T1B

....n California

So, we've got two of the best QBs in the country going head to head in the Coliseum on primetime national TV. Gameday on ESPN. Maybe even Burnt Hamburger in the booth?

Let's do this thing, Van. What's the over/under...about 90?

No. You're playing cock games with Stanley in a Ford.

I love how SEC fans are trying of late to co-opt/take back/what-the-fuck-ever the 'USC' tag. Look, idjits, do a fucking google search. Type in 'USC' and see what percentage of the links have to do with the University of Never Done Dick in the SEC or Elsewhere. Nearly every 'USC' link will be about the real USC, not the one whose mascot is a poor rooster that's made to suffer a torturous death at the hands of barbaric rednecks.

Go ahead, try it yourself. Type 'USC' into your search engine of choice. Please report back with your findings.

Anyway, Mikey, this thread sucks M2 scrote. We both know Stanford is going to go Hannibal Lecter on USC. What's the spread? Stanford -93?

Seriously, I'm guessing it's probably something like Stanford -9.5, which is way too low.

~hops over to 88's Week 9 Pick 'Em thread to check the spread...~

7.5? Really? That's it? Fuck, I'd be all over that if I was a gambling degenerate like Jon. I'll likely avoid this game in Pick 'Em, but I'd tell everyone here to jump on that one hard.

Okay, anyway, the Over/Under and how I'd arrive at it...

Wait. What is it, anyway? It's gotta be pushing 70. Mid-60s, at least.

~googles some Vegas links to find out...~

It's only 60. Wow. I'd be all over the, errr, Over on that one.

Okay, come hell or high water, Stanford will hit 30. I could easily see them hitting 50, and 40 seems likely. Their lowest total of the season was 37, they're averaging 48.5, and they've covered every week while continuing a record streak of scoring 25+ for more than ten straight games.

Even more impressive is this...

Game 1: -30 (They covered by 24.)
Game 2: -20.5 (Covered by 9.5)
Game 3: -10 (Covered by 17)
Game 4: -23 (Covered by 3)
Game 5: -29.5 (Covered by 10.5)
Game 6: -20 (Covered by 10)
Game 7: -18.5 (Covered by 13.5)

That is just frightening. Even as high as some of those spreads were, they blew them out of the water. Only once were they ever in danger of failing to cover, never mind losing the game.

I'm thinking they'll score somewhere between 41-44. 38 on the low end. Let's call it...42.

USC? Though it hasn't felt like it, they have covered four out of seven weeks. They're averaging a tick over 30 per game. Their rushing attack is spotty and even their passing game is somewhat hit-or-miss. It's certainly not the consistent machine that is the Stanford offense. USC's one main offensive attribute has been their ability to avoid giving up sacks, and they're not doing poorly in terms of turning the ball over.

Hell, just using each team's averages we come up with a 48-30 score. I could easily see that happening, with USC punching in a cosmetic TD to make it look more respectable than it really was. I tend to think Stanford's D is better than that, however, so I'll slide this down a bit to...oh...42-17.

Hey, whaddya know? A total that's right there at the 60-point Over/Under number.

If Harbaugh was still coaching the Tree, I'd bump that total up at least seven.

I've become so accustomed to teams that range from mediocre to absolutely horrible that every game the past two seasons has been like a pleasant surprise. Except for one, and that was really only one bad half. I'm coming to realize, rationally, that Stanford could play with any team in the country - including LSU and Alabama - and that they should blow out USC. But I still have that lingering feeling that the bubble could burst just about any time.

