theprofessor Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Lane Kiffin has this team playing as good as anyone in the country right now. If not for their probation and a 3 OT loss to Stanford that they should have won they would be in the discussion for the NC game. You got to give Kiffin some credit for having the Trojans playing so well with nothing to play for. How is it that Matt Barkley isn't even being considered for the heisman? The guy has had a fantastic season and threw another 6 TD's tonight as they pummelled in state rival UCLA 50-0! Goes into Oregon last week and beats the Ducks? All we hear about is how great Andrew Luck is yet Matt Barkley has had a better season. I feel bad for those kids that they won't get the BCS bid that they earned on the field this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Lane Kiffin has this team playing as good as anyone in the country right now. If not for their probation and a 3 OT loss to Stanford that they should have won they would be in the discussion for the NC game. You got to give Kiffin some credit for having the Trojans playing so well with nothing to play for. How is it that Matt Barkley isn't even being considered for the heisman? The guy has had a fantastic season and threw another 6 TD's tonight as they pummelled in state rival UCLA 50-0! Goes into Oregon last week and beats the Ducks? All we hear about is how great Andrew Luck is yet Matt Barkley has had a better season. I feel bad for those kids that they won't get the BCS bid that they earned on the field this season. It is too bad that there doesn't seem to be a way to punish the college players and coaches who cheated without punishing those who didn't ... often, those who cheated are rewarded with contracts at bigger colleges or the NFL while the school programs they leave behind in disgrace suffer the consequences. Yep, if the USC program hadn't cheated and if the current team hadn't lost this year, they'd likely be considered for the BCS championship game. Still, Lane's own success at prior schools was built in part by violations, so who knows if he'd have even caught USC's eye without them. And who's to say what draw Reggie Bush's success at USC, rife with violations, played in attracting in the current players. If USC had gone 3-6 those years having not been paying Reggie's family, would they have recruited so well? Still, amongst it, is just a sad situation that does indeed punish some innocent hard working kids whose on the field play has been strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 It is too bad that there doesn't seem to be a way to punish the college players and coaches who cheated without punishing those who didn't ... often, those who cheated are rewarded with contracts at bigger colleges or the NFL while the school programs they leave behind in disgrace suffer the consequences. Yep, if the USC program hadn't cheated and if the current team hadn't lost this year, they'd likely be considered for the BCS championship game. Still, Lane's own success at prior schools was built in part by violations, so who knows if he'd have even caught USC's eye without them. And who's to say what draw Reggie Bush's success at USC, rife with violations, played in attracting in the current players. If USC had gone 3-6 those years having not been paying Reggie's family, would they have recruited so well? Still, amongst it, is just a sad situation that does indeed punish some innocent hard working kids whose on the field play has been strong. Agree with everything you said but I don't think Reggie Bush's success at USC made a huge impact in recruiting as USC has alway's been an elite program pre and post, Reggie Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Lane Kiffin has this team playing as good as anyone in the country right now. If not for their probation and a 3 OT loss to Stanford that they should have won they would be in the discussion for the NC game. You got to give Kiffin some credit for having the Trojans playing so well with nothing to play for. How is it that Matt Barkley isn't even being considered for the heisman? The guy has had a fantastic season and threw another 6 TD's tonight as they pummelled in state rival UCLA 50-0! Goes into Oregon last week and beats the Ducks? All we hear about is how great Andrew Luck is yet Matt Barkley has had a better season. I feel bad for those kids that they won't get the BCS bid that they earned on the field this season. Yes, USC is playing pretty well right now, but right now does not count as the whole season. Further, even if they were not on probation there is no way one could justify, with the current records, placing a 2 loss USC team in the NC game. What about USC's body of work this season even leads you to such a conclusion: Beat Minnesota 19-17 (impressive) Beat Utah 23-14 (wow, solid freaking resume so far) Beat Syracuse by 21 (join the club) Lost to Arizona State by 3 touchdowns... 