Answer this QUESTION GUYS????

VegasDave · 10-14-08, 08:35 PM

What the hell is your beef with USC man?

First of all, you can't just declare that all of these teams would run the table every year. Teams slip up... it happens.

Secondly, this is the first year the Pac-10 has been THIS bad. It has been the 2nd or 3rd best conference in the nation over the past few years. USC really can't do anything about their conference falling apart around them.

Their 3 out-of-conference games are NOT cupcakes. @Virginia was supposed to be tough, Ohio State was #3 in the country coming off of 2 national championship appearances, and Notre Dame is always on the schedule and a great rivalry game.

I get it dude - they don't deserve to be in the National Championship game. I agree with you on that, they lost to Oregon State which was inexcusable.

But you can't blame USC that the Pac-10 crumbled, and all 3 of their out of conference games are respectable. Your LSU took App State and North Texas... I'm shivering in my boots on those ones.

Once again, you can't declare these other teams would run the table. Every year upsets happen and it is very hard to stay undefeated no matter who you play. Please cut this shit out, it is getting annoying.

tland22 · 10-14-08, 09:07 PM

USC plays the worst college athletes they can possibly think to put in front of them....

tland22 · 10-14-08, 09:08 PM

USC would have had 4 losses last year if they had LSU's schedule....and they would have 4 losses this year if they had Georgia's schedule.... they'd have 4 losses with OU, Mizzou, or Texas or OK st schedule as well.....
GUARANTEE that.

ZBOIZ · 10-14-08, 09:08 PM

And with App. State and North Texas LSU schedule is still tougher than USC!!!

And if it's getting annoying than dont read it! It's simple! Don't read!??!!??!!

Hell Florida is not playing a tough out of conference schedule, and there schedule is still tougher! Hell they play THE CITADEL later this year!!

ZBOIZ · 10-14-08, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by usckingsfan31

What the hell is your beef with USC man?

First of all, you can't just declare that all of these teams would run the table every year. Teams slip up... it happens.

Secondly, this is the first year the Pac-10 has been THIS bad. It has been the 2nd or 3rd best conference in the nation over the past few years. USC really can't do anything about their conference falling apart around them.

Their 3 out-of-conference games are NOT cupcakes. @Virginia was supposed to be tough, Ohio State was #3 in the country coming off of 2 national championship appearances, and Notre Dame is always on the schedule and a great rivalry game.

I get it dude - they don't deserve to be in the National Championship game. I agree with you on that, they lost to Oregon State which was inexcusable.

But you can't blame USC that the Pac-10 crumbled, and all 3 of their out of conference games are respectable. Your LSU took App State and North Texas... I'm shivering in my boots on those ones.

Once again, you can't declare these other teams would run the table. Every year upsets happen and it is very hard to stay undefeated no matter who you play. Please cut this shit out, it is getting annoying.

And this post was directed to ya boy HOOPSTAR!

masr · 10-14-08, 10:26 PM

USC will be there at the end and we'll see...
Pete Carroll just has to learn to motivate his boys a lil better..maybe stick cayenne peppers up their ass!!
And if not the Finals, I guess we'll take the ROSES again

ZBOIZ · 10-14-08, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by masr

USC will be there at the end and we'll see...
Pete Carroll just has to learn to motivate his boys a lil better..maybe stick cayenne peppers up their ass!!
And if not the Finals, I guess we'll take the ROSES again

I would'nt mind Penn. St vs. USC in the Rose Bowl

masr · 10-14-08, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by ZBOIZ

I would'nt mind Penn. St vs. USC in the Rose Bowl

Yes, that would definetly be a good game!!

VegasDave · 10-15-08, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by ZBOIZ

And this post was directed to ya boy HOOPSTAR!

He is not my boy, he is a USC kool-aid drinking idiot.

Yes, we all know how tough the SEC is.

But USC, talent-wise, can compete with anyone in the country. I agree with you their schedule is soft and they don't deserve to go to the title game even if they win out.

But you need to acknowledge that they are consistently top-5 in recruiting and they have an outstanding team.

It is completely hypocritical to say LSU doesn't get enough respect/credit and then turn around and say USC is overrated and no good.

If strength of schedule decided who the best team was, Tennessee and Arkansas could make a case that they are the best teams in the country.

The truth is, if USC were in the SEC, they would be a 1, 2, or 3 loss team, just like the rest of the elite in the conference.

