T1B

SoCalTrjn wrote:Best team in the nation last year did not win the National Championship, they won the Emerald Bowl

FTFY.

da queef

^^^^^^

RACK Indy

It's certainly debatable as to whether the best team in the nation last year won the Rose Bowl.

I know for a fact that Florida wouldn't have been favored over USC (USC would've been -3, according to most touts at the time), and with USC's D being what it was last season, combined with how much Sanchez and company were rolling offensively by bowl season, yeah, it's very debatable.

I'm also fairly confident that the SEC doesn't enjoy this recent string of MNCs if they would've been playing USC all these times, rather than OU and OSU. I can't prove it, and we'll never know, but yeah, I'm pretty damn certain USC wins at least some of those games, and they were just as deserving to be there as the teams which received the invite.

The one thing I do know for certain is the SEC is damn fortunate they kept getting OU and OSU, and not USC, and they're damn fortunate the media loves the SEC so much, which is what enabled them to always receive the invite.

Or it could be the in conference losses against weak competition that keeps fucking up your dreams of the glass football.

Van wrote:It's certainly debatable as to whether the best team in the nation last year won the Rose Bowl.

I know for a fact that Florida wouldn't have been favored over USC (USC would've been -3, according to most touts at the time), and with USC's D being what it was last season, combined with how much Sanchez and company were rolling offensively by bowl season, yeah, it's very debatable.

I'm also fairly confident that the SEC doesn't enjoy this recent string of MNCs if they would've been playing USC all these times, rather than OU and OSU. I can't prove it, and we'll never know, but yeah, I'm pretty damn certain USC wins at least some of those games, and they were just as deserving to be there as the teams which received the invite.

The one thing I do know for certain is the SEC is damn fortunate they kept getting OU and OSU, and not USC, and they're damn fortunate the media loves the SEC so much, which is what enabled them to always receive the invite.

Why is everything to you a god damn hypothetical scenario? "i know for certain USC would be a favorite"........you don't fucking know shit. You're an idiot. Stop talking, please. You're making me dizzy.

Wait for it....here it comes.....Oh fuck it, I'll do it for ya Van.......
Well we had to travel to Oregon State which is a tough place to play in a trap game on a Thursday night and riley is very familiar with $C which is why the Toejams laid an egg............

Laxplayer wrote:Wait for it....here it comes.....Oh fuck it, I'll do it for ya Van.......
Well we had to travel to Oregon State which is a tough place to play in a trap game on a Thursday night and riley is very familiar with $C which is why the Toejams laid an egg............

And Stanford???

What is it about USC's fans?

Worst fan base in CFB. I hope to never have to play them again. No, not because they beat us, but because their fans are no fun and probably the biggest fucking losers I have ever met. Loved LSU, Florida, and Texas Tech fans. Good times with those folks. But USC fans down in Miami........biggest bunch of fucking tards I ever met. They knew NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING about college football. It's pretty obvious where Vag gets his cluelessness from.

I still had a good time in Miami for the Orange Bowl back in 2002, but it was a little disappointing to meet USC fans. These tards barely knew who their fucking coach was. For the CapOne Bowl in 2004, had a fucking blast talking smack with LSU fans down in Orlando. Met some cool mother fuckers. They know their football. Same goes for Florida fans. Tailgated with a lot of Gator fans and had an awesome time. Got nothing but great things to say about their fans.

To be quite honest, I was almost embarrassed for USC fans. What a bunch of fucking losers. Try talking football with these tards and I swear to god you will become dumber for it. And Vag is only helping to support my argument with each and every one of his idiotic posts.

FLW Buckeye wrote:Or it could be the in conference losses against weak competition that keeps fucking up your dreams of the glass football.

Florida lost at home to unranked Ole Miss.

LSU lost at home, in the season finale, mind you, to unranked Arkansas, in a game they thought at the time had knocked them out of the title hunt. They also lost to unranked Kentucky.

It's a double standard. This notion of "Don't lose to teams you shouldn't lose to, if you want to play for the glass football!" only applies to USC, apparently. The SEC doesn't seem to have to deal with it, at all, despite the fact that they also play nobody OOC.