I'm sure that the USC players are super motivated for this game, but then again the Stanford players should be too. Revenge for the past two seasons has got to be on the Trojans' minds. Stanford has done pretty much everything right so far this season, it wouldn't be surprising for them to have one bad game. If that happens I could see a close game, something like 27-24, with USC possibly coming out on top. But...I don't really think that will happen. Stanford is just too solid on both sides of the ball, and their offense is so versatile that if the passing game isn't working for some reason they can just run it up the middle all day. But normally they don't even start passing until they've established the run, and SC's pass defense isn't really all that anyway. I actually could see it getting out of hand very quickly and ending up something like the Washington game. And I don't think that Stanford will ease up until they're very comfortably ahead. I'll be a little more conservative, though, and say 45-17.

Stanford by 30

Van wrote:Anyway, Mikey, this thread sucks M2 scrote. We both know Stanford is going to go Hannibal Lecter on USC. What's the spread? Stanford -93?

Seriously, I'm guessing it's probably something like Stanford -9.5, which is way too low.

~hops over to 88's Week 9 Pick 'Em thread to check the spread...~

7.5? Really? That's it? Fuck, I'd be all over that if I was a gambling degenerate like Jon. I'll likely avoid this game in Pick 'Em

Truly a man of his convictions.

Van wrote:Go ahead, try it yourself. Type 'USC' into your search engine of choice. Please report back with your findings.

Except Mikey didn't type "USC," he typed "SC." And when I do a Google search for "SC" every single link on page 1 is related to the University of South Carolina or the state of South Carolina.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Van wrote:Go ahead, try it yourself. Type 'USC' into your search engine of choice. Please report back with your findings.

Except Mikey didn't type "USC," he typed "SC." And when I do a Google search for "SC" every single link on page 1 is related to the University of South Carolina or the state of South Carolina.

That could have something to do with the fact that "SC" is the official (or whatever) abbreviation for South Carolina. Around here SC, when discussing BTPCF, has always (meaning at least back to the 60s in my memory) implied USC, as in "Southern Cal". Is it a regional thing? Maybe. I'll keep using it. If it confuses you, too bad. I'm pretty sure shutyomouth was just trying to be his always cute and loveable self.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:Anyway, Mikey, this thread sucks M2 scrote. We both know Stanford is going to go Hannibal Lecter on USC. What's the spread? Stanford -93?

Seriously, I'm guessing it's probably something like Stanford -9.5, which is way too low.

~hops over to 88's Week 9 Pick 'Em thread to check the spread...~

7.5? Really? That's it? Fuck, I'd be all over that if I was a gambling degenerate like Jon. I'll likely avoid this game in Pick 'Em

Truly a man of his convictions.

I am. I decided four or five weeks ago to skip USC games in Pick 'Em and haven't deviated since. I'll likely skip them this time too.

i really wanted to take USC and the points in pickem, but stayed away.

Mikey wrote:I'm coming to realize, rationally, that Stanford could play with any team in the country - including LSU and Alabama - and that they should blow out USC.

They could definitely play with LSU or Alabama. Those guys have not seen an offense like this, nor a QB like this. Stanford simply does not allow sacks, and without pressure on Luck he'll methodically pick apart any defense, never mind the Cardinal's excellent running game.

Yeah, they should blow out USC. In order for USC to win, Stanford would have to play out of character while the Trojans play their most poised, error-free game of the year on both sides of the ball. For a team starting as many underclassmen as USC is now, good luck with that.

But I still have that lingering feeling that the bubble could burst just about any time.

That's why Satan invented Nike U.

I'm sure that the USC players are super motivated for this game,

I really don't think so. If anything, I'm expecting them to come out a little flat. That ND game was their Super Bowl this year, and it was on the road. That was the one Kiffin had to have.

Now? There's bound to be a bit of a letdown. I don't see them starting this game with anywhere near the fire they had at the beginning of the ND game. Few expect USC to beat Stanford or Oregon, and for the most part USC has rolled over like bitches in heat whenever they were prohibitive underdogs these past couple of seasons. They haven't shown a whole lot of fight. Once someone knocks them on their ass, they don't seem to get back up. Witness the recent Oregon games, or the Stanford game two years ago.

Soft...soft and unmotivated.

