T1B

So they had "enough" offense to beat OU, a significantly better defensive team than USC, but wouldn't have found a way to muster enough scoring on SC's defense? Doesn't add up. Come on, they averaged 35 points a game that season...when you have a great defense, I think a 35 point average is more than necessary.

Spinach Genie wrote:

Van wrote:

(see: malawi)

I have lots of fish from malawi.

Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC so they absolutely didn't have a more complete football team. What they had was a good defense and the cache (for many) of playing in the SEC.

That's the problem with you SC fans. You beat up a bunch of PAC teams, and one OK team in a conference hardly known for defense and you think you can put 50 on anyone. OK was scoring multitudes on everyone that season too, as I recall, and LSU absolutely shut them down.

That's the problem with you SEC fans. You beat up a bunch of SEC teams and one OK team in a conference hardly know for offense or defense and you think you can shut down anyone. An undefeated OK was scoring multitudes on everyone the next season too, as I recall, and they were shutting people down to the tune of shutting out Vince Young's Texas squad, and USC's defense absolutely shut them down while USC's offense scored at will on OU like they were our own personal geishas.

The bottom line is the system is flawed because it relies on polls. It doesn't matter if the polls are human or computer...as I think Frank Solich's public vote this season clearly demonstrates. USC got fucked just like Auburn got fucked the next year...just because two polls had you number one is really irrelevant. You won your pollster title that year, LSU won their's...and at the end of the day they are both worth about the same.

Agreed.

Not known for offense or defense? What are you smoking? The SEC consistently has the top defenses in the nation, and if you want to talk offense...USC and LSU both defeated Auburn in '03 and LSU did it by a larger margin. Those top defenses have a lot more to do with perception of SEC offenses than you care to admit.

Van wrote:Try to pay attention here...

Mgo described what he thought to be obvious and I followed suit by describing what I and many others thought to be obvious.

i found it obvious that mgo's comment was a response to yr assertion about usc as a consensus #1. it also helps that what he found to be obvious was something directly observable (more difficult competition) wheras what you find obvious is pure conjecture.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So they had "enough" offense to beat OU, a significantly better defensive team than USC, but wouldn't have found a way to muster enough scoring on SC's defense? Doesn't add up. Come on, they averaged 35 points a game that season...when you have a great defense, I think a 35 point average is more than necessary.

We had "enough" offense to put up 55 points against an even better OU team than the one LSU played and a defense that was absolutely on a par with LSU's, especially in a big game, so we wouldn't have been able to muster enough points on LSU's defense? Doesn't add up. Come on, USC averaged 174 points a game that season...when you have a great defense, I think their nearly equally great defense is more than necessary.

Bottom line, you still have to put more points on the board than USC will and in a bowl game situation (or any other, apparently) nobody's going to do that.

Spinach Genie wrote:Not known for offense or defense? What are you smoking? The SEC consistently has the top defenses in the nation

No, not the SEC, the Big XII. Read what I wrote again.

To be fair, I thought the Auburn win was more impressive coming from USC. Yes, their margin of victoy was only 1 point shy of LSU's, but they shut them out, and they did it at Auburn (I don't recall where the LSU/Auburn game was played). It was SC's most impressive win that season.

MClub wrote:

Van wrote:Try to pay attention here...

Mgo described what he thought to be obvious and I followed suit by describing what I and many others thought to be obvious.

i found it obvious that mgo's comment was a response to yr assertion about usc as a consensus #1. it also helps that what he found to be obvious was something directly observable (more difficult competition) wheras what you find obvious is pure conjecture.

Stating that he thought LSU was a more complete team than USC is not "directly observable", it's personal opinion.

Obviously both the writers and the coaches thought USC was the more complete team and USC's onfield performance did nothing to belie those consensus opinions.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:To be fair, I thought the Auburn win was more impressive coming from USC. Yes, their margin of victoy was only 1 point shy of LSU's, but they shut them out, and they did it at Auburn (I don't recall where the LSU/Auburn game was played). It was SC's most impressive win that season.

