T1B

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 8:07 pm**

The Ohio St game will reveal a lot about this USC team. Following that game, you'll know whether ND stands a chance against USC.

Pretty much, it all hinges on QB play, and how quickly does it take for the D to gel? Mainly, if Corp or Barkley look anything like Leinart did in his first year, nope, ND still has little chance of putting a dent in this thing. However, if the offense looks like it did when USC went to Oregon two years ago, when Sanchez had to replace the injured JDB and Sarkesian neutered the play calling to a nearly absurd degree, yep, this might be the year ND gets it done.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 8:23 pm**

It'll take three weeks to din out whether this ND team is capable of beating USC.

Nevada is a game we should win. On the bright side, Nevada should provide a better benchmark of our progress than San Diego State last year, in that they're a better team.

After that, we have Michigan and Michigan State. A number of question marks for both, so I can't say that either one provides a definitive answer. Take them both into consideration, though, and we might have a decent gauge. After that, we have Purdue and Washington, both of which should be wins.

Unless ND goes into the USC game with a 5-0 record, I wouldn't give you much for their chances of winning. If we do beat USC, Fredo the following week looms as a potential huge trap game.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 9:59 pm**

With the talent disparity that currently exists between these two teams I really don't think ND's performance matters much one way or the other, in terms of whether this might be the year. They could be 5-0 or 0-5 and it won't matter.

It's USC. USC only loses when they come out flat and lay an egg. Few teams will ever simply line up and beat them, if they're playing anything at all like their usual game. Florida might, Texas might. OU might, though I doubt it. I'm taking Pete Carroll over Bob Stoops and USC in a big game over OU in a big game, eight days a week.

ND? They're a non factor in this equation. ND needs for a Stanford, UCLA or Oregon/Oregon St type melt down on USC's part to occur, if they're to have any chance whatsoever. They need USC's QB to implode, or he needs to instill so little confidence in the OC that USC's offense is playing the game with one hand tied behind their back, like they did against Oregon.

ND needs some freakshow six turnover game, like last year's Michigan game. Otherwise, forget about it. USC's O line is going to kill fuckers this year, if they stay healthy. ND's soft D won't stand a chance against them, not unless USC simply beats themselves.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 10:07 pm**

Van wrote: ND? They're a non factor in this equation. ND needs for a Stanford, UCLA or Oregon/Oregon St type melt down on USC's part to occur, if they're to have any chance whatsoever.

While I agree with the rest of the post you prolly need to take Oregon St out of that list. Winning 2 of the last three isn't all flukes or smoke and mirrors. Just sayin'.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 10:15 pm**

It's smoke and mirrors. It's Thursday Night ESPN "trap games," and flat as fuck performances by USC.

Play 'em 100 times, or play 'em under different circumstances, and those results are decidedly different. Like, Oregon vs Oregon St with the Rose Bowl at stake for Oregon St different.

The Oregon game two years ago, that wasn't smoke and mirrors. That was a great Oregon team against an artificially neutered USC team.

The Texas game, that wasn't smoke and mirrors.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 10:27 pm**

Van wrote:... or play 'em under different circumstances, and those results are decidedly different.

Different circumstances, like the reason there's supposedly a difference between a home and away game? At some point it begs to reason that "coaching staff" is a variable when stating a team is good or not. For some reason, PC can't get his team to focus for 12 straight games. It's similar to how an argument that "they would have won if he didn't dribble the ball of his foot" discounts the fact the better team generally doesn't dribble the ball of theirs.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 10:41 pm**

For some reason, PC can't get his team to focus for 12 straight games.

Neither can any other coach. Nobody wins every game, year after year. These are kids we're talking about here. Kids, not robots.

Every monster program in America loses a game or two per year, often to teams over which they were heavily favored.

Florida's MNC team lost at home to Ole Miss.

LSU's MNC team lost at home to unranked Arkansas, in the final game of the season, for all the marbles, or so they believed at the time. They also lost to dogshit Kentucky.

There simly aren't that many undefeated seasons, by anyone, and in fact, come to think of it, who is the most recent team to put together back-to-back perfect regular seasons?

USC, under Pete Carroll, that's who.

Nah, Pete is no more guilty than anybody else of being unable to get his team up for 12 straight games. The truth is that he's produced more consistent performance from his players than any other coach in America.