The SEC doesn't seem to have to deal with it, at all, despite the fact that they also play nobody OOC.

3 of Florida's 4 OOC opponents last year went to bowl games. And you can't take credit for beating Ohio State last year because you've stated they are horrible. So that doesn't count as playing a quality opponent since they allegedly suck.

LSU beat an 11 win Virginia Tech team 2 years ago 48-7.

Florida lost at home to unranked Ole Miss.
LSU lost at home, in the season finale, mind you, to unranked Arkansas, in a game they thought at the time had knocked them out of the title hunt. They also lost to unranked Kentucky.

Well at least those teams didn't lose to a team they were supposed to beat by 40+..............

Oh wait, Harbaugh knows SC so well so it shouldn't be a surprise that $C lost to Stanford too.

Laxplayer wrote:Well we had to travel to Oregon State which is a tough place to play in a trap game on a Thursday night

That's not as bad a loss as losing at HOME the way UF did.

Laxplayer wrote:

Florida lost at home to unranked Ole Miss.
LSU lost at home, in the season finale, mind you, to unranked Arkansas, in a game they thought at the time had knocked them out of the title hunt. They also lost to unranked Kentucky.

Well at least those teams didn't lose to a team they were supposed to beat by 40+..............

Neither did USC, last year. They lost on the road, to a good team.

Florida lost at home, to a team who was no better than Oregon St. Florida's loss was worse than USC's.

Oh wait, Harbaugh knows SC so well so it shouldn't be a surprise that $C lost to Stanford too.

Had nothing to do with Harbaugh. It had everything to do with key injuries to key people (not just the QB) during the game, which opened up the door.

And still LSU lost at home to unranked Arkansas that year, in the season finale. That loss knocked them out of everything, as far as they knew at the time. They got beaten at home, by an unranked team, in a game for all the marbles, in the last game of the season. They also lost to unranked Kentucky.

These losses are just as bad as USC's, but they're only held against USC, for some reason.

Van wrote:

Laxplayer wrote:

Florida lost at home to unranked Ole Miss.
LSU lost at home, in the season finale, mind you, to unranked Arkansas, in a game they thought at the time had knocked them out of the title hunt. They also lost to unranked Kentucky.

Well at least those teams didn't lose to a team they were supposed to beat by 40+..............

Neither did USC, last year. They lost on the road, to a good team.

Florida lost at home, to a team who was no better than Oregon St. Florida's loss was worse than USC's.

Your ignoring key facts from 2008:

Losing to Oregon State in week 5 after beating tOSU...USC's strength of schedule for the rest of the season was extremely weak. The highest ranked teams on their sked when USC played them was Oregon (#23) and Cal (#21). After UF's loss at home to Old Miss in week 5, they had a much stronger remaining strength of schedule, with a 51-21 seal-clubbing of LSU (ranked #4) in week 7, 6th ranked Georgia drubbed 49-10 in week 10, S Carolina (#25) falling in week 12, beating FSU (#20) 45-15 in Week 14, followed the next week with a win over #1 Alabama in the SECCG. UF overcame their loss (see the "Tebow's Will Be Done" plaque) and had the better season.

Oh wait, Harbaugh knows SC so well so it shouldn't be a surprise that $C lost to Stanford too.

Had nothing to do with Harbaugh. It had everything to do with key injuries to key people (not just the QB) during the game, which opened up the door.

Regardless of injuries, USC should have dominated Stanford at home. Plain and simple. If I recall correctly, there was some debate as to what was the worst defeat in recent memory- Stanford/SC, or the Appy St/scUM.


Now please excuse me. I feel so dirty after defending UF, I need a shower or three.

Plain, and simple, no, they should not have dominated Stanford, not under those circumstances.

QB busts his throwing hand in the first half. He convinces coach to let him stay in and he throws FOUR second half picks. Those picks not only derail any semblance of offense they may have had, they also give multiple short fields to Stanford.

During the first half, USC sees three of its five offensive linemen go down with injuries, including their All American left tackle.