Stanford has done pretty much everything right so far this season, it wouldn't be surprising for them to have one bad game. If that happens I could see a close game, something like 27-24, with USC possibly coming out on top. But...I don't really think that will happen. Stanford is just too solid on both sides of the ball, and their offense is so versatile that if the passing game isn't working for some reason they can just run it up the middle all day. But normally they don't even start passing until they've established the run, and SC's pass defense isn't really all that anyway. I actually could see it getting out of hand very quickly and ending up something like the Washington game. And I don't think that Stanford will ease up until they're very comfortably ahead. I'll be a little more conservative, though, and say 45-17.

Sounds about right to me. We both have USC scoring only 17 while only differing by three on Stanford's total...and I'm every bit as comfortable with your 45 as I am with my 42.

I'll be surprised if this thing remains competitive into the fourth quarter. If it does, though, hey, I'd have to like USC's chances. They're playing at home, Stanford hasn't been under any duress this season, and Barkley is fairly clutch.

But...nah. Stanford's offense is going to do whatever they want against this USC defense.

Real simple solution to Van's point of contention. Simply refer to the west coast USC as "Southern Cal." I hear they love that.

"Southern Cal" is how Keith Jackson and many others of his generation always referred to USC. Never bothered me in the least. I'm a traditionalist. I even hated when USC went back to the single stripe on the shoulder, despite knowing that it was a nod to the John McKay '60s era unis. See, I grew up with these...







...including the gray face masks, not those stupid red ones they used during the shit years of the late '80s and '90s. Hate this year's change to black socks too, which is just a lame atempt to look more gangster.

I don't even like this recent bit of foo-foo garbage...



...which recently became their new official logo. God, I hate that thing, especially here...



If USC ever caves in to this Nike Pro Combat/Underarmor uni thing and comes running out of the tunnel sporting clown gear like this...











...it'll be time to quit football.

I would love to see Stanford face LSU or Alabama. With Stanford's offense, and Bama/LSU's defenses, that would be a glorified NFL game. I think the Cardinal could hang with either one. As good as Bama and LSU are defensively, they won't face anyone in the SEC like Stanford. QB play, in particular, seems to be a bit down this year in the SEC.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I would love to see Stanford face LSU or Alabama. With Stanford's offense, and Bama/LSU's defenses, that would be a glorified NFL game. I think the Cardinal could hang with either one. As good as Bama and LSU are defensively, they won't face anyone in the SEC like Stanford. QB play, in particular, seems to be a bit down this year in the SEC.

On the other hand, Stanford isn't facing any defenses like LSU or Alabama in the Pac 12. It would definitely be an interesting matchup.

Well, yeah, I think it's safe to say that Stanford wouldn't put up their usual 48.5 on LSU or, especially, Alabama. Then again, those two defenses likely wouldn't come up with the easy scores they normally hand their offenses.

That's the game I want to see. We don't need Oregon again, or another Big XII team that's all spread offense and no defense. Stanford vs Alabama. Real smashmouth football. The whistle blows and...bam!

Van wrote:Well, yeah, I think it's safe to say that Stanford wouldn't put up their usual 48.5 on LSU or, especially, Alabama. Then again, those two defenses likely wouldn't come up with the easy scores they normally hand their offenses.

That's the game I want to see. We don't need Oregon again, or another Big XII team that's all spread offense and no defense. Stanford vs Alabama. Real smashmouth football. The whistle blows and...bam!

i week ago i might have made some voice here....but i never thought OU was more than a legit top 5 team with a chance. the D performance at Owen Field against Tech surprised me. some gruesome bullshit. i thought the scabdick was coming this week at KSU with Snyder. anyway, that may still happen....

i'm not seeing Stanford as a top 2 type automatic smash mouth nostalgia "we love it/throwback to real football" who can floor good teams team just yet. I do like Bama over LSU. SU may be, but haven't played anyone good yet. the Pac is very weak after SU and UO. ASU is a couple points better than MIssouri at home. even Jon Wilner is picking against UW at home.