It'll never be enough, though, not unless he wins every game, every season.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 11:45 pm**

My point isn't to give you an excuse to apoplectically defend PC. The point is to say Lefty's right, that eventually you're going to have to shift credit from "circumstances" to Oregon State for their wins against SC.

And yes, great teams eventually lose to inferior opponents, sometimes because of breaks, sometimes because of match-up issues, and other times because the shite team played out of its head. When the reason is "malaise because of travel schedule known for months ahead of time," either the coaches did a bad job or .m2 is trainspotting.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 2:09 am**

Van wrote:It's smoke and mirrors. It's Thursday Night ESPN "trap games," and flat as fuck performances by USC.

A reference to "trap game" is an admission of match-up issues. Like Lefty said, SC has lost up there twice in a row. There's obviously something OSU has been doing that is causing SC to give "flat as fuck" performances.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 2:25 am**

Yes, there is. Catching them early in the season, on a Thursday night ESPN game, when USC is taking them for granted.

Stick that same game in November, and make it matter as much to USC as it does to Oregon St, and it's a different result. That's what a "trap game" means. It's a difficult game, because of scheduling circumstances which work against the favored team.

There's a reason Pete's lost a few cripple games, early in the conference schedule. That same reason has to do with why he's never lost a game in November.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 3:41 am**

I'd say Oregon St rightfully beat SC those two games. The cause and effect is pretty irrelevant.

That same reason has to do with why he's never lost a game in November.

Or because he ain't playing Oregon St in November.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 3:45 am**

Yeah, that's it.

Uhh, no, it isn't. Pete's USC team has played Oregon St in November, twice, and even once in December. Shockingly, USC won those late season games.

Oddly, though, USC and Oregon St didn't meet at all in 2005. How is that even possible? How did Pac 10 teams manage not to meet??

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 3:57 am**

Trap games aren't defined necessarily as early games. Trap games can be late in the season. I remember USC played one of Dorrell's scrappin' UCLA teams a few years ago and quite a few people were calling that one a "trap game."

We don't know how SC would perform up there in November, so it seems pretty useless to argue how the games would be any different when no such (recent) games exist to draw arguments from.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 4:05 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Trap games aren't defined necessarily as early games.

True, however it's much more difficult to be a trap game late in the season, when your opponent is a win or two away from playing for a national title.

Trap games can be late in the season. I remember USC played one of Dorrell's scrappin' UCLA teams a few years ago and quite a few people were calling that one a "trap game."

Nobody I know, and certainly not me. That was the single most unexplainable loss in Pete's tenure. There was no excuse for coming out flat there. None.

We don't know how SC would perform up there in November,

Well, using your logic, yes we do. They've already beaten them all three times they played them late in the season.

so it seems pretty useless to argue how the games would be any different when no such (recent) games exist to draw arguments from.

Three times already, during Pete's tenure. Zero losses against anybody in November, during Pete's tenure.

Fairly compelling argument, most people would conclude.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 4:37 am**

Van wrote:Oddly, though, USC and Oregon St didn't meet at all in 2005. How is that even possible? How did Pac 10 teams manage not to meet??

'05 was the last year of the 11-game regular season. Back then, the Pac-10 played eight conference games, which by definition meant that each team missed one conference opponent each year.

You never missed your designated rival (i.e., Arizona-Arizona State; Cal-Stanford; Oregon-Oregon State; UCLA-USC; Washington-Washington State) so the game you missed rotated among the remaining eight teams. You'd miss the other eight teams each once every eight years, IIRC.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 4:49 am**

Eh, a trap game can be selectively defined. I've typically heard them referenced later in the season when you've got a hot team ripping off wins as the pressure slowly builds, entering the lair of a scrappy team with a nothing-to-lose-spoiler-mentality. Earlier in the year when SC and Oregon St played, both teams had a lot to lose. OSU was playing for a conf title...SC was playing for an MNC, in addition to a conf title. Feathered Hair knows to have his guys focused in that situation, on the road in a tough conf game against a (recently) historically salty team. ESPECIALLY knowing one loss could mean it's all over for USC's season.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 5:02 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Van wrote:Oddly, though, USC and Oregon St didn't meet at all in 2005. How is that even possible? How did Pac 10 teams manage not to meet??
'05 was the last year of the 11-game regular season. Back then, the Pac-10 played eight conference games, which by definition meant that each team missed one conference opponent each year.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was maybe just a Wiki error, that omission of '05, so then I looked up three other sources, and they all said the same thing.

