T1B

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:20 pm**

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/f ... ml?cnn=yes

This is USC's league until proven otherwise. The two-time defending national champions have gone 22-2 in conference action the past three seasons. They return Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Dwayne Jarrett -- need we go on? -- on offense. They've proven immune to personnel losses under Pete Carroll, who keeps bringing in the nation's top recruiting classes.

But let's face it, no one's invincible, even the Trojans, who will be without the guidance of offensive guru Norm Chow and fiery defensive assistant Ed Orgeron for the first time in the Carroll era. And their schedule, which includes early road games at Oregon and Arizona State, a trip to recent nemesis Cal and a November non-conference game against giant-killer Fresno State, does them no favors. Does anyone want to dethrone the champions?

The most logical candidates to do so are Arizona State, which returns the nucleus of last year's 9-3 team, and Cal, which is coming off a 10-2 campaign and was last team to beat USC, two years ago. Then again, the Sun Devils lost 45-7 to the Trojans last season, and the Bears are in the midst of replacing QB Aaron Rodgers, RB J.J. Arrington and a host of other standouts. The wild-cards are the Ducks, who retooled their offense following their first losing season in 11 years, and UCLA, which has upgraded its talent base but has been wildly inconsistent in two seasons under Karl Dorrell. Both teams should be improved, but all are still looking up at the Men of Troy.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:21 pm**

Sudden Sam wrote:
mothster wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/f ... ml?cnn=yes

This is USC's league until proven otherwise. The two-time defending national champions have gone 22-2 in conference action the past three seasons. They return Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Dwayne Jarrett -- need we go on? -- on offense. They've proven immune to personnel losses under Pete Carroll, who keeps bringing in the nation's top recruiting classes.

But let's face it, no one's invincible, even the Trojans, who will be without the guidance of offensive guru Norm Chow and fiery defensive assistant Ed Orgeron for the first time in the Carroll era. And their schedule, which includes early road games at Oregon and Arizona State, a trip to recent nemesis Cal and a November non-conference game against giant-killer Fresno State, does them no favors. Does anyone want to dethrone the champions?

The most logical candidates to do so are Arizona State, which returns the nucleus of last year's 9-3 team, and Cal, which is coming off a 10-2 campaign and was last team to beat USC, two years ago. Then again, the Sun Devils lost 45-7 to the Trojans last season, and the Bears are in the midst of replacing QB Aaron Rodgers, RB J.J. Arrington and a host of other standouts. The wild-cards are the Ducks, who retooled their offense following their first losing season in 11 years, and UCLA, which has upgraded its talent base but has been wildly inconsistent in two seasons under Karl Dorrell. Both teams should be improved, but all are still looking up at the Men of Troy.
I'm glad to see USC back among the elite, but the PAC-10 is, and has been for years, WEAK.

The only thing weak are your takes. Take the stats, multiply them by 1000 and gently insert them into your rectum. Maybe then some reality will ooze from your cranium and this tired, worn out canard won't permanently damage what infinitesmal modicum of rep you may have remaining....

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:52 pm**

Sudden Sam wrote: I'm glad to see USC back among the elite, but the PAC-10 is, and has been for years, WEAK.

6-1 in BCS games since 2000.

3-1, even taking USC out of it.

BCS conference's records against other BCS conference teams.

Pac-10 48-46
Big-10 57-57
SEC 47-47
ACC 54-54
Big-12 45-45
Big East 44-49

Again, Pac-10 the only team over .500 this century.

Pac-10 exposure is weak. PAc-10 TV contracts are weak. Pac-10 bowl contracts are weak.

But based on play, on the field, your take is also very weak.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:02 pm**

The strength of a confrence shouldn't be judged on the play of the top 2 members, but by the play from top to bottom. Was the Big East the best confrence in America when they had Miami and VaTech?

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:04 pm**

Other than the swimsuit issue, SI has been unreadable for the last 10-15 years

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:03 pm**

Killian wrote:The strength of a confrence shouldn't be judged on the play of the top 2 members, but by the play from top to bottom. Was the Big East the best confrence in America when they had Miami and VaTech?