During the game, they lose every right CB on the roster. They're forced to sub in a guy who'd never played CB before, who had no idea on the footwork or any of the things which differentiate playing CB from playing safety. That guy gets worked in the second half. You can see him flailing, getting completely spun around, on the famous winning TD ABC always shows as part of their pre-game montage.

[m2]For all that, USC still won the game.[/m2] They dominated, statistically, and they only lost by a point.

You're just not going to necessarily overcome four picks and a complete collapse of your offensive line, all in one half.

They lost, and they shouldn't have lost, because Pete shouldn't have allowed himself to be talked into letting JDB stay in the game. That's a given.

The result of that game wasn't nearly the shock people make it out to be, if they knew what they were talking about. The USC that was on the field day that day, with all those mid-game injuries, that's no 40 point favorite over anybody. Nobody loses 3/5ths of their O Line and suffers through four second half picks from their injured QB without risking a loss.

Jsc, yeah, what happened after Arkansas went into Tiger Stadium and beat them, knocking LSU out of the title hunt?

LSU got every gift in the world, is what happened.

They got to go ahead and play in a bogus CCG, against a shitty Tennessee team, whose QB handed LSU the game. That game handed LSU an automatic BCS bowl berth. Then they sat back and saw Mizzou get shellacked by OU. They saw Pitt go into Morgantown and beat W. Virginia, along with a bunch of other stupid shit. Suddenly, LSU gets bumped into the title game, just because they're from the SEC, despite two really bad losses, plus all those near losses that year to Auburn, Florida, etc. Then, to top it off, they got to play Ohio St, who are so panicked by the sight of anyone with a southern drawl that they couldn't beat Ole Miss.

That was the most charmed existence any team ever had, handing you that title.

In '03, instead of USC, you got to play a non-conference champion OU team who'd just gotten royally hammered in their previous game, and that title was disputed. In '07, instead of USC, you got to play OSU, and that title was disputed.

No wonder you SECBSHs slobber about your conference so much. It's simply being in the SEC that's giving you all these opportunities. The playing field is so slanted in your favor that even when your team goes out of its way to eliminate itself TPTB won't allow it.

Van wrote:[m2]For all that, USC still won the game.[/m2] They dominated, statistically, and they only lost by a point.

Welll, you do have that going for you and your argument.

Van wrote:Then they sat back and saw Mizzou get shellacked by OU.

if you want to play the injury card, Bradford goes out with a concussion in the first quarter at Tech and spot Leach a 21 point lead in the 2nd or OU is the BCS game. granted, they pissed the bed against WVU in the consolation Fiesta but the 2 loss LSU team you are contesting *did* get the Trophy.

and i think Les Miles is a fuggin baboon.

Van,

You can't have it both ways.

On one hand, you're excusing the loss, saying it wasn't surprising. On the other, you claim they were the dominant team and "should" have won the game.

If you admit they were the dominant team, then you shouldn't be justifying their loss and making excuses for it. Just sack up, concede they choked, and move on.

If this happened to Oregon, or Cal, or Oregon St...hell, even Arizona or UCLA, people might take this excuse more seriously. But Stanford? At home? Get outta here.

Plain, and simple, no, they should not have dominated Stanford, not under those circumstances.
QB busts his throwing hand in the first half. He convinces coach to let him stay in and he throws FOUR second half picks. Those picks not only derail any semblance of offense they may have had, they also give multiple short fields to Stanford.
During the first half, USC sees three of its five offensive linemen go down with injuries, including their All American left tackle.

What a pussified excuse. Let's see, the QB gets injured but Pete keeps him in there, however 3 guys on the O-line go down and they get replaced. Why replace the O-line but not the QB? Also, every year we hear about how $C just reloads with another 5 star at each position and the competition during practice is so much tougher than in most games they play because their depth and back ups are better than most schools first teams. Well what happened? Did these all stars all of a sudden forget how to play the game? Was Stanford just that much better than each of your 5 star replacements?

During the game, they lose every right CB on the roster. They're forced to sub in a guy who'd never played CB before, who had no idea on the footwork or any of the things which differentiate playing CB from playing safety. That guy gets worked in the second half. You can see him flailing, getting completely spun around, on the famous winning TD ABC always shows as part of their pre-game montage.