It never even crossed my mind that they hadn't yet started playing nine conferences games in '05, especially after noticing that USC had played Oregon St every other year during the Pete Carroll era.

'06 was the first time the Pac 10 started playing nine conference games? Man, it seems longer than that.

You never missed your designated rival (i.e., Arizona-Arizona State; Cal-Stanford; Oregon-Oregon State; UCLA-USC; Washington-Washington State) so the game you missed rotated among the remaining eight teams. You'd miss the other eight teams each once every eight years, IIRC.

That would explain everything, since it covers the entire Pete era. Thanks again.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 5:06 am**

Mgo wrote:Feathered Hair

You ASS!!

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 2:29 pm**

Come on Van, smoke and mirrors and traps in two of the last three?

Just come correct and say that Reiser is a tough place to play. Hell, the fall semester wasn't even in session this past year so the stadium was not as rough as it might have been.

Almost 200 yards rushing by a 5' 8" RB isn't smoke and mirrors it was just a good game plan. Don't run wide against those great LBs, instead go right at them and make them make plays in holes.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 4:53 pm**

Of course Reiser is a tough place to play, especially on a Thursday Night ESPN game, when it's their Super Bowl and their opponent apparently coouldn't care less about the game. That's part of what constitutes a trap game. Trap games don't occur in easy locales, against hopeless, unmotivated opponents. Trap games occur when a decent team, a very fired up team, becomes a particularly dangerous spot on the schedule, due to the circumstances surrounding the game: locale, where the game falls on the schedule, motivation, etc.

It's like Terry's always talking about, with ND, when he does his prognostications.

"Should ND win game X, game Y will then be a potential trap game. Should ND lose game X, they'll be ready for game Y..."

In USC's case, that Oregon St game clearly met anyone's definition of a trap game.

That doesn't excuse USC for not being ready to play it. Of course not. They'd lost there the last time they were there, and they have to know by now that they don't have the luxury of being imperfect, not if they wish to go to the BCS title game. The fact that they were sleep walking through the first half is clear though, despite there being no excuse for it. The fact that they came out in the third quarter and completely dominated, that's just further damning evidence that they weren't prepared to play the first half.

It happens. It shouldn't happen, in theory, but it does. Teams come out flat. Teams lay inexplicable eggs. It happens in all sports, to all teams.

In USC's case, Oregon St is just talented enough and, apparently, just uninspiring enough to USC that the combination results in what we've seen up there.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 5:40 pm**

2006 could be explained as a trap game. But when you lose a game such as that there is no trap the next time you return. Your upperclassmen know all about it and should be fired up to prove it was a fluke.

USC may have won/dominated the third, but they lost the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 5:51 pm**

"Should" isn't what we're talking about here, obviously.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 9:18 pm**

Van wrote:Yes, there is. Catching them early in the season, on a Thursday night ESPN game, when USC is taking them for granted.

Stick that same game in November, and make it matter as much to USC as it does to Oregon St, and it's a different result. That's what a "trap game" means. It's a difficult game, because of scheduling circumstances which work against the favored team.

There's a reason Pete's lost a few cripple games, early in the conference schedule. That same reason has to do with why he's never lost a game in November.

i'm going to go ahead and speak for everyone by saying your rationale behind trap games makes perfect sense. that's not the issue. this issue is that taking a team for granted is just as much an indictment against a good team as poor tackling or shite play-calling. it's incumbent upon the coaching staff to identify these trap games - which don't exactly sneak up on anyone considering the media's all over themselves arbitrarily identifying "trap" games - and keep their team focused.

otherwise, in what sense was the osu game a trap? i could buy that reasoning if it was the saturday directly following the osu win, but sc had a full 10 days to settle down and prepare for oregon state. not only that, it was their conference opener on national television. as great as sc is, it's not often they have the country's undivided attention.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2009 9:36 pm**

Look at the record of visiting teams in Thursday Night conference games on ESPN.

Not good. Unusually bad, actually. Those game are Upset Specials, just waiting to happen.

Did Pete fail to get them up for the game? Yep. He freely admits it. He went on and on to his team about how they'd better not take them lightly again, that they can't afford to come out flat and take it for granted again, and the team went out and did it again anyway.

Pete was greatly disappointed, greatly frustrated and completely at a loss. He definitely called it a personal failure, since he and his other coaches did try to drill it into them that it could happen again.

