My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    September 2016

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30  
    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 01/2004

    « USC releases 2008 football depth chart | Main | Forget Gustav, What About Fay? »

    August 23, 2008


    lex icon

    Yeah, anonymous, I think I'll do a post for this season. The crap talk has been fun every season, with the exception of the accusations of child molestation that pop up from time to time. Once I put that post up, which might be as early as tonight or as late as Thursday, I'll close the comments for this post.

    Let's get ready for some football!


    is there going to be a crap talk session this year? i havent seen anything yet.

    Michael J

    One of Trey's comments had to be approved because it used a word on the spamblock list. But he's never accused another commenter of raping his own child, so his comments, unlike some others' are not automatically referred to the moderation folder. And unfortunately, I've had some stuff going on lately that leaves me with little time to blog here or moderate comments with F-words and comments from people who have have defamatory comments in the past, so I get to them when I get to them.

    Nathan Frizzell

    OH...and, by the way... I DID count VA Tech when I noted USC played 4 ranked teams in '04. Which is the same number as Auburn (plus Auburn played #13 Tennessee TWICE). Not to mention Auburn ALSO played VA Tech that year and beat them.

    So still, I fail to be impressed by USC's schedule over Auburn's.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Notice, Trey, how I said it sucks that USC has to SHARE it INSTEAD OF WINNING IT.

    We (LSU) won it. USC did NOT.

    That sucks. So sorry.


    Frizzie, even after getting a second shot, your recap of 2004 was off. You neglected to mention that USC beat three teams that ENDED the season in the top ten (Cal, VaTech, Oklahoma) - a feat they repeated last season (Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State). Florida's schedule this year was not as hard. Auburn's schedule in 2004 was not as hard.


    Frizzie, it doesn't suck for USC that they had to share the first of their back to back national titles. USC loves it. LSU fans are the little ranters and ravers. Cry all you want. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, USC lost one game, to Cal. We played in three national title games and won two of them. USC fans loved it. Sucks for us - not!


    Yes, gibberish, as a matter of fact the SEC sucks balls in basketball. Two years ago, the SEC didn't suck balls, but now they do. The SEC has ZERO teams in the top 25 in any poll, and not even any teams close to being ranked. LSU would be #30 in one of the polls. Throw a fucking parade for them. Your conference champion will be lucky to get a 6 or 7 seed. The WAC, West Coast, Horizon and Atlantic 10 all are better than the SEC. The SEC is about the 10th best conference in basketball this year. That sucks balls.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Sucks for USC that they'll always have shared the national title, as opposed to winning it, like LSU did.


    Sure OK was the team that should not have made the game, but that meant that LSU only got a crack at one of USC's #1 rankings. The BCS-bound coaches poll. Sucks for LSU that they didn't get a crack at USC's #1 AP ranking.

    Nathan Frizzell

    excuse me...
    ESPN was sending me to the wrong yr.

    here are the REAL stats for 04:
    USC- 4 ranked opponents.
    Auburn- 4 ranked opponents, played #13 Tennessee twice.

    for 03:
    USC- played ONLY 2 ranked teams, which included #4 Michigan.
    LSU- played 4 ranked teams.

    i still fail to see a superior PAC-10 schedule.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Secondly, just because the BCS made the mistake of putting Oklahoma into the BCS Championship over USC- even though NO ONE DISGAREED THAT LSU EARNED ITS SPOT THERE- does that mean USC gets a piece of LSU's victory? NO.

    If OK had won, THEN an argument for USC might have made more sense.

    LSU belonged there, LSU got put there, LSU won...shut up.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Really Dan?

    Let's recap 04 for USC:
    wins against 5 teams with losing season (just like this past season!), including WINLESS WA and 2-11 WA State. Played against 2 Top Ten Teams: OK, 2 and VA Tech, 8. Played only 2 other teams that finished ranked #16 BYU and #24 Cal.

    Now Auburn:
    wins against 5 teams with losing season (except all teams had at least 4 wins, including I-AA opponent, which is DOUBLE the wins of WA State and FOUR TIMES the number of wins of WA). Also played against 2 teams that finished Top Ten: AL, 4 and VA Tech, 8. Also played 2 other ranked teams #15 GA and #25 Mississippi.