Yep. USC shut out Auburn in USC's first game of the season, a roadie to Jordan-Hare. They did it with a QB making his first collegiate start, having sat on the bench all during Palmer's Heisman run.

A roadie to Jordan-Hare as their first game of the season, with a rookie QB. No cushy home game against Louisiana Monroe there for USC, oh no. Auburn was ranked #6 at the time and they had essentially all the same players who would go undefeated the following season. They had Ronnie Brown and Cadillac and the same QB. Auburn was waiting for that game big time, having lost to USC in the Coliseum the year before. They had all off season to get pumped for that one.

Buc says LSU's one point differential later in the season was more impressive?

Hell no. Not even Buc really believes that.

Van wrote:Stating that he thought LSU was a more complete team than USC is not "directly observable", it's personal opinion.

Obviously both the writers and the coaches thought USC was the more complete team and USC's onfield performance did nothing to belie those consensus opinions.

well, too bad lsu's onfield performance did nothing to corroborate those consensus opinions.

By definition, LSU's onfield performance corroborated those consensus opinions, lest those writers and coaches wouldn't have stated those consensus opinions after having watched both LSU and USC.

Van wrote:

Spinach Genie wrote:Not known for offense or defense? What are you smoking? The SEC consistently has the top defenses in the nation

No, not the SEC, the Big XII. Read what I wrote again.

Ah. Gotcha. My mistake.

Van wrote:By definition, LSU's onfield performance corroborated those consensus opinions, lest those writers and coaches wouldn't have stated those consensus opinions after having watched both LSU and USC.

touche, though the coaches apparently changed their minds..

Van, when you have two teams that appear to be fairly equally dominant, generally the wise thing to do is to pick the better defensive team to win. Of course there are exceptions, but my claim is generally the rule.

LSU's opponents barely broke double digit scoring averages - 11 points per game. That's just phenomenal. And they did it against consistently better competition. SC played good teams, but LSU played more good teams. Say what you want about the SEC in 2005, but in 2003 and in almost any season prior to 2005, people will tell you the SEC featured tougher competition week in and week out. Also, the fact they were only scoring a TD less per game than SC leads me to believe, logically, that they'd do more than just "hang" with SC.

Van wrote:A roadie to Jordan-Hare as their first game of the season, with a rookie QB. No cushy home game against Louisiana Monroe there for USC, oh no. Auburn was ranked #6 at the time and they had essentially all the same players who would go undefeated the following season. They had Ronnie Brown and Cadillac and the same QB. Auburn was waiting for that game big time, having lost to USC in the Coliseum the year before. They had all off season to get pumped for that one.

They also had perhaps the worst offensive coordinator in the history of Auburn football that season. Quite a few teams handed Auburn their heads that season...they weren't all that good beyond talent.

Buc says LSU's one point differential later in the season was more impressive?

Hell no. Not even Buc really believes that.

I didn't say it was more impressive. That's debatable. I said it was a larger margin, dispelling the notion that LSU couldn't play offense that season. They weren't flashy, but they could certainly put points on the board.

Van wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:To be fair, I thought the Auburn win was more impressive coming from USC. Yes, their margin of victoy was only 1 point shy of LSU's, but they shut them out, and they did it at Auburn (I don't recall where the LSU/Auburn game was played). It was SC's most impressive win that season.

Yep. USC shut out Auburn in USC's first game of the season, a roadie to Jordan-Hare. They did it with a QB making his first collegiate start, having sat on the bench all during Palmer's Heisman run.

A roadie to Jordan-Hare as their first game of the season, with a rookie QB. No cushy home game against Louisiana Monroe there for USC, oh no. Auburn was ranked #6 at the time and they had essentially all the same players who would go undefeated the following season. They had Ronnie Brown and Cadillac and the same QB. Auburn was waiting for that game big time, having lost to USC in the Coliseum the year before. They had all off season to get pumped for that one.

Buc says LSU's one point differential later in the season was more impressive?

Hell no. Not even Buc really believes that.

You are using a win during one season to vaildate a completely different season where you did not play said team. That is bullshit and you know it.

