Where?Jimmy Medalions wrote:Glass dick.
Absolutely. But don't tell Cuntsburger. You all know that when USC plays ND, it's going to be all about "The risk-taking genius vs. the risk-taking genius, folks. Who's going to win?"Schmeck wrote:This may sound like a Marcus Allen type comment, but USC's abilily to convert 4th downs won that game. And, Carroll's decisions to go for those 4th downs.
Low quality? It's this little thing called parity, Van. It's what makes it interesting. Most games that I've watched have been entertaining, to say the least. Why must you term it low quality?Van wrote: USC, #2 right now? Yeah, I guess so, by default. USC at #2 right now...the fact of which should tell anybody all they need to know about the low quality of play so far this season in CF.
The NFL also calls mediocrity "parity".War Wagon wrote:Low quality? It's this little thing called parity, Van. It's what makes it interesting. Most games that I've watched have been entertaining, to say the least. Why must you term it low quality?Van wrote: USC, #2 right now? Yeah, I guess so, by default. USC at #2 right now...the fact of which should tell anybody all they need to know about the low quality of play so far this season in CF.
I call it fun.
I would too, but really, you can't. When nobody that's ahead of them lost this week you can't jump a team from #6 to #2, just for posting a routine, workmanlike win over mediocre Minnesota.SoCalTrjn wrote:Id put Michigan at 2 and USC and Auburn both somewhere behind them
After a slow start Cal is playing some very hardnosed football. They probably wouldn't have had to scabdick by WSU tonight.quacker backer wrote:we are gonna take it to USC later this season....
it hurts but I am more afraid of next weeks game at Calllllll sad to say
They did, early on in the 2003 season.Too bad Cal doesn't get to play USC at Berkeley.
Van wrote: Auburn was in bigger trouble last night than USC. USC was never really in danger of losing or getting caught tonight, not like Auburn was last night when they escaped a probably O.T. game strictly because a S. Carolina WR dropped an absolute lay up of a game tying TD. As blah as USC looked tonight they still looked a bit better than Auburn.
Says who?Spinach Genie wrote:Van wrote: Auburn was in bigger trouble last night than USC. USC was never really in danger of losing or getting caught tonight, not like Auburn was last night when they escaped a probably O.T. game strictly because a S. Carolina WR dropped an absolute lay up of a game tying TD. As blah as USC looked tonight they still looked a bit better than Auburn.
...and South Carolina is a better team than WSU.
Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.Auburn dispensed of WSU with more ease than the score indicated.
South Carolina had a better defense, better receivers, a better line and a much larger running threat in Newton than anything WSU had at their disposal. They definitely had better coaching.Van wrote:Says who?
I'm not just going to assume this, and neither should you. Neither team is ranked and there's no reason to assume S. Carolina is any better than WSU.
Auburn plays on the road. You PACers just don't like to recognize it unless it comes again a top 10 OOC every year. I'm certain playing it in LA would have made three touchdowns of difference.Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.
It happens. Auburn has their fair share of injuries too, and Steve Spurrier took advantage of a fairly glaring mismatch as a result. I find it amusing, though, that USC going on the road and pulling out a close one against a mid-tier conference foe is somehow more impressive than Auburn doing pretty much the same thing. I think back to '04 at the host of squeakers SC had against the likes of Stanford. It didn't seem to matter then...but we all know the NCAA has that SEC bias, right? :wink:Combine this with all their injuries and their inexperience and yeah, many USC fans saw this performance coming from a mile away. Even so, USC was never in danger of losing. Auburn was headed to the crap shoot that is O.T. and they escaped that scenario through nothing but sheer luck.
You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?Spinach Genie wrote:South Carolina had a better defense, better receivers, a better line and a much larger running threat in Newton than anything WSU had at their disposal. They definitely had better coaching.Van wrote:Says who?
I'm not just going to assume this, and neither should you. Neither team is ranked and there's no reason to assume S. Carolina is any better than WSU.
I'm pretty certain of it too.Auburn plays on the road. You PACers just don't like to recognize it unless it comes again a top 10 OOC every year. I'm certain playing it in LA would have made three touchdowns of difference.Auburn also played WSU in Jordan-Hare, not Pullman. On those rare occassions when Auburn takes to the road they're not the same team that plays in Jordan-Hare. Meanwhile, USC was playing their second straight conference roadie and their third roadie out of their first four games.