    So, how was USC's schedule SO much tougher? Sure, Auburn played a I-AA team, but I ask you- if WA can't manage a single win in I-A, do they really belong there (esp. cuz it happens A LOT)? How about WA State- who also squeaks out a victory or two throughout their seasons on a regular basis??? At least Citadel won their games...and as we all know, sometimes I-AA teams can play a big game- just ask Michigan.


    Simply put:

    2003 Season Record against Division I-A:
    LSU, 12-1.
    USC, 12-1.

    2004 Season Record against Division I-A:
    USC, 13-0.
    Auburn, 12-0.

    Let me break that down for you, wins over Division I-AA mean nothing. LSU played more games and had more victories than USC did only because of the extra game against the Fighting Leathernecks of Division I-AA. While in 04, BOTH USC and AUBURN finished UNDEFEATED, but USC played more Division I-A teams, and played much better teams than Auburn played, and the only way Auburn got to 13-0 was by playing a home game against The Citadel. That's one of the many reasons why everyone in the country agreed that Auburn was #2, in sharp contrast to 2003, when USC was #1 in every poll going into the bowls, where USC dominated #4 Michigan, and the BCS Championship decided the winner between #2 and #3 in the nation.

    Scarlett Knight

    Why is it necessary to rag on the Big East here. The Big East is 7-2 against the SEC since 2005.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Dan just absolutely proved my point.
    Thank you very much.

    It's so hypocritical to say Auburn "wishes" they had a National Title but they didn't deserve it. That's blind, desperate PAC-10 wishful thinking. Simply put:

    2003 Season Record:
    LSU, 13-1.
    USC, 12-1.

    2004 Season Record:
    USC, 13-0.
    Auburn, 13-0.

    Let me break that down for you, LSU played more games and had more victories than USC did. While in 04, BOTH USC and AUBURN finished UNDEFEATED.

    Looking at these numbers, USC had LESS of a claim to a share of the Title than did Auburn. Who cares if the AP has been long-respected? If they ignored Auburn and raised USC up one season apart, they're biased or ignorant and either way lost their credibility. End of story.

    And this notion that PAC-10 schools have such a difficult schedule: USC played 6 teams with losing records (SIX!!!), including 2-11 WA State and WINLESS Washington!!! That's 1/2 of the PAC-10's best school's regular season record!!! Then 3 other teams they beat, had 7-6 (Dame), 8-5 (AZ), and 9-5 (Cal) records. Not very impressive to me.

    lex icon

    I'm not sure what was meant by a "consensus" number one, but if it meant unanimous, the remark was pretty close to being right. Here are the AP votes in question for the BCS game winners:

    2008: Florida (48), Utah (16), USC (1)
    2007: LSU (60), Georgia (3), USC (1), Kansas (1)
    2003: LSU (17), USC (48)

    In every other year since the BCS began, the BCS championship game winner has received every first place vote, or all but one first place vote. No controversy there. USC's national championship in 2004 was beyond any meaningful dispute, although they had a legitimate argument that they championship would have been best settled through a playoff (not as good as 2008 Utah's argument, since Utah was undefeated and Florida was not).

    The anonymous commentor who posted at 14:16 is, I believe, incorrect. There were two 6-6 bowl teams from the SEC, but one of them, Vanderbilt, was among the four SEC teams that did not feast on FCS teams.

    Nathan, there are no conspiracy theorists here, just USC fans who are frustrated that the SEC teams automatically gets the assumption of greatness, even over our mighty Trojans. We saw top SEC teams get exposed over and over again this season, and frankly, we don't think the road to the BCS championship game was any easier for USC than it was for any SEC team. Yes, our conference is a bit down, and about one Alabama team short of being the SEC's equal at the moment, but the top Pac-10 teams scheduled Alabama-caliber non-conference opponents that fully made up for it in overall schedule (USC/Ohio State, Oregon/Boise State, Oregon State/Utah & Penn State). Cal played Michigan State, ASU played Georgia, UCLA played Tennessee and BYU, Stanford played TCU, Washington State played Oklahoma State, Washington played BYU and Oklahoma. USC and Stanford also played Notre Dame, who did not stink when we booked them. Only Arizona played a patsy non-conference schedule.