MClub wrote:

Van wrote:By definition, LSU's onfield performance corroborated those consensus opinions, lest those writers and coaches wouldn't have stated those consensus opinions after having watched both LSU and USC.

touche, though the coaches apparently changed their minds..

No, they didn't. They were publicly chagrined at having to honor a flawed contractual mandate that required them to reverse their vote and vote for LSU. Otherwise, they would've again voted USC #1 in their final poll, same as they did in the regular season ending poll.

Case closed. No UPI (or AP) #1 had ever won their bowl game and finished out of the UPI's (or AP's) #1 slot in the final poll. It happened in the 2003 season only because the designers of the contract the UPI signed weren't foresighted enough to envision the possibility of what came to fruition in 2003. This design error unwittingly ended up requiring the coaches to reverse their vote.

The AP wasn't required to reverse their vote so they didn't.

The following offseason the BCS fixed at least that one system design error by preventing the consensus AP and UPI #1 from again being barred entry into their title game.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Van, when you have two teams that appear to be fairly equally dominant, generally the wise thing to do is to pick the better defensive team to win. Of course there are exceptions, but my claim is generally the rule.

LSU's opponents barely broke double digit scoring averages - 11 points per game. That's just phenomenal. And they did it against consistently better competition. SC played good teams, but LSU played more good teams. Say what you want about the SEC in 2005, but in 2003 and in almost any season prior to 2005, people will tell you the SEC featured tougher competition week in and week out. Also, the fact they were only scoring a TD less per game than SC leads me to believe, logically, that they'd do more than just "hang" with SC.

Mgo, in what was essentially a home game for them LSU took on a shell shocked one loss OU team that had just gotten destroyed in their most recent game. Despite this fact LSU only won by a small margin in a somewhat close game.

USC took on a better, more experienced and undefeated OU team that had fully regained their swagger. USC took them on at a neutral site and USC positively ripped them from pillar to post. Both those 2003 and 2004 USC and OU teams featured basically the same cast of stars.

Moreover, USC took down Auburn that same year in a more compelling manner and in under more compelling circumstances than LSU did.

So, if logic dictates anything here it's that the only half way compelling barometer for USC and LSU would be the common denominator barometer and there's no doubt what the results there would indicate to an impartial observer.

Spinach Genie wrote:

Van wrote:A roadie to Jordan-Hare as their first game of the season, with a rookie QB. No cushy home game against Louisiana Monroe there for USC, oh no. Auburn was ranked #6 at the time and they had essentially all the same players who would go undefeated the following season. They had Ronnie Brown and Cadillac and the same QB. Auburn was waiting for that game big time, having lost to USC in the Coliseum the year before. They had all off season to get pumped for that one.

They also had perhaps the worst offensive coordinator in the history of Auburn football that season. Quite a few teams handed Auburn their heads that season...they weren't all that good beyond talent.

And wasn't that same offensive coordinator in place when LSU played Auburn that season? So, what's the difference, other than USC handed LSU an already deflated and beaten down Auburn team...

Regardless, USC's win over Auburn was more impressive than LSU's win over Auburn.

Buc says LSU's one point differential later in the season was more impressive?

Hell no. Not even Buc really believes that.

I didn't say it was more impressive. That's debatable. I said it was a larger margin, dispelling the notion that LSU couldn't play offense that season. They weren't flashy, but they could certainly put points on the board.

Nobody said they couldn't play offense. I said they couldn't play offense anywhere near like USC could play offense, and nobody in their right mind will dispute this.

LSU's argument is their defense was so much better than USC's. Well, no it wasn't, and playing a bunch of relatively punchless SEC teams doesn't prove it was. USC's D was quite underrated due to the explosiveness of their offense, just like the Niner's D was back during their heyday. When the whistle blew for a big game that Trojan D and last year's Trojan D showed up big time. USC's D did just as good of a job as LSU's did against OU and USC's D faced the better of those two OU teams, and they faced 'em on a neutral field while LSU got OU in the Superdome.