4 different Pac-10 teams have won BCS games since 2000

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:31 pm**

JayDuck wrote:Pac-10 the only team over .500 this century.

Don't confuse them with facts. The sports radio guys in the eastern US said the PAC10 is weak, so it's weak.

It's funny how the redneck conference people get so bent out of shape that the Left Coasters are better at "their" game.

That's why it's "The Conference Of Champions." Learn it. Know it. Live it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:37 pm**

SEC Ballsucking Homer wrote:

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:09 pm**

JayDuck wrote:
Killian wrote:The strength of a confrence shouldn't be judged on the play of the top 2 members, but by the play from top to bottom. Was the Big East the best confrence in America when they had Miami and VaTech?
4 different Pac-10 teams have won BCS games since 2000

So does the SEC.

Are Oregon State and Washington considered near the top of your confrence?

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:21 pm**

Killian wrote:
JayDuck wrote:
Killian wrote:The strength of a confrence shouldn't be judged on the play of the top 2 members, but by the play from top to bottom. Was the Big East the best confrence in America when they had Miami and VaTech?
4 different Pac-10 teams have won BCS games since 2000
So does the SEC.

Are Oregon State and Washington considered near the top of your confrence?

So, does that mean that the SEC is also weak?

For the record, I am not claiming that the Pac-10 is the best conference, only that people that say it is weak are not going by play on the field.

As for OSU and Washington....Not this year...point?

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:44 pm**

On ESPN the other day USC was called the "Grinch That Stole College Football" They called them this because they are so much better than everyone else that they have removed all debate from the pre season.
I thought that was a bit much, I hope theyre not trying to turn USC in to Oklahoma by over-hyping them

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:11 pm**

The Pac 10 is not the weakest conference in the land, but it's also not the strongest. I agree with Jay Duck that the perception of the conference is wrong, and to a large extent I think it's driven by TV and time zones.

By the numbers, the Pac 10 has done very well in the bowls. You can't dispute that.

I've said before I think the SEC is the most entertaining conference to watch...there is a lot of parity in that league and teams beat the shit out of each other all season long. The true hatered that hangs over southern football fans is awesome, and is great for TV. Plus, it is a very storied conference.

Strip out the hatred factor, and the longer history, and the SEC is the Pac 10. Plenty of parity between teams that are at-risk of losing each and every week.

Those who say the Pac 10 is WEAK have likely never watched a season of Pac 10 play. If they did, you'd see a better appreciation for it.

That said, I could give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about the strength of my conference. It hasn't slowed us down in the past three years from finishing in the top 3...twice at number 1.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:37 am**

Hey, how strong is the Pac-10? USC has how many games vs top 5 teams? Top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

Yep, that Pac-10 is loaded(severe sarcasm).

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:27 pm**

Since the inception of Direct TV and the Fox sports regional networks, the opportunity to see 9 pm CST Pac 10 games has given me good reason to watch some very entertaining games.

I personnal feel the Pac 10 plays a good brand of football and with scholarship limits being in place, prop 48 being abolished, and the talent pool out west, how can it not have evolved into a conference on equal footing?

I think the lackadaisical national perception is based solely on what was lack of exposure and the half empty stadiums that you'd see on television.

The SEC and the noted power teams (and not so powerful teams) of the other major conferences have expected sell-out crowds for decades.

When the rest of the country would see vacant seats, it would seem they don't care about football with the same passion as the south and middle america. Thus the expectations must be lower by the locals, than fans east of the Rockies. Consequently the rest of the country believes they can't play up to our standards.

I believe this was a perception perpetuated from the 60's through the 80's.
That mentality has been a road block for the Pac-10 to overcome in many parts of the country.

However, it seems to be changing. SC has seen to that.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:02 pm**

^^^holy shite, rack that

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:29 pm**

Cuda wrote:Other than the swimsuit issue, SI has been unreadable for the last 10-15 years

Didn't know there was text in the swimsuit issue.

T1B

si pac-10 preview

si pac-10 preview

Re: si pac-10 preview

Re: si pac-10 preview

Re: si pac-10 preview