    With the SEC conference being quite average after the top two teams this year, it is wrong to assume that going through the SEC with one loss is vastly superior to going through the Pac-10, plus Ohio State and two other BCS teams, with one loss.


    The AP title has been regarded as the most legitimate national championship vote since 1936. USC won it in 2003. The USC/LSU split is accepted by everyone outside of LSU and a few SEC freaks. You absolutely CAN call that a shared national title one year then THE VERY NEXT F'ING YEAR you turn right around and IGNORE the fact that Auburn WISHES it had a share of the title, even though no one voted them number one. You may WISH Auburn should have been someone's #1 in 2004, but the FACT is that they weren't. Nobody with a brain thought Auburn had any claim to the national championship over USC. If the AP had voted Auburn #1, then it would have been a split title. There is no true national title game is football. It is only the "bowl championship series" title game. Some years, the winner of that game will be an undisputed champion. Some years, it will not.

    Tinfoil Hat

    God Damn It! Someone mentioned a conspiracy theory and so I read through everything here and don't see a conpiracy theory anywhere. What a waste of my time!

    5-0 is better than 6-2. More to the point, if wins over Division I-AA teams didn't count, which they shouldn't, the SEC wouldn't have had 8 teams in bowls. They would have had ... wait for it ...
    SIX teams. Yes, two of the SEC teams got into bowls with 6-6 records ONLY because they traded real games for games against lower division teams. Only six out of twelve teams in the SEC finished the regular season with 6 or more wins over Division I-A schools. That's the same percentage as the Pac-10 and far lower than the Big Ten or ACC. Those teams went 5-1. So it's still about the SEC's bullshit cupcake scheduling.

    Nathan Frizzell

    You know guys keep bringing up that LSU and Florida didn't receive #1 votes from non-bound polls (and by the way you're wrong about LSU in 2007 and FL in 2008, they received the #1 votes in ALL polls- go check the rankings on if you disagree), but the fact that USC DID receive the #1 vote from ALL polls in 2004 when Auburn was ALSO undefeated shows that those "non-bound" polls are just as bullshit and biased as the BCS is flawed. You can't say one team shares a national title one year (especially when at the end of 2003, LSU was 13-1 and USC was 12-1) as the BCS champion and then THE VERY NEXT F'ING YEAR you turn right around and IGNORE the fact that it happened to the same team!!! If USC was the AP's #1 in 04, Auburn should have been someone's #1 in 2004- especially SINCE Auburn had the EXACT same record as USC.

    We keep going around in circles on this and ya'll keep ignoring the contradictions you're making!!!! Face it...either LSU was the only REAL National Championship in 2003 or the fact that USC DIDN'T SHARE the National title with Auburn means that the AP is as full of crap as anything else in college football. The National Title game should be the ONLY determining factor for the National Championship--- or any poll that votes opposite is hypocritical.

    Either way, your argument is flawed and you need to let go of your claim that people GIVE the SEC a free ride into the National title game, especially considering the SEC had a better showing in the post-season than any of the other major conferences. And, yes, 6-2 (SEC) is better than 5-0 (PAC 10). Why? Because it means the SEC put more teams into bowl games and WON MORE bowl games.

    So enough of all this conspiracy theory crap. Pre-season rankings are BS. We all know that.

    Let it go. The season's done.
    The SEC is on top once again and there ain't nothing you can say that'll change that.


    Yes, we call that overrated. We do not have to ask ourselves why so many others think so highly of the SEC and rate it so high. What we have to ask is whether the teams, at year end, show themselves to be worthy of the high rating. Was Georgia close to being the best team in the country? Was Alabama? Was LSU at all close to being the #2 team, as they were once ranked? Was Auburn close to being the top 10 team that those people proclaimed them to be? How about Vanderbilt as a top 15 team? Was Tennessee close to being a top 20 team? That is the picture of overratedness.

    Since the BCS was put into place, only three times has the BCS champion failed to get consensus #1 votes from the non-bound polls, LSU in 2003, LSU in 2007 and Florida in 2008. What do those teams have in common? They got to the BCS game by winning an overrated conference and then failed to persuade people that the BCS game truly featured the two best teams in the country.