Just move a guy from the left side over to the right side. Many teams play strong and weak corners anyway so right vs. left is no big deal. I'm not sure I buy the safety/corner bullshit either. Playing a zone is playing a zone. What's the difference in playing the deep 1/3 as a safety vs. doing it as a corner? Footwork? Are you telling me that there's that much of a difference in playing man to man as a corner vs. playing man to man as a safety. So, covering a curl pattern as a corner is different? I'm not buying it. Yes there are some basic techniques that are different but if all these so called studs that SChas can'tplay multiple positions then maybe they aren't as good as everyone thinks. Guys get positions changed all the time and become very successful. A good coach (like Pete is) knows that and probably moves guys around during practices to have them work on that.

You're just not going to necessarily overcome four picks and a complete collapse of your offensive line, all in one half.

Maybe, maybe not. Some teams have overcome a QB that has thrown 4 picks and won the game. I'm not sure the O-line collapsed. Maybe the 5 star back ups who were high school all american's weren't ready for competition.....oh wait, they compete vs. the best everyday in practice.

They lost, and they shouldn't have lost, because Pete shouldn't have allowed himself to be talked into letting JDB stay in the game. That's a given.

So now the greatest coach of all time is allowing himself to be talked into stupid decisions by his QB. Didn't the medical staff look at the injury?

The result of that game wasn't nearly the shock people make it out to be, if they knew what they were talking about. The USC that was on the field day that day, with all those mid-game injuries, that's no 40 point favorite over anybody. Nobody loses 3/5ths of their O Line and suffers through four second half picks from their injured QB without risking a loss.

At the start of the game they had all their starters in and were in the position to dominate the game, but they didn't. They had to deal with a little adversity just like EVERY team.
Bottom line is that they probably took Stanford lightly. Harbaugh had his team ready to play and Petey boy didn't. Use all the bullshit excuses you want, but they lost. Every team has these issues and many overcome them yours didn't so be a man and quit with all the pussification of excuses. They lost.

Mgo, it's not an excuse, it's fact. It's also true that a team can have a good reason for losing, even as they still shouldn't have lost.

I'm not saying they should've lost, I'm just saying this 40 point favorite/biggest upset in history nonsense is just a bunch of media-driven b.s.

Yeah, they were the dominant team, based on the stats, and the flow of the game. Those four turnovers (five, in total) negated that dominance. The complete collapse of their O line negated that dominance. Their inability to defend the pass late in the game, after they were left with no CBs, that negated their dominance.

Take those things as a whole and yeah, they kept Stanford in the game. Take the USC team that played that second half, after all those injuries, and no, they're nothing like a 40 point favorite.

KC, yeah, LSU got the trophy, and I already laid it out there as to how and why they got the trophy.

The Bradford going out with a concussion thing isn't an apples-apples comparison anyway. First off, he went out. He was replaced by a healthy player. That was the whole problem with the JDB thing, that he didn't come out. To this day Pete says it's the biggest mistake he ever made in his coaching career, leaving JDB in there, at which point JDB completely destroyed his own team. He couldn't throw the ball, and he threw four highly uncharacteristic picks. Give any team four TOs in one half and they're in the game.

On top of that, OU didn't lose 3/5ths of their O line, including Phil Loadholt. USC lost two O lineman on one freaking play!

Yeah, you're supposed to be able to plug in players, but when you lose 3/5ths of your O line in one half there's no way to plug in people and then still hope to maintain any sort of continuity. That many people, all thrown in together in a wild jumble?

OU didn't have to deal with that. They also didn't have to try to defend a pass-happy team without a single CB. Stanford still has D1 talent. Their QB and WRs can throw the ball, run routes and make catches. When the guy defending their receiver has no idea how to do so, and no technique with which to do so, it's simply pitch and catch for Stanford.

USC still could've won, and had they played a better first half, before all those guys went down, i.e. had they already built up a thirty point lead or something, sure, they still would've been able to withstand four picks, no offense and almost no ability to defend against the pass.

They were shutting out Stanford at the half, but their offensive woes limited their own scoring. It was those 17 fourth quarter points from Stanford, which were the result of JDB's picks and USC's inability to defend the pass any longer, that turned the tables.

