AT Auburn, AT South Carolina, AT Florida, AT Tennessee! ROTFLMAO! How many of those road games do you think Southern Cal is going to win?! There is absolutely no way they win more than two of those and they could lose every single one of them. OH and Ole Miss was the worst team in the conference this year, so that is not a middle of the pack team. South Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama are middle of the road teams right now and they would have contended for an ACC title, a Pac 10 title, a Big East Title, a Big 10 title, etc. You put those teams in those conferences and they will be conference powerhouses. Kentucky beat this LSU team that OSU got killed by! And people forget that South Carolina was rolling with wins at Georgia and against Kentucky before they had their four best defensive starters get hurt. That cripples a young team. And about atmosphere, that is not opinion, that is fact. Go to one of the venues I mentioned and then get back with me.
-
Comment -
With that schedule listed, I'd think USC would either go undefeated or lose 1 game... sorry I find the SEC rather overrated, they may be the best conference but the middle of the road SEC teams are no better than the middle of the road teams from other BCS conferences... Kentucky beat Louisville with 20 seconds left, in Lexington, Louisville finished 5th in the Big EastComment -
It's been over 7 years since USC has lost by more than 7 points.Comment -
Well, let's see, Auburn lost AT HOME to Mississippi State and South Florida, who in turn got smoked by Oregon and their 5th QB. South Carolina lost AT HOME to Vandy. Florida is a good team and could give USC trouble, but it's not a stretch to say that USC could win there. Tennessee lost to Cal at the start of the year and needed a last second FG to beat Vandy. SC, UK and Bama wouldn't sniff a title in another conference either. The Pac-10's 7th place team beat Tennessee! Missouri beat Arky in the Cotton Bowl.
Again, I have no problem with someone saying that the SEC is the best conference, but SC, or Kentucky, or Alabama, or Miss State wouldn't contend for any BCS conference title.Comment -
Vols= mofo
USC= imgv
Vols CBB team lookin good.. close one today but they pulled it out
Comment -
USC would lose several games every year due to the in-game coaching of Petey C.Comment -
yes, but lets be honest for a moment, the SEC is much better than the pac-10, the sec road venues are tougher to win at, the coaching is better in the sec, the talent is far greater in the sec. with all of that, why do you suspect they would probably do the same? the top recruiting classes are always. the SEC, Texas, and USC. its not as if the whos who of recruiting reads as follows, arizona, stanford, oregon state, asu and usc.
Comment -
I wouldn't say that the SEC is MUCH better then the Pac-10. Not to mention that USC almost every year schedules much tougher OOC then SEC teams do.yes, but lets be honest for a moment, the SEC is much better than the pac-10, the sec road venues are tougher to win at, the coaching is better in the sec, the talent is far greater in the sec. with all of that, why do you suspect they would probably do the same? the top recruiting classes are always. the SEC, Texas, and USC. its not as if the whos who of recruiting reads as follows, arizona, stanford, oregon state, asu and usc.
If Mississippi State can go 7-5, and all Alabama needed to do was beat UL-Monroe to go 7-5, I doubt USC would have trouble going 10-2.Comment -
yes, but imo, that reasoning doesnt actually make sense. standford won 4 games this year, one was at USC. i could easily say, stanford lost to notre dame, who lost to navy, who lost to delaware....if they could beat USC, i doubt ole miss wouldnt. usc has lost a lot of coaches and truly, overall, their in game coaching just isnt that good. at the end of the year, whats USCs most impressive win? oregon state? thats neat. USC wins games by having MUCH more talent than other teams. in the sec, they couldnt win that way. the current SEC rosters will send many more players to the NFL than those of the Pac-10. and the fact is, things are not getting closer...next year the SEC will be much much much better than everyone else. the sec is #1 by far, then next year it will probably be the big-12, and then i guess the pac-10. USC is just an sec school in the pac-10, and they win it every year. they certainly wouldnt do that in the big boys league.
have a look at this little fact: in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined, there was one pac-10 team, aside from usc, that was in the top 10 in recruiting, in one of those season. cal was #9 in 2005. thats it. its neat that USC beats up some teams that have much less talent, but they couldnt do that week in and week out in a the best league in the country. the sec is a boat load better than the pac-10. sure the pac-10 has some nice teams every once in a while, but the SEC just reloads and the gap is getting larger.Comment -
My main point with that is the Mississippi State went 7-5 in the SEC. USC is much better then MS.yes, but imo, that reasoning doesnt actually make sense. standford won 4 games this year, one was at USC. i could easily say, stanford lost to notre dame, who lost to navy, who lost to delaware....if they could beat USC, i doubt ole miss wouldnt.
