Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: ASNetlenov on April 27, 2005, 02:23:46 PM

Title: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 27, 2005, 02:23:46 PM
Conference rankings?

1.SEC
2.ACC
3.Big XII
4.Big 10 (11, wtf)
5.Pac 10
6.Big East
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 27, 2005, 02:29:53 PM
oh oh oh
Whoopee!

1.SEC
2.ACC
3.Big 12


actually... i completely agree with your list. damn. i was ready for a debate.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: official2008 on April 27, 2005, 02:32:34 PM
Conference rankings?

1.SEC
2.ACC
3.Big XII
4.Big 10 (11, wtf)
5.Pac 10
6.Big East


i think it's actually...


1. ACC
2. ACC
3. ACC
4. ACC
5. ACC
and .......
6. ACC




but seriously, the acc is the best now, but won't get the official crown for another three years or so.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: htrus on April 27, 2005, 02:46:32 PM
1. Big XII
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. Big 10 Pac 10 (tie)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 27, 2005, 02:48:37 PM
1. Big XII
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. Big 10 Pac 10 (tie)

What?! U are crazy. Help me out here ASN
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 27, 2005, 03:22:58 PM
1. SEC fo' sho' Go Gators
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. Big Twelve
5. Pac Ten
6. Big East
7. Mac
8. Conf. USA
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 27, 2005, 03:59:07 PM
you guys are going to have to put your championship dreams on ice for at least a year cuz the Trojans are 3peating

respek
(http://img179.echo.cx/img179/4662/uscbcstraveler5le.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 07:33:26 AM
1. Big XII
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. Big 10 Pac 10 (tie)

What?! U are crazy. Help me out here ASN
No, that just ain't right.

The Big XII has two good teams at the top and not much else. K State and Nebraska are not in 1998 form these days; they have to be moved down. There is nothing else in that conference.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 07:34:50 AM
1. SEC fo' sho' Go Gators
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. Big Twelve
5. Pac Ten
6. Big East
7. Mac
8. Conf. USA
The Big Ten at #2? Put down the pipe. And I would almost put the Pac 10 below the Mac, but there is that little problem of USC.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 07:37:42 AM
1. SEC fo' sho' Go Gators
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. Big Twelve
5. Pac Ten
6. Big East
7. Mac
8. Conf. USA

Now, monimone, I know you are a Gator fan. And a Buckeye fan? But really. There is no way in hell that the Big Ten goes ahead of the new ACC. Maybe before we added VaTech and Miami maybe. The Big Ten is the most overrated conference in football. And that is really saying something because there are several.

GO NOLES!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 07:39:11 AM
1. SEC fo' sho' Go Gators
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. Big Twelve
5. Pac Ten
6. Big East
7. Mac
8. Conf. USA
The Big Ten at #2? Put down the pipe. And I would almost put the Pac 10 below the Mac, but there is that little problem of USC.

 :D
jinx
Buckeye fans are delusional ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 07:45:18 AM
:D
jinx
Buckeye fans are delusional ::)
Of course they are, they are fans of THE Ohio State University. And I know the "THE" is a slap at Ohio (the University), but really, who cares.

Big X (11- counting be hard) football = slow.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 07:49:54 AM
THE Ohio State University (that is pretty annoying after a while WE GET IT!) won most of their games in the last few years by a field goal. Now, I know a W is a W but still.... How much respect can you truly expect? But yet ESPN and everyone else just talks and talks and talks about the Big Ten. I would like to see the teams of the Big Ten make it thru a season in the new ACC. But everyone is under the impression that they are the greatest conference because ESPN are Big Ten whores.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 07:53:45 AM
THE Ohio State University (that is pretty annoying after a while WE GET IT!) won most of their games in the last few years by a field goal. Now, I know a W is a W but still.... How much respect can you truly expect? But yet ESPN and everyone else just talks and talks and talks about the Big Ten. I would like to see the teams of the Big Ten make it thru a season in the new ACC. But everyone is under the impression that they are the greatest conference because ESPN are Big Ten whores.
That is because the ESPN guys grew up during a time when Big Ten football was the best thing going. Sadly, that was many years ago. They just need to get past their collective youth.

And as far as OSU goes, Nugent is gone and I hope they have a good replacement for him.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:03:12 AM
Well since he was the one that one them most their games...

Pretty sad when the loss of your kicker means trouble for your team  ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 08:05:28 AM
Yeah, OSU could have a hard year.  Nug was a big help these last couple as you could always count on him.  You have to give OSU some respect as they pulled off many close games.

As for the best conference.  I decided to do a little math with the final BCS (yes, I know how accurate they are) from last year.  USC got 25 pts for finishing 1st, Oklahoma got 24, etc.  Then I added up all the points for each conference.  Also listed is the # of teams in the top 25.  And actually I think it gives a pretty good ranking...

Rank Conf   Pts Teams
1.   SEC    71  5
2.   Big 12 58  5
3.   Pac 10 53  3
4.   ACC    48  4
5.   Big 10 37  4
6.   Mt W   20  1
7.   WAC    17  1
8.   C USA  16  1
9.   Big E   5  1





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:11:59 AM
See I don't agree with that way of ranking conferences.  The easier your conference is, the better your record, the higher you finish in the BCS or any other poll. All they have to do is win one bowl game. Georgia Tech would go to a BCS bowl every year if they played in the Pac 10. I know there are good teams in each conference but I don't think rankings (especially the BCS) tell the whole story. But I do realize there is something to be said for an objective formula.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 08:14:31 AM
The thing with the Pac 10 is that there is nothing after Cal and USC. The majority of the conference is weak, and I think the BCS formula used above is probably too top heavy.
It's the freakin' Pac 10 where they don't play defense. I do not know how they can be placed above the slow Big 10 even.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 08:16:19 AM
See I don't agree with that way of ranking conferences.  The easier your conference is, the better your record, the higher you finish in the BCS or any other poll. All they have to do is win one bowl game. Georgia Tech would go to a BCS bowl every year if they played in the Pac 10. I know there are good teams in each conference but I don't think rankings (especially the BCS) tell the whole story. But I do realize there is something to be said for an objective formula.

I never said it was perfect, it was just something I put together b/c I was curious.  The couple things you mentioned I totally agree with.  And don't get my started on the BCS rankings.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 08:18:28 AM
The thing with the Pac 10 is that there is nothing after Cal and USC. The majority of the conference is weak, and I think the BCS formula used above is probably too top heavy.
It's the freakin' Pac 10 where they don't play defense. I do not know how they can be placed above the slow Big 10 even.

We could agrue all day about proper weighting, it's pointless, I just just put something together.  I would move the Pac 10 down myself, but I wasn't going to put some subjective change in the numbers ranking I did.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:24:27 AM
This is true and it is exactly (one) the problem with the BCS. GOD I hate the BCS. I just will NEVER understand why college football is a the ONLY major sport without a playoff system. And that crap about college players not being able to handle that many games with their young bodies and academic careers is just laughable. Half these guys are leaving early to go to the NFL anyway. Other college sports do it. And I don't see how 2-3 more games is going to make that much of a difference. It is crap. Every year, college football fans have no clear champion. No way to determine the best team. That is ridiculous! GOD it pisses me off!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 08:28:49 AM
The BCS should be roasted in Hell, along with its creators. I do not understand the argument that a playoff system would detract from the current bowl system. Why can't we have both. 8 teams qualify for the playoffs based on some BCS system and the rest of the teams keep on keeping on. It would only take 7 bowl games to find a winner and everyone would be happy.

At least ND is still terrible and cannot negotiate the same special perks they were able to get last time. I hate that school because the media gives them so much attention. See earlier remarks about ESPN and the Big 10. Same idea.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:34:29 AM
This is true. I never understood that arguement either. You wouldn't even have to change the bowls. It pisses me off that, really, in the end, it is not about what is best for the sport or the players or the teams or the fans. It is about money and how the TV networks can fit it into their schedule. I mean, bowls pick teams based on how much money that team will bring to the area, not based on who deserves to be there or what would make for the best game. We should not sacrifice the game for the sake of profit.

Though I do not share your hatred for ND (I kinda like their whole tradition thing), you are right that they get an inorinant amount of attention for a team that has not been a contender in years. Games of teams that are having great yrs don't get televised but every game of a team that has not been to a national championship in decades do? Not right.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 08:37:15 AM
I also would love to see an 8 team playoff.  It's not like they already don't have tons of time off between the end of the season and the bowl games.  3 weeks and you could do an eight team playoff.  The biggest obstacles are tradition and money.  Oddly enough, the same reason the big 10 and ND get some much coverage.  If they want to keep the bowl games, but rotate them through the "BCS" tournament.  Grab the biggest bowl games, the 4 BCS, plus 3 others.

I disagree with having everyone else continuing to play though, that would wreak havoc on scheduling.  Plus, those games would be drastically over shadowed by the BCS games.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: htrus on April 28, 2005, 08:40:08 AM
1. Big XII
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. Big 10 Pac 10 (tie)

What?! U are crazy. Help me out here ASN
No, that just ain't right.

The Big XII has two good teams at the top and not much else. K State and Nebraska are not in 1998 form these days; they have to be moved down. There is nothing else in that conference.

I am homer, I admit it. It would be hard to argue they are not in the top 2-3 for the last 10 years, however.

I do agree Nebraska and KSU are down last year, but Nebraska recruited well this year, so I would not say their program is dead yet. Snyder's track record at K-State has been pretty consistent so I would be surprised if they were down for too long.

I also think that TTech, A & M, and OSU are all teams on the rise, and will provide enough competition for OU and Texas in the South. There are more than 2 teams in the conference.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:40:36 AM

I disagree with having everyone else continuing to play though, that would wreak havoc on scheduling.  Plus, those games would be drastically over shadowed by the BCS games.

This is a problem with that plan. so what happens to the other teams? all but eight have no post season? I don't think that would fly.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 08:43:19 AM
I like the ND tradition, the media just ruined it for me by ramming it down my throat when they have not been good since '89.

I think this is a case of the TV industry being risk averse. There is plenty of money in the modified system. The execs are just too old and fearful to see the potential for MORE money and MORE interest in college football with a playoff system. The university presidents, who are also a big problem, are just as bad. Go figure, they are in academia and afraid of risk. Note: I think teaching and working in academics is a great thing, but it does not qualify you to mess around with my college football.

If the Auburn outrage did not change the system, I do not know what will. Maybe it would have been better if Oklahoma had put up a fight against USC. In that event, people would not have thought it was a forgone conclusion that USC would have dominated Auburn too. I still wanted to see the game.

And how does the BCS respond- they add a 5th game. Whoop-dee-do-dah. I hate those bastards for ruining the best sport in the world.

Feeling better after that mini-rant.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 08:50:31 AM
This is a problem with that plan. so what happens to the other teams? all but eight have no post season? I don't think that would fly.

Yeah, that's a good question.  I guess you could just keep the rest of the bowl games and they could compete in those.  My problem with continuing the season is what if you're supposed to play team A, but they made the tourny, now what do you do?  Take the week off?

My way of doing this would be.  For 06 New year's day is a sunday, guess that's when they'd play the championship game, or on the 31st.  That means you'd still need the 17th and 24th for the first 2 rounds.  Make the 10th and off week.  Or play on the 3rd and 10th, 24th off (it is x-mas).  Almost everyone is done by the 3rd of Dec anyway.  It really wouldn't be that hard.  And if you wanted to, everyone else could play their so what bowls in there too.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 08:53:07 AM
It's not like the players have to worry about exams.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 08:53:11 AM
Note: I think teaching and working in academics is a great thing, but it does not qualify you to mess around with my college football.


Here here!  :D


And how does the BCS respond- they add a 5th game. Whoop-dee-do-dah. I hate those bastards for ruining the best sport in the world.

Yeah. What did this accomplish? Nothing. It just shows the absolute idiocy of the system that you need to add ANOTHER game just to make up for the flaws in the rest of the system.


If the Auburn outrage did not change the system, I do not know what will. Maybe it would have been better if Oklahoma had put up a fight against USC. In that event, people would not have thought it was a forgone conclusion that USC would have dominated Auburn too. I still wanted to see the game.


I agree. If someone can go undefeated in the SEC and not go to the National Championship, something is REALLY wrong. I think everyone really wanted to see that game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 09:01:08 AM
The fifth game will let the undefeated team from a weak conference play in a BCS game. Who cares about those small schools? It's nice that they have great seasons, but they are beating teams with players like me, and that is not impressive or worthy of any serious consideration.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on April 28, 2005, 09:03:11 AM
Here in Columbus, they are talking about another Buckeye national championship.

The team is probably not going to miss Nugent.  Seriously, Zwick will be better and the buckeyes have a serious threat in Ted Ginn.  I think it's going to ride on the defense.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Boehmer on April 28, 2005, 09:06:13 AM
Yeah, what does a 5th game accomplish?  It's still a "so what" game.  It doesn't do a damn.

Yeah, everyone down in c-bus does have their hopes up for this year and they'll definently be riding the defense (that's big 10 football).  I think it'd just be nice to have an offense that can put up some points and not have to depend on the special teams for TD's.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on April 28, 2005, 09:09:39 AM
Yeah, what does a 5th game accomplish?  It's still a "so what" game.  It doesn't do a damn.

Yeah, everyone down in c-bus does have their hopes up for this year and they'll definently be riding the defense (that's big 10 football).  I think it'd just be nice to have an offense that can put up some points and not have to depend on the special teams for TD's.

Ginn will be a special teams threat, but Tressel is working him into the regular offense.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 09:11:31 AM
What they should do is eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule and get rid of those pointless conference championship games. Who the hell wants to see Iowa State play Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship anyway? Put in an 8 team playoff and then see who the true national champion is. USC was tough, but would they have beaten Auburn?
Also, I dont get why everyone rags on the Big 10. Ok, it's not the most exciting conference to watch (i.e. Last year's Iowa 6 PSU 4) offensively, but they do play defense. And look at last year's bowl games: Ohio State 33 - Okla St 7 (should have beaten Okla), Minnesota 20 - Alabama 16...Iowa over LSU...Georgia was supposed to be great and could barely beat Wisc, and Texas over Michigan by 1. All I know is that if you stuck Michigan or Iowa in against USC, they wouldn't have put up 55 points. I'd rather see a defensive battle anyday over an offensive explosion and a defensive sh*tshow.
And you can say I'm hitting the pipe as well...but next year's sleeper will be Penn State. Returning the whole defense, not to mention we actually have a mobile quarterback with an arm, and Williams and King look unbelievable. Look out in 06 too.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 09:19:01 AM
What they should do is eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule and get rid of those pointless conference championship games. Who the hell wants to see Iowa State play Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship anyway? Put in an 8 team playoff and then see who the true national champion is. USC was tough, but would they have beaten Auburn?
Also, I dont get why everyone rags on the Big 10. Ok, it's not the most exciting conference to watch (i.e. Last year's Iowa 6 PSU 4) offensively, but they do play defense. And look at last year's bowl games: Ohio State 33 - Okla St 7 (should have beaten Okla), Minnesota 20 - Alabama 16...Iowa over LSU...Georgia was supposed to be great and could barely beat Wisc, and Texas over Michigan by 1. All I know is that if you stuck Michigan or Iowa in against USC, they wouldn't have put up 55 points. I'd rather see a defensive battle anyday over an offensive explosion and a defensive sh*tshow.
And you can say I'm hitting the pipe as well...but next year's sleeper will be Penn State. Returning the whole defense, not to mention we actually have a mobile quarterback with an arm, and Williams and King look unbelievable. Look out in 06 too.
This is fair. I do not mean to rag on the Big 10. They play excellent defense, which should be appreciated. I think it started when someone said the Big 10 was better than the ACC.

The only conference truly worthy of being regularly ripped is that joke called the Pac 10. Terrible, just terrible.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 09:30:19 AM
Exactly right. The Pac 10 is a joke. At least there are a couple good teams in the Big 10 and they can play defense. I will give them that. But Pac 10 should be D2.

And what is up with conferences not being able to count?! I realize it is name recognition but sheesh!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on April 28, 2005, 09:40:47 AM
Exactly right. The Pac 10 is a joke. At least there are a couple good teams in the Big 10 and they can play defense. I will give them that. But Pac 10 should be D2.

And what is up with conferences not being able to count?! I realize it is name recognition but sheesh!

You'll notice that there is an eleven (look at the T) in the Big Ten logo.  It is their way of maintaining name recognition, while also recognizing Penn State's admittance.

(http://web.brandsoftheworld.com/_data/objects/33253/logo_thumbnail.gif)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 09:44:15 AM
Wow. Thats funny. I never noticed that. Those tricky Big Teners!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 09:52:53 AM
Exactly right. The Pac 10 is a joke. At least there are a couple good teams in the Big 10 and they can play defense. I will give them that. But Pac 10 should be D2.

And what is up with conferences not being able to count?! I realize it is name recognition but sheesh!

You'll notice that there is an eleven (look at the T) in the Big Ten logo.  It is their way of maintaining name recognition, while also recognizing Penn State's admittance.

