T1B

Tremendous showing. The Trojans are amazing.

"They" were exactly right about Penn State. The Lions assembled a nice record in a diminished conference, and got exposed when they faced a genuine top 5 team.

I say this good-naturedly, of course. You can't win 'em all, and 11-2 sure ain't no 3-9.

A few things seem to be holding true - SC looks like an NFL team late in the year, but they stumble against a lesser team in conference. it REALLY sucks that we can't see a plus one this year.

PSUFAN wrote:it REALLY sucks that we can't see a plus one this year.

No, it doesn't. What sucks is that we're stuck with this JERKOFF called the BCS year after fucking year. FUCK THIS SHIT.

I'm going to crack open a bottle of Beam and listen to some Belle and Sebastian now. FUCK THIS HSIT.

At this point, I'd rather have the traditional bowl setup instead of this half-bred pussy bullshit. Fuck the college presidents and the networks for buying into this shit.

Yeah...I saw SC play OSU live and they were amazing...just unreal...but then...woah

Well in reality SC had 2 losses (of course Cal really beat them right)


Against SC you have to weather one big storm and OSU surely didn't do it and didn't fight back...but PSU played with Pride and emotion until the end...two scores (1 at the end of the 1st half for USC and the wide open TD in the 3rd really sealed it)...

I agree with the notion of not going for 2 at least or going for it instead of the FG...

anyone catch musberger after the punt got snapped over dudes head...A lot of people in vegas are sweating now (something to that effect) I am sure Assberger was sitting up there jinxing any potential PSU score...

Sudden Sam wrote:

Mace wrote:Props to the Trojans and, yeah, they might be the best team in the country and, had they not stepped on their dicks against a team that PSU kicked the shit out of, they would have a chance to prove it.

Exactly.

Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, and Alabama (as long as they win big tonight) have as much claim to being the best as USC. Shit, Texas Tech, too...even though their loss was pretty damn bad. But they lost to a much better team than the one that beat USC.

So quit your bitchin' and whinin', USC and Pac 10 fan. You fucked up. You got a good team, but it ain't no better than a buncha others.

It's becoming pretty clear to me that for whatever reason USC has to go undefeated in order for them to get a sniff at the MNC. Not many (if any) teams have to play under those "rules." This year was a pretty good example as was 2003.

Sorry but Alabama has no claim this year. Texas has a legitimate beef. Florida got a free pass.

Sudden Sam wrote: Losing to Ole Miss is worse than losing to Oregon State?

Absofukkinglutely

Sudden Sam wrote: Losing to Florida is worse than losing to Oregon State?

Huh? Win your conference! Alabama didn't.

Sudden Sam wrote:Losing to Ole Miss is worse than losing to Oregon State?

I think not.

Yes it is. If it's not worse, it's at the very least on equal footing. That loss was in the Swamp to a mediocre (at best) Ole Miss team. Free pass though.

Sudden Sam wrote:Losing a game in the Pac 1 is definitely an automatic disqualifier.

Call the Pac 10 whatever you want, you're making my point for me. Thanks.

Jsc810 wrote:

GreginPG wrote:It's becoming pretty clear to me that for whatever reason USC has to go undefeated in order for them to get a sniff at the MNC. Not many (if any) teams have to play under those "rules." This year was a pretty good example as was 2003.

Sorry but Alabama has no claim this year. Texas has a legitimate beef. Florida got a free pass.

Hmmm, let's see, how are Alabama, Texas, and Florida different than USC?

They play in a conference that has a championship game, and thus have an additional late-season opportunity to demonstrate with a quality opponent that they belong in the BCS championship game.

Thought I covered this. Alabama didn't win their conference, they only won their division. Texas beat Oklahoma but got screwed by some f'd up tie-breaker. Florida, like USC, won their conference but didn't get hammered by their in-conference loss nearly as bad as USC did.

The Pac 10 has a schedule that has every team playing each other so drop that tired "...conference that has a championship game, and thus have an additional late-season opportunity to demonstrate with a quality opponent that they belong in the BCS championship game" argument.

