I wouldn't mind if VaTech's OOC schedule was weak because the teams were down this year, because you can't control how other teams are going to play years into the future. But when they schedule two MAC schools and an average Big East school, I'm not going to shed a tear when they get overlooked. It's the Bill Snyder school of scheduling.
penn state 43 usc 0 in national title game b****es..thread over
Mark my words ... USC will be beaten by Cal on November 12th ... Cal was the last school to beat USC nearly two years ago, and last year they came ever so close at beating them down at USC. UCLA might have a shot, but I think they're gonna get smashed 44-21.
Peace. Out
I guess you can count Paddy's Bar Football Poll in South Bend, but no one else does ;-) The polls that matter have Southern California as tied with Notre Dame as the top team in history. Get used to it.
thinker wrote:
I believe Miami lost that game because their best player's knee fell apart early in the game.
Va Tech-USC would be the best championship game because they are the two best teams. I think the point that is trying to be made by West Coast Sucks (although pretty badly) is that Va Tech could be one of the 2 best teams, but lose a game due to their very hard schedule, while Texas or USC have a better chance of going undefeated primarily because of their arguably easier schedule, therefore the national championship game is determined not by who the best teams are, but rather by who had the easiest schedule along the way.
This is the reason I really don't enjoy college football, they need a play-off at the end of the season so it can really be determined on the field.
That is the point most people are trying to make here. It is quite easy with the rankings system to have an inferior team that walks through their easy conference schedule and recieve rediculous rankings... Louisville and Boise St. come to mind. Look at Boise vs UGA the first game of the year. People were saying it was going to be a good game and Boise was ranked higher than UGA, and UGA trounced them like a ragdoll...
These minor conferences like the Mountain West and now the Big East (thanks to the ACC taking their top talent) have teams that go undefeated and are sorely overrated.
The PAC-10 is not as bad as those, but it still isn't nearly as tough as the ACC/SEC and even the Big10.. It is probably more or less on par with the Big XII though.
If you took USC out of the PAC-10, the quality of the conference would drop significantly as they are by far the best team. Their rankings just get boosted as they continually beat inferior PAC-10 teams with inflated rankings themselves from only loosing to USC and maybe one other team over the course of the yr.
It takes a lot less energy to go through the schedule they have than it does an ACC/SEC/Big10 schedule.
That being said, USC is still one of the top 3 football teams in the country, and what Tubberville said last week was dead on... There needs to be a 4 TEAM PLAYOFF. The top team in the country will definately be in the top 4 by the end of the year. But as he said, only the top 25-30 teams or so in all of DI are for this. There are too many DI schools, and these schools with crappy programs dont want to see this fall in place because it will take money and emphasis away from other bowls.
He went so far as to suggest maknig DI smaller, and cutting some of the crappier programs.
rabbittruns wrote:
so far as to suggest maknig DI smaller, and cutting some of the crappier programs.
Watch your step! Are you suggesting that our conference is not big time and should be cut from DI? That kind of nonsense would lead to such outlandish things as reinstating track & field & other programs we cut to free money to our feed our football mirage. Try telling our 8000 loyal fans that show up every week that Western Michigan, Ball State, or Bowling Green are not football powers on par with USC. My god Rabbittruns! You damn uninformed people sicken me!
first of all....
this would be USCs 2nd straight NCAA title... Like ppl have mentioned the media has declared USC the "2004 NCAA Champion" despite the fact that LSU ran the table in the SEC, and defeated OU in the NCAA title game. Dosent winning the NCAA title game make you the champion?
At best USC has a claim to a share of the 2004 championship.
second...USC has looked beatable...more so than Texas. They have trailed 3 times this year at the half and if they were to play the final min. of the ND game 10 times, they would lose 9. They escaped. Texas has had no such close calls, the OSU game came down to the wire, but no where near as close as the USC-ND game, and OSU is better than ND.
third... in the past, the Big 12 has been the 2nd most competitive conference in the country, behind the SEC, and the PAC 10 has been weak..things have equalized to an extent this year.. USC will win out, UT will win out, VT will win out...thats it, there will be 3 undefeated teams at the und of the year.
UT will play USC in the Rose Bowl..
UTs defense will be relatively effective against the USC O and V. Young, the best player in college football will do his thing ...
UT will win in the 38-32 range..
i agree with the last post. texas has got a damn good team that has a great chance of beating USC. why is there no love for texas on here? they have a nasty defense and their vince young ran offense can beat you in so many different ways. i'm not even a texas fan but i think texas with their nasty 'D' has a better chance of taking out USC then Tech does. it just sucks that if all three teams wind up undefeated that one of the teams is going to get the shaft and be left out of the title game. somethings gota change.
sometrue wrote:
first of all....
this would be USCs 2nd straight NCAA title... Like ppl have mentioned the media has declared USC the "2004 NCAA Champion" despite the fact that LSU ran the table in the SEC, and defeated OU in the NCAA title game. Dosent winning the NCAA title game make you the champion?