(http://web.brandsoftheworld.com/_data/objects/33253/logo_thumbnail.gif)
It's still silly. Just change the name to the Big 11. The Big 8 made the change to the Big XII. That way they could avoid trying to cram a second number in there using negative space.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 09:55:26 AM
 :D

see this is why the smart conferences just use words, not numbers ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 10:17:48 AM
:D

see this is why the smart conferences just use words, not numbers ;)

Well, maybe if you subtract Miami...anyone who can spell their own name and catch a football is worthy of playing for Larry Coker.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 10:25:49 AM
SO SO true. i forget that they are now included when i talk about the ACC.  :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 11:08:05 AM
One of their most highly touted recruits had something like 13 misdemeanors and 2-3 felony convictions...and I think they said Frank Gore scored a 7 on the Wonderlic test...it's pretty pathetic and it gives them a HUGE recruiting edge. If you were an excellent athlete, possibly bound for the pros, and dumb as dogsh*t...would you rather play for a school that makes you go to class and maintain a decent GPA, or head over to miami where you can pick some easy, BS major.. and all that matters is how you perform on the field. It's almost like going to high school all over again...except you get to play on national tv in front of huge crowds.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 28, 2005, 11:08:43 AM
The Big Ten is just as competitive as the ACC.  If I'm not mistakened Ohio State has beaten both Miami and NC State.  Its not that often an ACC team beats a Big Ten team.  We Gators have even struggled with Michigan and Iowa in bowl games.  The ACC does have 3 good teams, Va Tech, Miami and sorry FSU.  But of late, none of them have really been worthy of bcs bowl games.  I believe even FSU had some trouble with West VA of all teams last year in Jacksonville.  And that leads me to another point.  FSU, you have to play a conference championship game now.  Wow!  You can kiss the ACC bye bye.  To all the Buckeye haters out there, don't hate the playa hate the game.  The Buckeyes have legacy and tradition just as the Gators.  You can't beat that with a ten foot pole.  LOL.  And yes it is THE Ohio State and now it is THE University of Florida.  Hell, Miami refers to themselves as The U.  How arrogant is that?  Just the same it is THE Free Shoes University.  LOL  ;D ;D :'(  
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2005, 11:10:10 AM
What they should do is eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule and get rid of those pointless conference championship games. Who the hell wants to see Iowa State play Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship anyway? Put in an 8 team playoff and then see who the true national champion is. USC was tough, but would they have beaten Auburn?
Also, I dont get why everyone rags on the Big 10. Ok, it's not the most exciting conference to watch (i.e. Last year's Iowa 6 PSU 4) offensively, but they do play defense. And look at last year's bowl games: Ohio State 33 - Okla St 7 (should have beaten Okla), Minnesota 20 - Alabama 16...Iowa over LSU...Georgia was supposed to be great and could barely beat Wisc, and Texas over Michigan by 1. All I know is that if you stuck Michigan or Iowa in against USC, they wouldn't have put up 55 points. I'd rather see a defensive battle anyday over an offensive explosion and a defensive sh*tshow.
And you can say I'm hitting the pipe as well...but next year's sleeper will be Penn State. Returning the whole defense, not to mention we actually have a mobile quarterback with an arm, and Williams and King look unbelievable. Look out in 06 too.

what???
 are you kidding me?

USC dominated OU and would have beaten the holy hell out of AU and anyone else.
 55-19 b*itches
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 28, 2005, 11:12:01 AM
USC Should have lost to Va Tech that first game!!!  There is no way you can dispute that.  Though you still are a formidable opponent.  UF will meet you "Trojan men" at the Championship game.  We are a far cry from that sorry LSU team you beat before!!!    ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
USC Should have lost to Va Tech that first game!!!  There is no way you can dispute that.  Though you still are a formidable opponent.  UF will meet at the Championship game.  We are a far cry from that sorry LSU team you beat before!!!    ;D

woulda shoulda coulda bblah blah blah ;D

the fact is that USC did not lose because they were the superior team in an extremely hostile environment.

every skill player on our current offense can make a one handed grab and has done so numerously in the past.. can you say that about UF?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 28, 2005, 11:17:20 AM
C'mon lets be serious.  Our wide receivers are as gifted as anyone on your sorry squad.  Wait until we meet at the Championship game.  Your sure to go back.  Its not like you play anyone worthwhile.  Maybe you'll have some competition out of your conference!   ??? ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 11:26:13 AM
Quote

what???
 are you kidding me?

USC dominated OU and would have beaten the holy hell out of AU and anyone else.
 55-19 b*itches
Quote

You guys were good, I'll give you that...but the only good teams you played all year were Cal who was overrated, Arizona State who was also overrated, a streaky Notre Dame team at best...and Oklahoma who you stomped. I'd like to see USC schedule some decent non-conference games than cruise along all year in the #1 position against weak PAC-10 teams.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 11:28:08 AM
It's a good thing USC plays in the Pac 10 or they might be doing a good job of offing themselves this season.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/arash_markazi/04/22/college.blog/index.html
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 11:32:24 AM
The Big Ten is just as competitive as the ACC.  If I'm not mistakened Ohio State has beaten both Miami and NC State.  Its not that often an ACC team beats a Big Ten team.  We Gators have even struggled with Michigan and Iowa in bowl games.  The ACC does have 3 good teams, Va Tech, Miami and sorry FSU.  But of late, none of them have really been worthy of bcs bowl games.  I believe even FSU had some trouble with West VA of all teams last year in Jacksonville.  And that leads me to another point.  FSU, you have to play a conference championship game now.  Wow!  You can kiss the ACC bye bye.  To all the Buckeye haters out there, don't hate the playa hate the game.  The Buckeyes have legacy and tradition just as the Gators.  You can't beat that with a ten foot pole.  LOL.  And yes it is THE Ohio State and now it is THE University of Florida.  Hell, Miami refers to themselves as The U.  How arrogant is that?  Just the same it is THE Free Shoes University.  LOL  ;D ;D :'(   

Ok. The Free Shoes University thing is pretty funny. But don't get me started on how many other teams' players have done the EXACT same thing. But I digress...

We did not have trouble with WVU. I was at that game. We had it the whole time. And I am excited about a championship game. That way, no matter what, the winner of the division is clear. Sure we won't win it every year but at least when we do win it it will be a clear victory. And as far as Big 10 teams beating ACC teams, that is not a fair indicator of which conference is better. That is one team in one game. And a bowl game at that. You have to look at the conference as a whole. And any team can have a bad game or a great game on any given Saturday.

And by the way, FSU has only lost to a Big Ten team once. They have beaten Big Ten teams 7 times.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 28, 2005, 11:38:40 AM
Nole girl, you seem to really know your stuff.  That's cool!  I still think your football team sucks but its always a good rivalry.  I see that you are a staunch believer in nole football but you have got to see the writing on the wall.  UF will dominate the state for the next ten years or so Miami will beat you all most of the time and Va Tech will always beat you.  The disparities in coaching in the ACC are vast.  Beamer is the #1 coach in your conference with Larry Coker being #2 and Bobby Bowden being #3.  The picture seems a little dim for y'all.  LOL :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 28, 2005, 11:38:53 AM
Quote

what???
 are you kidding me?

USC dominated OU and would have beaten the holy hell out of AU and anyone else.
 55-19 b*itches
Quote

You guys were good, I'll give you that...but the only good teams you played all year were Cal who was overrated, Arizona State who was also overrated, a streaky Notre Dame team at best...and Oklahoma who you stomped. I'd like to see USC schedule some decent non-conference games than cruise along all year in the #1 position against weak PAC-10 teams.

we can agree to disagree but i think that 55-19 against the concensus #2 leaves no doubt in my mind that no one could hold a candle to them last year.

plus we have the best athletes in the country in leinart, byrd, bush, smith, jarret, and ... get this malone, a punter who averages 50 yards a kick
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 12:17:26 PM
Nole girl, you seem to really know your stuff.  That's cool!  I still think your football team sucks but its always a good rivalry.  I see that you are a staunch believer in nole football but you have got to see the writing on the wall.  UF will dominate the state for the next ten years or so Miami will beat you all most of the time and Va Tech will always beat you.  The disparities in coaching in the ACC are vast.  Beamer is the #1 coach in your conference with Larry Coker being #2 and Bobby Bowden being #3.  The picture seems a little dim for y'all.  LOL :'( :'( :'(

Please. I agree beamer is good. Coker?! Please. He has a team full of criminals and punks. he has been lucky to get some great talent (mostly because all the punks out there know they can go to Miami and not get kicked off for their infractions.) But the minute they start getting challenged, they are done. They coasted easily in the Big East for years with their only tests being out of conference games. Give them a few years in a real conference and see how great you think he is. Beamer has been at Va Tech for a while and he deserves credit for many of their successes. And, in case you missed it, Bobby is the winningest coach in D1 college football. Ever.Have I already said this? Oh well. Must have missed it. He took a crappy team and turned them into a national powerhouse. Have any of those other coaches come CLOSE to doing that? I don;t think so. He is the heart and soul of Seminole football. What other coach is that to their program? Maybe Paterno. Maybe Beamer. These are coaches who have built their team. THAT is what makes a great coach. W/L records from year to year count very little against the big picture.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 12:36:36 PM
And, in case you missed it, Bobby is the winningest coach in D1 college football.

Nolegirl, i agree with mostly everything except Bowden won like 30 games at Samford which is Division 1 AA. I dont think that should count towards the overall total. He's a great coach, and will most likely hold on longer than Joe, but right now, gotta stick with Paterno on this one :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 12:39:07 PM
And, in case you missed it, Bobby is the winningest coach in D1 college football.

Nolegirl, i agree with mostly everything except Bowden won like 30 games at Samford which is Division 1 AA. I dont think that should count towards the overall total. He's a great coach, and will most likely hold on longer than Joe, but right now, gotta stick with Paterno on this one :)

touche  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 01:16:32 PM
Speaking of Paterno, anyone know when he is going to retire? After this year? The man was great but this is getting a little silly.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 01:17:50 PM
Yeah. I love ole Joe Pa but I think it is time for him to go. At least Bobby's team still wins games.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 01:30:45 PM
Bobby had a rough stretch relative to his standards but he rebounded nicely. As long as he keeps getting players like Simms, he'll be just fine. That is one scary linebacker. I think he is better than Ahmad Brooks, and I'm a UVa fan.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 01:36:47 PM
Simms is one scary dude. i am glad he is on our side of the ball
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 01:42:42 PM
I'm telling everyone this year to watch out for Chris Long though.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 01:43:55 PM
I am hearing good things about Xavier Lee too. God I hope we finally have a great QB!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 01:47:51 PM
Spoiled child. I'm just jealous. I think the other fans have left for the day. ???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 01:50:46 PM
quitters
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on April 28, 2005, 02:23:34 PM
They must be the type of people the Pac 10 recruits for defense.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 02:24:52 PM
They must be the type of people the Pac 10 recruits for defense.

 :D
LMAO

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 28, 2005, 02:47:37 PM
interesting article
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/3576170
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 28, 2005, 03:03:08 PM
Speaking of Paterno, anyone know when he is going to retire? After this year? The man was great but this is getting a little silly.

You're going to get the typical Penn State fan response from me: the man can leave whenever he wants to. I understand all the criticism (.e. seenile fool talk about Paterno/he's selfish for driving the program into the ground/he doesnt have it anymore) just as much as non-PSU fans know all the defenses (he made PSU football/put the university on the map, etc). The fact of the matter is that it's not him that is the problem. It's his a-hole son Jay Paterno who won't let Galen Hall call the shots. Jay couldn't run a high school football team, let alone PSU. Also the fact that our quarterback was actually regressing instead of progressing killed us as well.
I rambled for a little, but I think Paterno will leave when we make it to a top 10 finish. Next year should be promising, and we should make a big run in 06 for the national title. Word around here is that Tom Bradley will take over after Paterno, however there's been a Neuheisel sighting on campus this summer.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: monimone on April 28, 2005, 04:49:25 PM
I heard of Xavier Lee too when he first was recruited.  He may do you all justice.  He's not like our backup J. Portis.  But he'll make things a lot more challenging for us in November.  Hey, who is your running back.  Your having trouble replacing that boss hog Greg Jones.  I really liked him, even as a gator.  I remember when he ran over Sean Taylor at Doak in the rain.  That was so funny.  And when he basically punched that NC defender's helmet off, priceless.  I wouldn't mind having a back like that here at the swamp!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on April 28, 2005, 05:20:08 PM
What they should do is eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule and get rid of those pointless conference championship games. Who the hell wants to see Iowa State play Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship anyway? Put in an 8 team playoff and then see who the true national champion is. USC was tough, but would they have beaten Auburn?
Also, I dont get why everyone rags on the Big 10. Ok, it's not the most exciting conference to watch (i.e. Last year's Iowa 6 PSU 4) offensively, but they do play defense. And look at last year's bowl games: Ohio State 33 - Okla St 7 (should have beaten Okla), Minnesota 20 - Alabama 16...Iowa over LSU...Georgia was supposed to be great and could barely beat Wisc, and Texas over Michigan by 1. All I know is that if you stuck Michigan or Iowa in against USC, they wouldn't have put up 55 points. I'd rather see a defensive battle anyday over an offensive explosion and a defensive sh*tshow.
And you can say I'm hitting the pipe as well...but next year's sleeper will be Penn State. Returning the whole defense, not to mention we actually have a mobile quarterback with an arm, and Williams and King look unbelievable. Look out in 06 too.

Yes.  PSU will win no fewer than 8 this season.  Yes.  I cannot wait.

The secondary is going to prove that they are amongst the national elite, not just because the only play is to run against PSU, but because they are talented.  The D line is the most experienced in the Big 10.  Robinson will be OK, but not phenomenal, at least he has had significant playing time.  Without Zack Mills creating 4+ turnovers ON HIS OWN every game, all those 3 and 7 point losses become PSU wins.  We've been just a step away for a while.  This year we take a few steps.

Um, not to speak of Tony Hunt, Austin Scott, Williams and King.

It's a complete team for the first time since when we sent 5 guys in the first round 3 years ago.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on April 28, 2005, 05:26:43 PM
Nole girl, you seem to really know your stuff.  That's cool!  I still think your football team sucks but its always a good rivalry.  I see that you are a staunch believer in nole football but you have got to see the writing on the wall.  UF will dominate the state for the next ten years or so Miami will beat you all most of the time and Va Tech will always beat you.  The disparities in coaching in the ACC are vast.  Beamer is the #1 coach in your conference with Larry Coker being #2 and Bobby Bowden being #3.  The picture seems a little dim for y'all.  LOL :'( :'( :'(

Please. I agree beamer is good. Coker?! Please. He has a team full of criminals and punks. he has been lucky to get some great talent (mostly because all the punks out there know they can go to Miami and not get kicked off for their infractions.) But the minute they start getting challenged, they are done. They coasted easily in the Big East for years with their only tests being out of conference games. Give them a few years in a real conference and see how great you think he is. Beamer has been at Va Tech for a while and he deserves credit for many of their successes. And, in case you missed it, Bobby is the winningest coach in D1 college football. Ever.Have I already said this? Oh well. Must have missed it. He took a crappy team and turned them into a national powerhouse. Have any of those other coaches come CLOSE to doing that? I don;t think so. He is the heart and soul of Seminole football. What other coach is that to their program? Maybe Paterno. Maybe Beamer. These are coaches who have built their team. THAT is what makes a great coach. W/L records from year to year count very little against the big picture.

What do you mean "maybe Paterno"?  Paterno is the original team=coach=team=school=team=coach=team coach.

Joe Paterno is Penn State, on and off the field.  Joe Paterno is not the problem with the football program, either -- it's feminine hygiene product, heartless players.

That said, he does develop QBs terribly.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 29, 2005, 07:47:07 AM
I agree about Joe Pa. Let the man stay as long as he likes. He has plenty of assistant coaches to help him out if he needs it. I do not think the downfall of Penn State can be blamed on him.

We have Washington and Booker. I actually think I like Washington better that I liked Jones, though Jones was a bad ass. Washington makes smarter decisions and works well as a team with Booker. They are both good backs.

I remember that NC (I think it was UNC, right?) game with the helmet. I remember bein like DAAAAAMN!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on April 29, 2005, 07:57:51 AM
come on buddy... what about Pete Carrol?  not only a champion but i also hear he makes a delicious quiche
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on April 29, 2005, 08:06:42 AM
come on buddy... what about Pete Carrol?  not only a champion but i also hear he makes a delicious quiche


 :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 04, 2005, 02:14:40 PM
*reviving*

because, really, what better thing to talk about than college football?!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 04, 2005, 03:14:30 PM
I agree!  Lets talk about how dominant the Trojans will be this year.