Van wrote:

I'm sure that the USC players are super motivated for this game,

I really don't think so. If anything, I'm expecting them to come out a little flat. That ND game was their Super Bowl this year, and it was on the road. That was the one Kiffin had to have.

Now? There's bound to be a bit of a letdown. I don't see them starting this game with anywhere near the fire they had at the beginning of the ND game. Few expect USC to beat Stanford or Oregon, and for the most part USC has rolled over like bitches in heat whenever they were prohibitive underdogs these past couple of seasons. They haven't shown a whole lot of fight. Once someone knocks them on their ass, they don't seem to get back up. Witness the recent Oregon games, or the Stanford game two years ago.

Soft...soft and unmotivated.

I think Kiffin has to have the game vs Washington, Stanford and Oregon have had equal talent the last couple years, Washington hasnt. And Sark has out coached Kiff and Carroll the last 2 years. The leading candidate to take Kiffin and his staffs jobs would have to be Sark/Holt combination. If Kiffin loses to Washington that will hurt his chances staying on at USC more than if he were to lose to teams like Stanford and Oregon where he is expected to lose to them this year.

Agree, 100%. Washington and UCLA are Kiffin's two remaining gotta-haves this season, and I'm not anticipating a Trojan win vs the Huskies. Stanford and Oregon? Pretty much reverse-gimmes. Winning either of those would be a huge surprise.

I suppose the Sark-Holt combo would be better than Kiffin-Kiffin, but I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with Sark's playcalling as OC at USC. The Oregon game in particular when Sanchez had to fill in for JDB, Sark pissed me off to no end with his wimpy oddball calls.

Van wrote:UCLA

Just let me suffer in peace.

:(

Seer, so who's in line to be your next coach now?

And yes, we seem to be having this particular discussion a bit too frequently.

Van wrote:Seer, so who's in line to be your next coach now?

And yes, we seem to be having this particular discussion a bit too frequently.

Amazing how the center of gravity in this conference has shifted in the past 3 or 4 years.

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:Seer, so who's in line to be your next coach now?

And yes, we seem to be having this particular discussion a bit too frequently.

Amazing how the center of gravity in this conference has shifted in the past 3 or 4 years.

Eat a dick.

-The Seer

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:Seer, so who's in line to be your next coach now?

And yes, we seem to be having this particular discussion a bit too frequently.

Amazing how the center of gravity in this conference has shifted in the past 3 or 4 years.

Witch hunts and when a program is unjustly over punished, that sort of thing happens.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I would love to see Stanford face LSU or Alabama. With Stanford's offense, and Bama/LSU's defenses, that would be a glorified NFL game. I think the Cardinal could hang with either one. As good as Bama and LSU are defensively, they won't face anyone in the SEC like Stanford.

Short memories up in this beyotch.

Because I could have sworn LSU opened the season against a team that scores the same points-per-game as Stanford, and averages more yards.

They did. What's your point?

While you're correct that they "won't face anyone in the SEC like Stanford," one of those teams was the anti-SEC, and in fact played an even more potent offense OOC -- their speed on the outside on D did pretty well for them.

I guess that was my point. Granted, Furd's offense is a little more pro-style, plodding, and ball-control oreinted, it's not like LSU hasn't faced a monster offense this season.

Not in the same manner, though, and Oregon's offense has proven to be containable: both Boise St games, Ohio St, Auburn, and now LSU. We've seen this movie too many times already, and we know how it ends.

Stanford is more of an unknown, OOC. Their offensive style is a lot closer to PC's USC teams, which made for the one title game we never got to see: USC vs the SEC. In lieu of those games, Stanford vs the SEC is about as close as we're going to get.

Van wrote:the one title game we never got to see: USC vs the SEC.