    Actually, moron, go to google and type in "last 3 college football national championships" and youll get "No results found for "last 3 college football national championships"."

    Nathan Frizzell

    keep talkin crocs...
    you're apparently in the minority of those who feel the SEC doesn't deserve the respect it gets. if you want opinions to the contrary, talk to any competent sports analyst. if there is a conference that's truly better, they would be widely recognized as such- and none are. so keep talkin...


    florida 28 usc 10
    oklahoma 35 usc 21
    texas 21 usc 14

    Those scores look mighty funny now. Oklahoma would score 35 on the nation's best defense? I doubt it. Florida would score more against the nation's best defense than the Gators hung on Oklahoma, who gave up 40+ twice and only held their opponents under 21 points four times? I doubt it. Texas, who won a slugfest against the Buckeyes, who got mauled by USC, would beat the Trojans on a neutral field? I doubt it.

    Whoever wrote those scores, I hope you don't need to rely on your intuition to earn a living, because you have none.


    I think anyone who believes it won't be close for the Gators is smoking some weed (pass some along, friend), but with the Gators easy schedule, they should get into the BCS championship game again if they can win the SEC championship game. LSU will be down. Alabama without Smith is not good and Georgia has all an new backfield. Ole Miss might be the second best team in the SEC, which tells you all about the SEC next year. The question is whether the Gators can beat the Texas, USC, Ohio State or such teams without speedburner William Percy Harvin III, without whom they would have lost to the Sooners. I'm not sure how important Spikes will be. The Gators would much rather have kept Harvin.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Fair enough, Lex.
    You've got a good site here and that's why I keep coming back. haha
    I guess I'll see you when the (bullsh*t) 2009 pre-season rankings come around.


    In the end, I think his original point was shown to be well-taken. The SEC is only a little bit better than than the top 3-4 conferences in the BCS, and the weak, weak non-conference games most of them play makes the schedules of SEC teams little or no more worthy than the schedules of Pac-10 or some other conferences' schedules, the Big East being the most notable exception.

    Nathan Frizzell

    You know, I gotta say, guys...

    up until about the second half of this season (starting with my joining this board last season), i thought this board was made of loyal but generally fair college football fans. after reading the last 4 or 5 posts, i think my opinion has solidly changed.

    for 95% of this season- until it appeared that Florida was indeed going to take it to Oklahoma- the resounding opinion of this board was that the Big XII was the strongest conference with the most exciting football. it wasn't until Texas Tech was destroyed by OLE MISS (whom the members of this board loved to shred and use as a means to tear down Florida and their accomplishments throughout the year) and then FL won the National Title, that suddenly the Big XII is overrated too.

    suddenly, this board shows itself for what it is: a large number of PAC-10 fans doing everything they can to make their conference look better. Yes, GREAT, you've got 2 teams in the Top 10. But Oregon did not pull off a single win their entire season that was more impressive than Ole Miss (at #14) and their wins against Florida (the ONLY team to beat them) and Texas Tech (once named among the best teams in the country).

    the SEC now officially has more BCS titles than anyone- owning 5 of the 11 BCS Titles that have been given out, including the past 3 in a row.

    I'll give credit where credit is due: USC is a consistently great football team. Ya'll have NO idea how much it takes for me to say that. That aside, you cannot define an entire conference based on USC. Oregon is a good team, sure. But simply because Oregon made the Top 10, it does not make the PAC 10 as a whole an amazing conference. The only other team that is ranked from the PAC is OR State, who is ranked WAY higher in the post-season than they should be.

    And while I'm on the subject, you PAC-10 fans should be concerned that a man like Pete Carroll is allowed to be the mouthpiece for your conference, considering that every year, no matter what USC did or did NOT do, he runs his mouth about how his team is the best in the nation and they deserve a share in the title. Well, lemme tell you something, last time USC got to the title game they got SPANKED and any team that loses to a team who avoided an 8-5 record by beating Pittsburgh 3-0 (oregon state) does NOT deserve a share of the national title. Any time somebody accuses Pete C of being a class act, I refer them to his annual post-Rose Bowl tirades.

    The PAC-10 this season is the 3rd best conference AT MOST. USC deserves to be in the Top 5 for sure. But outside of USC nobody is impressive.