Jsc810 wrote:That said, huge props to USC. Regardless of the outcome of this year's BCS championship game, USC now is the #1 program of the BCS era. That could change as early as next year, but with a national championship and what is it now? - seven BCS victories? - USC has bode over everyone.

Oh and thanks for the props to the SC program. They are on an unbelievable run. I've seen some great USC teams over my many years but certainly nothing like what Pete Carroll has done over the last 7 years. I believe they now have a BCS record of 6-1 over that span.

A CCG is just a 9th conference game... everyone in the Pac 10 plays 9 conference games, adds 5 losses to the conferences collective record though.

Florida losing to Ole Miss at home is much worse than USC losing to Oregon State on the road on a Thursday night, look at the overall collective records of teams that played at home vs teams that played on the road on Thursday nights.

Texas should be playng OU for the Title, Florida got a free pass.

SoCalTrjn wrote:Texas should be playng OU for the Title, Florida got a free pass.

I don't agree with your first point at all and obviously agree with your second point as I have said the same thing.

I didnt say that Texas and OU are the 2 best teams but Texas lost on the road on a late score, they should be there over Florida who lost at home to a worse team.

If USC shouldnt have a shot at the title, either should Florida

SoCalTrjn wrote:I didnt say that Texas and OU are the 2 best teams but Texas lost on the road on a late score, they should be there over Florida who lost at home to a worse team.

If USC shouldnt have a shot at the title, either should Florida

That's fine. I just have a really hard time wanting to see 2 teams from the same conference play each other for the MNC. We've seen that play before.

Mace wrote:

It's becoming pretty clear to me that for whatever reason USC has to go undefeated in order for them to get a sniff at the MNC. Not many (if any) teams have to play under those "rules." This year was a pretty good example as was 2003.

Yes, it's very clear that when you play in a shit conference you can't afford to lose a conference game. Take USC out of the conference and you've got the Mountain West.

5-0

Mace wrote:

It's becoming pretty clear to me that for whatever reason USC has to go undefeated in order for them to get a sniff at the MNC. Not many (if any) teams have to play under those "rules." This year was a pretty good example as was 2003.

Yes, it's very clear that when you play in a shit conference you can't afford to lose a conference game. Take USC out of the conference and you've got the Mountain West.

I don't think the Pac 10 is exactly shit. I'm sure you don't think the Big Ten is either. If the Pac 10 is shit then the Big Ten is what?

The "Take Team A out of the conference..." dialogue always amuses me. Thanks for the laugh.

You can't expect to lose to Oregon State and end the season with a tremendous BCS score. Pete has work to do. It SEEMS like he has the tough work covered - coming up big in big games. You would THINK we could motivate the team to show up in conference games, but it's pretty apparent that he has failed in successive years.

GreginPG wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Losing to Ole Miss is worse than losing to Oregon State?

Yes it is. If it's not worse, it's at the very least on equal footing. That loss was in the Swamp to a mediocre (at best) Ole Miss team.

Disagree. That loss was by one point, on a blocked XP I believe. Who cares if it was in the swamp, or in USC's case... on the road on a Thursday night. Lamest fucking excuse ever for losing, right next to mtools we had to travel across 3 time zones... wahhh!

As for Ole Miss being mediocre at best, I guess we'll see today in the Cotton how true that statement is. If they get rolled by Taco Tech, then I'll concede the point. However, I think they'll give 'em a hard time.

War Wagon wrote:

GreginPG wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Losing to Ole Miss is worse than losing to Oregon State?

Yes it is. If it's not worse, it's at the very least on equal footing. That loss was in the Swamp to a mediocre (at best) Ole Miss team.

Disagree. That loss was by one point, on a blocked XP I believe. Who cares if it was in the swamp, or in USC's case... on the road on a Thursday night. Lamest fucking excuse ever for losing, right next to mtools we had to travel across 3 time zones... wahhh!