This year there really wasn't one. Butusc has lost a lot of coaches and truly, overall, their in game coaching just isnt that good. at the end of the year, whats USCs most impressive win? oregon state? thats neat.
I wouldn't say it's for lack of trying. They had scheduled to play at Nebraska and Notre Dame. Most years that would end your title hopes.Did they have much more talent then #14 Auburn is 2002? #17Notre Dame in 2002? #8 Iowa? 2003 they beat #6 Michigan and #9 WSU. 2004? Well, they beat ACC champ Va Tech, #9 Cal, #19 ASU, and Oklahoma.USC wins games by having MUCH more talent than other teams.Mo, I hear that almost every year. I remember hearing in 2004 that if USC played in the Big 12 South they would finish 3rd at best. The Sooner Nation still visits the proctologist because of that game. I've heard it from the Big 10, about how they will show those west coast pretty boys how to play football, and watch as they get destroyed.in the sec, they couldnt win that way.True, but the vast majority of those draft picks come from the top 6. The bottom 6 don't send much to the NFL. In the Pac-10 it is much more balanced.the current SEC rosters will send many more players to the NFL than those of the Pac-10.
That is neat, but don't put too much stock in scout and rivals. Bob Stoops recruited much better then John Blake, but won a title with Blake's players. Remember in 2000 when Oregon State finished #4? Erickson did that with some of the worst recruiting classes. He did a decent job recruiting, but Reily hasn't had the same success.have a look at this little fact: in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined, there was one pac-10 team, aside from usc, that was in the top 10 in recruiting, in one of those season. cal was #9 in 2005. thats it.Number of teams that USC beat that finished in the AP top 10 since 2002: 7 For LSU in the same period: 3, if you count Georgia twice in 2003.its neat that USC beats up some teams that have much less talent, but they couldnt do that week in and week out in a the best league in the country. the sec is a boat load better than the pac-10. sure the pac-10 has some nice teams every once in a while, but the SEC just reloads and the gap is getting largerComment -
1) asu tied for the pac-10 title, alabama is as good as asu. so what?
2) most years nebraska and nd would do what to your title hopes? im not sure what football you've been watching, but do either of those schools have 1 bcs win? 1? the bcs has been around 10 years mind you.
3) i couldnt care less about what anyone else says about the big-12 or the big-10, those people dont know enough about football to talk about it. the sec has nothing to do with the big-12 or the big-10. those conferences arent all that close to the level of the SEC. USC recruits nationally, not just in the west. the people you talked to likely arent all that bright? idk
4) the pac-10 is much more what? the sec sent 9 teams to bowl games, my friend. 9. they covered 7 of'em i believe. the pac-10 has 10 teams, the sec had 7 teams win bowl games.
5) recruiting is neat now? i see. why wouldnt i put much stock in it? the best recruiting teams have been Florida, UGA, LSU, Texas and USC. now, dear, do any of those teams have recent titles? yeah, maybe i'll put some stock into recruiting. afterall, coaches do.
6) your lunch tasted delicious.
Comment -
1) Alabama is not as good as ASU1) asu tied for the pac-10 title, alabama is as good as asu. so what?
2) most years nebraska and nd would do what to your title hopes? im not sure what football you've been watching, but do either of those schools have 1 bcs win? 1? the bcs has been around 10 years mind you.
3) i couldnt care less about what anyone else says about the big-12 or the big-10, those people dont know enough about football to talk about it. the sec has nothing to do with the big-12 or the big-10. those conferences arent all that close to the level of the SEC. USC recruits nationally, not just in the west. the people you talked to likely arent all that bright? idk
4) the pac-10 is much more what? the sec sent 9 teams to bowl games, my friend. 9. they covered 7 of'em i believe. the pac-10 has 10 teams, the sec had 7 teams win bowl games.
5) recruiting is neat now? i see. why wouldnt i put much stock in it? the best recruiting teams have been Florida, UGA, LSU, Texas and USC. now, dear, do any of those teams have recent titles? yeah, maybe i'll put some stock into recruiting. afterall, coaches do.
