T1B

I guess I should have qualified my admission. Had USC not suffered those injuries, I don't know if they would have won because I don't know if all of USC's linebackers, running backs, and other 2 offensive lineman were injured in your hypothetical.

Now that we have that out of the way, yes you are being childish. I don't give a fuck about the alternative because there is no alternative. The truth is USC suffered one of the most historic upsets in college football history, end of story. Spin it anyway you want it and if you blaming it on injuries helps you sleep at night, by all means keep thinking like that. Blaming a loss on injuries is barely a step up from blaming it on the refs.

Oh and to Lax's point, you were comparing the Pac 10's scheduling, not USC's.

Whether USC would've won the game without the injuries is irrelevant. And no, it's not a "fact" they would've won. It's speculation. It's a prediction. Are the chances very good they would've won? Sure. But is there a chance Stanford would've pulled off the shocking upset? Sure, there was a chance. It happens.

But none of that even matters. It boils down to the fact USC could've and SHOULD'VE won the game despite those injuries. This much has been admitted from those on both sides of the debate. What more even needs to be said?

Take just about any team in the Pac 10 right now, and compare their overall SOS with ND's. Most years, the Pac 10 bottom feeders are at the top of the national SOS rankings. Many years, Sagarin's top 10 features six or seven Pac 10 teams, with all ten being in the top twenty.

ND is loading up on as many creampuffs as they can. In the meantime, USC remains their toughest game, while ND is unfortunately now considered to be a creampuff, which hurts USC's SOS.

The original point had to do with ND joining a conference. If ND joined the Big 10 their SOS would increase, dramatically, especially if they retained their traditional OOC rivalries of USC, Navy and either Pitt or BC. By not joining a conference they're free to load up on as many service academies as they can handle, plus all the Syracuse and SD State games they can manage. Along the way, they can even cherry pick the Pac 10, SEC style, by choosing to schedule teams when they're down.

What, you think it's a coincidence that LSU is playing Washington now, or that ND is playing WSU and Washington? These teams were in the toilet when those original phone calls were made. Even Auburn only agreed to play USC because of how bad USC was when that series was originally scheduled.

Notice they haven't called back? Notice how nobody from the SEC is ringing Mike Garrett now, but they're still ringing Arizona's and Washington's ADs?

I do. :D

Mgo wrote:It boils down to the fact USC could've and SHOULD'VE won the game despite those injuries. This much has been admitted from those on both sides of the debate. What more even needs to be said?

In that sense, nothing, since we all agree.

I'm still way more pissed at the UCLA loss.

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.

I know.....because SC didn't play Idaho a couple of years ago. Most of ND's cupcakes have been on their schedule for several years.

While there has been dumbing down of the schedule, most of what Van says about ND's schedule is complete horse shit. I have railed against ND's schedule but by joining the Big 10, it would not dramatically enhance their SOS. And the Washington series was scheduled long ago, while Skippy was there and they were a top 20 team.

Van wrote:I'm still way more pissed at the UCLA loss.

The face of evil.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Killian wrote:While there has been dumbing down of the schedule, most of what Van says about ND's schedule is complete horse shit. I have railed against ND's schedule but by joining the Big 10, it would not dramatically enhance their SOS. And the Washington series was scheduled long ago, while Skippy was there and they were a top 20 team.

Yeah, I always love tards that complain about one team playing a weak schedule and their team playing a tough schedule when quite often the reason one team is playing a weak schedule and the other is playing a tough schedule is because of scheduling breaks.

I hate how they schedule these games so far in advance. Some teams have scheduled games 10 years down the road. How the hell are you to know if any team is going to be good 3 years from now, let alone 10? Even the top teams have down years from time to time. No one would have been laughing at ND for scheduling U-Dub back when Skippy was there. What are the odds that they're one of the worst teams in the country now? We're talking about a pretty darn good program for many years. You could have never predicted them to go 0-fer in 2008 5-6 years ago.

Non-conference games should not be scheduled more than 2 years in advance unless it's a traditional rivalry.

I'm sure Georgia is getting a lot of pats on the back for traveling to Stilwater to face a tough Oklahoma State team. Not from me. When that game was scheduled, I'm sure they just assumed Okie State would be a mediocre team and they would get an easy road win over a BCS opponent. So while everyone else will be giving them props for playing a tough opponent, I will not.

Van wrote:The original point had to do with ND joining a conference. If ND joined the Big 10 their SOS would increase, dramatically, especially if they retained their traditional OOC rivalries of USC, Navy and either Pitt or BC. By not joining a conference they're free to load up on as many service academies as they can handle, plus all the Syracuse and SD State games they can manage. Along the way, they can even cherry pick the Pac 10, SEC style, by choosing to schedule teams when they're down.