I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.It happens. Auburn has their fair share of injuries too, and Steve Spurrier took advantage of a fairly glaring mismatch as a result. I find it amusing, though, that USC going on the road and pulling out a close one against a mid-tier conference foe is somehow more impressive than Auburn doing pretty much the same thing. I think back to '04 at the host of squeakers SC had against the likes of Stanford. It didn't seem to matter then...but we all know the NCAA has that SEC bias, right? :wink:Combine this with all their injuries and their inexperience and yeah, many USC fans saw this performance coming from a mile away. Even so, USC was never in danger of losing. Auburn was headed to the crap shoot that is O.T. and they escaped that scenario through nothing but sheer luck.
Well, showed up and played a better game than WSU against the same opponent, I guess?Van wrote: You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?
I'm pretty certain of it too.
You PACs qualify OOC and are very careful to do so. Again, do you think the SEC is the only conference maximizing home gate? Does SC have to play the likes of LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc. every year? Do you think, regardless of ranking, they could and remain undefeated? Do you think they could then survive a conference championship game that the PAC doesn't play? Maybe the PAC should get a conference championship. Maybe the PAC should try and recruit a couple of teams to provide a little more competition than the Stanfords, Washingtons, Washington States, Arizonas, Arizona States and Oregon States of the world. Maybe then this perceived media bias they get toward their conference would end. Maybe then people would stop pointing at SC's top-heavy lightweight schedule. It's easy to go OOC when the conference situation is a Sunday walk in the park.As for Auburn playing on the road, no, they really don't. Not much, anyway. No road wins OOC in nine years pretty much attests to this fact. Then there's the fact that like LSU, Alabama, Florida State and far too many other ridiculous southern programs Auburn only has four road games this year, against eight home games.
Feel free to take a look around at the other conference heavies' schedules and see what they're doing. You'll find a similar thread.So, no, Auburn really doesn't play on the road. They do every last thing possible to minimize the number of roadies they're forced to endure...to the point of absurdity.
Honorable?There will never be any excuse for this. We all know exactly why programs engage in this nonsense and there's nothing the least bit honorable about it.
Get a conference championship. Get a real conference. Welcome to economics 101.It's pure greed and cowardice. Don't wanna risk any losses, don't wanna give up any home gate.
You looked blah against a team Auburn torched by a three TD margin. You haven't played Carolina. PS - by that logic, Marquis Gunn gave away an easy win for Auburn when he fumbled a sure TD off a turnover runback.I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.
Without a playoff - and this includes all arguments above - we'll likely never know.Neither team looked good. Auburn simply looked a little bit worse. To me, Michigan looks better than both.
Do you truly think S. Carolina plays that same game if it'd been in Jordan-Hare?Spinach Genie wrote:Well, showed up and played a better game than WSU against the same opponent, I guess?Van wrote: You're basing all that on...what?? What has S. Carolina ever done to prove any of those claims?
Hardly. We define "OOC" as meaning "a team that isn't in your conference."You PACs qualify OOC and are very careful to do so.As for Auburn playing on the road, no, they really don't. Not much, anyway. No road wins OOC in nine years pretty much attests to this fact. Then there's the fact that like LSU, Alabama, Florida State and far too many other ridiculous southern programs Auburn only has four road games this year, against eight home games.
Hell no, which you'd know if you'd hang around here more. I've beeb wailing against this bullshit all over this place. The Big 12, Big East and the ACC are equally guilty of this shit.Again, do you think the SEC is the only conference maximizing home gate?
No. What about it? They also don't get to play the likes of Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and S. Carolina every year. Nor do they get to play teams with bloated rankings which in turn bloat their own rankings every year. Lastly, they also don't get to play Troy, Buffalo and N.W. Louisiana Automotive Tech three times per year.Does SC have to play the likes of LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc. every year?
Auburn has, so yeah, I do. Of course I do. During Pete's run here USC has had better talent than anybody in the SEC. If Auburn could do it and hapless offenses like Georgia and Alabama can swing it for most of the year then hell yeah USC could also do it.Do you think, regardless of ranking, they could and remain undefeated?
Yeah, about like Texas "survived" their "conference championship game" last season. USC has been markedly better than the team they'd ultimately face in such a game. It wouldn't be even be a road game. They'd roll them a second time too.Do you think they could then survive a conference championship game that the PAC doesn't play?
No need. Serves zero purpose, except as a very cynical money grab. The regular season will prove the conference champion, as it's supposed to do. There's no sense in awarding a conference title to some 8-4 team, not when there's a 12-0 team already in the same conference. The 8-4 team already had their opportunity to take down the 12-0 team. Didn't happen.Maybe the PAC should get a conference championship.