Would USC have scored more points than LSU? Yeah, I suspect they would've.

Van wrote:No, they didn't. They were publicly chagrined at having to honor a flawed contractual mandate that required them to reverse their vote and vote for LSU. Otherwise, they would've again voted USC #1 in their final poll, same as they did in the regular season ending poll.

a flawed contractual mandate? the system looked pristine when they signed on, non? that's where they put their faith, and faith dictated they vote for lsu.

by the by:

No UPI (or AP) #1 had ever won their bowl game and finished out of the UPI's (or AP's) #1 slot in the final poll.

1997 stirs up a bit of bitterness where i went to school.

MClub wrote:

Van wrote:No, they didn't. They were publicly chagrined at having to honor a flawed contractual mandate that required them to reverse their vote and vote for LSU. Otherwise, they would've again voted USC #1 in their final poll, same as they did in the regular season ending poll.

a flawed contractual mandate? the system looked pristine when they signed on, non? that's where they put their faith, and faith dictated they vote for lsu.

The two notions aren't mutually exclusive. The contract was signed, yes, and it was nevertheless flawed in its design, yes.

by the by:

No UPI (or AP) #1 had ever won their bowl game and finished out of the UPI's (or AP's) #1 slot in the final poll.

1997 stirs up a bit of bitterness where i went to school.

Did either Michigan or Nebraska fall from #1 in their respective polls following their bowl wins?

Van wrote: And wasn't that same offensive coordinator in place when LSU played Auburn that season? So, what's the difference, other than USC handed LSU an already deflated and beaten down Auburn team...

Actually Auburn was coming off several wins when LSU beat them, so no...they were probably as up as they had been to that point.

Regardless, USC's win over Auburn was more impressive than LSU's win over Auburn.

I wouldn't exactly say that.

Nobody said they couldn't play offense. I said they couldn't play offense anywhere near like USC could play offense, and nobody in their right mind will dispute this.

A good offense often depends on who is lining up on the other side of the ball.

LSU's argument is their defense was so much better than USC's. Well, no it wasn't, and playing a bunch of relatively punchless SEC teams doesn't prove it was. USC's D was quite underrated due to the explosiveness of their offense, just like the Niner's D was back during their heyday. When the whistle blew for a big game that Trojan D and last year's Trojan D showed up big time. USC's D did just as good of a job as LSU's did against OU and USC's D faced the better of those two OU teams, and they faced 'em on a neutral field while LSU got OU in the Superdome.

You're full of shit on several levels, Van. First of all, punchless? When are you pacies going to get it through your skulls that the top 10 is old hat to the SEC? Take a look through the MNCs of the past several years and take note of how many different SEC schools' names pop up. Hardly punchless. Secondly, I'm sorry. That OK team you played is one of the most poorly prepared squads I've seen take such a center stage. How many turnovers deep in their own turf did OU spot USC again? I'm not selling USC short, they're a great team, but to act like you can draw up some fantasy win for the trojans because you beat up one very inept team is ludicrous.

Would USC have scored more points than LSU? Yeah, I suspect they would've.

...and I suspect Auburn would have beat USC, OK, the New England Patriots and the Chinese Army last season...but that and a few quarters might buy me a bag of chips.

Van wrote:Mgo, in what was essentially a home game for them LSU took on a shell shocked one loss OU team that had just gotten destroyed in their most recent game. Despite this fact LSU only won by a small margin in a somewhat close game.

Irrelevant. There is no evidence that can prove a team plays worse after a bad loss, or even just a loss. In a lot of cases, teams play very well after a loss because they're hungrier and have something to prove.

Also, I find it humorous that you argue the worthlessness of the money grab conference championship games in other discussions, yet you use the results of such a game (OU vs KSU) as a significant part of your argument here.

And only won by a small margin? You're really reaching here...they handled their business and covered the spread. This argument MIGHT be effective had USC blown away Michigan, but from what I recall, they "struggled" more than LSU did.