As I've already pointed out in this thread, Syracuse ranks comfortably ahead of several Big Ten teams in both all-time wins and all-time winning percentages. Among those are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Yes, Syracuse's program is worse than any of those other programs right now, but you know as well as I do that every program has up and down periods. The last time the call was made to Syracuse, their program was beginning to decline but was still a long way from rock bottom (and in fact, the first game in that three-game series was played in 2003, before Syracuse's program hit rock bottom). This time, the first game in the series isn't for another five years. Who's to say that Syracuse won't improve over that period of time?

Besides, even if one were to accept at face value your (debatable) assertion that ND's SOS would "improve dramatically" by joining the Big Ten, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not a fan of the current trend in our SOS by any stretch of the imagination. But ND has more than enough wiggle room to create a schedule which simultaneously gives proper respect to the traditional rivals, adds more variety to the schedule, continues the so-called "debt of honor" games (vs. Navy and Big East members), reaffirms our football independence AND beefs up the SOS. No need for the Big Ten in that regard. I've already laid out one manner in which that is possible.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the argument that ND should join a conference always boils down to one thing and one thing only: everyone else does it. I'm guessing you probably used that particular argument on your parents at least once when you were a kid. How'd it turn out for you? It has every bit as much credibility here as it did then.

Van, we're kind of tired of the same old excuses with that Stanford game. It's like Flounder in Animal House...you fucked up, you trusted us.....Hey, Pete fucked up and your excused about injuries and shit like that are falling on deaf ears.
As far as ND's schedule goes let's take a look at it.....
ND MSU have been playing for the better part of 40 years.
ND Michigan have been playing for the better part of 20 years and are set for another 20 years.
Purdue and ND have been playing since 1946
ND and Navy have been playing for 40 years
ND and Army have met almost 50 times
ND and BC have played almost 20 times

You see ND has these things called rivalries and many of them have been going on for much longer than we've been alive. What's the story behind SC and San Jose State? Idaho? Are these traditional rivalries? Yeah SC played Auburn and traveled to play a horrible Virginia team last year but you know as well as anyone else that the Pac-10 is a one team conference and everyone else is an also ran.....save the BS about having to play in Eugene because it's loud or playing on Thursday's after a bye week is a trap game, or our injuries to our first string of 5 star players really affected our 2nd and 3rd string 5 star high school all americans etc......

ND has a fairly easy schedule this year and I'm sure people are pissed at Nevada, Washington State, Washington etc....but the rest of their schedule is full of teams they've been playing for a hell of a long time.

Laxplayer wrote:Van, we're kind of tired of the same old excuses with that Stanford game. It's like Flounder in Animal House...you fucked up, you trusted us.....Hey, Pete fucked up and your excused about injuries and shit like that are falling on deaf ears.
As far as ND's schedule goes let's take a look at it.....
ND MSU have been playing for the better part of 40 years.
ND Michigan have been playing for the better part of 20 years and are set for another 20 years.
Purdue and ND have been playing since 1946
ND and Navy have been playing for 40 years
ND and Army have met almost 50 times
ND and BC have played almost 20 times

You see ND has these things called rivalries and many of them have been going on for much longer than we've been alive. What's the story behind SC and San Jose State? Idaho? Are these traditional rivalries? Yeah SC played Auburn and traveled to play a horrible Virginia team last year but you know as well as anyone else that the Pac-10 is a one team conference and everyone else is an also ran.....save the BS about having to play in Eugene because it's loud or playing on Thursday's after a bye week is a trap game, or our injuries to our first string of 5 star players really affected our 2nd and 3rd string 5 star high school all americans etc......

ND has a fairly easy schedule this year and I'm sure people are pissed at Nevada, Washington State, Washington etc....but the rest of their schedule is full of teams they've been playing for a hell of a long time.

If anything, this is an understatement. A look at the series between ND and its so-called virtual conference members:

BC: Continuous series since 1992, except for a two-year hiatus in '05 and '06 (although this series will be ending soon). http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... teamid=374
Michigan: 25 meetings since 1978. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=1977
Michigan State: Has played ND every season but four since 1948 (skipped '53, '58, '95 and '96). http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=1988
Navy: Continuous since 1927. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=2173
Pittsburgh: 17 meetings since 1986, 53 meetings since 1943, 61 meetings since 1930. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=2581
Purdue: Continuous since 1946. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=2652
Stanford: Continuous since 1988, with the exception of a two-year hiatus in '95 and '96. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=3088
USC: Continuous since 1946. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... eamid=3035

Admittedly, there's an argument to be made for deviating, at least somewhat, from the virtual conference model, and I have made it elsewhere. But there's also a lot of tradition involved with games against the so-called virtual conference members.