(http://img121.echo.cx/img121/4059/1000018img8yp.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on May 05, 2005, 12:31:14 AM
Well, they should have their way with the Pac-10 this year :(

Damn Leinart staying in school! He would have left U$C and given the 49ers a dominant #1 QB. Doesn't he know how overrated college is and that $$$ is all that really matters ;)

At least UCLA has a good QB coming in to replace Drew Olsen. :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 07:36:31 AM
I agree!  Lets talk about how dominant the Trojans will be this year.


(http://img121.echo.cx/img121/4059/1000018img8yp.jpg)

Please. It is easy to be dominant when you play basically no one all year. The Trojans basically have to win 2-3 games a year against teams that are maybe worth a damn. Not to say they are not talented or a good team. But I don't think they deserve all the hype when they play no one...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TheMick on May 05, 2005, 08:51:40 AM
I heard the Gators are 1-0 at Bobby Bowdin field...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 09:10:36 AM
Thats ok because the Gators are still 1-7-1 at Doak, including the "choke at Doak" back in '94. And inbetween all those Nole victories at home, they also won at the Swamp quite a bit.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ccorsi on May 05, 2005, 09:29:54 AM
I just realized I couldn't have possibly picked worse football schools if I tried.

Temple & Rutgers - consistently awful.

SH, Duquesne, & Widener - I don't think they even have football.

C2
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 09:41:55 AM
That is pretty bad. I am the biggest college football fan I know and I am seriously considering Tulane. I had to check and see if they were D1 or D2. Not that it matters. I mean, they are the "Green Wave"  ??? What kind of mascot is that? How can I get behind that after years of the War Chant and Chief Oceola and Renegade and the flaming spear. Sheesh!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on May 05, 2005, 10:16:52 AM
This is almost worse...going from PSU to into Columbus (Capital). Hope I dont get killed when I wear my penn state hat. At least I'll be in Happy Valley when they play them this year...at 7pm nonetheless
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 10:19:29 AM
Yeah. At least NO is fairly close to Tally. If I had gone to UF for LS, you better bet I would wear my Nole stuff with pride! I'd like to see those Gators try to mess with me!  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ccorsi on May 05, 2005, 10:32:12 AM
This is almost worse...going from PSU to into Columbus (Capital). Hope I dont get killed when I wear my penn state hat. At least I'll be in Happy Valley when they play them this year...at 7pm nonetheless

Depends on when you graduated from Penn State.  If recently, you might be just as happy at Rutgers since both teams stink equally :)

C2
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: swagger on May 05, 2005, 12:10:59 PM
This is almost worse...going from PSU to into Columbus (Capital). Hope I dont get killed when I wear my penn state hat. At least I'll be in Happy Valley when they play them this year...at 7pm nonetheless

Depends on when you graduated from Penn State.  If recently, you might be just as happy at Rutgers since both teams stink equally :)

C2

Dude - you stole my avatar.  I retired the middle-finger kid a couple weeks ago.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 12:13:20 PM
its a good one. i liked the little girl with the Wu Tang shirt too. Someone had that a long time ago.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 05, 2005, 12:16:58 PM
so, who is goign to win the heisman, bush or leinart? :) ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: swagger on May 05, 2005, 12:30:15 PM
its a good one. i liked the little girl with the Wu Tang shirt too. Someone had that a long time ago.

Yes, it is a great avatar, I had it for about six months.  Seeing it with another poster is plunging me into some kind of existential crisis...do I still exist? 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 12:31:51 PM
its a good one. i liked the little girl with the Wu Tang shirt too. Someone had that a long time ago.

Yes, it is a great avatar, I had it for about six months. Seeing it with another poster is plunging me into some kind of existential crisis...do I still exist?

 :D

3peat - hopefully neither  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ccorsi on May 05, 2005, 12:54:33 PM


Dude - you stole my avatar.  I retired the middle-finger kid a couple weeks ago.

Actually I didn't see it, but I'll consider him liberated from the Internet abyss.

C2
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Donkey on May 05, 2005, 01:25:39 PM
so, who is goign to win the heisman, bush or leinart? :) ;D
Leinart. Bush is a great athlete but will be nothing more than a 3rd down back in the NFL.

It looks like the Big 10 may be good this year, which seems to go against some of the earlier thinking on this board.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on May 05, 2005, 02:07:26 PM
This is almost worse...going from PSU to into Columbus (Capital). Hope I dont get killed when I wear my penn state hat. At least I'll be in Happy Valley when they play them this year...at 7pm nonetheless

Depends on when you graduated from Penn State.  If recently, you might be just as happy at Rutgers since both teams stink equally :)

C2

Graduated recently...3 of the 4 years I was there we sucked...but the future is looking brighter.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ccorsi on May 05, 2005, 02:09:06 PM
so, who is goign to win the heisman, bush or leinart? :) ;D
Leinart. Bush is a great athlete but will be nothing more than a 3rd down back in the NFL.

It looks like the Big 10 may be good this year, which seems to go against some of the earlier thinking on this board.

3rd down back?  That is what they said about Westbrook & P Holmes.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 05, 2005, 02:10:51 PM
this is true. and Priest is THE MAN! (savior of my ff team  ;) )
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 05, 2005, 03:32:18 PM
3rd down back in the NFL is a lot better than not getting drafted, then allowed to try out and finally cut from the Chiefs like Jason White.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Donkey on May 06, 2005, 12:31:19 PM
so, who is goign to win the heisman, bush or leinart? :) ;D
Leinart. Bush is a great athlete but will be nothing more than a 3rd down back in the NFL.

It looks like the Big 10 may be good this year, which seems to go against some of the earlier thinking on this board.

3rd down back?  That is what they said about Westbrook & P Holmes.
Westbrook is a glorified 3rd down back on a good team. Take him from the Eagles and he will not be special. Holmes is the exception, but I think my point about Bush is fair. We'll find out in a couple of years at least.

And 3rd down back is good and is definitely much better than going undrafted.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 06, 2005, 01:26:04 PM
so, who is goign to win the heisman, bush or leinart? :) ;D
Leinart. Bush is a great athlete but will be nothing more than a 3rd down back in the NFL.

It looks like the Big 10 may be good this year, which seems to go against some of the earlier thinking on this board.

3rd down back?  That is what they said about Westbrook & P Holmes.
Westbrook is a glorified 3rd down back on a good team. Take him from the Eagles and he will not be special. Holmes is the exception, but I think my point about Bush is fair. We'll find out in a couple of years at least.

And 3rd down back is good and is definitely much better than going undrafted.
new question: who will face the trojans inteh rose bowl/championship game?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 06, 2005, 01:27:01 PM
The Florida State University Seminoles

(ok. Maybe not this year. But who knows?!)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ccorsi on May 06, 2005, 01:33:09 PM
Totally disagree about Westbrook.  He is by far the best running back in the league in terms of catching passes.  He runs routes and has better hands than most teams number 2 receiver.

If you put him on any team that runs a west coast system or down field passing attack - he will be a star.

C2
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: The Name's Dali on May 06, 2005, 02:07:47 PM

I agree. If someone can go undefeated in the SEC and not go to the National Championship, something is REALLY wrong. I think everyone really wanted to see that game.

I agree with you 100% there, especially since they had 2 RB's go in the top 10!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 06, 2005, 02:08:54 PM

I agree. If someone can go undefeated in the SEC and not go to the National Championship, something is REALLY wrong. I think everyone really wanted to see that game.

I agree with you 100% there, especially since they had 2 RB's go in the top 10!

WOW! Someone mark this down!  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 06, 2005, 02:22:21 PM
I can not wait to watch the SEC this season. I am so ready for football to start again!  :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Donkey on May 06, 2005, 02:26:52 PM
The Trojans will not make it this year if there are two other undefeated teams because they are due for a loss. They may be good but they will not achieve another undefeated season.

How 'bout Michigan vs. Tennessee?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 06, 2005, 02:31:38 PM
They had a great recruiting year! Phil has his faults but he is one hell of a recruiter. Let see what he does with them now. Plus, they will not have QBs splitting time this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on May 06, 2005, 02:50:54 PM
The Trojans will not make it this year if there are two other undefeated teams because they are due for a loss. They may be good but they will not achieve another undefeated season.

How 'bout Michigan vs. Tennessee?

F Michigan
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 06, 2005, 03:07:58 PM

I agree. If someone can go undefeated in the SEC and not go to the National Championship, something is REALLY wrong. I think everyone really wanted to see that game.

I agree with you 100% there, especially since they had 2 RB's go in the top 10!
here's the thing, USC SPANKED auburn two years in a row, once at home and once on the road.  Plus, EVERYONE thought OU was teh second best if not hte best. PLUS, they almost went down against VT in their bowl game.

BOTTOM LINE: UA had less of a chance than OU and would have lost 56-18
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: finko on May 06, 2005, 03:13:16 PM
Talking about geting screwed...

I am going from UF to UIUC.

Not only am I going to miss that beginning of what will become the best dynasty in Sports (read Sports, not NCAA, not football but all sports) history, but I got three more years of the Zooker. God, three more years of horrible play calling, worthless defensive set-ups, and the worst damn post games interviews in the NCAA.

In Urban we trust.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 09, 2005, 08:05:59 AM
Talking about geting screwed...

I am going from UF to UIUC.

Not only am I going to miss that beginning of what will become the best dynasty in Sports (read Sports, not NCAA, not football but all sports) history, but I got three more years of the Zooker. God, three more years of horrible play calling, worthless defensive set-ups, and the worst damn post games interviews in the NCAA.

In Urban we trust.



Wow! That is really funny. Sucks for you man. Though I don't think Zook is that bad (after all he did win at Doak, which Spurrier could never do.) But that is crazy that you ended up following him across the country! :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: finko on May 09, 2005, 07:03:48 PM
The best part was when I visited the school I was asking about how tough it was to get tickets. They said it was really tough, after about five minutes I realized they were talking about basketball...

Yeah he did win up there, but jesus I don't think I could handle another 8 win season.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 10, 2005, 07:28:52 AM
The best part was when I visited the school I was asking about how tough it was to get tickets. They said it was really tough, after about five minutes I realized they were talking about basketball...

Yeah he did win up there, but jesus I don't think I could handle another 8 win season.

HAHA! That has happened to me before. When I think of college sports, I think about football. Basketball does not even cross my mind. But you are going to Hoosier country so I guess you better get used to it!  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Donkey on May 10, 2005, 12:35:12 PM
Basketball is a terrible sport in comparison to football, which is the one true college sport, especially with all of the high school talent's going to the NBA.

USC will be upset this year. The question is whether they will make the championship game in spite of this loss. I think the Big 10 is due to put a good team out there. If a team can dominate the ACC, it will make the championship game too.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: official2008 on May 10, 2005, 01:18:02 PM
Basketball is a terrible sport in comparison to football, which is the one true college sport, especially with all of the high school talent's going to the NBA.

USC will be upset this year. The question is whether they will make the championship game in spite of this loss. I think the Big 10 is due to put a good team out there. If a team can dominate the ACC, it will make the championship game too.

that's just it. dominating the ACC is pretty much impossible now. especially with all recruiting that's going on. most of the teams are just going to cancel each other out.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Donkey on May 10, 2005, 01:21:32 PM
This is true, but I think it will sort itself out like it has in the SEC. The ACC's talent is comprable to the SEC now (see 36 draft picks vs. 37) and it should follow a similar pattern.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 11, 2005, 02:06:15 PM
Basketball is a terrible sport in comparison to football, which is the one true college sport, especially with all of the high school talent's going to the NBA.

USC will be upset this year. The question is whether they will make the championship game in spite of this loss. I think the Big 10 is due to put a good team out there. If a team can dominate the ACC, it will make the championship game too.
Look here - Who is going to upset USC?  You must be crazy!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 12, 2005, 09:02:00 AM
Basketball is a terrible sport in comparison to football, which is the one true college sport, especially with all of the high school talent's going to the NBA.

USC will be upset this year. The question is whether they will make the championship game in spite of this loss. I think the Big 10 is due to put a good team out there. If a team can dominate the ACC, it will make the championship game too.
Look here - Who is going to upset USC?  You must be crazy!
I agree that USC is going to be upset this year. They are the most talented team in the country by far. I do not think they are as talented as those Miami teams a few years ago, and even they had a hard time going undefeated regularly. USC has the advantage of playing in the PAC 10, which is a joke, but everyone will be gunning for them every game. They are bound to have a bad game with lots of turnovers at some point.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 11:57:18 AM
I agree. Playing an easy schedule is going to catch up with them eventually. Not that they are not talented but between being cocky due to past success and not having many challenges during the year, their guard will be down. You have to keep you self challenged in order to prevent getting complacent.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 12, 2005, 01:09:49 PM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 01:11:37 PM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D

Good point  :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 12, 2005, 01:20:36 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 01:24:34 PM
The best thing about college football is that you never know. This season is going to be great. Lots of coaching changes, etc. Can't wait!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 12, 2005, 01:27:56 PM
Only a few more months until the bliss of college football games in the fall. I really screwed up by not getting into a law school with the appropriate level of football. Damn. At least I was smart enough to do it for undergrad.

I guess I can watch the Rams next year...it's just not the same.

Anyone know the closest decent college football to St. Louis?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 01:31:53 PM
Hmmmm. Tough one. That was actually one of my criteria but looks like I will be headed to a school with a very mediocre team.  :'(

But I will be making several trips to Tally and that is why God made ESPN Game Plan.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 12, 2005, 01:37:35 PM
Aren't you going to Alabama or something like that? Yeah, they aren't very good.

I am very thankful for gameplan, which even allows you to buy individual weeks, which will probably work best for me. And I have XM radio with ACC games, so I should be ok even in another time zone. I had XM last year and it was a lifesaver. One of my college buddies lived in Colorado this past fall, and XM served him well too.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 01:39:16 PM
Not lookin too good on the Bama front (have not heard anything) so it looks like Wake or Tulane. Good schools. Not so good football.

I was just about to mention my XM. It was my favorite thing last year when they started putting the ACC games on. What a great thing! I love my XM.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 12, 2005, 02:14:54 PM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D
no, guy.  leinart voluntarily CHOSE to stay at USC.  imagine what kind of school USC must be for a person to chose it over the NFL and 50million dollars... hmm. 
There is no way that USC gets beaten; even our punter is the best in the nation :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on May 12, 2005, 02:30:07 PM
Does this seem like a stupid idea to anyone else?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7828822/
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on May 12, 2005, 03:02:39 PM
Does this seem like a stupid idea to anyone else?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7828822/

I'm making a generalization, and if you're asian, don't take offense...but on the whole, asians do not have the body types to be good football players...or to be developed into NFL material. The only asian NFL player I know of is Dat Nguyen (Vietnamese I believe) who is an average linebacker. There are many asians who are great athletes who can dominate many "olympic style" sports...but football just isn't one of them. It's a big project, and if it can catch on over there, that would be great...but like soccer in the US, it's kinda a lost cause.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 13, 2005, 07:36:05 AM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D
no, guy.  leinart voluntarily CHOSE to stay at USC.  imagine what kind of school USC must be for a person to chose it over the NFL and 50million dollars... hmm. 
There is no way that USC gets beaten; even our punter is the best in the nation :)
Listen, chief. Sorry had to. Leinhart has made lots of noise since the departure of the offensive coordinator. The same way I do not assume someone is a bad person for leaving early, I will not assume Leinhart is a good one because he chose to stay. He is going #1 regardless, so who knows what he is thinking.

The law of averages is working against USC. Granted, their offense is just plain narsty. But they are due for a loss. As I said in an earlier post, the Miami teams of a few years ago had a lot more talent and they lost even though the Big East was not the strongest conference. USC has had an impressive run but it will not last forever. I just think this year they will lose. I also am thinking that every other good team will lose at least once too, so to the Rose Bowl it is for the Trojans. And even I was impressed that their backup QB was drafted.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on May 13, 2005, 02:59:51 PM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D
no, guy.  leinart voluntarily CHOSE to stay at USC.  imagine what kind of school USC must be for a person to chose it over the NFL and 50million dollars... hmm. 
There is no way that USC gets beaten; even our punter is the best in the nation :)

Leinart just wants to get drunk, hit on girls, and still play for a great team (can't say I completely blame him). However, not entering the draft was a poor decision. First off, if he takes one bad hit, and injures himself, he's forfeiting millions. Secondly, he would have been drafted to the 49ers as the top pick in a relatively weak draft pool, which would have allowed him to stay in California (The niners were dumb for not trading down). He already dominated the college game, won two national championships and a Heisman...why risk a rewarding NFL career for another year of college football?
He's got the heart and the skill needed to be a good pro. However, I'll be curious to see if he's a little hesitant this year knowing that he's got so much riding on his health.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on May 15, 2005, 10:44:47 PM
And Leinhart is pissed he did not go to the NFL this year. Aren't a lot of the USC players getting arrested this year? And by a lot, I mean a lot even for a college football program.  :D
no, guy.  leinart voluntarily CHOSE to stay at USC.  imagine what kind of school USC must be for a person to chose it over the NFL and 50million dollars... hmm. 
There is no way that USC gets beaten; even our punter is the best in the nation :)
Listen, chief. Sorry had to. Leinhart has made lots of noise since the departure of the offensive coordinator. The same way I do not assume someone is a bad person for leaving early, I will not assume Leinhart is a good one because he chose to stay. He is going #1 regardless, so who knows what he is thinking.

