Colts lost. But he didn't and they still lost.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:12 pm

Are you fucking serious right now? I'll answer your question, if you answer mine.

Yes, USC would have won.

Now for mine:

If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle? No spin, yes or no?

You're being a child right now. Childern give excuses, men admit fault and take blame. Stanford beating USC was one of the biggest upsets in college football history.

Let me ask you this, Van. If they played that game 100 times with the same injuries occuring for USC, how many times do you think USC would win?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:45 pm

It would depend on whether Pete reacted the same way each time to those same injuries, wouldn't it?

Killian, can it with the bullshit about being childish. I'm making a clear headed, entirely rational point of cause and effect. There's nothing remotely childish about it.

Cause and effect. It cannot be denied.

Oh, and Indy, that's bullshit, and you know it. USC lost by one point, at the buzzer. They lost due to the effect of poor play caused by injuries, and Carroll's mismanagement of the game following those injuries.

At least have the balls Killian has, and admit that were it not for all those injuries there would've been a two point swing in USC's favor, bare minimum.

That's basic common sense.

Beyond that, everything else is merely an attempt to separate a 'should have' argument from reality. The reality is that both things are true: They should have won anyway, but their injuries were the specific catalyst for the loss. No injuries = no loss, not in that game.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:51 pm

It is not bullshit saying one can't rewrite history with different parameters in place. Would it be possible for USC to have won if not for the injuries? Entirely possible. Even probable. But I can't say with certainty that they would have. That's jonsense.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:53 pm

You are being childish, Van. Childern make excuses. This is exactly what you are doing. If I go out, get drunk, and fuck some bar skank is it my fault or the booze? I wouldn't have made that decision without the booze, but because I got drunk I did something I typically wouldn't do. I don't think my wife would by that excuse, nor should any of us by the excuse that USC lost because of injuries. It's a stupid fucking argument. USC was better than that, and so are you.

You never answered my question. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:53 pm

Nah. The Pac 10 rarely plays San Diego St, or Army, or Navy, or Syracuse.

Man aint that the truth?

Arizona......Central Michigan and Northern Arizona
Arizona State....Idaho State, Louisiana Monroe
Cal...Eastern Washington
Oregon State....Portland State, UNLV
Stanford....San Jose State
UCLA...SDSU......uh oh........
USC...San Jose State
Washington...Idaho
Washington State...SMU

You're right again Van......

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:55 pm

Van wrote:At least have the balls Killian has, and admit that were it not for all those injuries there would've been a two point swing in USC's favor, bare minimum.

No Van, it's only a 2 point swing. Anything more and you're getting into degenerate gambler territory.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:22 pm

Killian wrote:You are being childish, Van. Childern make excuses. This is exactly what you are doing.

So what? If it's a plausible excuse, it's referred to as an explanation. Facts are facts. Just because you don't like the mitigating, compelling aspect of the explanation, it doesn't make it any less true.

If I go out, get drunk, and fuck some bar skank is it my fault or the booze?

That's a choice you made. USC didn't choose to become injured. Alcohol merely lowers your inhibitions, it doesn't provoke you to do things that are beyond your nature.

Bad analogy.

I wouldn't have made that decision without the booze, but because I got drunk I did something I typically wouldn't do. I don't think my wife would by that excuse, nor should any of us by the excuse that USC lost because of injuries.

Probably not, but she'd buy it a whole lot more than she'd buy a completely sober tryst with your secretary atop the casket, at the funeral of your wife's mother.

It's still a bad analogy. Choosing to get drunk and then doing something you would clearly want to do anyway is just not apropos to this situation.

It's a stupid fucking argument.

And yet you admit the obvious, that USC would've won, were it not for those injuries.

The only stupid thing here is your 'childish' inability to simply admit that you don't want to accept the truth. You just want it to be the way you want it, because the alternative doesn't feel nearly as good.

Even after you've admitted it you still can't stand by your own admission, simply because of how much the truth grates.

USC was better than that, and so are you.

Since Pete is part of of 'USC' in that equation, no, obviously they weren't. They should have been, but they weren't, because they fell victim to mistakes caused by injuries: mistakes by the players, and subsequent mistakes by the coach.

I'm merely calling a spade a spade. This is a black and white situation. There's no need for a value judgment on the messenger.

It's hardly the worst thing in the world, to have to admit that yes, injuries were the main factor in a team losing a specific game.

Pete screwed the pooch in that game. I can admit it, and he admits it too. If you really want to lay the lumber to Pete though, insofar as him not having his team ready to play, you have a much better target: the '06 UCLA game. That game is every damning thing any of you might ever want to lay on Pete. The Stanford loss was a blown reaction to a series of injuries. The UCLA game offers no excuses and no explanations. That was a complete, unmitigated failure to have his team ready to play.

That's his most disgraceful loss as coach of USC.

You never answered my question. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

Is she a South African 'female' distance runner? Is she from Amsterdam, plying her trade within the confines of a neon lighted window?

I guess you want me to say, "Yes," on your way to another analogy which will be apropos of nothing, so okay, I'll say yes, if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:23 pm

Killian wrote:If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

Yes? No? Maybe?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:25 pm

Laxplayer wrote:
Nah. The Pac 10 rarely plays San Diego St, or Army, or Navy, or Syracuse.
Man aint that the truth?

Arizona......Central Michigan and Northern Arizona
Arizona State....Idaho State, Louisiana Monroe
Cal...Eastern Washington
Oregon State....Portland State, UNLV
Stanford....San Jose State
UCLA...SDSU......uh oh........
USC...San Jose State
Washington...Idaho
Washington State...SMU

You're right again Van......

Yeah, Lax, let's go ahead and compared USC's elective games, compared to ND's of late.

Please. By all means, let's go down that road. Let's compare USC's one bogey against SJ St with ND's recent penchant for scheduling as many cupcakes as they can.