You offering up Vandy, S. Carolina, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and Mississippi State? Or, are you offering up N.W. Florida, La Monroe and The Mississippi School For The Incontinent? Better yet, let us build our rankings off of wins over overrated programs such as 'Bama, Tennessee and Georgia.Maybe the PAC should try and recruit a couple of teams to provide a little more competition than the Stanfords, Washingtons, Washington States, Arizonas, Arizona States and Oregon States of the world.
Auburn wouldn't know. Neither would Georgia, or 'Bama, or...Maybe then this perceived media bias they get toward their conference would end. Maybe then people would stop pointing at SC's top-heavy lightweight schedule. It's easy to go OOC when the conference situation is a Sunday walk in the park.
Yep, and it's disgusting. Doesn't let you off the hook though.Feel free to take a look around at the other conference heavies' schedules and see what they're doing. You'll find a similar thread.So, no, Auburn really doesn't play on the road. They do every last thing possible to minimize the number of roadies they're forced to endure...to the point of absurdity.
Conference championships equate to "honor"?? Yeah, 66-3 and a stadium entirely filled with burnt orange was really honorable. The Pac 10 and Big 10 have been around forever. They do it just fine, thanks. No cynical money grab charades necessary.Honorable?There will never be any excuse for this. We all know exactly why programs engage in this nonsense and there's nothing the least bit honorable about it.
SEC style...Big 12 style.Welcome to economics 101.It's pure greed and cowardice. Don't wanna risk any losses, don't wanna give up any home gate.
That final score wasn't indicative of the closeness of the game, and you know it. You also played 'em in your back yard. WSU traveled, injured, three thousand miles to play that game.You looked blah against a team Auburn torched by a three TD margin.I said that USC looked blah. I simply added that Auburn looked even worse. Auburn's D got torched by a back up QB. Auburn let the control of their own destiny slip from their grasp. They let it rest in the hands of a wide open S. Carolina receiver, who simply gifted you with a win.
Dude, quit already. Were it not for the refs and some horrific calls you would've already lost a game this season, at home. LSU outplayed you. S. Carolina owned you in the fourth quarter. You've had two tests this season, one of them only a very minor test, and you didn't look all that impressive in either one. You escaped in both, through sheer luck.You haven't played Carolina. PS - by that logic, Marquis Gunn gave away an easy win for Auburn when he fumbled a sure TD off a turnover runback.
True, and since it's only Week 5 right now it doesn't matter yet anyway. Michigan has looked better than USC and Auburn so far but who's to say that they won't pull a Michigan and go lose somewhere before the OSU game? They're Michigan. They always find a way to lose somewhere they shouldn't.Without a playoff - and this includes all arguments above - we'll likely never know.Neither team looked good. Auburn simply looked a little bit worse. To me, Michigan looks better than both.
Probably not, but I'm also not so delusional to think a home crowd is worth three touchdowns difference. With two weeks to basically relax and plan and with the particular injuries Auburn was sitting, I'm not so sure the outcome of the game would have been glaringly different in Auburn.Van wrote: Do you truly think S. Carolina plays that same game if it'd been in Jordan-Hare?
If you watched that game, Van, you'd see it was never close. Auburn was on their side of the field all day long, and only a lot of offensive ineptitude kept it where it was until late.No, you don't. WSU had the ball in the fouth quarter against Auburn, down by only eight or nine. S. Carolina wouldn't have managed any better than that and more than likely they wouldn't have managed anywhere near that well. Auburn, at home, against the doormats of the SEC like S. Carolina? They usually win 34-0.
Believe it if you like.WSU played 'em every bit as well as S. Carolina would've played 'em.
Auburn wins. Probably a little closer, not much.Conversely, make Auburn pack up and travel to Pullman to play a fully healthy WSU (which they decidedly weren't when you faced 'em) in their own house and see what happens.
Not so much as you enjoy making it out.Apples and oranges here, Buc, and you know it.
So?Hardly. We define "OOC" as meaning "a team that isn't in your conference."
Do you really think a road win out of conference against the Hawaiis and Arkansas of the world is really that terribly much more impressive than beating LSU in death valley or Florida in the swamp?Apparently though SEC fan does qualify "road wins" to their liking. See, with the glaring exception of m2, Pac 10 fans define an "OOC road win" as meaning you packed up and traveled to an OOC team's home stadium and beat them there.