OU then showed themselves again in their bowl game, and so did USC. USC at even something approaching full strength beats Stanford, with ease. USC at something like full strength is a 40 point favorite, but that isn't even close to the team Stanford played that day.

Lax wrote:Every team has these issues

Nonsense. No, they don't; not to that degree, all in one game. On those rare occasions when they do, they also play like shit.

Even despite all that, they were shutting Stanford out at the half. Stanford was not going to win that game, even despite USC's offensive woes; even with their struggles at CB. It was the four second half picks that put Stanford into position to win, since USC had no ability to widen their lead, even as they kept providing Stanford with short fields for their own scoring chances.

Alabama lost ONE offensive lineman, and they had weeks to prepare for his absence, and still they blame their entire shitty performance, including their defense getting absolutely shithammered, on that one offensive lineman's absence.

Nobody loses 3/5ths of their line and ALL their CBs in one game. That just doesn't happen. It wasn't simply a matter of shifting a CB from one side to the other, either. They had no more CBs. They all got hurt. The only healthy one left was on the field, on the left side. They were forced to use a back-up free safety, a guy who'd never practiced a single down at CB.

This all happened during the game. They had no time to give this guy any reps in practice.

As for the O line, that's a unit. It needs to perform as a unit. Nobody ever needs to do a total fire drill, right in the middle of the game, with three out of the five guys. As a unit, those guys never played with each other, not once. That's a sure-fire recipe for shitty play.

As for Pete and JDB, Pete blew it. Plain and simple. He made a mistake, and he admits it. He allowed himself to be talked into it, by JDB. It's understandable, but it's still a mistake, and that mistake cost him the national title that year; or, at the very least, the chance to blow up OSU in the title game, instead of LSU doing the honors.

Mgo, it's not an excuse, it's fact. It's also true that a team can have a good reason for losing, even as they still shouldn't have lost.

I'm not saying they should've lost, I'm just saying this 40 point favorite/biggest upset in history nonsense is just a bunch of media-driven b.s.

Come on Van, it's an excuse. You know it and so do we. What's the reason for losing....oh wait, injuries.

All that media driven BS is the same as it was when they lost to Texas. Didn't those same media pundits claim SC was the greatest team in CFB history? Don't piss down our legs and tell us it's raining.

Yeah, they were the dominant team, based on the stats, and the flow of the game. Those four turnovers (five, in total) negated that dominance. The complete collapse of their O line negated that dominance. Their inability to defend the pass late in the game, after they were left with no CBs, that negated their dominance.

Take those things as a whole and yeah, they kept Stanford in the game. Take the USC team that played that second half, after all those injuries, and no, they're nothing like a 40 point favorite.

They were the dominant period. Fuck the stats, they have better talent sitting on the bench that Stanford has on the field.
If $C's pass defense was so bad they why were the numbers for Stanford's QB 11-30 for 149 yards?

You can't change the amount of points you're favored by in the middle of the game.
Take $C's 3rd team and they're probably a 3 TD favorite vs. Stanford.

Your spinning is make us dizzy. Face fact. SC wasn't ready to play the game. They took Stanford lightly and they lost.

Van, i don't think OU deserved to be in the BCS game by any means. i'm just sayin', and fucking around. they had already lost at CU in one bigger choke-jobs i can remember (which has not been a good thing for me around campus, i might add). and, in fairness to the kid, Bradford's replacement Joey Halzle actually played pretty damned well at Tech once he lost the deer/headlights look and gave OU a chance to win after being down 3 scores.

Hi, Billy Mays here.

For a limited time only, you can call 1-888-U$C-EASY to get your U$C Easy Button today!



Anyone ever tell you that Reggie Bush cheated? Hit the U$C Easy Button and you got your excuse!


[robotic voice]No way could the compliance department know that he was getting $300k in compensation[robotic voice]

Has anyone ever told you that $C won one and a half championships in the last 6 years?


[robotic voice]The AP and coaches had $C listed #1 before the bowl games.[robotic voice]

Has anyone ever told you the $C/Stanford game was a major upset?