The law of averages is working against USC. Granted, their offense is just plain narsty. But they are due for a loss. As I said in an earlier post, the Miami teams of a few years ago had a lot more talent and they lost even though the Big East was not the strongest conference. USC has had an impressive run but it will not last forever. I just think this year they will lose. I also am thinking that every other good team will lose at least once too, so to the Rose Bowl it is for the Trojans. And even I was impressed that their backup QB was drafted.
USC has the most potent offense in the history of college football.  Look at the skill positions against the miami teams and you will see that USC is better in every way.  Each skill player is going to go high in the draft next year SMith, Jarret, Leinart, Bush, Byrd, evern the punter (tom malone) averages 50 yards a kick
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 16, 2005, 08:01:12 AM
I personally don't think USC wins at every (or even most ) skill positions when compared to those Miami teams. Bush is good, but he is not the same level as that great run of RBs at Miami. Having said that, they have an offense that is scarier than Miami's. I can't say whether this appearance is due to the fact that they play in a joke of a conference or due to their truly historical greatness, but they are impressive against good teams too. Yet everyone in the Pac 10 can play offense and if USC's defense lets down for one game and the offense makes a couple of mistakes... well, that is the possibility I see at least.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 01:12:42 PM
So the dope smoking Marcus Vick skipped mandatory court ordered drug test, which one of his teammates failed. However, because he is so important to the SW Va economy, the judge did not throw his parole violating butt in jail. Anyone want to take bets on how long he goes this summer before he gets into trouble again. I'm thinking the over/under should be July 7 or so. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on May 18, 2005, 01:28:54 PM
So the dope smoking Marcus Vick skipped mandatory court ordered drug test, which one of his teammates failed. However, because he is so important to the SW Va economy, the judge did not throw his parole violating butt in jail. Anyone want to take bets on how long he goes this summer before he gets into trouble again. I'm thinking the over/under should be July 7 or so. Any thoughts?

I'll take the under. Of course, he'll still play every game this year, without a doubt.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on May 18, 2005, 01:35:23 PM
I've got to believe that he is playing every single game this year barring a felony charge. But hey, there's still plenty of time for that to happen. They really should have scheduled the drug test for 4/21 and made it mandatory under penalty of team dismissal.
Title: the BCS is a mess
Post by: goldenchild on May 18, 2005, 05:34:39 PM
read.

http://www.intrepidmedia.com/column.asp?id=2042
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 12:05:09 PM
*Bump*

Preseason polls anyone? Predictions?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on June 13, 2005, 12:20:01 PM
Michigan.  All the way.

GO BIG BLUE!!!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 13, 2005, 12:23:14 PM
Michigan is in the Big 11, which is no longer a real football conference. They also lost their best player; however, as they had a young team last year they could be good.

Texas is overrated because Vince Young cannot throw accurately and Mack Brown can't win a big game.

Tennessee could be good if they get better line play and if Ainge has a good season free from turnovers.

USC will lose this year.

Oklahoma is bound to start showing that they have been overrated given their last two bowl performances.

Chris Leak will win the Heisman and Florida will surprise some people.

That's all for the moment.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 12:33:28 PM
I agree with most of that ASN. I don't know if Leak will win the Heisman but I know he will look A LOT better under Myers and may finally live up to his potential.

Mack Brown never could win the big game but I think Young is a good player and will do well for them.

Maybe with out QB contraversy Ainge will be more confident and more consistant.

No one will ever admit that OK is overrated. They, like Ohio State, are undeserved media darlings and the Big 10/Big 12 loving sportscasters will make sure they get the majority of the air time, despite their record.

I don't think Miami will have a very good year this year. Or maybe that is wishful thinking... They always seem to bounce back even if they lose a lot of players.

Now that we are rid of Rix, FSU's offense is going to start looking better and the ACC will be a dogfight this year.

USC will not have a great year and Leinhert's BONEHEAD decision to stay will look even more stupid than it already does.

Wake Forest will beat Nebraska  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 13, 2005, 12:49:54 PM
Miami won't be great. Their QB situation alone will cause them a decent amount of trouble this year.

FSU will be worse than Miami. Their offensive line is terrible, they have no QB to speak of and they are losing players left and right due to ineligibility.

We'll see about UF and Leak. This system is totally different, but Leak has committed himself to being a leader of the team and is trying his best to get everyone on the same page. UF's defense might surprise people. Remember this name on offense: Chad Jackson.

The SEC is going to come down to UF and UT. UT is tough, like always. Can UF hold them under 200 yards rushing? That will decide the SEC. UF/UT will play LSU in the SEC Championship game and it will be rather high scoring.

Iowa will be pretty good, Tate will contend for the Heisman.

USC will not lose a regular season game, due mostly to their lack of a single quality opponent.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 13, 2005, 01:02:31 PM
Miami will probably not be that great this year either.

Virginia Tech will choke again because they are expected to do well.

I think this is the year UF starts putting it together again because the program will have a new energy. It's the same as when ND did well when Willingham showed up, except that UF has some real players.

FSU's defense should be ferocious again, unfortunately. The offense will determine the success of that team.

The ACC will be underrated.

The Pac 10 will still be awful.

The Big XII should be exposed for being overrated. OU beats up on Texas, who could only beat a young UM team last year, and chokes in the bowl game. The media will protect Stoops. Nolegirl was right.

Texas A&M will be competitive and surprise some people.

Iowa will have a disapppointing loss of two but still be a very solid, and probably underrated, team.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 01:40:39 PM
FSU does have a QB to speak of. His name is Xavier Lee and he is going to be great. He is a RS freshman but I think he will do ok. He also has a good backup in Weatherford and a decent one in Sexton. I think our QB situation, while young, is looking up. It can not be worse tham having Rix at the helm!

I don't think the SEC will come down to UF and UT. UF will do well considering they have a new coach but I don't think they can make it through a typically brutal SEC schedule while getting used to an entirely new system and a new coaching staff. Plus, you forget about UGA. They lost some good players but several returned and Richt will have another good year. Plus, as is the norm in the SEC, there are A LOT of good teams in the division and I would have a hard time ruling ANYONE out (except, of course, Vandy.)

I agree about VT.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 13, 2005, 01:55:24 PM
Edited to remove FSU info since I can't provide a link.

UGA has no offense. They will rely on DJ Shockley :o ? Enough said. You don't win the SEC with a first year starting QB.

I'm a Gator, obviously, so don't take my smack talk too seriously.  ;D I think we've already adjusted to the new coaching staff. The Gators' success this year will depend on Chris Leak's ability to make the correct post-snap reads in the flex-option offense created by Coach Meyer. There will definitely be bumps in the road while he learns the new system. Only time will tell.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 02:01:03 PM
Obviously.

Lee will be fine. And hey, even when we had that completely worthless sack Rix we didn't lose five games. We may lose a couple but, as a Gator, you should know never to count FSU out.

UGA will surprise you I bet.

We will have to wait and see about UF. Meyers played in front of his biggest crowd ever at the scrimmage a while back. And his system is SO different from Zooks that I doubt they have adjusted yet. And even if they have adjusted on the practice field, that does not mean that will translate to the field on game day. I know we will be going through such changes sooner rather than later though so I do wish UF the best. Accept against FSU and UGA of course  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 13, 2005, 02:04:06 PM
Concur, you can't ever really count FSU out, especially since Saint Bobby will find a way to get most/all of his players eligible regardless of their infractions.  :D

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 13, 2005, 02:07:12 PM
I am hoping FSU has a down year (sorry, I've got to keep my ACC hopes alive).

UGa will not be that dominating. Their window has closed unless Shockley is much better than I think he is. He's not.

I wonder if Purdue might put together a decent season this year?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 02:25:41 PM
I didn't say UGA would be dominant. Just that they would surprise. I think they have as many question marks as UF.

Where did you hear that about Sexton. I am on ESPN, Warchant, etc all the time and I had not heard anything like that.  ???

Despite the QB situation, we have the best RB team out there. Washington and Booker are going to be our offense. All the QB has to do is know how to hand it off.

I doubt Purdue will have much this year. Their only spark last year was their QB and he is gone.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 13, 2005, 02:36:14 PM
I can't provide a link but I've heard it from several sources at this point. I agree, FSU's RB are awesome, I just wonder how the OL will perform this year. We'll see.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 13, 2005, 02:43:28 PM
It is all purely speculation at this point as far as how well anyone willdo of course. I can not find that about Sexton anywhere. Of course, he would not be THAT big of a loss. But if there are problems w/ Lee and Weatherford AND him, then we have a problem. But, like I said, we have survived 4 yrs with out a real QB and we have great RBs, so I am not too worried. Except about Jeff Bowden of course.  :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 13, 2005, 03:17:12 PM
I hope Jeffy stays with FSU for another 25 years. :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 13, 2005, 06:10:41 PM
Michigan.  All the way.

GO BIG BLUE!!!!!

DIE

What's with the hatred for OSU anyway.  Our school will contend for the national championship and it is all pending on the game against Texas in September.  For the ass earlier that said we would suck without nugent, ted ginn has replaced nugent as the hero of columbus.  You wanna see a guy that a whole city adores right now, look at ginn.  He tore up michigan, he tore up oklahoma state, and he will tear up texas this year.  @#!* off big blue.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on June 13, 2005, 06:23:19 PM
Michigan. All the way.

GO BIG BLUE!!!!!

DIE

What's with the hatred for OSU anyway. Our school will contend for the national championship and it is all pending on the game against Texas in September. For the ass earlier that said we would suck without nugent, ted ginn has replaced nugent as the hero of columbus. You wanna see a guy that a whole city adores right now, look at ginn. He tore up michigan, he tore up oklahoma state, and he will tear up texas this year. @#!* off big blue.
[/quote}

go

big

blue

Michigan:  842-275-36  win pct: .746

OSU: 764-299-52  win pct: .709

it was a good game last year.  Don't be a male private part.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 13, 2005, 06:26:55 PM
yes it was a good game last year, I enjoyed the opening 70 yard touchdown pass, ginn's punt return for touchdwon and henne and hart laying on their back for most of the game.  When was the last time you won a national championship?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on June 13, 2005, 06:35:29 PM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: VanBuren Boys on June 13, 2005, 06:47:12 PM

Texas A&M will be competitive and surprise some people.

We will have a great year, although our road schedule is pretty brutal.  Look for Reggie Mcneil to compete for the heisman.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 13, 2005, 07:31:38 PM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

no doubt.  I enjoyed all the fans coming to our stadium this year holding roses, only to see their mighty rose bowl team lose their final two games.  Aren't you guys tired of losing to us recently? i mean 3 out of the last 4 years has to get tough on you guys.  I would live in the past too if that was how we were faring lately.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 13, 2005, 09:25:57 PM
This board is full of haters. 

WHen will USC get the credit it deserves for being the newest dynasty? 

We will destroy all opponents this year with the most potent offense ever seen in college football.

55-19 b*tches
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 13, 2005, 09:40:14 PM
This board is full of haters. 

WHen will USC get the credit it deserves for being the newest dynasty? 

We will destroy all opponents this year with the most potent offense ever seen in college football.

55-19 b*tches

USC is the best team in college football, but it wont last forever.  Arrogance has set in
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 14, 2005, 07:17:56 AM
This board is full of haters. 

WHen will USC get the credit it deserves for being the newest dynasty? 

We will destroy all opponents this year with the most potent offense ever seen in college football.

55-19 b*tches

USC is the best team in college football, but it wont last forever.  Arrogance has set in

Exactly. And we are not haters. But the think that your team will rule forever is the kiss of death. You get arrogant, your fans become complacent, and everyone you play is gunning for you. USC had a great team the past couple of years and will have a good one this year. But you have two big obstacles to overcome: 1) you have gotten used to winning and you may take that for granted and 2) you do not play a lot of very good teams on your regular schedule which will eventually catch up to you. It is possible that USC will over come these, plus the loss of a HUGE part of their team in Norm Chow, but I doubt it. And, hey, in the end we all just want to see a great season of college football! ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 14, 2005, 07:18:31 AM
I hope Jeffy stays with FSU for another 25 years. :D

 :P
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 14, 2005, 07:19:54 AM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

And I think they were all won on the foot of the kicker. I mean, where would OSU be without their main offensive force?!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on June 14, 2005, 07:24:22 AM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

no doubt. I enjoyed all the fans coming to our stadium this year holding roses, only to see their mighty rose bowl team lose their final two games. Aren't you guys tired of losing to us recently? i mean 3 out of the last 4 years has to get tough on you guys. I would live in the past too if that was how we were faring lately.
 

what are you talking about "how we were faring lately"?

2003 big ten conference champs

2004 big ten conference co-champs

It takes more than one win to make a good season, kid.

and again, quit being a male private part.



(he can't help it Nole, he has a moral obligation to hate all things Blue.  As a true OSU fan, it's in his blood.)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 14, 2005, 07:27:54 AM
OSU will not be good. If they beat Texas it means nothing because Mack Brown cannot beat a good team. If they lose it's over. It does not matter because UM owns them anyway.

The '97 UM national championship was terrible. The officials screwed up the clock and denied Wash St. a chance to win the game on the final play. The odds may not have been in their favor but they deserved a chance.

USC may dominate this year but they will never be considered to be that great a team. Every Rocky needs an Apollo and USC plays in a JV conference.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 14, 2005, 07:29:36 AM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

no doubt. I enjoyed all the fans coming to our stadium this year holding roses, only to see their mighty rose bowl team lose their final two games. Aren't you guys tired of losing to us recently? i mean 3 out of the last 4 years has to get tough on you guys. I would live in the past too if that was how we were faring lately.
 

what are you talking about "how we were faring lately"?

2003 big ten conference champs

2004 big ten conference co-champs

It takes more than one win to make a good season, kid.

and again, quit being a male private part.



(he can't help it Nole, he has a moral obligation to hate all things Blue.  As a true OSU fan, it's in his blood.)

I understand. I have a moral obligation to hate all things blue and orange. AND orange and green.  :P
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Abevigoda on June 14, 2005, 07:30:42 AM
SWAC is clearly number 1.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on June 14, 2005, 11:36:22 AM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 14, 2005, 11:43:24 AM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 14, 2005, 01:37:31 PM
OSU will not be good. If they beat Texas it means nothing because Mack Brown cannot beat a good team. If they lose it's over. It does not matter because UM owns them anyway.

The '97 UM national championship was terrible. The officials screwed up the clock and denied Wash St. a chance to win the game on the final play. The odds may not have been in their favor but they deserved a chance.

USC may dominate this year but they will never be considered to be that great a team. Every Rocky needs an Apollo and USC plays in a JV conference.
This year USC is the best, no question.  What we need to do is destroy another great college football program like we did UM and OU. 


On a different note, UCLA is playing OU this year.  My friends were talking about going decked out in USC gear and booing EVERYONE!  haha ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 14, 2005, 01:46:37 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?

Ummmmmmmmm. Hum. Don't know what to say to that. Really.

Sounds like he was at Bonaroo and I would say he was on what most people at Bonaroo are on. Or at least a lot of them.

Looks like it is Xavier now. Oh well. I did not have that much faith in Sexton to begin with. Looks like that was well founded. Well. Unless he really is God...  ;)

Doesn't matter. I could be QB this year. All you have to do is know how to hand off to Booker and Washington.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on June 14, 2005, 02:11:55 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?


Worst case scenario - top 10 finish.  UT is stacked this year at EVERY position.  Best wide receiver corps in the nation.  Three deep at QB (with the nation's top QB recruit on third string).  It's gonna be on bitches.  Dark horse my ass!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 14, 2005, 02:28:21 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?


Worst case scenario - top 10 finish.  UT is stacked this year at EVERY position.  Best wide receiver corps in the nation.  Three deep at QB (with the nation's top QB recruit on third string).  It's gonna be on bitches.  Dark horse my ass!

I hope we meet in the championship game  USC v UT
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on June 14, 2005, 03:29:18 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?


Worst case scenario - top 10 finish.  UT is stacked this year at EVERY position.  Best wide receiver corps in the nation.  Three deep at QB (with the nation's top QB recruit on third string).  It's gonna be on bitches.  Dark horse my ass!

I hope we meet in the championship game  USC v UT
that would be fun.  although i suspect usc won't make it that far this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 14, 2005, 04:56:21 PM
I'm thinking Tennessee for a dark horse this year because I think it may come down to the winner of their game versus Florida and I can't bring myself to believe in Urban Meyer's Gators. At best I hope he has nothing more than a Ty Wilingham experience.

Go Hoos! (And yes, they will be an above average team at best this year.)
Dark horse?  With being ranked #2 pre-season?  Come again.

They are ranked #2 preseason? I did not know that. I have looked into UT since I made that comment and have seen that they have a brutal schedule. Look for them to finish between 9 and 18 at the end of the season.