We've seen this movie before -- the Bear whooped them.


You know, since past performance is obviously an indication of what will happen.


As much as it pains me to say -- Auburn and LSU didn't "contain" Oregon's offense. There's only one coach who can contain Oregon's offense, and unfortunately, he's done it every time he's faced a team with big strong players on the outside on D...

that coach of course being Chipper. Dude's balls shrivel whenever the going on the outsides gets tough -- unstead of increasing the uptempo play even futher, which would be the easiest way to gain the upper-hand, he uses the whole playclock thinking things over, and the QB ends up calling 50 different audibles, and the foundation on which the offense is based comes crumbling down... now using the players in pedestrian roles, rather than outrunning everybody, which the "leave one guy unblocked and zone-block" thrives on.

Duckfan has hope that Chip can realize his mistakes of the past and remedy this, although the LSU game wasn't a good omen to that end.

Dinsdale wrote:that coach of course being Chipper. Dude's balls shrivel whenever the going on the outsides gets tough -- unstead of increasing the uptempo play even futher, which would be the easiest way to gain the upper-hand, he uses the whole playclock thinking things over, and the QB ends up calling 50 different audibles, and the foundation on which the offense is based comes crumbling down... now using the players in pedestrian roles, rather than outrunning everybody, which the "leave one guy unblocked and zone-block" thrives on.

I can agree to this...to an extent. I think the lack of "uptempo" is due to Chip Kelly not having a contingency plan in his offense. I think he has doubts about Darron Thomas winning with his arm with a short passing game when Oregon can't run it outside. Also, Oregon's undersized front seven tends to do better against the Pac12 for 60 minutes rather than an SEC offense.

Jsc810 wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:LSU didn't "contain" Oregon's offense.

What did LSU do then?

Just wondering.

Benefited from Chip's tentiveness whn playing fast defenses such as LSU, and benefited from a fresh-out-of-high-schoolers carelessness with the ball.

But bottom line, what they did was... win, fair and square.

Van wrote: Stanford is more of an unknown, OOC. Their offensive style is a lot closer to PC's USC teams,

Not even close.


You really can't help yourself can you ?

You need to slide an $C reference into the conversation no matter how square the peg is...


If you want to make a comparison... you'd use the 2003, 2004, 2005 Cal teams when they would use the running game to pound their opponents into submission (see 2004: JJ Arrington's 2,000 yard rushing season with Marshawn Lynch adding 628 yards as a backup and 2005: With both Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett rushing for over 1,000 yards in a season).


$C has NEVER been a power rushing team... especially, a team that would run the ball all game long and wear down the other team.

Dinsdale wrote:

Van wrote:the one title game we never got to see: USC vs the SEC.

We've seen this movie before -- the Bear whooped them USC clobbered Alabama in their own house with Sam Cunningham and again in '78, when they were robbed of a title. During the Pete Carroll era USC owned the SEC.

Yep.

You know, since past performance is obviously an indication of what will happen.

Recent past performance, as in this year and last? Yes, it most certainly is a fairly strong indicator of what will happen.

As much as it pains me to say -- Auburn and LSU didn't "contain" Oregon's offense. There's only one coach who can contain Oregon's offense, and unfortunately, he's done it every time he's faced a team with big strong players on the outside on D...

So? He's still their coach, isn't he? Part of a championship team includes their coach. If Chip is Oregon's Achilles' heel, then so be it.

that coach of course being Chipper. Dude's balls shrivel whenever the going on the outsides gets tough -- unstead of increasing the uptempo play even futher, which would be the easiest way to gain the upper-hand, he uses the whole playclock thinking things over, and the QB ends up calling 50 different audibles, and the foundation on which the offense is based comes crumbling down... now using the players in pedestrian roles, rather than outrunning everybody, which the "leave one guy unblocked and zone-block" thrives on.