[robotic voice]Injuries and Petey does not make the decisions on personnel.[robotic voice]

See? The U$C Easy Button can get you out of any jam. Call today and you can have this exceptional smack tool for only $19.95+S&H.

But wait. There's more. Call now and we'll include this U$C Controversy Cleaner for FREE!



That's right. No more sweeping things under the rug. From now on, just get rid of it right away!



And if you call in the next 20 minutes...we'll DOUBLE your order for FREE!!!!! You'll get TWO USC Easy Buttons and TWO Controversy Cleaner's. All you pay is the extra S&H. That's a $80 value for $19.95!




The number to call is 1-888-U$C-EASY. Call today!


OUT!

Indy...best post in years.....

Van.....

Even despite all that, they were shutting Stanford out at the half. Stanford was not going to win that game, even despite USC's offensive woes; even with their struggles at CB. It was the four second half picks that put Stanford into position to win, since USC had no ability to widen their lead, even as they kept providing Stanford with short fields for their own scoring chances.

OK, so you're shutting out a team at halftime. A team that you're a 40 point favorite against. Here's a simple remedy for not fucking up the game. RUN THE GOD DAMNED BALL. Why throw it? Run it, run the clock, shorten the game. Your QB is hurt, just hand the fucking ball off. Didn't SC have 45 of the best running backs in the nation sitting on the bench?

Nobody loses 3/5ths of their line and ALL their CBs in one game. That just doesn't happen. It wasn't simply a matter of shifting a CB from one side to the other, either. They had no more CBs. They all got hurt. The only healthy one left was on the field, on the left side. They were forced to use a back-up free safety, a guy who'd never practiced a single down at CB.
This all happened during the game. They had no time to give this guy any reps in practice.
As for the O line, that's a unit. It needs to perform as a unit. Nobody ever needs to do a total fire drill, right in the middle of the game, with three out of the five guys. As a unit, those guys never played with each other, not once. That's a sure-fire recipe for shitty play.

Wait, a minute ago you wrote that they lost all of their right corner backs, now it's all their corners? Can you make up your mind?

So the back up O-lineman don't get any reps in practice? Come on Van, you're better than that. These guys are prepped all year long, they run the same stuff as the first teamers and Pete is a better coach than to not prepare kids for a game. Again, 5 star kids at every position. If the QB is hurt then just run the fucking ball and make your blocking schemes simple. Fucking "HIM" block it...I got him, you got him....give Chauncey the ball. He was eligible that game.

RACK the fuck outta that!!!

Instant Classic! Should start a new forum here simply called Instant Classics and start it off with this post.

Laxplayer wrote:

Mgo, it's not an excuse, it's fact. It's also true that a team can have a good reason for losing, even as they still shouldn't have lost.

I'm not saying they should've lost, I'm just saying this 40 point favorite/biggest upset in history nonsense is just a bunch of media-driven b.s.

Come on Van, it's an excuse. You know it and so do we. What's the reason for losing....oh wait, injuries.

Yes. Injuries. Plain and simple. Nothing else. Injuries. Just the injuries. If USC doesn't suffer all those injuries, they win the game, handily.

There isn't a team in CF whose play doesn't fall off the cliff after suffering that magnitude of injuries; especially combined with Pete's decision to keep the broken hand QB in the game. Still, it was an injury that put Pete into the position of making that mistake.

All that media driven BS is the same as it was when they lost to Texas. Didn't those same media pundits claim SC was the greatest team in CFB history? Don't piss down our legs and tell us it's raining.

Don't exaggerate. USC didn't play a bad game against Texas, despite having a battered D. They still were one play away from going down as the best sustained team in history.

That '05 team? It was never as good as the '04 team. Yes, it was the same media-driven B.S.

They were the dominant period. Fuck the stats, they have better talent sitting on the bench that Stanford has on the field.

So what? All that talent didn't throw four second half picks. All that talent doesn't play CB. It still comes down to the players making plays, and if you give a team enough opportunities, and you give them something they can use every time to beat you, they're going to take advantage of it.

Injuries to USC did that for Stanford, and all the talent in the world didn't matter at that point, because USC didn't have talent at those key spots. They had no answer for the CB issue, not when all their back-ups went down with injuries.