Pac 10 teams get their asses kicked on the road too. See Cal, Arizona, Washington State and just about any team not named 'USC'. You wonder why you PACers are about the only ones harping on this particular aspect of the game? Maybe because it's the only think you have to hang onto?Pac 10 teams do it all the time. SEC teams...generally don't. Auburn in particular most certainly doesn't.
As is the Big 10 and as would be the PAC if their SOS would not plummet into the basement otherwise.Hell no, which you'd know if you'd hang around here more. I've beeb wailing against this bullshit all over this place. The Big 12, Big East and the ACC are equally guilty of this shit.
It's business, cat. It's why other conferences don't have such a feast of slappies like the PAC. They grow. They build. They recruit.Doesn't make it any less cowardly and gluttonous.
Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and South Carolina have been competitive a lot more recently than the PAC basement dwellers and will become so again sooner. There's a lot of MNCs among the "bloated" SEC ranks. There's a lot more collective achievement in the SEC than the PAC can claim. You won't find very many outside the PAC homer ranks arguing the SEC isn't usually the toughest conference to play in in the country.No. What about it? They also don't get to play the likes of Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss and S. Carolina every year. Nor do they get to play teams with bloated rankings which in turn bloat their own rankings every year. Lastly, they also don't get to play Troy, Buffalo and N.W. Louisiana Automotive Tech three times per year.
Sorry Van, but the occasional diet of BYU, Hawaii and a Notre Dame squad who is only recently worth a damn doesn't exactly make me feel guilty Auburn only has to square up against several of the NCAA's perennial top teams every single year.Bottom line, USC nearly always ends up having a very high SOS ranking, even though the teams they play (with the exception of ND) don't benefit from the artificially bloated rankings found all over the incestuous SEC.
I'd give SC at least two losses every season.Auburn has, so yeah, I do. Of course I do. During Pete's run here USC has had better talent than anybody in the SEC. If Auburn could do it and hapless offenses like Georgia and Alabama can swing it for most of the year then hell yeah USC could also do it.
But then they'd also have to replace six or seven annual mediocres with the likes of Florida, UT, Georgia and Alabama. Surely you aren't so delirious as to think there wouldn't be a severe change of pace.In fact, I'm pretty sure that USC would see it as a pleasant surprise, getting to add three home game scrimmages to their W-L record every year. Sure, let USC replace ND, Nebraska and Arkansas with three home games against drunk chicks from a Girls Gone Wild video. USC's already proven their ability to go on the road and win, including the SEC.
They've done it before and were top 10s. They'll do it again. As for Berkeley, Seattle and Autzen...Conversely, I'd sure love to see how a sheltered Georgia or Auburn would do if every year they had to play three real OOC games before embarking on roadies to the Coliseum, Berkeley, Seattle and Autzen Stadium. Pretty sure they wouldn't be starting off every season 3-0 before they ever play a game, like they do now.
Trust me, Van...it's all about who you play. USC wants none of it. I'm sure Pete's more than happy right were he is.Let USC play eight home games per season, against only four roadies?
FUCK.....YEAH. Bring it on.
...or Oklahoma? It's another game, Van. Another game SC doesn't play.Yeah, about like Texas "survived" their "conference championship game" last season. USC has been markedly better than the team they'd ultimately face in such a game. It wouldn't be even be a road game. They'd roll them a second time too.
Not always, Van. Ask Oklahoma. Ask LSU. It's one more game SC won't have to play.No need. Serves zero purpose, except as a very cynical money grab. The regular season will prove the conference champion, as it's supposed to do. There's no sense in awarding a conference title to some 8-4 team, not when there's a 12-0 team already in the same conference. The 8-4 team already had their opportunity to take down the 12-0 team. Didn't happen.
I wouldn't trade any of the above for any PAC mediocre. They're competitive on a more frequent basis than the bulk of the PAC. They put more athletes in the NFL than the bulk of the PAC. They're ranked more often than the bulk of the PAC. They come away with bigger wins more often than the bulk of the PAC. The PAC has maybe three teams worth a damn on an annual basis, and the distance between two of those and SC is always fairly lopsided.You offering up Vandy, S. Carolina, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and Mississippi State? Or, are you offering up N.W. Florida, La Monroe and The Mississippi School For The Incontinent? Better yet, let us build our rankings off of wins over overrated programs such as 'Bama, Tennessee and Georgia.
Again, outside of PACland, few see it this way. Looking over the history of the SEC, I'd say the last they'd need to answer to in terms of schedule is the PAC-10.Auburn wouldn't know. Neither would Georgia, or 'Bama, or...