6) your lunch tasted delicious.
2) Historically, playing at Nebraska and Notre Dame would kill title hopes. Both those teams have more MNC's then any SEC school not named Alabama. And Nebraska does have more BCS bowl wins then Ole Miss, MSU, Arky, UK, Vandy and SC have combined.
3) Well, those people were Sooner and Hawkeye fans. Read into that what you want.
4) Perhaps if the SEC would play a 9 game conference schedule (which would result in a 6-6 record instead of the 12-0 they get by playing the Sun Belt and 1-AA) like the Pac-10 does, and play GOOD OOC teams on the road like the Pac-10 does, they wouldn't send that many. I read last summer that the Big 10 was thinking of adding a 9th conference game, but decided not to. The reason why was that they would have about 1 less team per year go to a bowl.
5) I said don't but TOO much stock in recruiting. I'm not saying it's not important, but if Bob Stoops can win a title with a bunch of 3* players, he should be able to win about 5 titles the way he recruited. The Big 12 is not as good now as it was in 2000, yet now he can't seem to win a bowl game.
6) I'm glad you liked my lunch, I do eat well.Comment -
get the fuk outta here wit this bullShit.
wat an idiotic comment.
USC Trojans 10 years before Pete Carroll:
Record 67-54 (55%)
"ZERO" top 10 finishes
Highest win total from 1991 to 2000 was "9" games
Went .500 or worse in six of the ten seasons.
USC Trojans with Pete Carroll:
Record of 76-14 (84%)
"FIVE" BCS bowl victories **RECORD
SIX consecutive 11-win seasons. **RECORD
SIX consecutive BCS bowl appearances **RECORD
SIX consecutive years as Pac-10 Champions or Co-Champions **RECORD
33 consecutive weeks as AP's No. 1-ranked team **RECORD
63 straight 20-point games **RECORD
12-2 against traditional rivals Notre Dame and UCLA
Two BCS Championship Game appearances (win over Oklahoma, loss to Texas)
Six Associated Press Top-4 finishes, including the split 2003 national championship and the undisputed 2004 national championship.
Win streaks for home games (34) and Pac-10 home games (22).Comment -
1) bama is as good as asu, kentucky is better.
2) haha, did you just reference national titles when talking about neb and nd? well, why not schedule minnesota, yale, and harvard to beef up your resume?
3) those people were sooner and hawkeye fans? i dont need to read anything into people talking up the big-10 or big-12. a big-12 team did take it to USC the last time the trojans played for it all, but that wasnt because USC was some soft west coast team. USC and OSU have had 1 or 2 real games a season recently and thats gotten them into chances to win it all. its pretty simple. just put the best non SEC team in against the best from the SEC, and we'll see how that goes. the last couple years thats been the system and it seems to work well.
4) maybe the sec should just play the most talented teams week in and week out. oh, wait, they do. the sec has more players in the nfl, by a decent margin, than any other conference. why go somewhere else to play the best when you have a built in season of it. my vols play cal, ucla, nd and teams like that out of conference...seems more than fair enough? lsu played the best team from the ACC and beat them by 106.
5) again, USC, Texas, LSU, Florida, UGA...those teams have had the most success in recruiting over the last 6 years.
USC - national title
Texas - national title
LSU - national title
Florida - national title
UGA - likely pre season #1 next year. finished 07/08 as #2.
id put a bit of stock into it. there is a reason pete pays the kids so well. recruiting is the biggest part of college football.Comment -
Hey mofo lets talk some Erik Ainge for a sec.
I personally think he's solid, think he could be a NFL starter one day. Am I wrong here?Comment -
the mental factor is what hes missing. the vols have LSU beat, but he throws them a pic-6 to lose the game. they go right back down the field and he throws another pic. both in a his biggest game, as a sr, with no pressure, and open options elsewhere. thats just one game...but its telling. then you see that hes only been sacked 3 times...why is that? its because the guys is the biggest pussy in sports. when someone gets near him, he throws the ball away or back peddles and heaves it. personally, im happy to see him leaving town. hes got the arm, the size, and hes bright enough...but under fire hes just got no balls. i cant imagine him hangin in an NFL pocket.Comment