At best USC has a claim to a share of the 2004 championship.
first of all ...
USC's "claim" to the 2004 championship is based upon the fact that they were ranked #1 in both human polls before the BCS computers decided to leave them out of the championship game (remember in 2003 when Colorado walloped Nebraska, but Nebraska got to go to the championship game in the Rose Bowl? ... boy, was Colorado pissed - that is until that pathetically weak-conference pretender Oregon chewed them up and spit them out in the Fiesta Bowl). In retrospect, USC's dominance combined with the "human" judgment that they were the best team in NCAA football has led to the perception, quite possibly unfair in LSU's eyes, that they were the true champion.
As to the posters who suggest a playoff - well, duh! We'd all like that. USC would love it - then they would have won three titles in a row already (they were clearly the best team in the land at the end of Carson Palmer's last year).
Finally, to once again address those who denigrate the Pac 10 Conference - get an original thought. I'm 44, and I've been hearing the same thing since I was a youngin'. Year after year, the Big 10 would send their representative out here to kick the crap out of the powderpuff Pac 8 representative in the Rose Bowl - only to be completely shocked that West Coast football didn't roll over on command. Ask Bo Schembeckler and the Michigan Wolverines about the weak Pac 10 (then Pac 8) conference.
The Pac 10 doesn't automatically become a weak conference just because boys down on the bayou can't stomach the notion that college teams from the liberal enclaves of west coast colleges can play ball. It doesn't become weak because it's fans don't have to huddle in down jackets, gloves, and caps to watch the games (and that's in their own living rooms). Cold doesn't make tough. Geography doesn't make tough. The self-congratulatory perception of being the toughest of the tough doesn't make tough.
USC beat the hell out of Iowa to end 2002. Beat the hell out of Michigan to end 2003. And beat the hell out of OU to end 2004. If teams from much "tougher" conferences can't do better than that given the extended preparation college football allows before bowl games, then their fans should really be careful about dis'ing the team (or conference) that beat team.
Finally, would the current Pac 10 be as strong without USC? ... Well, that's just an idiotic question. Would Colorado have been as strong a cross-country team last year without its top 5 runners? Would Charlie's Angels have been a top-grossing movie if its stars were men? Would the Bush Administration be as corrupt without Karl Rove or Scooter Libby - oh wait....
Yes, it is amazing, but not suprising, how the small D1 football schools try to hang with the big boys by eliminating the minor men's sports and claiming title IX. In turn, they only pump more money into the pig skin dream.
The school I ran for eight years ago has cut their mens cross program. Recently, I have learned that they set up the football players in a hotel for HOME games. Now, how can an AD justify that over keeping the cross program - when you figure four to five home games with up to 80 rooms per game?
Boise State was NOT ranked higher than UGA at the start of the season.
There is no NCAA championship in Division 1A. USC finished at the top of the AP (I think) poll that year when LSU won the BCS title. (FACT)
USC trailed for a few minutes in some games, big deal they won and other than ND won big. I would also say that if ND and USC played 10 times, USC would win 8 of them.
I do not think Ohio State is better than Notre Dame. Notre Dame is pretty darn good. Ohio State has no offense. ND's two losses were close losses. The Michigan State loss is going to be one those that will really come back to haunt ND as they should have won.
I predict VPI will not win out.
If USC plays UT, USC wins. Pete Carroll will outcoach Mack Brown.
Sorry, Reggie Bush is the best player in college football. Young however is the most valuable to his team (although Maurice Drew is breathing down his neck for that honor).
sometrue wrote:
second...USC has looked beatable...more so than Texas. They have trailed 3 times this year at the half and if they were to play the final min. of the ND game 10 times, they would lose 9. They escaped. Texas has had no such close calls, the OSU game came down to the wire, but no where near as close as the USC-ND game, and OSU is better than ND.
I would say that Texas has looked as beatable as USC this year. I think OSU outplayed them, and if they would have stuck with Troy Smith rather than rotating QB's they probably would have won the game. And if they play like they didn in the first half of the Ok St game against even a decent team, they will get beat. I also don't see how you can say that OSU is better than Notre Dame. Both have 2 losses, neither have beaten a really good team, both teams are dominant on one side of the ball and average on the other, and Jeff Sagarin(probably the best football predictor) rates ND the third toughest team to play.