Boy Jeenyus · 10-15-08, 09:29 AM

This happens every year, people making cases about how a team is better/worse than rated. It's just a side effect from the absence of a playoff to determine the championship. Since we don't get to see all of the elite teams play it out on the field, everyone spends so much time making cases. No matter how good they are, when you get down to it, there is a significant degree of speculation. One of my favorite arguements is "My one-loss team lost to a better team than the one that beat your one-loss team, so my team is better." Yep, that one holds a lot of water. Unfortunately often this theory is just as good or better than any other case out there.

The current system penalizes a loss very severely. If you have one loss, then you're on the outside looking in waiting for someone else to lose. Because of that the teams in the power conferences cannot afford to play their conf schedule and then load up on more than one good non-con. Many times that tough non-con is occupied by a rivalry. USC is one exception. They do get decent competition for their non-cons. They can't help it if the rest of the conference is down this year.

I haven't been on this board long and haven't seen it here yet, but elsewhere every season I also get tired of hearing some homers make their cases about how their conference is always better. There are many SEC fans that think the SEC is toughest every year. I guess the same goes for fans of other conferences too. A couple of years ago I heard the same thing about the Big 10 before Ohio St & Michigan got beat convincingly in bowls. You want to know who is the best conference every year? I'll tell you: It changes from year to year. As a matter of fact, when conference is loaded one year, they are set up to take a step back the next if they lose a bunch of stars early to the draft. The SEC is always one of the best and often are the toughest conference, but not every year. Last year I think the Pac 10 was probably best. This year the SEC is good, but I would give the nod to the Big 12. Again, no one can make a case without some speculation. There just aren't enough good intraconference games.

It's a flawed process that is a byproduct of a severely flawed system. Remember two years ago when Florida beat Ohio St convincingly for the championship? Just think, the Gators probably wouldn't have made it to that game if Louisville had not lost to Rutgers late in season. The Gators obviously proved they belonged there, but they need the state univ of NJ to pull off a big comeback to get the spot. Still, before the bowls were played out there were a lot of people that year saying that Michigan deserved to get a second crack at the Buckeyes after losing a close one to them in their season finale. Instead the Wolverines ended up getting pummeled in the second half against USC in the Rose Bowl.

I don't buy the saying "Well, this way every game is a playoff game." It wasn't long ago when Auburn went through the SEC undefeated and got shut out by Oklahoma and USC who were also undefeated. I'm not saying Auburn deserved to replace one of the other two teams, but the problem was we had three legitimate qualifiers and only two spots. Auburn ended up getting a nice BCS bowl bid, but as far as the national championship game went that season, they did all they could but were still shut out. Every game for the 2004 Aubbies was not a playoff. On the contrary, every one of them were meaningless-at least as far as qualifying them for the championship game. If their success against their schedule meant anything they would have gotten the chance to play for the championship that they deserved. If either Oklahoma or USC had gotten shut out that season they could have made the same case. I think the thing that got Auburn in the end was a non-con against the Citadel. Now I'm not saying the Citadel is a tough opponent, but Auburn still went undefeated in the SEC, beat a top 20 Tennessee team for a second time for the championship, and were snubbed because of some weak non-cons. Contray to popular opinion, a weak schedule does not always mean a weak team. It just opens the door to the possibility that they aren't as good as their record might suggest. Auburn's success in the SEC that year proved they were legit. The other knock on them the pollsters had was a sound defeat to USC in a game that took place the previous season. How's that for getting penalized for a season opening loss? It helped to knock them out of a championship at the end of the season one year later.

Well, I'm rambling now. Please pardon me, we've only finished week 7. I usually don't get worked up about the BCS system until a couple of weeks later in the season. College football is a great game and it really irks me that we spend an entire season watching great action and we're left with our champion determined by such a screwed up process. Who was champion back in 2003? Was it LSU? Was it USC? Even having a remote possibility of a split national champion is ridiculous. The fans make this game great and they deserve better closure at the end of the season. The system works fine if we have only two (no more, no less) elite teams like USC & Texas back in 2005. Let's hope when all the dust has settled on the regular season we have that situation again this year. Unfortunately if we do it would be because the current BCS system got lucky, not because it is appropriate.

etothep · 10-15-08, 09:46 AM

fyi - posting in caps doesn't make you any more credible

ZBOIZ · 10-15-08, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by etothep

fyi - posting in caps doesn't make you any more credible

I know........ but thanks for the input

TPowell · 10-15-08, 02:33 PM

I agree, USC plays a shit schedule every year for some reason. They should really try to schedule a home and home with a top SEC/Big 12 school and see where it goes.

