T1B

OK, so we always hear about the alleged East Coast media bias in the polls, but WTF is up with USC staying in the top 10 after losing to a 1-3 Stanford team at home? If you're going to drop Michigan out of the polls completely for losing to the two-time 1-AA defending national champs, you'd think USC would at least drop out of the top 10 for losing to a perennial Pac 10 creampuff on their home field. But there they are, still in the thick of it at #7 AP and #10 USA Today. Is it safe to finally put the myth of the East Coast media bias to rest, or is the fact that Florida is still ranked in the top 15 after dropping 2 in a row enough to justify the ECMB's existence for at least another week? Thoughts?

Wisconsin dropped a good deal after losing on the road to a very good Illinois team. That was a bit surprising.

What's apparent with the rankings is that if the voters perceive a school as a Big Time Power College Football contender (it's hard to even type that with a straight face), they tend to get grandfathered in based solely on reputation.

In other words, those pre-season rankings account for a great deal, and it takes a meltdown of T-Rexian proportions to get booted from the top 10.

Whatever, things tend to sort themselves out eventually and the cream rises to the top.

In the meantime, fans of losing teams console themselves by rationalizing that they lost to superior competition in a superior conference and that makes them feel all better than a team that hasn't lost.

Okie stayed in the top 10 after losing to a rediculously bad Colorado squad....

The Seer wrote:Okie stayed in the top 10 after losing to a rediculously bad Colorado squad....

Yes, that's already been noted.

Somebody has to be in the Top 10.

That'll make it just that much sweeter when Mizzou beats their over rated dicks in the dirt.

C'mon, Stanford is probably the worst team in the Pac-10. They played without their starting quarterback. The game was in the Coliseum. Not as bad as losing to Appalachian State, but much worse than losing in Boulder.

There's no way USC should be in the top ten right now.

And I brought this up to you playoff freaks last week. If we had a 16-team playoff at the end of the season, just think how meaningless that game would have been.

War Wagon wrote:That'll make it just that much sweeter when Mizzou beats their over rated dicks in the dirt.

I see the effects of multiple Bud Lights and Chiefs' losses ( :x ) are in full gear. We'll have a callout/sig bet thread or two forthcoming within a day or two.

As to Mike's question about USC and the media ... the Easterners seem to have developed a taste for USC. Of course, three years of sloppy, perpetual Trojan rimjobs will do that. Hard habit to break for idiots who can't wait to say "John David Booty" like they call for cabs while going to "meetings" in and out of NYC.

To be fair though, USC still has a shitload of talent. Honestly, now that they are thoroughly humiliated, it wouldn't surprise me if they ran the table from here on and end up being a factor in the MNC. Don't worry, if USC manages to beat Oregon in Eugene, all the usual asshats will be tonguing, errr, talking about them again.

Actually, the treatment of USC reinforces the supposed East Coast bias. The people that complain about the East Coast Bias have always stated that the East Coast believes that only USC is a legitimate team out west.

It's eveident in the preseason/early polls.

The East Coast honks always try to hide their bias through the first part of the season. This always results in us fans of West Coast football scratching our heads and saying "huh?"

The EC Honks always say to themselves "I can't make myself look too biased this early... I need to randomly throw some PAC10 teams, and maybe see which WAC team's uniforms my 4 year old son likes best, and throw them in there. OK, now which name is going to come out of the hat this preseason? Hmmmm.... UCLA. Yeah, that's it. ***Googles furiously***. Crap, UCLA is even returning a bunch of starters. I thought I might have heard something about UCLA sucking donkey balls, and their coach being an asshat, but they're returning starters. UCLA in my top 15 it is. Yeah, that's the ticket... if I no-brainer USC at #1, and toss some random teams from west of the Rockies into the mix, I won't look like such a West-Coast-ignorant douche, then I can get my East Coast/Midwest homer on in the second half of the season."

LSU vs OSU in the title game......

Another Big ten slaughterfest.