    USC couldn't make it to the title game because the title game is a bullshit deal where you have to go unbeaten in a major conference or play in an oversized conference with a conference championship game and fatten yourself on junior college schools off conference.

    Neuheisel's Bookie

    To the fool who kept saying that only USC homers thought USC would be favored against Florida, here's yet another media source confirming that same thing: "They were nearly the unanimous No. 1 team in the country early in the season and many would argue they are the best team in the country now after beating up on Penn State in the Rose Bowl, which was over at the half (31-7). They only played one bad half this season back in September and recovered by winning 10-consecutive games -- a streak longer than any team outside of Utah and just as long as Florida. They won their conference outright and qualified for a BCS bowl game for a record seventh-consecutive season. Also, according to most sports books, they would be favored to beat any team in the country on a neutral field. They also boast the stingiest defense in recent college football history, giving up just more than a touchdown a game."

    Wish We Could Play That Schedule

    Tim Tebow is coming back, and why not? He gets to open as preseason #1, with 8 home games, the toughest being Georgia without Moreno or Stafford, and OOC sched that includes Charleston Southern, Troy and Florida International, and a road sched that never gets any tougher than LSU. If they can emerge from 7-5 LSU with a win, they should go undefeated and meet some overrated team like Alabama Tennessee or Auburn. They don't even see Ole Miss next year, getting Miss St instead, although Ole Miss will be back to its old shitty self next year. Typical SEC schedule. How the hell do they get such polling respect?

    Next year, USC will travel to Ohio State, Oregon and Cal, which finished the season ranked 9, 10 and 25. The Pac-10 loses very little talent this year, other than the USC defense. It'll be a tough schedule for the Trojans for sure. Who has the tougher road to Pasadena? It's not Florida, that's for sure.


    USC v. Florida, comparing their work against teams in the final poll.

    USC: defeated 3 top ten teams
    FLA: defeated 2 top ten teams

    USC: played 5 ranked teams, went 4-1, lost @ #18
    FLA: played 4 ranked teams, went 3-1, lost @ home

    SEC bias = another mythical national championship.

    lex icon

    Your final top ten:

    SEC: (2) Florida and Alabama
    Pac-10: (2) USC and Oregon
    Big Ten: (2) Penn State and Ohio State
    Big XII: (2) Oklahoma and Texas
    MWC: (2) Utah and TCU
    ACC: (0)
    Big East: (0)

    Your top 25:
    Big XII: (5) Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Okla. State, Mizzou
    SEC: (4) Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi
    Big Ten: (4) Penn State, Ohio State, Iowa and Michigan State
    Pac-10: (4) USC, Oregon, Oregon State and Cal*
    MWC: (3) Utah, TCU and BYU
    ACC: (3) Va. Tech, Florida State, Ga. Tech
    Big East: (2) Cincinnati, West Virginia*
    WAC: (1) Boise State

    *Cal was not ranked in the AP poll and West Virginia was not ranked in the coaches poll

    No independents or teams from the Conference-USA, Mid-America or Sun Belt conferences were ranked.

    After the entire season played out, I stand by my original statement. USC's schedule was as tough as anyone's, and the SEC conference schedule doesn't justify the garbage that most of the SEC plays out of conference, especially Alabama and LSU.

    Is the SEC better than the Pac-10? It's deeper, and the past two seasons, slightly stronger than the Pac-10. At the bottom, this year's Pac-10 was abysmal, but even the gimmes in Washington aren't as soft as teams like Western Kentucky and Arkansas State.

    My Trojans ended up with wins over three teams in the final top ten. In the end, the Trojans were neither overrated nor underrated. The Pac-10 and MWC were much underrated, and the SEC and especially the Big XII (who fooled me along with many others) were overrated. The Big East, Big Ten and ACC were about as average as people thought.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Bowl Results are as follows:

    1) Pac 10: 5-0.
    2) Big 12: 4-3.
    3) SEC: 6-2 (including the 3rd National Title in a row and 5th since the BCS began).

    The SEC sent more teams to the bowls than any other major conference except the ACC who went an embarassing 4-6 in bowl games.