MaurySline · 10-15-08, 04:30 PM

The current system penalizes a loss very severely. If you have one loss, then you're on the outside looking in waiting for someone else to lose. Because of that the teams in the power conferences cannot afford to play their conf schedule and then load up on more than one good non-con. Many times that tough non-con is occupied by a rivalry. USC is one exception. They do get decent competition for their non-cons. They can't help it if the rest of the conference is down this year.

THAT is BS, LSU had Losses last year and STILL got in, the VOTERS LOVE the SEC, the computers did not, so they eliminated the computers. the voters do not love western teams. they never see them,

Boy Jeenyus · 10-15-08, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by MaurySline

The current system penalizes a loss very severely. If you have one loss, then you're on the outside looking in waiting for someone else to lose. Because of that the teams in the power conferences cannot afford to play their conf schedule and then load up on more than one good non-con. Many times that tough non-con is occupied by a rivalry. USC is one exception. They do get decent competition for their non-cons. They can't help it if the rest of the conference is down this year.

THAT is BS, LSU had Losses last year and STILL got in, the VOTERS LOVE the SEC, the computers did not, so they eliminated the computers. the voters do not love western teams. they never see them,

Do you even remember the circumstances last year? The ONLY reason that two-loss LSU made it in there was because there were only two "less-than-two" loss teams available-Ohio St & Kansas. Ohio St had an absolutely ludicrous non-con schedule in 07 and they were the #1 seed. They couldn't put Kansas in there in front of Missouri because the Tigers waxed them. They couldn't put Mizzou in there in front of Oklahoma because the Sooners beat them twice. That threw the second spot up for grabs among the 2-loss BCS teams. LSU's case was comparable to or better than any of them. If you wanted to say someone like USC or Oklahoma should have gotten in there instead you could make a decent case. However you could not say that either one of those two had fewer losses than LSU. If there had been any other one-loss champion of one of the other power conferences, then LSU would not have gotten the second spot. Who do you think should have gotten the spot instead of LSU, undefeated Hawaii??

MaurySline · 10-21-08, 02:32 PM

all i am saying is that 2 loss USC or oregon, or west coast team will never get the same treatment as 2 loss team from the SEC , or other eastern school, who the VOTeRS watch all the time

i like the computers because they treated all losses the same, regardless if you lose in september or November. Humans penalize teams more for losing in november...the computer also does not "know" what a team is called, the computer doesnt are about BIG NAME recogition school" Humans do.

aiyerrc · 10-21-08, 03:06 PM

and the ever looming outcry for a playoff system shows its ugly face AGAIN...SEC is the dominate conference in college football. hands down.

national championship should be:

whatever the rest of the country can throw together VS an SEC team

defense is a lost art in todays game

daneblazer · 10-21-08, 03:19 PM

Hate to break it to you , but LSU's schedule is weak this year compared to the past. Troy, App St. North Texas, and Tulane...woohoo. They play a total of 4 away games this year. As much as I don't like them, At least USC scheduled some out of conference competition

WestsidePete · 10-21-08, 03:19 PM

Remember this people....USC is 17-1 under Pete Carroll vs top ten teams for those who call them overrated....

Doc JS · 10-21-08, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by WestsidePete

Remember this people....USC is 17-1 under Pete Carroll vs top ten teams for those who call them overrated....

WSP,
USC's problem isn't with the top ten teams of the world...it's with the Stanford's and Oregon State's of the world!

Doc

patsfan2727 · 10-21-08, 05:56 PM

NCAA football is jacked up, until they can come up with a playoff system.
I'm sorry, but your CONFERENCE does not determine how good a team you are. Penn State is undefeated, has blown out almost every single opponent, yet people are calling them overrated. really, I'm so sick of hearing how GREAT the SEC conference is. there is talent out there in EVERY conference. Your college should not be penalized for how good or bad the rest of yoru conference is, thats like saying the Pats should not have made the playoffs because the AFC EAST is weak. doesn't make sense in pro sports either! SEC IS OVERRATED, and if you have a problem with this go give a reacharound to Mark May, as you discuss the SEC

I.R.B · 10-22-08, 02:03 AM

CUPCAKE SCHEDULE