USC took on a better, more experienced and undefeated OU team that had fully regained their swagger. USC took them on at a neutral site and USC positively ripped them from pillar to post. Both those 2003 and 2004 USC and OU teams featured basically the same cast of stars.

Again, it's reaching and it's irrelevant. If you can't stick to the opponents USC played in 2003 then that shows how unconfident you are in defending USC's quality of schedule vs LSU's quality of schedule in 2003.

Moreover, USC took down Auburn that same year in a more compelling manner and in under more compelling circumstances than LSU did.

I agreed with you earlier on this. Still, the performances were similarily dominant, and the slight impressiveness SC may have had in that one game can't possibly be used as a conclusive determinant as to who had the more impressive season.

Did either Michigan or Nebraska fall from #1 in their respective polls following their bowl wins?

michigan was #1 in both polls going into the bowl games.

When are you pacies going to get it through your skulls that the top 10 is old hat to the SEC?

Poll and ranking facts won't mean anything to Van. Those facts are only useful when Van is using them to argue consensus #1 (which he is right on, but the irony is quite rich).

Spinach Genie wrote:

Van wrote: And wasn't that same offensive coordinator in place when LSU played Auburn that season? So, what's the difference, other than USC handed LSU an already deflated and beaten down Auburn team...

Actually Auburn was coming off several wins when LSU beat them, so no...they were probably as up as they had been to that point.

But....they still had that same horseshit offensive coordinator upon whose feet you seem to lay the blame for the USC loss. Also, no, they weren't as high for the LSU game as they were for the opening game of their season, at home, when they were as yet undefeated and feeling good about themselves and their #6 ranking.......playing against USC.

They play LSU every year. That USC game was going to springboard them right into national title contention. They never regained that level of "high" again that season.

Regardless, USC's win over Auburn was more impressive than LSU's win over Auburn.

I wouldn't exactly say that.

I would, with no qualifiers, and with no fear of contradiction.

Nobody said they couldn't play offense. I said they couldn't play offense anywhere near like USC could play offense, and nobody in their right mind will dispute this.

A good offense often depends on who is lining up on the other side of the ball.

As does a good defense and who's lining up on offense, which, in the SEC, usually ain't much.

Besides, no, in USC's offense's case it's been proven that it really doesn't matter who lines up on the other side of the ball. USC is going to get theirs, regardless. OU's defense was undefeated and considered a juggernaut when USC played 'em and USC shredded 'em far worse than anything LSU did to OU on either side of the ball.

LSU's argument is their defense was so much better than USC's. Well, no it wasn't, and playing a bunch of relatively punchless SEC teams doesn't prove it was. USC's D was quite underrated due to the explosiveness of their offense, just like the Niner's D was back during their heyday. When the whistle blew for a big game that Trojan D and last year's Trojan D showed up big time. USC's D did just as good of a job as LSU's did against OU and USC's D faced the better of those two OU teams, and they faced 'em on a neutral field while LSU got OU in the Superdome.

You're full of shit on several levels, Van. First of all, punchless?

Yes, punchless. Compared to USC's offense these last four seasons and many a Pac 10 offense in general SEC offenses have been utterly punchless during that same time frame.

LSU's offense in '03 couldn't hold a candle to USC's, and LSU's was the best of the SEC lot over the last few seasons.

When are you pacies going to get it through your skulls that the top 10 is old hat to the SEC? Take a look through the MNCs of the past several years and take note of how many different SEC schools' names pop up.

Only one: LSU. And they were "awarded" theirs.

Hardly punchless.

Offensively, yep, they've been pretty punchless. The SEC has proven of late to be the home of the 13-10 O.T. "defensive struggle", yet mid level Pac 10 teams light up supposedly dominant SEC defenses to the tune of 570 yards and a broken scoreboard. Those same SEC defenses that roll into the tiger's den in the SEC and hold the "Top 10" opposition to 16 points in a game they should've won, hey, they give up an easy 70 to USC.

Secondly, I'm sorry.

Apology accepted. You've always been a class act.

That OK team you played is one of the most poorly prepared squads I've seen take such a center stage.