As for Ole Miss being mediocre at best, I guess we'll see today in the Cotton how true that statement is. If they get rolled by Taco Tech, then I'll concede the point. However, I think they'll give 'em a hard time.

I do. They lost to a team at home to a 23 point dog. For comparison sake, USC lost on the road to a 24 point dog. WW, the difference might have been a blocked XP but that game was over when the greatest college football player of all time got stuffed and couldn't convert that 4th-and-1 with less than a minute left.

Sudden Sam wrote:
5-0

Lets' see: Oregon State beat a shitty Pitt team, 3-0.

Cal beat a shitty Miami team on a late fumble deep at Miami's end.

Arizona beat BYU.

The only two wins worth a crap are USC's and Oregon's.

You can wrestle with the alphabet til your fingers fall off, but the arithmetic will remain the same:

5-0

Mace wrote:

The Seer wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:
5-0

Lets' see: Oregon State beat a shitty Pitt team, 3-0.

Cal beat a shitty Miami team on a late fumble deep at Miami's end.

Arizona beat BYU.

The only two wins worth a crap are USC's and Oregon's.

You can wrestle with the alphabet til your fingers fall off, but the arithmetic will remain the same:

5-0

Yep, 5-0, which means absolutely nothing.....and no team in their conference is playing in the NC game....the only game that means anything. The Pac 10 got some favorable matchups that gave them a chance to win some games, and they did it. Props to them.

I'm perfectly fine with that. I just can't stomach homers that drone on about the Pac 10 being a shitty conference with that 5-0 staring at them regardless of the circumstances....

Other than USC, every Pac 10 team was playing vs an opponent ranked higher than they were in the polls.

SoCalTrjn wrote:Other than USC, every Pac 10 team was playing vs an opponent ranked higher than they were in the polls.

Yeah but why should that matter?

The funny thing is that if The Pac-10 went 0-5, all you fuckwads would be saying, "See they suck." You'd use it if it favored your arguement.

We win and you still find ways to devalue it. You're fucking pathetic. It may not mean everything but don't come in here with your shit about "favorable" match ups, stadium location, etc. Shit I was at The Rose Bowl and the mother fucker was at least half Penn State and I gave them a full game's worth of shit talking and loved it.

Mace wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:Other than USC, every Pac 10 team was playing vs an opponent ranked higher than they were in the polls.

Only a complete fucking idiot would place any stock in "the rankings" accurately reflecting the worth of a football team. The rankings are fickle....tell me you knew. Isn't that the basis for your bitch about USC dropping in "the rankings" and being left out of the title game? Anything short of a playoff leaves us without a true champion....period.

If Pitt, BYU, and Miami were ranked higher than their Pac 10 opponents, then that should tell you all you need to know about the lack of respect for the Pac 10....those are three shitty teams who accumulated wins in even shittier conferences than the Pac 10. You SHOULD have beaten those teams. The wins over Okie State and PSU were the only quality wins the Pac 10 racked up, imo.

If all the Pac 10 teams in bowl games were ranked and lost to all unranked or lower ranked opponents you would spin it the other way and say "see?, told ya the Pac 10 was a shitty conference and overrated." You would sure as hell give a fuck about the rankings then.

So now we're basing strength of conference on 5 games. Man Shaz would be pissed.
Instead of looking at a small sample like some of you asshats like to do let's look at the entire season.
Quality non conference wins:
Arizona-none however they did lose to a 4-8 new mexico team
Arizona State None but they did lost to Georgia and a 2-6 UNLV team
Cal: Two Michigan Sate and Miami however due to a severe case of jet lag, bus ride lag, and cab lag they lost to maryland because of the refs and the pilot keeping them in the air for 14 hours too long.
Oregon: Two Purdue...well maybe not....one Okie St
Oregon State: Really no quality non conf wins. losses to Utah and Penn State and a 3-0 win over a shitty Pitt team.
Stanford: None
UCLA: None with losses to BYU and Fresneck St
USC two: Ohio State and Penn State
Washington and Washington St: None

So in reality the real quality non conference wins for the pac 10 outside of the bowl games adds up to a whopping 6.