    The SEC was 2-0 against 2 of the Top teams in the Big 12, including Ole Miss's decisive victory over Texas Tech. Now, earlier in the season everyone on this board was dogging all the SEC fans, making claims written as fact that the Big 12 was the superior conference this season and so on and so forth.

    As I said before, I think the season cannot be judged until the end. The SEC has another national champion, it won the most number of bowl games out of anyone and sent the 2nd highest number of teams.

    Does Utah deserve a claim at the title? No. Congrats on going undefeated, but just as Auburn did in 04 (and USC in 03), it didn't play in the game, so it has ZERO claim to the title.

    And also, as far as the PAC-10's bowl record goes, 5-0 is great. But when the SEC sends 8 teams to bowls and wins 6 of them including a National title, that is more impressive to me.

    The SEC is, by the numbers, the best conference this season. As it was last season.

    first inconference teams know how to play other teams in their own conference year in and out and second, Oregon State is good .. They lost 1 bad game(Stanford) if they would have not schd. hard OOC games in the beginning like all PAC 10 does .. Utah at Utah, Penn State at Penn State, they would have been in the BCS top 10 like all those Big 12 teams playing those first 5 cup cake teams.

    and I think the bowl season proves it, Many PAC 10 teams with exception to USC .........CAL, Oregon, Oregon State, U of A don't get the respect and ranking they deserve.. They are fast and they proved it in the bowl season... particularly the Oregon/ OK state game and everyone's scratching their heads.. lol

    What particularly has my attention is how thouroughly we whipped up on OSU (with respect to OSU) and how Texas could just barely beat these guys and is now talking up OSU defense just mere days after we destroyed The Big 10 Champion who is twice as fast and mean.

    This demonstrates the folly of the BCS rankings and how teams can get by on it in their conferences all year long by playing the first 5 cupcake teams.

    SEC = SUC

    I should have added this to - Texas did not basically have no motivation at all. They thought they were playing for the AP national championship. You must not watch the games. Do you get all your football news from the SEC internet boards?

    SEC = SUC

    Is the sec a conference of weak defenses you say. After Florida, whose worst lapse was 31 to Ole Miss, you have:
    Georgia, gave up 41, 38, 49, 45
    Vanderbilt, gave up 42
    South Carolina, gave up 56
    Kentucky, gave up 42, 63
    Alabama, gave up 31 in its last two losses
    Ole Miss, gave up 30+ four times
    LSU gave up 50+ twice, and 31 three times, including Troy and Arkansas
    Arkansas, gave up 49+ twice and never held anyone under 21
    MSU, gave up 38, 34, 34, 32, 45
    Tennessee never gave up more than 30, but lost to UCLA and Wyoming
    Auburn, gave up 34 and 36, and went 2-7 in its last 9

    lex icon

    Yes, Nathan, but games like that happen on the road in conference almost every year to even the best teams. Sometimes, even at home. Do we really think Ole Miss is better than Florida, or Kentucky is right there with Alabama and Georgia? I don't. Arizona has a knack for looking ahead to big games and then winning them, with three upsets of top ten teams in the last couple of seasons.

    But most importantly, if you watched the game, you did not see two teams that were evenly matched, just two teams that had a close score because the home team was playing a slow ball control game and got a couple of turnovers. The game wasn't really that close. Arizona tied the game after a blindside sack and fumble at the USC 15, but could only muster 188 yards of total offense and never threatened after USC regained the lead on the next possession. In the second half, Arizona got 55 yards of offense and three first downs, and a third of that came after the big fumble.

    In stark contrast, yesterday, Ohio State and Texas both brought their well-rested "A" games, met on a neutral field, and looked very evenly matched, trading leads several times and coming down to who had the ball last with time to do something with it. I came away from the Fiesta Bowl believing that those two teams were neck and neck. No one who watched USC @ Arizona could have drawn the same conclusion.

    Arizona, BTW, won its bowl game over BYU and finished with as good a season as your Tigers, 8-5, with wins over Cal and BYU that are as solid as LSU's two best wins....