Yet they were undefeated and a better team than the one which gave LSU a good game in LSU's home bowl game, so what's that say about LSU?

I love how USC never gets any credit for making teams like like mush. It never seems to dawn on people that maybe USC's excess of player talent, coaching talent and in game execution might've been the reason formerly dominant squads always seem to implode right before our eyes.

How many turnovers deep in their own turf did OU spot USC again?

I honestly no longer recall, but USC has been the best at forcing turnovers with their "suspect defense" for awhile now.

I'm not selling USC short, they're a great team, but to act like you can draw up some fantasy win for the trojans because you beat up one very inept team is ludicrous.

The idea of a #1 ranked USC beating anybody in a bowl game is hardly the ludicrous stuff of fantasy. USC would've been the clear favorite in such a game and I would've gladly bet on USC to win it. That inept team we beat on a neutral field was better than the one LSU beat the year before in a home bowl game.

Problem here is everybody looks inept once USC is through with them in a big game. Nobody ever puts two and two together there. Bank on it right now that people will be in here saying how overrated Texas was after this year's Rose Bowl.

I'll be right there with 'em too, as will you. I think Texas is hugely overrated. While I never said that USC would've blown out LSU or Auburn (I merely said they'd win) I did go out of my way here last year to say (before the game) that USC would blow out OU. I also say it this year, regarding Texas. To me, Texas is very much a paper tiger, just like OU, and we're again going to score as much as Pete feels like scoring.

Would USC have scored more points than LSU? Yeah, I suspect they would've.

...and I suspect Auburn would have beat USC, OK, the New England Patriots and the Chinese Army last season...but that and a few quarters might buy me a bag of chips.

What's your issue? You have a problem because I think a higher ranked USC would've beaten two lower ranked teams in bowl games? Since the games were never played what more can any of us do than posit our suppositions? We can only offer opinions, and those are mine.

No different than SEC Fan saying SEC Team would've beaten USC.

Big deal.

Van, you really believe Texas to be overrated? I believe Texas to be a great football team who will likely lose to a team who's even greater.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

When are you pacies going to get it through your skulls that the top 10 is old hat to the SEC?

Poll and ranking facts won't mean anything to Van. Those facts are only useful when Van is using them to argue consensus #1 (which he is right on, but the irony is quite rich).

Oh no, I also use them when I bitch about BCS #5's getting snubbed twice in a row, and Oregon in 2001 getting snubbed in favor of Nebraska.

Consistency = My middle name.



Mgo, OU's performance in that conference championship game and their subsequent inclusion in the title game proves my point as clearly as possible as to why I put no stock in those useless games.

Like I said with Texas and Colorado this year: Nothing at all to win, and quite possibly nothing to lose either, since they could still get in even with a loss. Such games should never take place, and they only take place in trumped up CCGs.

If Texas loses to Colorado during the regular season it would've had much more of a negative impact on their chances than losing to them in the CCG. The CCG is a unique animal that often times creates games which should never be played.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Van, you really believe Texas to be overrated? I believe Texas to be a great football team who will likely lose to a team who's even greater.

On some level, yeah, I do.

I think they're a good team, not a great team. I think they will prove that they don't belong on the field with USC in a Rose Bowl for all the marbles. I think they're like OU in the past couple years and Nebraska in too many years in that they have a national reputation (and subsequent BCS rankings) built on feasting on the dinosaur that is the Big XII.

We'll never know for certain and I'll be the first to admit it but I honestly believe that if Texas played in the SEC, Big 10 or Pac 10 they'd never achieve the notoriety they have now. Not with Hack Brown, no way.

I know SEC Fan says the same about USC vis a vis the SEC but I'm not swayed because I don't think there's anybody in the SEC who would beat USC. USC's national status would just be enhanced that much further by running the SEC instead of the Pac 10. I think Texas loses in conference on a much more regular basis if they play in those other three conferences and that extra bit of losing would knock Texas' rep down closer to what I feel is reality.

Van wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Van, you really believe Texas to be overrated? I believe Texas to be a great football team who will likely lose to a team who's even greater.