While that may be true, it's not all on Chip. We're talking Boise St twice (including one in Autzen), then Ohio St and Auburn, and now LSU. This stretch of OOC ignominy spans two regimes. Oregon simply has not been able to get it done when it mattered most.

Duckfan has hope that Chip can realize his mistakes of the past and remedy this, although the LSU game wasn't a good omen to that end.

No, it wasn't, and there's little reason to believe it'll be any different next time. That's just one reason why non-Oregon fans who root for the Pac 12 want Stanford to represent, not Oregon. We've witnessed Oregon's act, so now let's see what Stanford can do.

Besides, if it's a choice between Andrew Luck and a bunch of other smart, solid guys wearing normal unis or Oregon's hired thugs sporting garish clown unis like these...



...who would you choose?

Seriously? Neon shoes and socks?

:doh:

M2 wrote:

Van wrote: Stanford is more of an unknown, OOC. Their offensive style is a lot closer to PC's USC teams,

Not even close.

Compared to Oregon's spread? The fuck it isn't.

You need to slide an $C reference into the conversation no matter how square the peg is...

When the discussion concerns potential title games, who else would I reference? Cal?



See, USC is the only Pac team that seems to know how to represent OOC, and it just so happens that Stanford runs a physical pro-style offense, which is much closer to USC's than Oregon's.

But go ahead...by all means, illustrate for the class how Stanford's time-eating run first/play-action pass offense bears a closer resemblance to Oregon's fast-paced spread than to USC's traditional pro-set.

This oughtta be humorous.

If you want to make a comparison... you'd use the 2003, 2004, 2005 Cal teams when they would use the running game to pound their opponents into submission (see 2004: JJ Arrington's 2,000 yard rushing season with Marshawn Lynch adding 628 yards as a backup and 2005: With both Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett rushing for over 1,000 yards in a season).

No, I wouldn't, because those were Cal teams, which means they never played for any championships. We're talking potential national title match-ups vs the SEC here, not scrimmages against San Jose St.

$C has NEVER been a power rushing team... especially, a team that would run the ball all game long and wear down the other team.

The founders of Student Body Left and Tailback U quite rightfully say that you're a complete idiot.

Van wrote:

M2 wrote: You need to slide an $C reference into the conversation no matter how square the peg is...

When the discussion concerns potential title games, who else would I reference? Cal?

Wait a minute here. shutyomouth's the only one who brought up the Gamecocks.

Van wrote: The founders of Student Body Left and Tailback U quite rightfully say that you're a complete idiot.

Shit for brains.... YOU were the one that referenced Cheaty's teams. I just kept it within that same time frame you bumbling idiot.

If you weren't busy spamming the board with the first thought that comes out of your pea-sized brain... you'd been aware of that.

No, dumbass, you specifically said "never," even capitalizing it to further stress your point.

nev·er  /ˈnɛvər/ [nev-er]

1.not ever; at no time: Such an idea never occurred to me.

2.not at all; absolutely not: never mind; This willnever do.

3.to no extent or degree: He was never the wiser for his experience.

See, M2, as always words fail you...because you're an idiot troll.

Besides, it's not my fault that you're too piss-addled to recall Pete's NFL-talent-rich offensive lines that doled out massive beatings in the rushing game, week after week after week. Sure, USC threw the ball well too, but it was nearly always based off of the success of the running game.

I would add, "But then you already knew that," except that I'm not sure you really do, being that you're pretty much a blithering ditz.

I look forward to toolio's dissertation on how Texas Tech never passed the ball under Mike Leach.

USC male cheerleaders on Gameday.

Wearing shorts and jumping up and down.

Please...make it stop. Now.

Carson wrote:USC male cheerleaders on Gameday.

Wearing shorts and jumping up and down.

Please...make it stop. Now.

Which is worse?

Faggoty USC male cheerleaders, or BigInfinity football?


Jeebus, make Nebraska/Sparty stop.

New member, same boring-assed B11 ball.