See, they don't go OOC and they play in a conference that's just about the equal of or just slightly better than the other conferences. Between their three game OOC dessert "schedule", six confirmed pastries in conference plus another few artificial "big games" to bloat your ranking it must be nice starting the season with an automatic 9 wins and a Top 12 ranking.
The best football is played over here. Is it my fault SC is located on the west coast where few give a rat's ass about football? It is my fault they play on the graveyard shift for national TV? Is it my fault the top teams in America require a long roadie for the PAC to get to? We've got them right here. We play them right here. No apologies.Gotta also be nice to know you'll only need to pack your suitcase four times per season, and even then you only need to pack lightly since you're probably not going to travel more than a couple hundred miles at worst.
What hook? The only one imagining a hook is the PAC.Yep, and it's disgusting. Doesn't let you off the hook though.
I'd like to see it, but it won't happen. SC will end up following suit to keep up with the money flow, eventually. It's a money biz and the games go accordingly. Again, do you think as an Auburn fan I enjoy seeing La Monroe appear on the schedule? Our AD has gone out to get OOC games. They've had several opt out or buy out of their contracts. We've had others turn Auburn down on home and homes because of scheduling and money differences. You see, they're maximizing their home games too and it's hard to fill in the blanks with the stronger teams.Balanced schedules...six home games...six roadies...
Demand it. Make it mandatory, for everybody. Nothing less.
It's all about money, Van. Do you think Pete Carroll is really going on the road for "honor"? He's doing it because he has to. He has to to get on TV. He has to to get exposure. He has to to fix an abysmal SOS otherwise.Conference championships equate to "honor"?? Yeah, 66-3 and a stadium entirely filled with burnt orange was really honorable. The Pac 10 and Big 10 have been around forever. They do it just fine, thanks. No cynical money grab charades necessary.
Look harder. NCAA style.SEC style...Big 12 style.
...and they were just as injured when SC played them. It isn't three TDs, Van. Even oddsmakers don't go there.That final score wasn't indicative of the closeness of the game, and you know it. You also played 'em in your back yard. WSU traveled, injured, three thousand miles to play that game.
BFD.
Syvelle Newton was not the QB against Wofford or UGA. It changed the game. If you know anything about football, you know planning against a glorified speedster WR in a Spurrier offense with two NFL WRs to defend is much more complicated than a new blood, hapless, slow drop-back snail that those played. Auburn looked bad. Are they bad? I don't know. USC looked bad. Are they bad? I don't know. Both teams have won against top competition. Both have looked bad against lesser competition. I'll still put a win against LSU up against anything SC has accomplished this season...and that and a quarter still won't buy very much.YOU nearly lost to a team that barely beat Wofford. You nearly lost to a team that got destroyed by toofess Georgia, who themselves got exposed at home by...Colorado!!
Losing? Auburn never trailed. Auburn had as many failed opportunities to score as SC. At best the game could have gone into OT, but it didn't.Bottom line, you nearly lost to a bad team and their back up QB. We looked blah against WSU but we were in control of the game and we were never in danger of losing, like you were.
Believe what you will.We both looked blah. We just looked a bit better than you. No great shakes there.
Van, you apparently didn't watch the LSU game and apparently don't understand the rules of college football. If LSU had outplayed us, they would have won the game. Lay off the fantasy football a bit.Dude, quit already. Were it not for the refs and some horrific calls you would've already lost a game this season, at home. LSU outplayed you. S. Carolina owned you in the fourth quarter. You've had two tests this season, one of them only a very minor test, and you didn't look all that impressive in either one. You escaped in both, through sheer luck.
As usual, there are a few teams vying early. Michigan didn't exactly look like world beaters for a good bit of the Vandy game, either, but wins and losses are what matters. In the end, some bullshit poll is going to conduct a popularity contest and hand someone a trophy and it still isn't going to mean much of anything until there's a playoff, which there likely will never be...so I just enjoy the season and debating this worthless bullshit ad nauseum with other fine fans like yourself. If the BCS has done anything worthwhile, it's give fans something else to bitch about.True, and since it's only Week 5 right now it doesn't matter yet anyway. Michigan has looked better than USC and Auburn so far but who's to say that they won't pull a Michigan and go lose somewhere before the OSU game? They're Michigan. They always find a way to lose somewhere they shouldn't.
Agreed.It's just Week 5 though, so we'll see. Right now, I'd call it OSU, Michigan, USC and then Auburn. "Right now" doesn't matter a hill of beans though, except insofar that those teams have still managed to remain unscathed so they're all still firmly in the hunt...