3 (ASU lost to Illifreakingnois, UCLA, WASU, Ari, and Cal...) Beat Arizona by 7 (and allowed Arizona to put up 41 pts on them) Beat Cal by 3 touchdowns Beat ND by 14 (ND is a joke) Lost to Stanford, the first decent team they played (granted, they gave them one hell of a match) Beat Col substantially Beat Wash substantially Beat Oregon Killed UCLA Yes they have gotten better toward the end of the season and that sign of growth and maturity is impressive. But, the body of work is extremely lackluster. They have managed to play two ranked teams this season (ND was ranked in the top 25, briefly, but look at their schedule) and split those games. The rest of the schedule is extremely weak. So, while it does look like they are building for a very solid season next year, assuming they keep the team in tact, to even consider that they should be in the NC hunt this season is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Agree with everything you said but I don't think Reggie Bush's success at USC made a huge impact in recruiting as USC has alway's been an elite program pre and post, Reggie Bush. Yes, USC has been considered an elite program for some time, but during the 80's and 90's their relevance on the national front receded. One can see an immediate shift in the fortunes of USC. You can almost see the dramatic turn USC took under Pete Carrol's management and potential penchant for violating NCAA rules. Let us take a 24 season snapshot of the elite USC program: 1980 - 8-2-1 81 - 9-3 82 - 8-3 83 - 4-6-1 84 - 9-3 85 - 6-6 86 - 7-5 87 - 8-4 88 - 10-2 89 - 9-2-1 90 - 8-4-1 91 - 3-8 92 - 6-5-1 93 - 8-5 94 - 8-3-1 95 - 9-2-1 96 - 6-6 97 - 6-5 98 - 8-5 99 - 6-6 00 - 5-7 (Pete Carrol's first season) 01 - 6-6 02 - 11-2 03 - 12-1 You guys know the rest... Mediocre team, with some good seasons sprinkled in from 1980 - 2001. They lost 101 games in this span (4.2 per season), hardly an elite program from 1980-2001. For some perspective, UGA, over the same period lost 82 games (80-03). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Agree with everything you said but I don't think Reggie Bush's success at USC made a huge impact in recruiting as USC has alway's been an elite program pre and post, Reggie Bush. Dude. Take the blinders off. First off, this year they are a 2 loss team. So no, they wouldn't be in the talk about an NC game with Bama, Oklahoma Shame and VT ahead of them. I'll grant you being ahead of Houston and Boise, just to be nice. And Carroll was 6-6 two years before bush arrived in 2003 after taking over for John Robinson. They were HARDLY elite in the run up to Bush and Leinart's arrival. They had one good year (a 2 loss 2002?) then they showed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Dude. Take the blinders off. First off, this year they are a 2 loss team. So no, they wouldn't be in the talk about an NC game with Bama, Oklahoma Shame and VT ahead of them. I'll grant you being ahead of Houston and Boise, just to be nice. I do believe he qualified things "without the 3ot loss to Stanford". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I do believe he qualified things "without the 3ot loss to Stanford". They still lost to ASU... His statement is equivalent to me saying, "If UGA hadn't lost to Boise and had that 3 point loss to South Car. they would be in the NC talk, too..." It is a ridiculous assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I do believe he qualified things "without the 3ot loss to Stanford". - Fair enough, but SEC blew holes in his 'elite program prior to Bush's arrival' thought which isn't even CLOSE to reality, as I think most people here would define an elite program as consistently posting 10+ wins say, 4 out of every 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Yes, USC is playing pretty well right now, but right now does not count as the whole season. Further, even if they were not on probation there is no way one could justify, with the current records, placing a 2 loss USC team in the NC game. What about USC's body of work this season even leads you to such a conclusion: Beat Minnesota 19-17 (impressive) Beat Utah 23-14 (wow, solid freaking resume so far) Beat Syracuse by 21 (join the club) Lost to Arizona State by 3 touchdowns... 3 (ASU lost to Illifreakingnois, UCLA, WASU, Ari, and Cal...) Beat Arizona by 7 (and allowed Arizona to put up 41 pts on them) Beat Cal by 3 touchdowns Beat ND by 14 (ND is a joke) Lost to Stanford, the first decent team they played (granted, they gave them one hell of a match) Beat Col substantially Beat Wash substantially Beat Oregon Killed UCLA Yes they have gotten better toward the end of the season and that sign of growth and maturity is impressive. But, the body of work is extremely lackluster. They have managed to play two ranked teams this season (ND was ranked in the top 25, briefly, but look at their schedule) and split those games. The rest of the schedule is extremely weak. So, while it does look like they are building for a very solid season next year, assuming they keep the team in tact, to even consider that they should be in the NC hunt this season is ridiculous. Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said "if not for their 3OT loss to Stanford they would be in the discussion for the NC game" Explain to me again, how a 1-loss USC team with the way they are playing wouldn't be in the discussion for the NC game? Ridiculous is right.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Pulled up some other "elite" programs from the same time period (80-03): Nebraska: 51 losses Notre Dame: 93 losses UCLA: 98 losses Okie: 83 losses Miami: 51 losses Michigan: 68 losses I really couldn't believe that Neb and Miami were the best teams out there (from my limited group) during the 80's - early 2000's. I'm sure FSU is close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 They still lost to ASU... His statement is equivalent to me saying, "If UGA hadn't lost to Boise and had that 3 point loss to South Car. they would be in the NC talk, too..." It is a ridiculous assertion. How is that ridiculous? If Georgia hadn't got dominated by the Boise State Bronco's they WOULD BE in the discussion for the NC game with the other 1 loss teams. :drawspicture: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said "if not for their 3OT loss to Stanford they would be in the discussion for the NC game" Explain to me again, how a 1-loss USC team with the way they are playing wouldn't be in the discussion for the NC game? Ridiculous is right.. They lost by 3 Touchdowns to ASU, an unranked team. If you look at the BCS standings, Okie St., while in the "discussion" is currently trailing a 1 loss Bama team. A 1 loss USC team would be behind a 1 loss Stanford (oh, nevermind, Stanford has two losses in your scenario) and Okie St. team. That would currently put them ranked as the #5 team in the country. USC is definitely the best team in the nation and the most elite program EVER!!!! Were it not for them losing to an un-ranked ASU team, not losing to Stanford and not being on probation for CHEATING, they would be the favorites to win the national title game against a UGA team who didn't lose to BSU and South Carolina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Mediocre team, with some good seasons sprinkled in from 1980 - 2001. Just the facts: In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 How is that ridiculous? If Georgia hadn't got dominated by the Boise State Bronco's they WOULD BE in the discussion for the NC game with the other 1 loss teams. :drawspicture: Ummm, no.... Their strength of schedule would still place them behind the likes of Bama, Okie St. and Stanford... Much like with USC, they played a not so tough schedule this year and had they only lost to ASU, that loss would still put a damper on their national title hopes. Much like what happened to Auburn in 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 They lost by 3 Touchdowns to ASU, an unranked team. If you look at the BCS standings, Okie St., while in the "discussion" is currently trailing a 1 loss Bama team. A 1 loss USC team would be behind a 1 loss Stanford (oh, nevermind, Stanford has two losses in your scenario) and Okie St. team. That would currently put them ranked as the #5 team in the country. USC is definitely the best team in the nation and the most elite program EVER!!!! Were it not for them losing to an un-ranked ASU team, not losing to Stanford and not being on probation for CHEATING, they would be the favorites to win the national title game against a UGA team who didn't lose to BSU and South Carolina. I love it how you, self professed, "Kings of College Football" jump all over a post that's main point was the great job Lane Kiffin had done coaching a team with no post season to play for and made it into something else? Especially coming from a team that beats up on other SEC teams but get's their A$$ handed to them by "lowly" Boise State in their own backyard. Comical. Stay on point fella's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Just the facts: In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936. You're welcome. How are win-loss records not "just the facts"? UCLA lost fewer games than USC over a 24 season span. USC was elite from 1939 to 1980, they were irrelevant from 1980-2000, they became relevant again after Pete Carrol and Reggie Bush. Those are "just the facts." And I'm not sure how they can be the program of the decade when they have exactly ONE BCS championship in that decade and said BCS championship had to be vacated due to their