So what's the point?

Who's the best conference? Who fucking cares. We've beaten this horse to death. The pac 10 teams proved that they can't win many non conference games vs. top notch opponents but they can win a couple of bowl games vs. some decent teams and some shitty teams. With 34 bowl games that means 68 teams get invites which dilutes the quality of a lot of teams in bowls.

The Pac 10 has a couple of solid teams however I'm not sure they have the depth of some other conferences. The Big 10 is terrible and it's amazing how they can't realize what their weaknesses are after the ass whoopings they get year in and year out from faster teams.

You guys please continue to argue. I'm gonna go have another beer and continue to watch taco tech and ole miss.

Mace wrote:The wins over Okie State and PSU were the only quality wins the Pac 10 racked up, imo.

ToeJam wrote:Other than USC, every Pac 10 team was playing vs an opponent ranked higher than they were in the polls.

How many games did they cover? That's about the only "meaning" that any of these games have, and only then if you've got money on them.

War Wagon wrote: As for Ole Miss being mediocre at best, I guess we'll see today in the Cotton how true that statement is. If they get rolled by Taco Tech, then I'll concede the point. However, I think they'll give 'em a hard time.

Word!

Florida losing to Ole Miss at home is much worse than USC losing to Oregon State on the road on a Thursday night, look at the overall collective records of teams that played at home vs teams that played on the road on Thursday nights.

I didnt say that Texas and OU are the 2 best teams but Texas lost on the road on a late score, they should be there over Florida who lost at home to a worse team.

Well the way it looks right now that shitty Ole Miss team you speak of is kicking the horse crap out of TT. Keep blabbering about this and that because the more you type to more idiotic you come off. Then again that's normal for you.

OK, so I'm a long way from being neutral on the matter... that disclaimer being made...


Greg has pretty much slapped you guys into next week. It's not a "conference/coastal pride" thing -- it's a matter of simple logic and common sense.

Yet even after Greg has pointed out the stupid hypocrisy of this strange anti-PAC sentiment we've dealt with for years, you still continue to roll out the same crap that dude just thoroughly clowned you for.

At least take a different tack if you insist on continuing down this irrational road.

Mace wrote:you gotta forget about USC losing to a shit team

I see... you not only rely on the Transitive Theory (which usually gets laughed off this board in minutes, you should feel lucky the people here obviously are giving you a pass for being senile), but then go the extra mile to interject humor...

If you need some sort of empirical evidence to support your side...


Just go ahead and make it up.


Wanna link me up to OS being a "shit team"? I'll leave the lights on for you.

That "shit team" will likely finish up in the Top 15. Definitely top 20. Where does Iowa fall in there? Are they a "shit team"?


I'll let you in on a secret that the gamblers/point spread players have known for years -- road favorites very rarely cover on Thursday night, and frequently find themselves on the wrong end of the bode. Certainly not an "excuse," but years of collective data sure cement the fact there's something to the difficulty of playing Thursday night road games... a "trap" if ever there was one. Add to that the reluctance of USC to change their offensive looks from year to year, combined with Riley's absolute brilliance when it comes to coming up with a scheme (if PSU and OS played again, the result would likely be quite different -- it's the Riley trademark), and it's not some huge shock that OS got over. Fool Riley once, hats off to you -- fool him twice, and you better run out and buy a lottery ticket.


So, since your "shit team" argument is thoroughly laughable (very amusing), would you care to try something else?

Since frankly, the dreaded combination of the Transitive Theory and the opposite-of-truth "shit team" argument are piling together to make your current display of self-abuse -- and not the kind of "self-abuse" your mother warned you about causing vision problems -- is almost wearing thin, and making the jump from "charmingly amusing, in an idiotic sort of way" to just plain "pouting in the corner pathetic."


But if you can get away from the Transitive Theory and the lying, I'm certainly open to hearing any other point you care to make.

Mace wrote:Florida lost to a better team than those that beat USC and PSU

BTW-are you fucking serious?