On another note, Wyatt Sexton, wtf?

I am not sure whether this is funny or serious, but this explanation was
given on Warchant.com:

"Now to the original intent. I am merely repeating other posters who
were discussing a news report by WCTV. This has supposedly already
been on Channel 9. Wyatt was taken to the Psychiatric ward of TMH
after reportedly laying in the street and jumping on cars and yelling.
When approached and asked who he was he allegedly responded that
he was the "son of God." Supposedly, the police had to pepper spray
him to subdue him. He was placed on indefinite suspension, but I'm not
sure if it was related to this incident or something else that reportedly
happened two weeks ago. Apparently the team was not aware, becuase
Matt Meinrod was trying to talk WS into coming to summer workouts.
Please don't take my info at face value...do some research and verify
everything for yourself."

Nole, what is going on down there?

It's called 'Lack of Institutional Control' in NCAA legalese.  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 14, 2005, 08:11:17 PM
OSU will not be good. If they beat Texas it means nothing because Mack Brown cannot beat a good team. If they lose it's over. It does not matter because UM owns them anyway.

The '97 UM national championship was terrible. The officials screwed up the clock and denied Wash St. a chance to win the game on the final play. The odds may not have been in their favor but they deserved a chance.

USC may dominate this year but they will never be considered to be that great a team. Every Rocky needs an Apollo and USC plays in a JV conference.

UM dominates OSU?  Just like in 2001 when we were underdogs?  or 2002 when we were national champs? or this year when we were HUGE underdogs, which was by the way a severe beating.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 14, 2005, 08:35:12 PM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

no doubt. I enjoyed all the fans coming to our stadium this year holding roses, only to see their mighty rose bowl team lose their final two games. Aren't you guys tired of losing to us recently? i mean 3 out of the last 4 years has to get tough on you guys. I would live in the past too if that was how we were faring lately.
 

what are you talking about "how we were faring lately"?

2003 big ten conference champs

2004 big ten conference co-champs

It takes more than one win to make a good season, kid.

and again, quit being a male private part.



(he can't help it Nole, he has a moral obligation to hate all things Blue.  As a true OSU fan, it's in his blood.)

OUTSTANDING!! Do all Wolverines read at a third grade level or is that just you?  I clearly stated that I was talking about you losing to us 3 out of the last 4 times.  Twice we were large underdogs.  You guys got so lucky that you were still able to go to the Rose Bowl.  What a pathetic performance.  And don't hang on to a national championship that you won almost a decade ago.  You came back to me with that like I was supposed to be impressed. 

Nolegirl:  Nugent kicked a lot of last second field goals in our last five wins I guess: 33-7 v. Ok. St, 37-21 v. Michigan (just sad), 32-19 v. Mich. St., 21-10 Penn St., 30-7 Indiana.  I mean hell, I guess in the Oklahoma State game, he kicked like 8 or 9 game winning field goals.  Also, I don't remember him kicking a game winner against Miami in '03.  I just remember Clarett diving into the endzone (Die Clarett!) and a bunch of Hurricanes whining to the official.

Yes, Nugent was our captain, and yes he was the most adored player in Columbus. I mean, what is your point to this argument?  So what if a kicker wins games for you, what the hell does it matter?  So if someone's running game is bad, is it sad that the quarterback has to bail the team out?  What does it say about the teams that lose to the team that has to be bailed out by the kicker?  I agree it was very embarrassing that he bailed us out of the Marshall game with a 57 yarder as time expired.  My point: we found offensive power in Ted Ginn and Zwick and Troy Smith down the stretch.  Enough to hang 37 on Mich and 33 on Ok. St.  Therefore ASN: we will contend this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 15, 2005, 07:23:15 AM
Yes, Nugent was our captain, and yes he was the most adored player in Columbus. I mean, what is your point to this argument?  So what if a kicker wins games for you, what the hell does it matter?  So if someone's running game is bad, is it sad that the quarterback has to bail the team out?  What does it say about the teams that lose to the team that has to be bailed out by the kicker?  I agree it was very embarrassing that he bailed us out of the Marshall game with a 57 yarder as time expired.  My point: we found offensive power in Ted Ginn and Zwick and Troy Smith down the stretch.  Enough to hang 37 on Mich and 33 on Ok. St.  Therefore ASN: we will contend this year.

The UM defense rolled over its back like a broke hooker for Texas, so hanging many points on that defense does not impress me. Ok. St. is no defensive powerhouse either. Having said that, I think OSU could be a solid team this year.

And to the point that USC has beaten two powers the past two years, I will say they are traditional powers; however, each team has faired poorly in both of their respective bowl games the last two years. They were not as good as advertised because teams not called the Trojans beat them badly too, which adds to my point that they cannot be considered great because they play in a JV conference, so all they have done is beat a couple of good teams. Auburn did that just last year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on June 15, 2005, 08:25:13 AM
97 .

and we have 7 of them.

you guys have 5, right?

no doubt. I enjoyed all the fans coming to our stadium this year holding roses, only to see their mighty rose bowl team lose their final two games. Aren't you guys tired of losing to us recently? i mean 3 out of the last 4 years has to get tough on you guys. I would live in the past too if that was how we were faring lately.


what are you talking about "how we were faring lately"?

2003 big ten conference champs

2004 big ten conference co-champs

It takes more than one win to make a good season, kid.

and again, quit being a male private part.



(he can't help it Nole, he has a moral obligation to hate all things Blue. As a true OSU fan, it's in his blood.)

OUTSTANDING!! Do all Wolverines read at a third grade level or is that just you? I clearly stated that I was talking about you losing to us 3 out of the last 4 times. Twice we were large underdogs. You guys got so lucky that you were still able to go to the Rose Bowl. What a pathetic performance. And don't hang on to a national championship that you won almost a decade ago. You came back to me with that like I was supposed to be impressed.

Nolegirl: Nugent kicked a lot of last second field goals in our last five wins I guess: 33-7 v. Ok. St, 37-21 v. Michigan (just sad), 32-19 v. Mich. St., 21-10 Penn St., 30-7 Indiana. I mean hell, I guess in the Oklahoma State game, he kicked like 8 or 9 game winning field goals. Also, I don't remember him kicking a game winner against Miami in '03. I just remember Clarett diving into the endzone (Die Clarett!) and a bunch of Hurricanes whining to the official.

Yes, Nugent was our captain, and yes he was the most adored player in Columbus. I mean, what is your point to this argument? So what if a kicker wins games for you, what the hell does it matter? So if someone's running game is bad, is it sad that the quarterback has to bail the team out? What does it say about the teams that lose to the team that has to be bailed out by the kicker? I agree it was very embarrassing that he bailed us out of the Marshall game with a 57 yarder as time expired. My point: we found offensive power in Ted Ginn and Zwick and Troy Smith down the stretch. Enough to hang 37 on Mich and 33 on Ok. St. Therefore ASN: we will contend this year.

nice.  OSU's new motto:  "we won the battle, lost the war, and we're okay with that."
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 15, 2005, 11:41:49 AM
Wait. ASN are you comparing Auburn's season last year to USC's? I am confused. There is not even any comparision between the SEC and the Pac 10. Winning the SEC is harder than winning any other conference. Winning the Pac 10 is like playing a bunch of HS teams and one or two D2 teams.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 15, 2005, 01:24:09 PM
My point was that USC has not beaten the number of quality teams in the past two years that Auburn beat just last year. USC is not a great team because they have not really beaten many good teams. As I said, Rocky needs an Apollo.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 15, 2005, 01:26:06 PM
Ahhhhh. I was about to loose faith in you as a football fan!  :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 01:40:59 PM
Yes, Nugent was our captain, and yes he was the most adored player in Columbus. I mean, what is your point to this argument?  So what if a kicker wins games for you, what the hell does it matter?  So if someone's running game is bad, is it sad that the quarterback has to bail the team out?  What does it say about the teams that lose to the team that has to be bailed out by the kicker?  I agree it was very embarrassing that he bailed us out of the Marshall game with a 57 yarder as time expired.  My point: we found offensive power in Ted Ginn and Zwick and Troy Smith down the stretch.  Enough to hang 37 on Mich and 33 on Ok. St.  Therefore ASN: we will contend this year.

The UM defense rolled over its back like a broke hooker for Texas, so hanging many points on that defense does not impress me. Ok. St. is no defensive powerhouse either. Having said that, I think OSU could be a solid team this year.

And to the point that USC has beaten two powers the past two years, I will say they are traditional powers; however, each team has faired poorly in both of their respective bowl games the last two years. They were not as good as advertised because teams not called the Trojans beat them badly too, which adds to my point that they cannot be considered great because they play in a JV conference, so all they have done is beat a couple of good teams. Auburn did that just last year.

before the 55-19 rout EVERYONE thought that OU was the best or at worst second best and NOONE even mentioned AU seriously besides their fans

plus, USC beat AU two years in a row before that and we were a better team last year than the previous two years

who would USC have to play to convince you that we are legit?  an NFL team?  Before USC played OU, Iowa and UM they were considered legit, but after getting their arse kicked they were called chumps, it seems circular.

You had better pray that USC doesnt play your team because we are going to stomp a mudhole in your a$$ just like the last three victims Iowa, UM, and OU
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 01:47:48 PM
I think the broader point is that USC's schedule is just not comparable to an SEC schedule. When you have to wait for the bowl game to play a ranked team, your schedule is rather easy compared to teams in more competitive conferences. I'm not saying this is any fault of USC's and I'm not taking away from their abilities as a team. All I'm saying is that, in actuality, it's difficult to judge a team's quality when all or nearly all of their opponenets are inferior. Also, this is not a function of USC being such a great team that they make their opponents 'look' inferior. The teams are simply bad in the PAC-10 right now. So it's difficult to judge.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 15, 2005, 01:53:29 PM
I think the broader point is that USC's schedule is just not comparable to an SEC schedule. When you have to wait for the bowl game to play a ranked team, your schedule is rather easy compared to teams in more competitive conferences. I'm not saying this is any fault of USC's and I'm not taking away from their abilities as a team. All I'm saying is that, in actuality, it's difficult to judge a team's quality when all or nearly all of their opponenets are inferior. Also, this is not a function of USC being such a great team that they make their opponents 'look' inferior. The teams are simply bad in the PAC-10 right now. So it's difficult to judge.

Well put.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 01:57:35 PM
I think the broader point is that USC's schedule is just not comparable to an SEC schedule. When you have to wait for the bowl game to play a ranked team, your schedule is rather easy compared to teams in more competitive conferences. I'm not saying this is any fault of USC's and I'm not taking away from their abilities as a team. All I'm saying is that, in actuality, it's difficult to judge a team's quality when all or nearly all of their opponenets are inferior. Also, this is not a function of USC being such a great team that they make their opponents 'look' inferior. The teams are simply bad in the PAC-10 right now. So it's difficult to judge.
AU didnt exactly put on a convincing performance against VT in their bowl game and very nearly lost.  I would say that by beating the concensus #2 55-19, USC is the undisputed #1.  It really doesnt matter who they play during the regular season if they stomp the lights out of who they play in the championship game. 

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 02:05:58 PM
I think the broader point is that USC's schedule is just not comparable to an SEC schedule. When you have to wait for the bowl game to play a ranked team, your schedule is rather easy compared to teams in more competitive conferences. I'm not saying this is any fault of USC's and I'm not taking away from their abilities as a team. All I'm saying is that, in actuality, it's difficult to judge a team's quality when all or nearly all of their opponenets are inferior. Also, this is not a function of USC being such a great team that they make their opponents 'look' inferior. The teams are simply bad in the PAC-10 right now. So it's difficult to judge.
AU didnt exactly put on a convincing performance against VT in their bowl game and very nearly lost.  I would say that by beating the concensus #2 55-19, USC is the undisputed #1.  It really doesnt matter who they play during the regular season if they stomp the lights out of who they play in the championship game. 



Riiight. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid man.

The implied point of the strength of schedule argument is that if you play stronger teams, week after week, then you have a much higher chance of stumbling along the way (you also use your starters much more, increasing the risk of injury, etc.). The thing is this. How can you prove you even deserve to play the #2 team for the championship if you have played cupcakes at every stop along the way?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 03:03:48 PM
I think the broader point is that USC's schedule is just not comparable to an SEC schedule. When you have to wait for the bowl game to play a ranked team, your schedule is rather easy compared to teams in more competitive conferences. I'm not saying this is any fault of USC's and I'm not taking away from their abilities as a team. All I'm saying is that, in actuality, it's difficult to judge a team's quality when all or nearly all of their opponenets are inferior. Also, this is not a function of USC being such a great team that they make their opponents 'look' inferior. The teams are simply bad in the PAC-10 right now. So it's difficult to judge.
AU didnt exactly put on a convincing performance against VT in their bowl game and very nearly lost.  I would say that by beating the concensus #2 55-19, USC is the undisputed #1.  It really doesnt matter who they play during the regular season if they stomp the lights out of who they play in the championship game. 



Riiight. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid man.

The implied point of the strength of schedule argument is that if you play stronger teams, week after week, then you have a much higher chance of stumbling along the way (you also use your starters much more, increasing the risk of injury, etc.). The thing is this. How can you prove you even deserve to play the #2 team for the championship if you have played cupcakes at every stop along the way?

fine. we didnt have a strong schedule.  but the people that created the poll got it right by putting USC at #1

how do you explain 55-19?
how do you explain AU almost losing their game?

i dont think a win is a win when it comes to a bowl game
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 03:24:38 PM
1. I explain 55-19 with the analysis that USC was a very good team playing an OU team that did not match up well at all.

2. I explain AU almost losing their game because they came out flat. They just ran the table through the SEC and they played a bowl game for, what, pride? Woo-freakin-hoo. You think those guys weren't absolutely heartbroken when they realized they weren't going to play for all the marbles? You think they didn't sit and think, "Man, this game is absolutely worthless, because we can't be champs"? I think those thoughts most assuredly did occur to them.

A win is not a win for bowl games? So if USC had "beaten" OU 20-19, would you advocate the stance that USC was not deserving of the trophy? Should they have played again? If a win isn't a win, then what is a win? Can you define it for me in any measurable terms?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 03:33:34 PM
1. I explain 55-19 with the analysis that USC was a very good team playing an OU team that did not match up well at all.

2. I explain AU almost losing their game because they came out flat. They just ran the table through the SEC and they played a bowl game for, what, pride? Woo-freakin-hoo. You think those guys weren't absolutely heartbroken when they realized they weren't going to play for all the marbles? You think they didn't sit and think, "Man, this game is absolutely worthless, because we can't be champs"? I think those thoughts most assuredly did occur to them.

A win is not a win for bowl games? So if USC had "beaten" OU 20-19, would you advocate the stance that USC was not deserving of the trophy? Should they have played again? If a win isn't a win, then what is a win? Can you define it for me in any measurable terms?
1.  USC was a superior team to OU in all facets
2.  AU did not come out flat, they knew they had something to prove.  They were just not good enough to blow out VT.

If USC had barely beaten OU and AU had blown out VT 55-19 then the claim that AU should share the title would be much more valid than it is.  As of now, it just seems ludicrous.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 15, 2005, 03:44:10 PM
USC also blanked Auburn in 03, and beat them at an exciting game at the coliseum in 02. Both of the times USC played Auburn they had Jason Williams, the "Cadillac" and Ronnie Brown, yet Auburn still lost. USC has been dominant for the past two years, but things are unfortunately starting to catch up with them. Academic ineligibility, both Wrights leaving the school and Pete Carrol's staff shuffling might catch up to them this year, but hopefully not. USC will eventually lose, but their offense is probably too high powered this year for anyone to bring them down.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 03:46:53 PM
1. I explain 55-19 with the analysis that USC was a very good team playing an OU team that did not match up well at all.

2. I explain AU almost losing their game because they came out flat. They just ran the table through the SEC and they played a bowl game for, what, pride? Woo-freakin-hoo. You think those guys weren't absolutely heartbroken when they realized they weren't going to play for all the marbles? You think they didn't sit and think, "Man, this game is absolutely worthless, because we can't be champs"? I think those thoughts most assuredly did occur to them.

A win is not a win for bowl games? So if USC had "beaten" OU 20-19, would you advocate the stance that USC was not deserving of the trophy? Should they have played again? If a win isn't a win, then what is a win? Can you define it for me in any measurable terms?
1.  USC was a superior team to OU in all facets
2.  AU did not come out flat, they knew they had something to prove.  They were just not good enough to blow out VT.

If USC had barely beaten OU and AU had blown out VT 55-19 then the claim that AU should share the title would be much more valid than it is.  As of now, it just seems ludicrous.

So where is the dividing line? When does a win actually become a win? Also, what is the distinction between a regular season game (where a win is a win, I assume?) and a bowl game (where a win is not a win)?