They did have an answer for JDB's injury. They had talent waiting there, ready to be used, and that one's on Pete.

If $C's pass defense was so bad they why were the numbers for Stanford's QB 11-30 for 149 yards?

What little production Stanford managed was nearly all in the fourth quarter, as a result of short fields off of JDB's picks, and USC's inability to defend the right side of the field, once they'd lost their final CB.

Notice how little Stanford did offensively, when USC still had CBs on both sides of the field. Notice how little Stanford did offensively, before JDB began to continually hand them short fields.

You can't change the amount of points you're favored by in the middle of the game.

Of course not. The point is simply that this game bears no relation to the Michigan/App St game, for instance. That was exactly what it looked like, in the boxscore. App St beat that Michigan team at full strength.

USC's loss wasn't anything like that. USC's loss was simply a result of injuries, mid-game. Had USC gone into the game with the oddsmakers being aware that USC would have a damaged QB, a decimated O line and no CBs for the foruth quarter, USC certainly wouldn't have been anything like a 40 point favorite.

That's all I'm saying.

Take $C's 3rd team and they're probably a 3 TD favorite vs. Stanford.

Yes, if they go into the game that way, with their 3rd team having been prepared to play. Let the 3rd string O line all play together as a unit, and get someone ready to play CB, and get USC's 3rd string QB some reps with the O line and his receivers, yeah USC is still favored.

That isn't at all what happened. It was a fire-drill on the O line, an injured JDB was worse than their 3rd string QB, and they had no CB in the game.

USC's 3rd stringers, playing as practiced, cohesive units, they kill that team USC had to use for the second half of that Stanford game.

Your spinning is make us dizzy. Face fact. SC wasn't ready to play the game. They took Stanford lightly and they lost.

Right. It was just because they took them lightly. Injuries didn't have anything to do with it; or everything to do with it.

Face fact. You don't want to admit that it was simply injuries, and not the world's greatest upset.

Van wrote: It was the four second half picks that put Stanford into position to win, since USC had no ability to widen their lead, even as they kept providing Stanford with short fields for their own scoring chances.

Short fields, eh?

TD 14:54 Anthony Kimble 1 Yd Run (Derek Belch Kick)
Drive: 9 plays, 75 yds, 2:54

FG 05:43 Derek Belch 26 Yd
Drive: 12 plays, 61 yds, 5:15

TD 00:49 Mark Bradford 10 Yd Pass From Tavita Pritchard (Derek Belch Kick)
Drive: 10 plays, 45 yds, 2:02

http://espndb.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=272790030

Yeah, yeah, I know. Those poor backup CBs unable to defend the mighty Cardinal express featuring a QB making his first career start.

And rack Indy.

Lax, yes, in hindsight, of course Pete should've just ran the ball down Stanford's throat.

Two problems, there...

-USC's O line problems meant that they weren't running the ball very well. Their rushing stats that game were pretty meh. A fucked up O line does your running game no more favors than your passing game. The only advantage there would've been, hopefully, to not turn it over so much.

Yes, that would've been enough, and you're right. In hindsight, that's one of two things Pete should've done.

-Pete allowed himself to be convinced by JDB that he could still throw, so they continued to throw, especially since they couldn't run.

Again, in hindsight, all USC needed to do to win was to simply shorten the game and not give Stanford any excess opportunites. Running the ball continually would've done that, and putting in a back-up QB and then playing conservatively with the play-calling the rest of the game would've also done that.

Can't argue with you there. You're right. Continuing to throw with an injured QB, that's what ultimately killed them, and it was entirely preventable. That's all on Pete.

Indy, rack the fuck outta that! I'm with Lax, best post in years!

Van, stop. Seriously, trying to explain a loss to a 40 pt dog is beyond stupid. Poodle hasn't had to coach in many close games the past few years because of USC's talent level. When they do have a close game, Pete seems to be lost and he hasn't fared well. He doesn't have Reggie Bush to bail him out any more.

Killian

You stop, and go manage your fucking baseball team.

Cunt.

Heh, gotta give credit where credit is due. I read this and it was the inspiration for a Billy Mays commercial.