You're firmly entrenched in spewing out the Transitive Theory...


but it goes right the fuck out the window when it debunks your argument?


You're really going with this?

Really?


You GO, BOYEEE!!!!!!

Mace wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:OK, so I'm a long way from being neutral on the matter... that disclaimer being made...


Greg has pretty much slapped you guys into next week. It's not a "conference/coastal pride" thing -- it's a matter of simple logic and common sense.

Yet even after Greg has pointed out the stupid hypocrisy of this strange anti-PAC sentiment we've dealt with for years, you still continue to roll out the same crap that dude just thoroughly clowned you for.

At least take a different tack if you insist on continuing down this irrational road.

Oh, okay. We'll go along with the argument that...but...but...but, you gotta forget about USC losing to a shit team that was piss pounded by Penn State and need to jump in line to agree that they should be in the title game. Is that what you said?

I have repeatedly said that USC might be the best team in the country BUT (using your "the regular season is like a playoff" rationale) they LOST to an Oregon State team that ain't very fucking good and, barring losses to bad or mediocre teams by some of the other top teams, were pretty much eliminated from the championship equation.....just like Penn State (who plays in an equally weak conference) when they lost to Iowa. If they both go undefeated, they both end up in the title game....and neither did that. Florida lost to a better team than those that beat USC and PSU so, hence, they end up in the title game. End of story. Texas is the ONLY team in the country who has a bitch worth listening to because....well, you know why.

The minute you stop using the tired and lame but...but...but..."USC losing to a shit team that was piss pounded by Penn State" argument is the minute you start getting any credibility. It's really the only thing you have in trying to support your argument and it's pretty weak. You insist that Oregon St. is a shit team. Why because you say so? I'm not seeing it. Your argument is common opponent and you interject it with a bullshit opinion. Oh ok, OSU is a shit team...Penn State beat them, SC didn't. You win. Fucking pathetic.

Oregon St, Iowa, and Ole Miss are pretty much in the same tier. If you're going to call one a shit team, you have to call all of them shit teams. If you call one a quality team, you have to call them all quality. Anybody who thinks they can distinguish a wide gap between these teams is an ignorant, homering jackass.

GreginPG wrote:Your argument is common opponent

Except when it's the opposite of common oppenent...


which becomes pretty freaking hilarious when it's his team that suddenly invalidates the common opponent argument, but only in certain instances...

Those "certain instances" being how OS is a 9-4, bowl-winning-against-a-higher-ranked-team "shit team."


Also, Iowa is a "shit team" that just beat a team that beat his "better team" when it comes to Florida.


You need one hell of a database program to keep up with Mace's "common opponent/transitive theory" nonsensical ramblings...


But who knows, maybe it does actually make sense to him.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Oregon St and Iowa are pretty much in the same tier. If you're going to call one a shit team, you have to call the other a shit team.

Huh?

But one shit team beat another shit team, and that shit team beat another shit team in their own house, but that end-of-the-line, bottom of the barrel shit team was FAR supierior to the other shit teams, because they beat Florida, but are much better than the OS shit team, because Shit Team A won at home against PSU, who beat Shit Team B in Happy Valley, which means Florida is far superior to USC.



Hope this helps. I've been trying to take a crash course in Macenology, and let me tell you, it's some complicated shit... but I'll gladly share the knowledge I've gleaned from this intricate subject.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mace wrote:you gotta forget about USC losing to a shit team

I see... you not only rely on the Transitive Theory (which usually gets laughed off this board in minutes, you should feel lucky the people here obviously are giving you a pass for being senile), but then go the extra mile to interject humor...

If you need some sort of empirical evidence to support your side...


Just go ahead and make it up.


Wanna link me up to OS being a "shit team"? I'll leave the lights on for you.

That "shit team" will likely finish up in the Top 15. Definitely top 20. Where does Iowa fall in there? Are they a "shit team"?