And for the record, I don't think I've ever stated that AU should have shared the trophy.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 04:12:53 PM
USC also blanked Auburn in 03, and beat them at an exciting game at the coliseum in 02. Both of the times USC played Auburn they had Jason Williams, the "Cadillac" and Ronnie Brown, yet Auburn still lost. USC has been dominant for the past two years, but things are unfortunately starting to catch up with them. Academic ineligibility, both Wrights leaving the school and Pete Carrol's staff shuffling might catch up to them this year, but hopefully not. USC will eventually lose, but their offense is probably too high powered this year for anyone to bring them down.

So now we're comparing AU from 2003 and 2002 to prove that USC in 2004 was deserving of the championship? Very sound logic.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 04:13:38 PM
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 04:28:52 PM
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.

I agree that with a schedule like USC's, any bowl game is of higher stakes than any one game on their regular season schedule.

Teams are not necessarily at their peak in bowl games, this is pretty good spin for your argument though. What about injuries? What about acadmic ineligibility? Coaching changes? Being worn down throughout the season?

"Especially considering opponents"? Please elaborate. So VT lost 2 games during the season, but I think they played a much tougher schedule than OU. I'm not saying VT was better than OU, but I don't think they were that much worse, either.

What it comes down to is that you absolutely cannot predict the outcome if USC had played AU. That's all there is to it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 15, 2005, 04:35:18 PM
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina (STATE) and lost to an awesome Auburn team.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 04:42:57 PM
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina and lost to an awesome Auburn team.

VT's second loss was to NC State, not UNC. But your point is well taken.  ;D

I think there were 3-5 teams last year who could have beat OU besides USC...AU, VT, Utah, Louisville.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 15, 2005, 05:09:17 PM
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.

I agree that with a schedule like USC's, any bowl game is of higher stakes than any one game on their regular season schedule.

Teams are not necessarily at their peak in bowl games, this is pretty good spin for your argument though. What about injuries? What about acadmic ineligibility? Coaching changes? Being worn down throughout the season?

"Especially considering opponents"? Please elaborate. So VT lost 2 games during the season, but I think they played a much tougher schedule than OU. I'm not saying VT was better than OU, but I don't think they were that much worse, either.

What it comes down to is that you absolutely cannot predict the outcome if USC had played AU. That's all there is to it.
the end of the season is when a team SHOULD be on the top of their game, that is why in all of football exceppt D-I the playoffs are at the end of the season and the team that wins the playoffs is the champ.

so if VT was almost as good as OU then AU might have lost to OU and USC would have routed VT worse than it did OU?  DOesnt that suggest that USC would punk AU?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on June 15, 2005, 05:15:55 PM
What I said was that you couldn't predict the outcome of those potential games. That's why college football is awesome. You simply cannot predict the outcome when two teams are at least somewhat evenly matched.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 15, 2005, 05:48:47 PM
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina and lost to an awesome Auburn team.

VT's second loss was to NC State, not UNC. But your point is well taken.  ;D

I think there were 3-5 teams last year who could have beat OU besides USC...AU, VT, Utah, Louisville.

I don't think Utah or Lousville were as battle tested as OU, Auburn or USC. Who did Utah play besides Texas A&M? Personally, I don't think any Big East team-Pitt-counts as a quality opponent. Louisville played Miami and lost, but didn't really play anyone besides that.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 07:49:27 AM
Hey. Don't be too hard on Va Tech for NC State. They are the upset kings of the ACC. I should know.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 09:30:57 AM
USC is a very good team. They will not be historic until they regularly survive brutal schedules. They have the talen to do so potentially, but we'll never know.

Virginia Tech was a decent team that played very well for the second half of the season. They overachieved at the end in the same way they had underachieved the previous two seasons. I doubt they will be that impressive this year because I don't believe Marcus Vick is good. I could be wrong, but it is much more likely that he will end up in jail before that is proven to be the case.

Anyone have a favorite for the ACC? I'm thinking FSU is due this year because Miami has been gradually declining under Coker.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on June 16, 2005, 09:44:21 AM
USC is a very good team. They will not be historic until they regularly survive brutal schedules. They have the talen to do so potentially, but we'll never know.

Virginia Tech was a decent team that played very well for the second half of the season. They overachieved at the end in the same way they had underachieved the previous two seasons. I doubt they will be that impressive this year because I don't believe Marcus Vick is good. I could be wrong, but it is much more likely that he will end up in jail before that is proven to be the case.

Anyone have a favorite for the ACC? I'm thinking FSU is due this year because Miami has been gradually declining under Coker.

I agree about USC...it's easy to be on top of your game at the end of the season when you play nobody all year. They could have put their second stringers in the game and still probably won most of their regular season games. While they are an impressive football team, they will never be historic until they schedule some decent non-conference competition. You're not going to be considered among the greatest teams in college football if your season consists of Hawaii, Arkansas, a Notre Dame team that needs work, and a weak Pac-10. However, I do see them losing focus and dropping a game during the regular season. I'd love for them to schedule a game against Iowa, or another Big-Ten defense-oriented team.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 10:41:46 AM
USC is a very good team. They will not be historic until they regularly survive brutal schedules. They have the talen to do so potentially, but we'll never know.

Virginia Tech was a decent team that played very well for the second half of the season. They overachieved at the end in the same way they had underachieved the previous two seasons. I doubt they will be that impressive this year because I don't believe Marcus Vick is good. I could be wrong, but it is much more likely that he will end up in jail before that is proven to be the case.

Anyone have a favorite for the ACC? I'm thinking FSU is due this year because Miami has been gradually declining under Coker.

I do! I do!

But I am a little bias...

Plus, our QB situation and having to start the season vs. Miami are a little troublesome.

But then there is Bobby (always reliable) and Washington and Booker and our defense (also always reliable) and Mickey and Doak. So there are some things on my side.  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 11:44:31 AM
FSU is going to be solid. I think opening versus Miami is better than playing them later in the season since they will be getting a new QB in to learn the ropes. FSU should win the ACC, though I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.  Here is a real question for all you football fans: Will any of you actually have any time to watch the games during school?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 11:50:24 AM
Oh I will find the time. If I do nothing else but study and watch football, so be it. But I will take my free time on Saturdays. Plus, most of the people I have spoken to said you have plenty of free time. Except before exams. You read a lot but not 12 hrs a day. Again, except during exams. I am also in 3 fantasy leagues. One set up by my incoming LS class! I must have my football or school will be a no go  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 11:58:37 AM
College fantasy football? If so, where do I sign up?

Do you think Leon Washington is going to run against everyone like he did in the gator bowl versus WVU? 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 12:03:21 PM
Washington will not run as well as he did against WVU for the entire season, especially if the QB situation is not resolved.

I will certainly make time to attend the games in person. In fact, I need to buy some season tickets for this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 12:04:06 PM
No. Pro. Which sucks but it is fun to sh*t talk anyway. Plus I like to keep up with all the college players in the NFL. McGahee is REALLY highly ranks preseason. Pretty cool.

I think Washington and Booker together are going to be the best RB team in college football this year. And, as was proven somewhat last year, if one goes down, the other can pick up the slack. I am really looking forward to how this is going to work out. B/c if they live up to their potential this year, it will take pressure off the QB and give one or both of the young guys a light year to get used to playing with out having to throw a lot down the field. But that may not work out. I really hope it does. We are due a good year. Finally rid of Rix and I think Bobby is going to take some play calling power away from Jeff (thank god) so we may have the ability to actually do something this year. Maybe. I have lost some faith in the last couple years but with Rix out of the picture I feel like we are starting all over.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 12:05:49 PM
Oh and as far as games in person I plan to go to all or almost all of them. I am already going to the FSU/UM game. Don't know how I am going to make it back to school in time (it is on a Monday) but it is a pact btw some of my college buddies and I so I will find a way. Watching Wake ball will not be as good but at least I get to watch some ACC in person.  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 12:13:04 PM
The games will be an hour away for me, so I feel pretty lucky. As long as VT and UMd have terrible seasons, I will be satisfied with the ACC outcome. Oh, and it'd be nice if UVa could win a big game for once. This is a big year. We have gotten a little bit better each of the past three years and it is time to start winning games against the big boys.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 12:18:23 PM
I agree. YOu guys do keep getting better. Just kinda bad timing b/c the ACC just got SO much harder. But that just means that you have more oppertunities to up your game and maybe win a few games worth a damn. I was worried about you guys last year but I must admit that game was one of the few high points of our season last year.  ;)

I am just excited to watch the ACC this year! All the changes, new challenges. Very exciting. GOD I AM READY FOR FOOTBALL TO START!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: VanBuren Boys on June 16, 2005, 12:28:33 PM
i really like UVa's squad last year.  yalls TE was awesome, as was your Linebacking crew.  I know the TE is gone, how many LBs did yall lose.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 12:58:41 PM
We lost Blackstock (OLB) and Canty (DE), but he was injured for much of last year. He is an idiot. He should have stayed for his last year. He never played the run well and needed the time to bulk up before he hits the NFL. The FSU game was the only one where we got blown out. He was injured during that game. That defense is good and brutal. The ACC is much better this year. This is the time of year when I am ok. In the beginning of July I start going nuts because that means August is right around the corner. UVa will be really solid if Hagans has recovered from his injury, throws the ball as accurately as he was against the cupcakes, if our receivers can get separation (BIG if), and if the defensive line can step up. From what I have heard and seen this is entirely possible because Chris Long is a manchild. Oh, and it'd be nice if our secondary could not blow so many coverages. This last one is possible. Our pass defense was terrible.

Nole,
FSU has the defense. It's all about how well the offense can play against the good teams like Miami, etc.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 01:26:34 PM
UVa had a decent season, but it is hard to not be dissapointed with them playing so many teams close and not finishing them off. The VTech game must have been killer :(  How many starters does UVa have returning?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 01:27:49 PM

Nole,
FSU has the defense. It's all about how well the offense can play against the good teams like Miami, etc.

Oh I am well aware.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 01:50:53 PM
UVa has most of the starters returning. The loss of Heath Miller hurts. The Tech game was painful because we had them. Oh well. We're just starting to become real football fans. When I started there people still wore coat and ties and left at halftime to go drinking. At least the students pay attention, though it is sad to see the semi-formal attire go.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 01:55:49 PM
UVa has most of the starters returning. The loss of Heath Miller hurts. The Tech game was painful because we had them. Oh well. We're just starting to become real football fans. When I started there people still wore coat and ties and left at halftime to go drinking. At least the students pay attention, though it is sad to see the semi-formal attire go.

I love that tradition! Oh that is going on the southern thread!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 01:56:54 PM
Good call.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 02:17:18 PM
My dad complains all the time that that tradition has gone by the wayside at a lot of schools. He was also fuming mad when Ole Miss was banned from using Dixie as their song.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 02:28:05 PM
My dad complains all the time that that tradition has gone by the wayside at a lot of schools. He was also fuming mad when Ole Miss was banned from using Dixie as their song.

As he should have been. I love ripping Yankees apart when they start talking about what is and is not acceptable for Southern culture. A few of them have reasonable points of view but many simply do not know.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 02:29:56 PM
Yeah. I don't care what anyone says. There is NOTHING like southern football.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 16, 2005, 02:33:56 PM
I need to start a countdown until the most wonderful time of the year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 02:35:59 PM
I have a shirt that says

"Life begins when the season starts."

I love it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 16, 2005, 02:53:54 PM
USC is a very good team. They will not be historic until they regularly survive brutal schedules. They have the talen to do so potentially, but we'll never know.

Virginia Tech was a decent team that played very well for the second half of the season. They overachieved at the end in the same way they had underachieved the previous two seasons. I doubt they will be that impressive this year because I don't believe Marcus Vick is good. I could be wrong, but it is much more likely that he will end up in jail before that is proven to be the case.

Anyone have a favorite for the ACC? I'm thinking FSU is due this year because Miami has been gradually declining under Coker.

I agree about USC...it's easy to be on top of your game at the end of the season when you play nobody all year. They could have put their second stringers in the game and still probably won most of their regular season games. While they are an impressive football team, they will never be historic until they schedule some decent non-conference competition. You're not going to be considered among the greatest teams in college football if your season consists of Hawaii, Arkansas, a Notre Dame team that needs work, and a weak Pac-10. However, I do see them losing focus and dropping a game during the regular season. I'd love for them to schedule a game against Iowa, or another Big-Ten defense-oriented team.
wait, we blew out Iowa three years ago when they were on top of their game
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 02:54:31 PM
There is no sport like college football. I gave half of my salary to scalpers when I lived in LA to see USC in 03. Too bad Temple doesn't have a decent team. Does the MAC even count as a conference?    :P
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 16, 2005, 02:58:34 PM
There is no sport like college football. I gave half of my salary to scalpers when I lived in LA to see USC in 03. Too bad Temple doesn't have a decent team. Does the MAC even count as a conference?    :P

Kind of. I wondered the same thing about Conference USA when I was considering Tulane. The Green Wave?????
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 03:01:39 PM
wait, we blew out Iowa three years ago when they were on top of their game
Quote

USC scheduled Auburn twice, played Va Tech in a 12th game, plays Notre Dame every year and has obliterated their opponents in the past three bowl games. I think they've totally proven their dominance. If Cal hadn't gone into the Holiday bowl with no momentum, the PAC-10 would have been 5-1 in Bowl games last season. The Pac-10 may not be the toughest conference in the world, but at least USC doesn't schedule the Citadel
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on June 16, 2005, 03:06:15 PM
There is no sport like college football. I gave half of my salary to scalpers when I lived in LA to see USC in 03. Too bad Temple doesn't have a decent team. Does the MAC even count as a conference?    :P

Kind of. I wondered the same thing about Conference USA when I was considering Tulane. The Green Wave?????

Believe it or not, Tulane had a 12-0 Season in 98 with Shawn King as their QB
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 07:17:06 AM
Yeah. I know. I was just kidding. But it just would not be the same as rooting for FSU. I am kinda spoiled  ;) Plus, we have our own opinions of Shaun King here in Tampa Bay...

 ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 07:22:17 AM
Is Shaun King even in the NFL anymore?

USC's victory over Iowa a few years ago was convincing. Notre Dame does not count as a decent team even. Cal did not prove to be a legitimate number two in the conference, thus the shallow Pac 10 looks even worse. The Pac 10 is comprable to the Citadel. OK, maybe it's not that bad.

Btw, I saw that Joe Hamilton is playing in NFL Europe. Now there was a great college QB.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 07:26:03 AM
Joe Hamilton WAS great. So weird how college greats often don't translate to the pros.

The Bucs dumped Shaun King two seasons ago and it seems like someone else picked him up but I doubt they still have him since I have not heard of him playing.  ???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 07:26:59 AM
FSU is playing the Citadel this year as their "scrimmage" game. After Miami. What a downshift that is going to be.  ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 08:50:14 AM
That FSU v. Citadel game should be a classic trip to the woodshed.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 08:52:03 AM
I love it. Everyone needs one. Especially after opening the season vs Miami!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 08:54:13 AM
We always have a cupcake for homecoming. It's too bad they don't schedule a real team for that weekend and leave the cupcake for another time. I'd rather go back to see a good game than a blowout.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChrisD8400 on June 17, 2005, 08:56:14 AM
Yeah. I don't care what anyone says. There is NOTHING like southern football.

you've never been to buckeyeland, nothing like that
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 08:59:28 AM
Oh me too. I would not attend the Citadel game. But since it looks like we will have a rookie QB, I will take a game like that in order to get him some more game time with little to no pressure. I know what you mean about cupcake games for homecoming. We normally do that to. But I never go for Homecoming. Too many people in town. My friends and I made a pact to go to either the Miami game or the Florida game every year, which ever was in Tally that year. This year it is Miami. Last time I traveled to Tally for a Miami game not only did we blow a lead and lose but I had to stand in the pouring rain with no poncho. It SUCKED. And then the UF game this year... I think I am bad luck. Oh well.
Last year Wake scheduled us as their Homecoming game. What a dumb idea. Though it ended up being a close game. But still... ???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 09:11:04 AM
I just want to make the Va Tech and Maryland games. UNC is another good one to catch but it is not worth going to Chapel Hill anymore now that I am fairly far removed from college.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 09:13:12 AM
And you have to go to the rivarly games because if it is a great game and your teams wins, you would not (should not) be able to forgive yourself for missing it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 09:13:43 AM
Yeah. We decided last year that we are too old to "crash" on people's apartment floors anymore. And once my bro graduates in Aug, I will know no one there anyway. But I feel I need to return for a rivalry game at least once a year. I also plan on going to the ACC championship (hurray!) this year if the Noles make it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 09:18:46 AM
Where is the championship game this year?

My little sister just graduated, so I no longer know anyone down there. I do have a place to crash though. The house I lived in for my last year is owned by my friend's parents and they are giving me a key. Excellent.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 09:20:50 AM
That is a good deal. I am jealous.