No matter. It happened. It happens to everyone.

The point I don't get here is this: How on earth are any of you guys seriously trying to say Oregon St beating USC isn't a fluke win? To a man, you all indict USC for losing games they have no business losing.

"USC needs to stop choking away a game every year, to some team they should kill," is the constant refrain.

So, which is it? Is Pete incapable of getting his team up every single game, as evidenced by losses such as these, or is the Oregon St loss some sort of proof that USC really isn't much better than them?

Do you really think USC doesn't beat the living fuck out of them, if they play 100 times, or even one time, late in the year, when it's for all the marbles?

I think we all know the answer to this. USC loses to teams like Oregon St not because Oregon St is somehow on a par with USC, or even close to being on a par, but rather because they sometimes catch USC with their guard down. Pete isn't capable of keeping his guys up for every single game, every single year. His team will fuck up every now and again, same as every other team.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 3:09 am**

Do you really think USC doesn't beat the living fuck out of them, if they play 100 times

Who cares? That's not the format. You've got one shot at your opponent and that's it. Then you move on to the next opponent. Lots of factors go into losing games, especially close games. Part of it was probably USC playing uninspired, and part of it was due to Oregon St. making plays.

USC is great, but they're still just teenagers, and they can feasibly get outplayed on an occasion, against lesser talented teams. It's going to happen. Just suck it up, admit it, and move on...because you'll probably pummel the next team out of absolute RAGE. :brad:

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 3:45 am**

Mgo, and I, at least a half dozen times already, wrote:they're still just teenagers, and they can feasibly get outplayed on an occasion, against lesser talented teams. It's going to happen.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 3:58 am**

No, you haven't admitted any of it was due to Oregon St, with the way they played. It happened twice in a row; the facts stare you in the face, and still, all you'll claim is that SC was caught on a down day, and that's all she wrote, according to you.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 4:19 am**

Again, we BOTH said...

they're still just teenagers,

I already said that, plenty of times. That's my main point. Kids screw up. Pete can't make them be perfect.

and they can feasibly get outplayed on an occasion,

I already said that, plenty of times. Yes, when they screw up, they can get outplayed. If they don't, no, they won't get outplayed, not by a lesser talented team.

against lesser talented teams.

That describes practically every team out there, including Oregon St. I already said that, plenty of times.

It's going to happen.

"It happens," is how I said it, plenty of times.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 7:01 pm**

Van wrote:Look at the record of visiting teams in Thursday Night conference games on ESPN.

Not good. Unusually bad, actually. Those game are Upset Specials, just waiting to happen.

i don't thing there's some juju that causes the higher-ranked road team to lose, unless, of course, we're willing to concede .m2 his point about flying to maryland. for one thing, half the upsets are a middling big east team bringing down the paper tiger on top of their conference with a 3-1 record. for another, i'm willing to bet if you waited till the end of the season to compare the respective teams the result will be far less surprising than when it actually happened.

still, that's no excuse for failing to get up for this game. if anything, SC should've been pumped to play an actual game after coming off a bye. and the loss doesn't just fall on PC's inability to find a motivational ploy. the upperclassmen on that team had lost in reiser before; they had first-hand experience of how a loss there could decimate their chances at an MNC, but still. again, whether a team is good or not depends on different variables: can they run the ball? can they throw? play defense well? keep their heads on straight? not get suspended for beating up their girlfriends? etc.

as far as "you don't think if they lined up and did it again," well, i don't know. if i were betting i'd put my money on SC, but the first time they lost it was a fluke, so they went back up to line up and do it again and, well, lost.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 7:33 pm**

No arguments from me that there's no excuse for not getting up for a game.

No arguments from me on this one, either...

half the upsets are a middling big east team bringing down the paper tiger on top of their conference with a 3-1 record.

I don't know about the %, but I definitely agree about the "Big East paper tiger" being taken down by the middling home team bit.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2009 9:08 pm**

All the semantics and in depth analyzing is just stupid.

Conference night road games are just tough. Flat out. Don't care if it's Thursday night, Saturday night, trap game, or "regular" game. It's hard to be better than the other guy in that instance.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 4:38 pm**

If anyone thinks Oregon State is better than USC, they're insane. I don't know how Oregon State goes about preparing for USC or how fired up they get or how fired up USC gets for that game. I'm not around those teams to say one way or another. Obviously, you'd expect a team to be fired up to play a Thursday night home game against the most talented team in the land.