    Nathan Frizzell

    les, you could say the same about USC vs AZ.

    i dont know if USC's victory was as dramatic as Texas's but you can definetely argue that AZ and USC were relatively evenly matched. AZ is one of two teams that held USC to its lowest score (17) of the season and the difference was only one touchdown.

    lex icon

    If you think Ohio State flopped or that they weren't totally competitive with Texas, you didn't watch the game. That was hard fought, and Texas was about three inches and a nice spot away from losing it. They were one blown tackle away from losing it. They were one hooked field goal from losing it. That's not to say the Longhorns didn't deserve the victory, but if you saw the game, you know that those teams were very evenly matched and it wasn't a trap game or a road game for either team. Both schools brought their best effort and when the clock hit 00, Texas was just a little bit better on the scoreboard.

    Any USC Fans

    USC is better than Texas because USC beat Ohio State by more.

    lex icon

    I don't think "5-0 nuff said" means any more than "underrated". Dolphin fan, explain yourself.

    Nathan Frizzell

    Of course Moody, you don't include the fact that Ole Miss (who beat Florida) also just spanked Texas Tech- who was once in the race for best in the Big 12 and the nation.

    And Lex, the post I was referring to included the following (and not much else):
    "SEC : overrrated
    Big 12 : way overrated
    Big 10 : way overrated
    PAC-10 : 5-0 nuff said"

    I don't think I inferred anything. I think the writing is on the wall. Dolphin fan is insinuating the PAC-10 is the best conference merely by categorizing them as a) the only conference that is not overrated and b) the only conference that is 5-0.

    I still stand by my opinion that we will not be able to fully judge this College Football season until all the bowls have been played (which is the main reason I have abstained from commenting lately). But, I think the results up to this point are very, very interesting and largely unexpected.

    Moody's Daddy

    You saw a usc lose to a team who lost to stanford, gave up 65 against oregon, lost by 31 to penn state, and saw that usc only scored 21 on them. I saw Florida lose AT HOME to a team that lost to Wake Forest and that lost HOME GAMES to Vanderbilt (loser to Mississippi State, Duke and Tennessee, who lost to fUCLA) and South Carolina (trailed Iowa by 31-0 before garbage bowl time). We all see different things. That's why we need a playoff and not this stupid appointment game.

    lex icon

    I don't think Dolphins Fan (who's hating life today, huh?) insinuated anything. You inferred it. I agree with everything he said. The SEC was incredibly overrated this year. Alabama was #1 for a month. Georgia was #1. LSU was #2. Auburn was #9. Vanderbilt was #13. Tennessee was #18. South Carolina was #24. How can you argue with a claim that the SEC was overrated? Oklahoma State and Texas Tech have made the Big 12 look really bad, and everyone but Iowa made the Big Ten look bad. So I would call overrated on both of those too. The Pac-10 is, in fact, 5-0. That doesn't make it the best conference (it should have had 7 bowl eligible teams), but it does refute the common perception that the Pac-10 sucked this year. Four wins in four tries over ranked bowl opponents is not a fluke, it's a trend. I would, by the way, put the Pac-10 ahead of the Big 10 and the Big East, and maybe the ACC. Still trailing the SEC and the Big XII, but my point about the schedules remains that they make up for the conference slate by scheduling big OOC games that most Big XII and SEC teams won't do.

    Now off to lunch.

    Nathan Frizzell

    To Dolphin Fan,

    SEC AND Big 10 overrated???? and then you insinuate PAC 10 is better than both?

    wow, i have read some ridiculous comments on this board, but that tops em all.


    That's noble of you to tell Utah that you admit they are better than you thought they were, but you're wrong. Utah is no better than you thought they were. They lost to shitty ass Michigan, which was even worse than last years Michigan. They were lucky to beat Air Force, luckier to be Oregon State, and barely got past New Mexico. No, Utah is exactly as good as you thought they were. The thing is, Alabama and Florida just aren't anywhere as good as you think THEY were.

    The SEC team everyone thought was #1 just got rolled by the MWC and the #6 SEC team got rolled by the #5 Big Ten team. They are just like any other conference.

    Dolphin Fan

    7 sacks and 2 INT = Alabama sucks. Face it boys, Alabama got DOMINATED. Florida > Alabama, but just barely.

    SEC : overrrated
    Big 12 : way overrated
    Big 10 : way overrated
    PAC-10 : 5-0 nuff said

    As a Dolphins fan, I couldn't love it any more watching Saban fall flat on his ASS

    The comments to this entry are closed.