I'll let you in on a secret that the gamblers/point spread players have known for years -- road favorites very rarely cover on Thursday night, and frequently find themselves on the wrong end of the bode. Certainly not an "excuse," but years of collective data sure cement the fact there's something to the difficulty of playing Thursday night road games... a "trap" if ever there was one. Add to that the reluctance of USC to change their offensive looks from year to year, combined with Riley's absolute brilliance when it comes to coming up with a scheme (if PSU and OS played again, the result would likely be quite different -- it's the Riley trademark), and it's not some huge shock that OS got over. Fool Riley once, hats off to you -- fool him twice, and you better run out and buy a lottery ticket.


So, since your "shit team" argument is thoroughly laughable (very amusing), would you care to try something else?

Since frankly, the dreaded combination of the Transitive Theory and the opposite-of-truth "shit team" argument are piling together to make your current display of self-abuse -- and not the kind of "self-abuse" your mother warned you about causing vision problems -- is almost wearing thin, and making the jump from "charmingly amusing, in an idiotic sort of way" to just plain "pouting in the corner pathetic."


But if you can get away from the Transitive Theory and the lying, I'm certainly open to hearing any other point you care to make.

Transitive theory is total and complete Bullshit. Its also the basis for all of the fucked up computer polls.
Computer polls have no place in the BCS, they need to get rid of them.

Transitive theory is total and complete Bullshit. Its also the basis for all of the fucked up computer polls.
Computer polls have no place in the BCS, they need to get rid of them.

fine, then how do you determine a national champion? Have the coaches vote? Do you really think Pete Carrol wakes up on a Saturday morning and watches games to see who he should vote for, or the Eastern coaches stay up late watching games on the West coast? Do you really think (if this was the case) that Bobby Bowden would vote Florida #1 or Tressell would vote Michigan #1 or any rival would vote their rival #1. My neighbor is a coach at a D-1 school and he leaves his house at 4:30 every morning and gets home around 11:00 every night. I'm not sure these coaches are looking at game tapes of other schools and worrying about who they should vote for.

The only way to determine this is with a playoff and we all know that we're not going to get one anytime soon.

Laxplayer wrote:

Transitive theory is total and complete Bullshit. Its also the basis for all of the fucked up computer polls.
Computer polls have no place in the BCS, they need to get rid of them.

fine, then how do you determine a national champion? Have the coaches vote? Do you really think Pete Carrol wakes up on a Saturday morning and watches games to see who he should vote for, or the Eastern coaches stay up late watching games on the West coast? Do you really think (if this was the case) that Bobby Bowden would vote Florida #1 or Tressell would vote Michigan #1 or any rival would vote their rival #1. My neighbor is a coach at a D-1 school and he leaves his house at 4:30 every morning and gets home around 11:00 every night. I'm not sure these coaches are looking at game tapes of other schools and worrying about who they should vote for.

The only way to determine this is with a playoff and we all know that we're not going to get one anytime soon.

Dude I told you Pete doesn't have a vote but I get your point. That the coaches poll is even part of the formula is a joke. I told you where Meyer voted Ole Miss.

Laxplayer wrote:

Transitive theory is total and complete Bullshit. Its also the basis for all of the fucked up computer polls.
Computer polls have no place in the BCS, they need to get rid of them.

fine, then how do you determine a national champion? Have the coaches vote? Do you really think Pete Carrol wakes up on a Saturday morning and watches games to see who he should vote for, or the Eastern coaches stay up late watching games on the West coast? Do you really think (if this was the case) that Bobby Bowden would vote Florida #1 or Tressell would vote Michigan #1 or any rival would vote their rival #1. My neighbor is a coach at a D-1 school and he leaves his house at 4:30 every morning and gets home around 11:00 every night. I'm not sure these coaches are looking at game tapes of other schools and worrying about who they should vote for.

The only way to determine this is with a playoff and we all know that we're not going to get one anytime soon.

When did Carroll start voting in the coaches poll? Why dont you start using pertinent names and stop your obsession with HCPC

I know he doesn't have a vote. Greg and I had this conversation over the phone the other day. I was using it as an example. You know how you try and use logic as an example but really can't.