But this is what happens occasionally in college football. Saying that Oregon State has their number after winning 2 of 3 is crazy. That's a very small sample size. Let's see what they do over 10-15 years. If USC wins by 40 the next 10 years, your arguments are shot to hell. But sometimes in CFB a team is just more emotionally in the game than the other for certain reasons.

It's very similar to Iowa-ISU. Sure, Iowa usually wins but ISU plays out of their minds against us. You know they're going to before the game starts. Just watch pregame preparations. Iowa comes out business-like. ISU comes out bouncing all over and jumping up and down. It's just another game to Iowa. This isn't a lame excuse by a bitter Iowa fan (we've won 4 of the last 6 and 19 of the last 26 against ISU so don't try calling me an excuse maker). But you can tell from pregame warm-ups who wants the game more. Or go on campus at ISU and Iowa and you'll see the difference between the fans and the teams. The Iowa campus- it's just another game. The ISU campus spends their entire offseason talking about how they can't wait to beat the Hawks. Go to Cyclonefanatic.com and you'll notice that 1/4 of the site is ISU talk and the rest is an Iowa obsession.

State has pep rallies on Iowa-ISU week. The coaches even come and speak to the crowd to fire them up. Ferentz and his players never do anything like this. We save that for our bowl game.

So why does ISU have some success against a Iowa- a team where they typically wouldn't have more than 2-3 players that could start at Iowa? Well, because of what I just said above. That's college football for you. Sure, a team like ISU can occasionally beat Iowa or Oregon State occasionally knock off USC because it's a bigger game to them and they've got the emotional edge. The problem is this typically happens with mediocre programs that don't win a lot of games- like ISU and Oregon State. They put all their eggs in one basket. You can't compete on a consistent basis playing like that. You get burnt out. That's what will always happen to teams like this, whereas USC will go on and play in the Rose Bowl every year.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 4:44 pm**

True, but you also can't compare Oregon St to Iowa St. Oregon St is actually a good team, who's played in and won some big bowl games. They've also beaten the top team in their conference.

Iowa St's idea of a big win is beating Iowa. Iowa St doesn't even fantasize about having a winning conference record, winning big bowl games or beating OU and Texas.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 5:15 pm**

JON, we were talking about those two games specifically, not matching up the programs in a general sort of way.

Do you even read any of the stuff you comment on?

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 5:54 pm**

To further blow Jon's nonsense post out of the water, USC isn't even the biggest game of the year for Oregon State. And before .m2Blueblood pipes in it isn't Cal either. They have the Civil War which is by far their most important game of the year.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 7:34 pm**

Last year's Civil War, in particular. So, what do they do? Their first Rose Bowl in the modern era is on the line, and they're looking at a season where they straight up beat USC and Oregon to get there?

They go out and lay a fucking Brontosaurus egg, at home.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 9:58 pm**

yep, there's your second- or third-best pac ten team.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 10:04 pm**

TheJON wrote:iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa

Comparisons help us to understand new ideas by pegging them to things we already know. In your case, "Let me illustrate this by talking about Iowa and Iowa State" only serves to obfuscate comprehension.

Let me help you:

"It's like Iowa and Iowa State..." No it's not.

"For example, Iowa and Iowa State..." No.

"Iowa and Iowa State are similar to this because..." No, still.

Here's a proper comparision:

College football is a loaf of bread: Iowa and Iowa State are the butt pieces.

Posted: **Tue May 19, 2009 5:04 am**

Screw_Michigan wrote:Van, why are you so attracted to some worthless slut who only gained notoriety because she ended up in some internet sex film? Oh, and she sucks Reggie Bush's dick. Kardashian is probably the most overrated whore on the face of the earth, and I'll readily admit the vapid space known as Miss Cali is definitely preferable to Kardashian.

And yes, as Mucho said, her sister is much, much more attractive.

the more hotties I see the more I realize that hot women are a dime a dozen. Why go after the bitchy skanky ones when you can get one that is just as hot and worth talking to and being around.

Posted: **Tue May 19, 2009 2:43 pm**

Van wrote:Yes, that worhtless tramp. Quit lying. You're not even coming close to convincing anyone.

Oh, he's not lying Vannar.

He actually refuses to have sex with any woman.

T1B

USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...

Re: USC basketball understands what USC football doesn't...