BS Miscreant Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I was all set to rant about it, after the last few results, but then decided to see what everyone else thought. So... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Meh, somewhere around 20 is where they should be IMO. They are good, but nothing special at 7-3. I think the "media darling" effect will only drop them to around 15 however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm a bit surprised by how far they dropped but after the complete asswhoopin's they have takin lately they probably shouldn't be top 25. This is why I didn't go on a rant. I thought the media might actually get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Meh, the field gets so muddy after around #15 that I think it's sort of pointless to argue exactly where teams should be from that point back. IMO, you shouldn't be top 25 after 2, 30pt losses and another to a team with a losing record. Then again, I haven't spent much time looking into the resumes of the other teams around them, so maybe that's par for the course. USC does have a win vs a top 10 team. Had they stuck around 15 or so, that would have been a total joke, but anything outside of that and I think it's much ado about nothing. The USC media bias thing is the latest annoying battle cry. There's at least 10 other programs who get the benefit of the doubt in this matter. The fact that USC is not very good this year does not mean they've been overrated all this time, it means they're not very good this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 The fact that USC is not very good this year does not mean they've been overrated all this time, it means they're not very good this year. This is exactly what I was looking at when I started this. I was curious to see whether the media would recognize what I had and you just said it. Regardless of how good they have been, they're clearly not very good this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 This is exactly what I was looking at when I started this. I was curious to see whether the media would recognize what I had and you just said it. Regardless of how good they have been, they're clearly not very good this year. However, they deserved the benefit of the doubt until the pooped the bed vs Oregon and Stanford. Stubbing their toe vs Washington was just their annual screw-up. However, every January they proved they belonged among the Nation's elite. Now it's rather apparent that they just have some major flaws (mind you, one has to wonder what sort of team they'd be if Sanchez was still there). So, while I would have been rather annoyed had the voters kept them above 15, I'm just as annoyed at the nay-sayers jumping around yelling, "See, see, they're just not that good. I've been saying it for years, they're overrated!" Not, by any means, mind you, putting you in that category. 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.