On some level, yeah, I do.

I think they're a good team, not a great team. I think they will prove that they don't belong on the field with USC in a Rose Bowl for all the marbles.

Van, SC is a 4th and long incompletion away from not even being in this conversation. It stuns me to hear you say Texas doesn't belong on the field with them in the Rose Bowl when they needed a miraculous drive late in the 4th quarter JUST TO EVEN BE IN THIS SITUATION TO ALLOW YOU TO SAY SUCH ARROGANT THINGS. Don't you understand that?

So who does "belong", if it's not Texas? In a championship game, there's always someone else who at least "belongs", so who is it then? And the proof that someone else belongs is the fact that SC has shown to be human by almost losing, and legitimately might I add, to ND and Fresno.

Van wrote:Bitter types who think they're getting anything accomplished by continually trying to rewrite history, hey, why even bother? Nobody buys it. Nobody is under any illusions that USC and LSU aren't both recognized as being co national champs. Every single writer in the country says so, as does every tv announcer and radio host and there it is on every NCAA list of CF national champions...

SCFan knows all about rewriting history. How'd they get that 1939 title awarded to them in 2004? They find some fish wrap that said SC was really good so they claimed a title?

Mgo, in case you haven't noticed I've always made the distinction between SC rolling through the regular season vs coming up big in a bowl game where it's their Super Bowl too and they've had a month to prepare.

In that scenario I consider USC to be on a different level than the team who slogs through the regular season, the one who is occasionally susceptible to close games and dicey finishes.

USC almost lost a regular season game or two last season as well and it didn't deter me from expecting a bowl game blowout of OU, and this year feels no different to me.

Take it at face value.

I just wonder where all this SC arrogance and sudden outpouring of SC fandom comes from. A few years ago, you could hardly distinguish an SC fan in the coliseum from all the pigeons, now...they're crawling out of the woodwork.

Van, I like you bro, but christ I hope Texas pounds the ever loving shit out of the condoms. I thought Bama fans were bad...damn.

Spinach Genie wrote:I just wonder where all this SC arrogance and sudden outpouring of SC fandom comes from. A few years ago, you could hardly distinguish an SC fan in the coliseum from all the pigeons, now...they're crawling out of the woodwork.

Van, I like you bro, but christ I hope Texas pounds the ever loving shit out of the condoms. I thought Bama fans were bad...damn.

It's cyclical......you had obnoxious FSU/UF fan, then Nebraska-I won't call NU fan obnoxious(for the most part they aren't), then somehow OU fan became almost unbearable, which seemed to switch to USC fan once they started winning. Whatever school goes on a streak their fandom seems to lose all remembrence of times lost when they sucked.

Side note: Never came into contact with many UM fans. I am sure they haved their idiots as well.

T Rex, nobody but nobody could ever accuse me of forgetting when USC sucked. Not Buc, not TiC, nobody.

USC fans just went through a good fifteen to twenty year stretch where USC was nothing but mediocre.

Buc, the feeling is mutual. Now, take that feeling you have of wanting to see SC fans shut the hell up and multiple it by a thousand and you'll have an inkling of how SC fans and Pac 10 fans in general feel about you insufferable SEC Honks.

While I wouldn't exactly put all of them in the same bucket, yeah. There's plenty of arrogance to go around in the SEC...but the fanbase hangs around for losing seasons. Not commenting on you or Jimmah, Van, cause I know you guys have always represented...but there sure are a pile of USC fans across America now. It reminds me of FSU in the 90s, yeah.

Fuck it. I'm just bitter. :D

No, I agree there, USC is the bandwagon du jour at the moment, whether nationally or otherwise.

I've already commented on L.A.'s USC fans, the majority of whom would just as easily become UCLA fans if the circumstances warranted it.

L.A. is about entertainment and being associated with glamour, and right now that means hitching a ride on USC's train. I'm sure that by and large SEC fans aren't of the bandwagon variety.

They're just perpetually obnoxious, but at least they come by that obnoxiousness honestly.