JayDuck wrote:Actually, the treatment of USC reinforces the supposed East Coast bias. The people that complain about the East Coast Bias have always stated that the East Coast believes that only USC is a legitimate team out west.

East Coast biased is reinforced by having a West Coast team be invincible

Mr T wrote:

JayDuck wrote:Actually, the treatment of USC reinforces the supposed East Coast bias. The people that complain about the East Coast Bias have always stated that the East Coast believes that only USC is a legitimate team out west.

East Coast biased is reinforced by having a West Coast team be invincible

Yes, the bias was always that they don't get a chance to actually watch much of the Pac-10 due, in part to the time difference and crappy tv schedule.

They simply assume USC is great and everybody else is worthless.

JayDuck wrote:Yes, the bias was always that they don't get a chance to actually watch much of the Pac-10 due, in part to the time difference and crappy tv schedule.

They simply assume USC is great and everybody else is worthless.

I don't totally agree with this. For years Washington, as a program, was talked about in a different light than other Pac 10 teams. When they are good, they've seemed to have an added dose of credibility from the writers.

Agreed, though, that the USC lovefest is sickening. It doesn't matter how good your team is...you can lose at any moment and the kind of hyperbole the Trojans have received is tired.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
I don't totally agree with this. For years Washington, as a program, was talked about in a different light than other Pac 10 teams. When they are good, they've seemed to have an added dose of credibility from the writers.

Huh? Washington?

Sincerely,
Anyone under 18

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

JayDuck wrote:Yes, the bias was always that they don't get a chance to actually watch much of the Pac-10 due, in part to the time difference and crappy tv schedule.

They simply assume USC is great and everybody else is worthless.

I don't totally agree with this. For years Washington, as a program, was talked about in a different light than other Pac 10 teams. When they are good, they've seemed to have an added dose of credibility from the writers.

Agreed, though, that the USC lovefest is sickening. It doesn't matter how good your team is...you can lose at any moment and the kind of hyperbole the Trojans have received is tired.

You know, for the sake of entertaining message board discourse, you could take some pointers from Trixie. Quit being so fucking gracious, you miserable little prick.

Ron Zook said to say hi.

Fucking Zooker must have done some serious game planning to pull that off. Tell him I said congratulations, and to go fuck himself.

USC does not belong in the top 25, they havent won a game vs a single quality opponent this year and they have probably the worst qb in the Pac 10.

whats worse than the media bias is the coaches bias who only dropped the Trojans to 7.

Jimmy Medalions wrote: I don't totally agree with this. For years Washington, as a program, was talked about in a different light than other Pac 10 teams. When they are good, they've seemed to have an added dose of credibility from the writers.

I remember Washington, ASU, and Oregon in the 1990s

Hell Oregon was the talk of espn until USC showed up and started beating everyone.

SoCalTrjn wrote:USC does not belong in the top 25, they havent won a game vs a single quality opponent this year and they have probably the worst qb in the Pac 10.

whats worse than the media bias is the coaches bias who only dropped the Trojans to 7.

it's too bad sc's first home loss in a good 400 years coincided with the last of your depakote.

I kind of hope SC runs the table just so I can see the spin at the end of the year as to why this 1 loss team deserves to be in the BCS title game over other 1 loss teams. Might as well bookmark this one for the occasion.

I've been waiting for that scenario for about the last 3 years.

USC stayed-in simply because they are USC. Anybody else in the Pac would drop like a rock. No it isn't right, it is just the priviledge that comes from being a national power and being ranked-high to begin with. I can't see the problems they are having suddenly disappearing though. If Washington can go toe-to-toe and the tree can beat them somebody else will likely beat them as-well, possibly even two somebodies. I doubt we'll have to argue about the merits of a one-loss USC team playing for it all. But with Carroll you never know.

USC will be out of the top 10 by the time November rolls around, this is an 8-4 USC team now that they have lost to Stanford

That's what you get for scheduling a 1-AA team