The game is in Jacksonville. I went down there last year for our Gator Bowl game. That one we won so maybe I am not so cursed. And maybe we have good luck in that stadium, which is pretty nice.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on June 17, 2005, 09:27:11 AM
i am going to miss the greatest season in history because ill be 3K miles away from LA. :'(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 11:51:43 AM
i am going to miss the greatest season in history because ill be 3K miles away from LA. :'(

They have been very good and are bound to lose again. They've been on a tear for 3 years now. It can only go so long.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 11:57:20 AM
Yes. You may end up being glad you live far away. The worst season the Noles had in recent memory, I was living in Italy. Though it sucked to find out about the games Sunday morning at the internet cafe, it was better than having to live thru it in person. Just sayin.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 12:26:32 PM
Yes. You may end up being glad you live far away. The worst season the Noles had in recent memory, I was living in Italy. Though it sucked to find out about the games Sunday morning at the internet cafe, it was better than having to live thru it in person. Just sayin.

Just be thankful that your teams ever have championship years. The best we do is win at lax. I'm still hanging on to the Skins last Super Bowl win, when I was 12.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 12:30:18 PM
The first year I went to FSU we won the National Championship and went undefeated. The first year I lived in Tampa the Bucs won their first Super Bowl. You get spoiled though.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 12:35:44 PM
You can be quiet you spoiled...I'm not mad, I'm just jealous.  :-\
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 12:46:14 PM
I hear ya. But now I am back down with all you frustrated fans so don't be too jealous.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 01:02:27 PM
Your level of frustration is like a month without sex- not too big a deal. Mine is like getting some when you are 16 and then never being able to get past first base again.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 01:03:53 PM
Ha! Good analogy. Yeah I guess it is best to have won and then lost than never to have won at all.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 01:05:29 PM
This is true.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on June 17, 2005, 01:24:38 PM
Your level of frustration is like a month without sex- not too big a deal. Mine is like getting some when you are 16 and then never being able to get past first base again.

Going to Penn State from 2000-2004 and expecting to see quality teams was like walking into your room, expecting to find Angelina Jolie and a bottle of Moet on ice...only when you open the door, you realize that Rosie O' Donnell is on your couch with a warm 40 of Colt 45.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Nole on June 17, 2005, 01:25:30 PM
Your level of frustration is like a month without sex- not too big a deal. Mine is like getting some when you are 16 and then never being able to get past first base again.

Going to Penn State from 2000-2004 and expecting to see quality teams was like walking into your room, expecting to find Angelina Jolie and a bottle of Moet on ice...only when you open the door, you realize that Rosie O' Donnell is on your couch with a warm 40 of Colt 45.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on June 17, 2005, 01:28:48 PM
Your level of frustration is like a month without sex- not too big a deal. Mine is like getting some when you are 16 and then never being able to get past first base again.

Going to Penn State from 2000-2004 and expecting to see quality teams was like walking into your room, expecting to find Angelina Jolie and a bottle of Moet on ice...only when you open the door, you realize that Rosie O' Donnell is on your couch with a warm 40 of Colt 45.

That is a quality response. They will get better once Paterno leaves. He is a great man but was a great coach.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 10:35:37 AM
I miss having Nole to discuss college football.

Go Hoos!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 11, 2005, 10:52:27 AM
Go Big Blue!!!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on July 11, 2005, 10:54:02 AM
I miss having Nole to discuss college football.

Go Hoos!

I'm a Gator, but I'm always up for a little CFB chat.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 11:49:49 AM
I know it's only 58 more days until the Hoos kick off.

I will start by saying that Texas will beat Oklahoma because: 1) UT returns many more players, and 2) Mack Brown has to win eventually.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on July 11, 2005, 12:07:15 PM
I know it's only 58 more days until the Hoos kick off.

I will start by saying that Texas will beat Oklahoma because: 1) UT returns many more players, and 2) Mack Brown has to win eventually.

I also think this is Texas' year. I really think Oklahoma might be slightly down this year. First year starting QB's struggle, that's the simple story. Plus, I think Stoops is a little overrated (not too much, just think he gets ALOT of hype).
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: grad on July 11, 2005, 12:29:33 PM
I'm bored at work so I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in here and call my beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and Michigan in the Rose Bowl for the national championship. 

Tech has a lot of returning starters, their defense is amazing, and Marcus spent the past year under the wing of his older brother Michael while training with a QB coach the elder Vick paid for.  He's got a lot to prove, and with his performance in the spring game back in April I think Hokie fans are in for a pleasant surprise.  The only question mark is going to be their offensive line, but so long as they give Marcus 3 seconds, he'll do the rest.

Michigan, well, although I'm an alma-mater of VT, I grew up a Wolverine fan and expect them to do extremely well this year.

VT/UM - Rose Bowl
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: VanBuren Boys on July 11, 2005, 12:35:01 PM
Texas will beat OU and be undefeated going into its' game with Texas A&M, they will get their asses handed to them by the Ags. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 12:58:31 PM
I'm bored at work so I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in here and call my beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and Michigan in the Rose Bowl for the national championship. 

Tech has a lot of returning starters, their defense is amazing, and Marcus spent the past year under the wing of his older brother Michael while training with a QB coach the elder Vick paid for.  He's got a lot to prove, and with his performance in the spring game back in April I think Hokie fans are in for a pleasant surprise.  The only question mark is going to be their offensive line, but so long as they give Marcus 3 seconds, he'll do the rest.

Michigan, well, although I'm an alma-mater of VT, I grew up a Wolverine fan and expect them to do extremely well this year.

VT/UM - Rose Bowl
Your alma mater is your school. You are an alumnus or an alumna of VT.

Please forgive me for being this obnoxious; however, you admitted to being a Hokie.  ;)

VT is overrated. They do well when they are under the radar, which is not the case this year. Marcus Vick should be in jail anyway.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 01:56:15 PM
I consider myself (and many of my friends) the ultimate spoiled football fans. I have spent the past three years at USC.  In that time, we have only lost three games, won all our home games, beat rival schools UCLA and Notre Dame each year, finished first in the Pac 10 each season, won the Orange Bowl against Iowa, won two National Chmpionships, had two Heisman winners, and just generally kicked ass.

If that's not spoiled, I don't know what is....maybe you can see why me tar says "lucky" ;D

You are a lucky girl. The only thing you were missing were real football fans in SC.  ;)

I know something about mediocre football fans based on where I went to school. Just don't tell soon2blaw.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: grad on July 11, 2005, 02:03:12 PM
You are correct sir, alumnus it is (I got lazy with my proofreading).  

However, I will humbly disagree with your overrated assessment of VT.  While I agree Marcus may be a bit of a troublemaker, he sure can throw a football, and the scoreboard doesnt care what your rap sheet is.  But time will tell.

I see you will be at UR this fall, as will I.  I'm sure we'll be able to follow the season and celebrate the Hokie National Championship title over a few cold ones.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 11, 2005, 02:06:26 PM
I'm bored at work so I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in here and call my beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and Michigan in the Rose Bowl for the national championship. 

Tech has a lot of returning starters, their defense is amazing, and Marcus spent the past year under the wing of his older brother Michael while training with a QB coach the elder Vick paid for.  He's got a lot to prove, and with his performance in the spring game back in April I think Hokie fans are in for a pleasant surprise.  The only question mark is going to be their offensive line, but so long as they give Marcus 3 seconds, he'll do the rest.

Michigan, well, although I'm an alma-mater of VT, I grew up a Wolverine fan and expect them to do extremely well this year.

VT/UM - Rose Bowl

I hope you're right about Michigan, but I don't think its going to happen until Lloyd gets less conservative and Jim Hermann learns how to stop running QB's....they'll always blow that one damn game. I don't know how many games I'll get to watch in Georgia but it'll be nice to have too top 25 teams to root for since UGA should be solid as well.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 11, 2005, 02:08:07 PM
You are correct sir, alumnus it is (I got lazy with my proofreading).  

However, I will humbly disagree with your overrated assessment of VT.  While I agree Marcus may be a bit of a troublemaker, he sure can throw a football, and the scoreboard doesnt care what your rap sheet is.  But time will tell.

I see you will be at UR this fall, as will I.  I'm sure we'll be able to follow the season and celebrate the Hokie National Championship title over a few cold ones.


Just had to comment on Marcus Vick...while he might be the 2nd coming of Michael, he wasn't even able to unseat Byron Randle as the starter, who was a fairly mediocre QB until last year. Not saying he isn't going to make some sick plays though.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 02:12:58 PM
You are correct sir, alumnus it is (I got lazy with my proofreading).  

However, I will humbly disagree with your overrated assessment of VT.  While I agree Marcus may be a bit of a troublemaker, he sure can throw a football, and the scoreboard doesnt care what your rap sheet is.  But time will tell.

I see you will be at UR this fall, as will I.  I'm sure we'll be able to follow the season and celebrate the Hokie National Championship title over a few cold ones.


I hope we are celebrating no such thing next fall!

PS- I like how you described Vick as a "troublemaker." That's one way of putting it. We had Antoine "Shoes" Womack a few years ago. He beat someone up and stole the guy's shoes. Pretty sad. He too could put some numbers up though.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 11, 2005, 02:13:02 PM
You can be quiet you spoiled...I'm not mad, I'm just jealous. :-\


I consider myself (and many of my friends) the ultimate spoiled football fans. I have spent the past three years at USC.  In that time, we have only lost three games, won all our home games, beat rival schools UCLA and Notre Dame each year, finished first in the Pac 10 each season, won the Orange Bowl against Iowa, won two National Chmpionships, had two Heisman winners, and just generally kicked ass.

If that's not spoiled, I don't know what is....maybe you can see why me tar says "lucky" ;D

wassup tralala? I transfered to SC at the same time and I just graduated; I always thought I was the lucky one.  I am a die hard Trojan through and through.  There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.   

hey UM fan remember this?
(http://img202.echo.cx/img202/5689/uploadkcolbertum11qi.gif)





Marcus Vick is overrated

out
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: grad on July 11, 2005, 02:17:04 PM
Michigan does always tend to blow one game that comes back to bite them, but I'm keeping the faith this year.  Hart & Henne are both young and had an amazing season as freshman last year.  I'm hoping they can build on that this year.  If anything it'll be great to watch and they'll be solid for a few years to come.

As far as Marcus goes, he was a freshman when he was trying to unseat Randle.  And while Randle is no Michael, he was a really good QB.  That, and Marcus had a huge head his first year.  I had him in one of my classes along with some of the other teammates and from talking with them it came down to Marcus expecting to be handed the starting job without having to work for it.  Frank Beamer doesnt play like that.  The full year suspension set him straight and woke him up.  Marcus is all grown up now and taking numbers.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 11, 2005, 02:17:47 PM
You can be quiet you spoiled...I'm not mad, I'm just jealous. :-\


I consider myself (and many of my friends) the ultimate spoiled football fans. I have spent the past three years at USC. In that time, we have only lost three games, won all our home games, beat rival schools UCLA and Notre Dame each year, finished first in the Pac 10 each season, won the Orange Bowl against Iowa, won two National Chmpionships, had two Heisman winners, and just generally kicked ass.

If that's not spoiled, I don't know what is....maybe you can see why me tar says "lucky" ;D

wassup tralala? I transfered to SC at the same time and I just graduated; I always thought I was the lucky one. I am a die hard Trojan through and through. There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.

hey UM fan remember this?
(http://img202.echo.cx/img202/5689/uploadkcolbertum11qi.gif)





Marcus Vick is overrated

out

If I didn't like ya so much 3peat, I'd have to hate ya!  ;)

(could be worse! you could be an Ohio State Cockeye fan!!)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 11, 2005, 02:19:50 PM
There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.   

I have been on record from the beginning saying that the Trojans will lose this year. If they win all of their games this year and there are two other undefeated teams, the Trojans should not be in the championship game because their schedule is pathetic this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: grad on July 11, 2005, 02:21:24 PM
ASN, I should've guessed, a UVA ALUMNUS.  I won't hold that against you, not growing up in VA it's hard to really get into that whole UVA/VT rivalry thing, except when it comes game time.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: grad on July 11, 2005, 02:29:39 PM
I'll give USC their dues; they are an amazing football team.  However, if it wasn't for a botched pass interference call during the VT game last year we would have seen a different outcome to the season.  Ah well, it's a new year, and the castrated turkey will have redemption.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 11, 2005, 02:35:31 PM
You can be quiet you spoiled...I'm not mad, I'm just jealous. :-\


I consider myself (and many of my friends) the ultimate spoiled football fans. I have spent the past three years at USC. In that time, we have only lost three games, won all our home games, beat rival schools UCLA and Notre Dame each year, finished first in the Pac 10 each season, won the Orange Bowl against Iowa, won two National Chmpionships, had two Heisman winners, and just generally kicked ass.

If that's not spoiled, I don't know what is....maybe you can see why me tar says "lucky" ;D

wassup tralala? I transfered to SC at the same time and I just graduated; I always thought I was the lucky one. I am a die hard Trojan through and through. There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.

hey UM fan remember this?



Marcus Vick is overrated

out

If I didn't like ya so much 3peat, I'd have to hate ya!  ;)

(could be worse! you could be an Ohio State Cockeye fan!!)

 ;)   ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 11, 2005, 02:37:15 PM
There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.   

I have been on record from the beginning saying that the Trojans will lose this year. If they win all of their games this year and there are two other undefeated teams, the Trojans should not be in the championship game because their schedule is pathetic this year.
see, now that is just out of control.  Not everything is based on strength of schedule.  I didnt hear anyone complaining about OU's schedule last year before they got trounced 55-19?  People complain about USC's strength of schedule every year but we've DOMINATED!!! in our last three bowl games.

you are saying that NO MATTER WHAT, the TROJANS SHOULD NOT PLAY FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP.    NO MATTER WHAT THE TWO-TIME DEFENDING CHAMPIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEIR THRONE?  That is hatefull.

I would like to nominate ASNetlenov for Hater of the Year!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on July 12, 2005, 07:21:58 AM
ASTL, I like you, but I have to agree with the hater award. USC has played at least one quality opponent each of the past three years. Auburn, Auburn and VT. Arkansas, Fresno State and Notre Dame are a lot tougher than what most teams schedule.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 12, 2005, 07:54:21 AM
There are only a few Trojans on LSD so we have to stick together because all the haters will come out of the woodwork as soon as the season starts.   

I have been on record from the beginning saying that the Trojans will lose this year. If they win all of their games this year and there are two other undefeated teams, the Trojans should not be in the championship game because their schedule is pathetic this year.
see, now that is just out of control.  Not everything is based on strength of schedule.  I didnt hear anyone complaining about OU's schedule last year before they got trounced 55-19?  People complain about USC's strength of schedule every year but we've DOMINATED!!! in our last three bowl games.

you are saying that NO MATTER WHAT, the TROJANS SHOULD NOT PLAY FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP.    NO MATTER WHAT THE TWO-TIME DEFENDING CHAMPIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEIR THRONE?  That is hatefull.

I would like to nominate ASNetlenov for Hater of the Year!

Wouldn't the act of nominating me for that award make you a more viable candidate?  ;)

No one denies that USC is a great team; however their schedule is a huge joke. USC has played well in big games. I do not deny this; however, Stoops had a similar run at OU where he kept beating good teams too. The difference is that he had to do it much more consistently. USC has to rise to the occasion maybe twice a year, which should not aid them in their quest to be recognized.


ASTL, I like you, but I have to agree with the hater award. USC has played at least one quality opponent each of the past three years. Auburn, Auburn and VT. Arkansas, Fresno State and Notre Dame are a lot tougher than what most teams schedule.

As for the out of conference schedule, it is legit. ND and Ark are mediocre teams though. The problem is that their conference schedule is incredibly weak.

And what is college football without pointless arguments?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Faure on July 12, 2005, 08:06:33 AM
And what is college football without pointless arguments?

I have to respect that :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 12, 2005, 08:19:46 AM
And what is college football without pointless arguments?

I have to respect that :)

I really enjoy the people that take it too seriously. They are too much fun to mess with.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SMUkid2005 on July 12, 2005, 03:05:41 PM
I was at SMU for four years (talk about brutal football). Back in the early 80's we fielded the best pro-college teams to boot haha. Even though only about 18,000 people per game care, SMU will win 6-7 games this season.

USC is a great football team. I think they deserve the crown, although I do think Auburn deserved the chance to play them over OU. I don't think USC will win it all again. They showed vulnerability against Cal and Stanford. A few slip-ups and a loss can happen. Especially when everyone in the conference sees the X on your back (see LSU last year). Although, it's sad when Arizona State is your toughest conference opponent.

The Pac-10 might be a one-trick pony ... but hell, the worst BCS conference is the Big East. Might as well give CUSA and the MWC BCS bids.

Teams that will most likely disappoint:

1. OU
2. Notre Dame (they deserve it for firing Willingham)
3. Texas A&M
4. Ohio State
5. Florida (only b/c Gator fans expect way too much)

Teams that will most likely live up to hype:

1. Texas (VY is one helluva player that can win games, even if his QB skills are novice)
2. Tennessee
3. USC (even if not undefeated, still Pac-10 Champs)
4. LSU
5. Louisville (How hard is it to run the table in the Yankee-Doodle Pansy Conference?)