Laxplayer wrote:Come on Van, it's an excuse.

In any case, I guess Van appreciated it. He saw it. He didn't respond to it. He doesn't have it in him to just laugh at it and appreciate it for what it is.

[In Vanular fashion]It, of couse, in and within itself, describes, to a tee, the attitude, and response of, the typical, U$C, homer, err, fan, who loves this school, though not related, though loves, enough commas yet"?", let's throw in a semi-colon to extend further; oh, I don't respond, in any way, to Frisco anymore, because he's a hayta.[/In Vanular fashion]

I couldn't read through Vag's posts but I skimmed and saw a line about him using turnovers as an excuse for losing (I assume we're talking the Stanford game, right?) and this is funny. Hmmm.........I mentioned Iowa lost to Northwestern because we were down 5-1 in the TO battle and that wasn't a good enough reason for losing to an inferior team.

Hmmm........I love his double standards. So when I mention Iowa loses because of turnovers, that's a lame excuse but he does the same thing?? Wait a second........certainly Vag isn't a hypocrite, is he? No definitely not the guy that claims to ignore me yet runs smack at me only to go Carmelo Anthony and run away like a little girl when I respond to him. What a bitch.

m2, I gotta say man............Vag is definitely your most annoying troll. Even shittier than Blueblood.

When they do have a close game, Pete seems to be lost and he hasn't fared well. He doesn't have Reggie Bush to bail him out any more.

And apparently, he didn't think he had him on the 4th and 2 play against Tejas either.......

Well...then Beanie was worth 32 points in the Coliseum last year...they wouldn't have had to throw so Rey Rey doesn't return a pick 6 and stuff...you know...

uh not buying it Van...they lost to a 40 point dog...even with injuries USC's 2nd and 3rd teams are better than Stanfords FIRST team...

Van wrote:Mgo, it's not an excuse, it's fact.

These two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You're absolving blame. That's an excuse.

If I tell my boss I'm an hour late because of traffic, it may be a fact, but it's also an excuse.

Thing is, these injuries didn't cause Stanford to blow the doors open and put USC away. They didn't win the statistic battle, they really didn't look like the better team (as you say) and only won the game by 1 point. USC could've very easily won this game. They didn't. They choked. It happens. Winning and losing also comes down to coaching decisions, and if Petey continues to play a guy that is throwing picks all over the field, that's on the coach, who is an extension of the team. They don't get excused for that. If a coach is making poor coaching decisions, that's really no different than a qb making poor throwing decisions. It all counts against your team. By the way, if your qb was hurt so badly it caused him to throw all those picks, it seems like that would've been pretty evident to the coaching staff. You think they can't recognize this stuff?? Especially Pete and his staff? How hurt was he, really? It's just a little hard to believe.

Mgo, he broke his hand, which caused him to miss the next month of the season.

I already laid the blame at Pete's feet, for not altering his approach, following the injuries. I already said Lax was correct there, that Pete should've yanked him for another QB, and a more conservative second half approach, regardless of who was at QB.

No argument. Pete blew that one. He mishandled their offensive approach, following the injuries. That loss is on him, and he's the first to admit it.

To Killian's point, it's rather difficult to assess. Saying Pete "seems to be lost in close games" is fairly comical. Yes, he's lost a few close games, and he's also won quite a few. I can think of one in South Bend, a few years back, for instance.

Close games are the only ones USC ever loses. Nobody ever beats them by more than one score, so of course he's lost some close ones. He's not going to win every game, and in every game a team loses blame can be assigned.

There are a million reasons USC lost a nail-biter to Texas, but in the end, fuck, you also have to give the other team credit too. Texas took their lumps as well in that game, and you can be certain there are some calls Mack Brown made in that game that he would like to have back, but in the end Texas made one more play, and they won.

Texas was no slouch that year. Losing to that team hurts, but there's no shame in it either.

Fair enough.

You're right Van, its comical. What's Pete's record in games decided by a TD or less the last 4 years?

Van wrote: Texas was no slouch that year. Losing to that team hurts, but there's no shame in it either.

the Buckeyes should have beaten Texas in 05. Tressel played WAY too conservative.