being caught cheating... Further, over this same decade, LSU and UF each have two national titles... Just the facts... So, cling to the "fact" that USC is the bestes, greatest, most relevant program ever according to sports reporters... Us morons here in SEC land will shine our national championship rings and continue to post better win-loss records as we are obviously incapable of looking at the facts, as you see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Ummm, no.... Their strength of schedule would still place them behind the likes of Bama, Okie St. and Stanford... Much like with USC, they played a not so tough schedule this year and had they only lost to ASU, that loss would still put a damper on their national title hopes. Much like what happened to Auburn in 2002. I get the fact that they played a weak SEC schedule BUT, again ..... your saying a 1 loss SEC team wouldn't even be in the discussion for the NC game? Your high. Edited November 28, 2011 by theprofessor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I love it how you, self professed, "Kings of College Football" jump all over a post that's main point was the great job Lane Kiffin had done coaching a team with no post season to play for and made it into something else? Especially coming from a team that beats up on other SEC teams but get's their A$$ handed to them by "lowly" Boise State in their own backyard. Comical. Stay on point fella's. Hey, smart guy, what is Boise currently ranked? What is ASU currently ranked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I get the fact that they played a weak SEC schedule BUT, again ..... your saying a 1 loss SEC team wouldn't even be in the discussion for the NC game? Your high. Yes, I'm high. But, when I edit, I edit to correct my mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 How are win-loss records not "just the facts"? UCLA lost fewer games than USC over a 24 season span. USC was elite from 1939 to 1980, they were irrelevant from 1980-2000, they became relevant again after Pete Carrol and Reggie Bush. Those are "just the facts." And I'm not sure how they can be the program of the decade when they have exactly ONE BCS championship in that decade and said BCS championship had to be vacated due to their being caught cheating... Further, over this same decade, LSU and UF each have two national titles... Just the facts... So, cling to the "fact" that USC is the bestes, greatest, most relevant program ever according to sports reporters... Us morons here in SEC land will shine our national championship rings and continue to post better win-loss records as we are obviously incapable of looking at the facts, as you see them. Again, the facts are there in bold print. You just need to move beyond the "envy colored" glasses to see them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Hey, smart guy, what is Boise currently ranked? What is ASU currently ranked? Hey, smart guy, do I need to pull out your opening season thread about your horrible SEC team getting dominated by Boise State? I know their rankings and again I need to understand what compelled you to jump all over my post about "USC playing as well as anyone else right now", when clearly they are. And for anyone saying that USC should not be considered an elite program obviously knows nothing about the history of college football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Yes, I'm high. But, when I edit, I edit to correct my mistakes. Really, me too? Thought I would spell weak correctly. Not that you'd noticed the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Pulled up some other "elite" programs from the same time period (80-03):Nebraska: 51 losses Notre Dame: 93 losses UCLA: 98 losses Okie: 83 losses Miami: 51 losses Michigan: 68 losses I really couldn't believe that Neb and Miami were the best teams out there (from my limited group) during the 80's - early 2000's. I'm sure FSU is close. Nebraska was kind of the chit in that time frame. Its funny because when I was in HS (mid 90s) and Nebraska was good, I never heard a thing about USC. I kind of had to be educated about their history because honestly we were always playing some Florida team and USC was never in the conversation for about a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Nebraska was kind of the chit in that time frame. Its funny because when I was in HS (mid 90s) and Nebraska was good, I never heard a thing about USC. I kind of had to be educated about their history because honestly we were always playing some Florida team and USC was never in the conversation for about a decade. How can that be? According to theprofessor they were an elite school before Bush even got there. Because, you know, averaging 7 wins a year for the 20 before bush arrives is ELITE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.