As far as a UT vs. USC championship game, I think it will be a tough matchup for Texas. USC has enough speed on thier D-line/linebackers that it should negate Young's speed. To win the game, he's going to have to sit in the pocket and throw. So it's basically going to come down to whether he can throw 45-50 times and avoid turning the ball over. My guess is USC wins the turnover battle and the game with thier balanced attack in a 45-34 game.
Well enough said. Very entertaining. The USC recruitig class for next year is all the buzz now in L.A. U.S.C. will be going for the 4th straight National Championship. I hope that they can get those guys from Dorsey on the team. Keyshawn went to Dorsey. I hope he helps with the team during the off season.
USC beat Arkansas something like 70-17, and Arkansas almost beat Bama the best team in the SEC. Top to bottom the Pac-10 is better than the SEC this season. SC is lightyears better than Bama, UCLA is better than Florida, I think Oregon could take Georgia, LSU and Cal are close, Tennessee and ASU are both disappointments but comparable.
The big 12 might not be the strongest conference, but when you look at their non-conference record this year,with the exception of Oklahoma who is a disappointment but also lost to two very good teams UCLA and TCU, they are not a powder puff conference. Even the much maligned north isn't that bad. Probably the worst team in the north Iowa State kicked the crap out of Iowa who is one of the strongest teams in the big 10. Texas is playing quality opponents, and yes they did get off to a slow start last week against OSU. Every team has bad weeks, and they were so much better than OSU that even as flat as they were, they were still going to find a way to win no matter what. How can you blame them for one slow start? USC starts slow every week (except against Arkansas). They were losing to Arizona at halftime. They should of lost to an overrated Notre Dame (I say overrated because they lost to in my opinion a very poor Michigan State team at home). I wouldn't argue against the previous post that says that this year the ACC is probably top to bottom the toughest conference, and VA Tech deserves a shot at the title, but the fact is USC is undefeated, and unless they lose deserve to be in the championship game. Texas has the most athletic talent out of any football team in the country and if they show up they can beat and embarrass any team (including USC) on the right day if things fall their way. VA Tech is also a great team, and deserves a shot, but not unless on of the other 2 teams loses.
If USC, UT and VT win out their remaining games, USC and VT will meet in the BCS title game. This is what the espn analysts are saying, it's not something I dreamed up.
VT just has to get by Miami to overtake Texas because Texas doesn't play anyone good for the rest of the season.
For all this talk about Cal vs. USC, don't forget USC ends their regular season with undefeated #8 UCLA. If UCLA wins and ends their season undefeated, they will have some claim as well.
The wild card is Bama who has #6 LSU and #17 Auburn left.
There could be four undefeated teams at the end of the season.
Texas, Virginia Tech, Alabama, and the winner of the USC/UCLA game. These are football power houses. This isn't Boise St. going undefeated or some crap like that.
This season above all could increase talk over a playoff system, which most every sane person I've talked to would want.
Don't forget Bama would close with Georgia also in the SEC championship game.
usc, v-tech, texas, alabama, ucla, miami, lsu, penn state, wisconsin, ohio state, georgia, notre dame, ohio state, west virginia, auburn and probably a handful of other teams could all beat each other on a given day. nobody can control how good their conference is or isn't in a given year and the early non-conference games don't give an accurate representation of how good a conference is in a given year. the arguments about who would beat who and who should be in the title game are all good, but the problem is that's how the "national champion" is determined. who's to say that last year, auburn and va-tech weren't the two best teams in the country in January? maybe that should've been the national title game. the system is terrible and a black mark on college football. after dec 3rd, get ready for the worst post-season in all of sports: 27 meaningless bowl games and one game that voters determine who should be in. as a penn state fan, i'd much rather be hosting a first round playoff game against florida state in december for the right to play the usc-auburn winner in the national quarterfinals than playing in the fiesta bowl against notre dame for the tostitos trophy. that would make college football the greatest american sport, other than running of course.
please.... wrote:
Yes, this argument about the SEC featuring tough games week in and week out is absurd., There are good teams in that conference, bnut more dogs than you'll find in the Pac10. Bama's first 9 games include only 2 teams with winning records, and many plain awful teams. Next up 1-6 Miss St? Please. There's a reason that at 8-0 they are not in the top 10 in power rankings.
Georgia scores even worse. They might be a better team than Bama, but what winning teams have they beaten? S. Carolina and Boise St.? Get real, top to bottom the SEC is not a tough gauntlet to run.
I will admit the SEC is down this year. However, to say the PAC-10 is tougher is a joke. You guys out west ever heard of something called defense?!
TEXAS WILL NOT BE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL TITLE. Name just one year where that great choke artist Mack Brown hasn't lost at least one "big" game? They won't make it past the Big 12 championship. Wait and see.