Teams that will most likely surprise (not neccessarily MNC contenders):

1. Alabama
2. Nebraska
3. South Carolina
4. Penn State (Please JoePa, if it's a good year retire for your own sake!)
5. Washington (It's Ty, and he's in the Pac-10 -- he doesn't have the ND schedule this time)

And no offense to the west coasters, but no matter the quality -- it will never compare to Texas or Southern Football. The fanfare and tradition and tailgating in the South is incomparable. And I'm not talking your fight song or records in regards to traditions. If your USC went 0-11, do you think LA would sell out its stadium for a whole season? Our USC did ... 85,000 even in consistently atrocious years. On the west coast, it's about trends ... and right now (and deservedly so), Trojan football is hot. UCLA isn't -- and their attendance records show it.

Can't wait for this season to start ... Off season is so painful.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 12, 2005, 05:37:48 PM
3Peat-
Thanks for the Rose Bowl clip. Yea, you whooped our asses and I flew across the country to witness it and the wound still hurts, so thanks for that. That USC team had an absolutely nasty D-line, but there is no way in hell you go undefeated again this year even with your patsy schedule. I don't care how good Leinhart is. Hopefully we get another shot at you this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 13, 2005, 01:52:06 AM
ESPN.com Experts' Greatest College Football Teams of All-Time
1. 1971 Nebraska
2. 1972 USC
3. 1995 Nebraska
4. 1945 Army
5. 2001 Miami

ESPN.com Viewers' Greatest College Football Teams of All-Time
1. 1995 Nebraska
2. 1994 Penn State (even though they didn't even win the NC that year! ha!)
3. 1991 Washington
4. 1971 Nebraska
5. 2001 Miami


Discuss.
Last year's USC team was one of the greatest football teams and would have been the greatest EVER if Williams was allowed to play.  Position for position, USC beats any of those teams with better athletes and genius coaching.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SMUkid2005 on July 13, 2005, 07:39:22 AM

And no offense to the west coasters, but no matter the quality -- it will never compare to Texas or Southern Football. The fanfare and tradition and tailgating in the South is incomparable. And I'm not talking your fight song or records in regards to traditions. If your USC went 0-11, do you think LA would sell out its stadium for a whole season? Our USC did ... 85,000 even in consistently atrocious years. On the west coast, it's about trends ... and right now (and deservedly so), Trojan football is hot. UCLA isn't -- and their attendance records show it.

Can't wait for this season to start ... Off season is so painful.




For the most part, I agree with you, buttt......

I am from Texas.  I have grown up with football traditions my whole life.  Other than really good music and really good sex, there is nothing I love more in this world than college football.  I went to every A&M bonfire from the time I was born until they stopped having them.  I've been to muster, I don't walk on the grass, and I am overly familiar with the Dixie Chicken.  As for UT, I could sing "the eyes of Texas are upon you" before I could spell my own name.  I went as a UT cheerleader for halloween when I was 4, 6, and 9.....

In short, I know a thing or two about Texas football traditions, fanfare, and rivalry.

And the thing is, I find USC's fanfare and tradition just as, if not often times more impressive than many traditional southern football programs whose games I have been to.  THe reason?  The students and alums themselves.  See the problem with LA, is that with any sporting event, AT LEAST 30% of all seats in a game are reserved for corporate seats and celebrities.  When the teams suck, the celebrities and corporate people don't come.  Add that to the really rich fans that just have tickets for the hell of it, and yes, you come up with some bad attendance records.

But teh fanfare, the rivalries, the passion.  It's all still there.  Just go stand (yes, stand) through a whole game in student section, paint your body, do crowd pushups, and sing Tusk.  And don't even think that we are going home if we start to lose.  We might eave the stands to go buy beer (up until this year, you could still buy alcohol in the colliseum :P) But we don't leave. 

All I'm saying is, attendance records aren't everything, don't knock it till ya tried it!


You went to both Aggie and Longhorn games, and rooted for each? That's like being a fan of Auburn and Alabama, or rooting for Florida and for Florida State. Not saying you're not a football fan, but to enjoy the traditions and rivalries of Texas and Southern football -- I would think you'd realize you don't root for both.

I'm not saying I hate USC, or that they're bad. But the rivalries in the Pac-10 just don't compare. USC/UCLA is the only game IN-CONFERENCE (USC/ND isn't in-conf) that people know about, save maybe the Apple Cup. Games like Oregon State/ UO, ASU/AU, etc. have no national interest. Seriously, just go to a game at Bryant-Denny, Jordan-Hare, Between the Hedges, Neyland, The Swamp, Tiger Stadium, or even Vaught-Hemingway. It doesn't matter if they're playing Kentucky or the top-ranked SEC school at the time. Every game is a huge rivalry -- and the Pac-10 doesn't have that. It's not USC's fault as much as it is that people on the west-coast just don't live and breathe football like we do. New England is the same way.

The Big XII is also missing this b/c the big Texas schools whored themselves out instead of keeping with tradition in the SWC. Texas/OU, OU/Nebraska, A&M/Texas are good -- but who cares about KU/Texas Tech, Mizzou/Oklahoma State, etc? No interest. The SEC, Big X, and ACC to an extent -- have been good about preserving traditions and creating rabid fans.

If 30% of your seats go to celebrities and corporate sponsors, then you've proved my point. That's not a tradition, it's just a trend that when things are hot the people go. Students should always go to the games. Alumni and students don't fill up the 85,000 seats at South Carolina when they go 0-11. Tennessee doesn't fill up 108,000 on students and alums alone either.

Craig James didn't rat us out ... Eric Dickerson is the one that said "When I went to the NFL from SMU, I took a pay cut." Did we deserve some type of punishment? Yah, we were cheating. I just think it's ridiculous we were the only ones to get the death penalty <cough cough Bama, A&M, Miami, Colorado> Of course, it'd be foolish to think any of the successful privies aren't doing the same thing now ... they're just better at hiding it than we were, plus the state schools in CA don't care if y'all are better at FB than they are, and won't rat y'all out.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 13, 2005, 08:10:52 AM
Last year's USC team was one of the greatest football teams and would have been the greatest EVER if Williams was allowed to play.  Position for position, USC beats any of those teams with better athletes and genius coaching.

It will take some time before the legacy of last year's team can be established. They certainly belong in the conversation at least.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 13, 2005, 01:55:39 PM
Go Big Blue
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 13, 2005, 02:00:53 PM
Go Big Blue
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4507/uploaddbyrd29nm.gif)

nuf said
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 13, 2005, 02:07:07 PM
Nice one.

How about this?

Michigan: 841 Wins  276 Losses  36 Ties  Pct: .745

USC: 720 wins 297 Losses 54 Ties Pct: .697

 :-*

(yes, i had to go all-time stats.  We're still the reigning Kings there.)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 13, 2005, 03:08:16 PM
I wasn't going to go there, but I'm glad you did.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 13, 2005, 10:29:04 PM
but what have you done lately?

(http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/4854/crossingthegoalline7000ll.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 14, 2005, 12:13:03 PM
but what have you done lately?

(http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/4854/crossingthegoalline7000ll.jpg)

 >:(

Good article on why Leinart stayed in ESPN mag this month.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 14, 2005, 02:41:42 PM
I didnt get to read it, what did it say?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on July 14, 2005, 02:43:22 PM
I didnt get to read it, what did it say?

it was about 4 pages, good read.  they interviewed his girl, his roomate, his parents, and basically presented a good argument for him staying put for a year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 14, 2005, 02:45:29 PM
It boiled down to him being injured prior to the combine and not wanting to work out at less then 100%. And he runs LA, yada yada...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 18, 2005, 11:38:03 AM
ahh.. thanks.  I think he made the right choice.  As a qb, the chances of injuring a vitla part of his body are relatively slim.  Any other guy hurts his knee and he might be done, but a qb doesnt run in the NFL; look at how slow Peyton Manning is.

  He really couldnt go wrong in the first place.  Staying at USC to win another championship and Heisman is a good way to get more experience, have fun and stay in sunny SoCal.  The women are top notch, the weather is second to none, the campus is beautiful, the social scene is on par with everyother metropolis in the world... what more could anyone ask for?  Oh yeah, a 50 mil contract.  Weighing both options he must have known that the money will be waiting next year but one can never go back to college.  Plus, if you already didnt know, USC is a great place to play football; he is a movie star over here.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on July 18, 2005, 11:45:33 AM
1.  SEC (Pig sooooey Razorbacks)
2.  ACC (GO Terps)
3.  Big XII (Fight Raiders Fight, Fight Raiders Fight, Fight for the school we love so                    dearly)
4.  After that it doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 24, 2005, 04:16:20 PM
bang bang!

(http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/4830/mleinartvumupload3pg.gif)


awww sweet memories!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 25, 2005, 07:31:11 AM
1.  SEC (Pig sooooey Razorbacks)
2.  ACC (GO Terps)
3.  Big XII (Fight Raiders Fight, Fight Raiders Fight, Fight for the school we love so                    dearly)
4.  After that it doesn't really matter.

I'll agree with this except the part about the Twerps.

And 3Peat:

I gave USC their due by saying that they belong in the conversation. It's too bad they do not play in the SEC because if they had run the table the past three years in that conference, which is not impossible give the absurd amount of talent, they might get my vote as the best team ever. They have won as many big games as OU did when they had their run a few years ago. USC just had the benefit of only having to come up big in bowl games, which allowed them to stretch their run to nearly three full seasons. It will be interesting to see if they do it again this year. I also believe that their dominance in bowl games creates the perception that the other teams USC plays are not good and not that USC is great. To be fair, they do not get the full credit they deserve even if they play in a JV conference.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on July 25, 2005, 09:12:17 AM
1.  SEC (Pig sooooey Razorbacks)
2.  ACC (GO Terps)
3.  Big XII (Fight Raiders Fight, Fight Raiders Fight, Fight for the school we love so                    dearly)
4.  After that it doesn't really matter.

I'll agree with this except the part about the Twerps.



Well, I gotta have love for my alma matter.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on July 25, 2005, 05:13:14 PM
they play in a JV conference.

Truer words have never been spoken.  Texas Tech made Cal look like $hit in the Holiday Bowl. 
Fight Raiders Fight, Fight Raider FIght, Fight for the school we love so dearly.  you'll hit em high, you'll hit em low, we'll push that ball across the goal TECH FIGHT FIGHT. We'll praise ger name, boost her to fame, Fight for the scarlet and the black.  We will hit em we will wreck em, hit em wreck em Texas Teck and the victory bells will ring out.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 06:20:57 PM
they play in a JV conference.

Truer words have never been spoken.  Texas Tech made Cal look like $hit in the Holiday Bowl. 

Well, USC made OU look WORSE!!!!!! The conference is irrelevant because it is substantually more prejudicial than it is probative.  USC may or may not play in an easy conference but when it comes to the end of the season, USC PWNS NCAA D-I Football!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 06:33:31 PM
Read what I said, "at the end of the season".  Dont forget about our pwnage of Iowa and Brad Banks.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 07:23:32 PM
Read what I said, "at the end of the season".  Dont forget about our pwnage of Iowa and Brad Banks.

Yes, that Las Vegas Bowl was at the end of a season, too.

Their owning of a vastly-overrated Iowa team did not impress me.  Brad Banks got hot for about eight weeks of his career, and that was it.  Remember, they lost to K-State and Wazzou that year, and USC got Notre Dame during the start of their collapse with culminated a couple years later with Willingham's firing.

USC is good though.  Very good :).
A.  Everyone says a team is overrated AFTER USC slaughters them so that doesnt have any real impact anymore ie Iowa, UM and OU
B.  I remember USC losing to K-State and Mike WIlliams dropping something like 7 passes   AND I remember Wazzou... something about our infamous kicker Kileen and not being able to sink a kick.  DESPITE all that At the end of the year in 2002 USC could have beaten anyone in the country.  Williams was a superstar, Kolbert was nearly as good, Palmer was droppin dimes and our D was ferocious.  I know, I know, college football is a year long playoff and two losses immediately means you did not have a championship season BUT if there were a playoff USC would have shocked a lot of people and definitely won the undisputed championship.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 25, 2005, 08:58:28 PM
Read what I said, "at the end of the season".  Dont forget about our pwnage of Iowa and Brad Banks.

Yes, that Las Vegas Bowl was at the end of a season, too.

Their owning of a vastly-overrated Iowa team did not impress me.  Brad Banks got hot for about eight weeks of his career, and that was it.  Remember, they lost to K-State and Wazzou that year, and USC got Notre Dame during the start of their collapse with culminated a couple years later with Willingham's firing.

USC is good though.  Very good :).
A.  Everyone says a team is overrated AFTER USC slaughters them so that doesnt have any real impact anymore ie Iowa, UM and OU
B.  I remember USC losing to K-State and Mike WIlliams dropping something like 7 passes   AND I remember Wazzou... something about our infamous kicker Kileen and not being able to sink a kick.  DESPITE all that At the end of the year in 2002 USC could have beaten anyone in the country.  Williams was a superstar, Kolbert was nearly as good, Palmer was droppin dimes and our D was ferocious.  I know, I know, college football is a year long playoff and two losses immediately means you did not have a championship season BUT if there were a playoff USC would have shocked a lot of people and definitely won the undisputed championship.

No, USC was the third-best team in college football in 2002, though I believe they finished #4 in the major polls (behind UGA).  Miami and Ohio State were the two best all-around teams in 2002, and they produced a championship game of epic proportions.  I'll give USC 2003 and 2004, however.  I just wish they would've played LSU in '03. 
We'll never convince each other so we can agree to disagree.  If only there was a playoff, life would be so much better :-\
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Amanda H. on July 25, 2005, 09:17:39 PM
ACC sucks. 

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on July 26, 2005, 07:34:14 PM
If only there was a playoff, life would be so much better :-\

That we can agree to. 

Eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule
Eliminate conference championships (especially the Big 12...who the hell wants to see Oklahoma play Iowa State anyway)
8 team playoff ranked by BCS...had this been in place last year, Auburn could have played in the title game and Utah could have been given a shot to prove themselves
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 26, 2005, 08:18:54 PM
If only there was a playoff, life would be so much better :-\

That we can agree to. 

Eliminate one non-conference game from everyone's schedule
Eliminate conference championships (especially the Big 12...who the hell wants to see Oklahoma play Iowa State anyway)
8 team playoff ranked by BCS...had this been in place last year, Auburn could have played in the title game and Utah could have been given a shot to prove themselves
Yeah, and USC would be going for a 4peat
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 27, 2005, 08:25:50 AM
ACC sucks. 



Where is the verbose reasoning to back up this ridiculous statement?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 27, 2005, 08:37:52 AM
Well, USC made OU look WORSE!!!!!! The conference is irrelevant because it is substantually more prejudicial than it is probative.  USC may or may not play in an easy conference but when it comes to the end of the season, USC PWNS NCAA D-I Football!

To say that the conference is irrelevant is naive. USC has had success against some good teams; however, they have not had to do this consistently becauase they play in a weak conference.

Stoops was 10-1 against top ten teams during a short span at OU. USC has not played that many top ten teams during their run. OU was dominating in many of those games. Having played more quality teams, OU's run is more impressive. Yes, USC has been dominating in a few instances. Let's see them run this kind of streak and then you can begin comparing them to OU. OU also faced much stiffer competition from the lesser teams. Playing at Texas A&M is much more difficult than going to Oregon State. It's one thing to rise to the occasion a few times and another to make it work every week.

USC is good, but they will have to keep this up for another few seasons to be truly historic- that's how long it will take for them to play enough quality opponents.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 10:22:58 AM
See, I am not impressed by a team's winning streak.  Undefeated teams are not necessarily better than teams with 1,2 or 3 losses.  It is the end of season play, then time when a team puts it all together that really shows what they are made of.  USC didnt beat OU because they had a weaker schedule, they pummelled them because USC had FAR SUPERIOR athletes, plain and simple.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 10:45:05 AM
Tennessee, bitches, is what it's about in 2005.  Don't get it twisted. 


We're loaded, ready and PISSED!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: BIG H2001 on July 27, 2005, 10:50:30 AM
Tennessee, bitches, is what it's about in 2005.  Don't get it twisted. 


We're loaded, ready and PISSED!

The SEC is almost too brutal for a serious national title contender to actually emerge from the pack.  In every other major conference, a good team can take about half of the season off mentally and still come out undefeated.  The SEC has about 1 or 2 easy games in each division and that's it. Throw in the title game where the two teams are likely to be Top 10 nationally and you've got a scenario where everyone probably gets beat once. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 10:54:44 AM
Tennessee, bitches, is what it's about in 2005.  Don't get it twisted. 


We're loaded, ready and PISSED!

The SEC is almost too brutal for a serious national title contender to actually emerge from the pack.  In every other major conference, a good team can take about half of the season off mentally and still come out undefeated.  The SEC has about 1 or 2 easy games in each division and that's it. Throw in the title game where the two teams are likely to be Top 10 nationally and you've got a scenario where everyone probably gets beat once. 

Agreed, which makes it all the more impressive when an SEC team plays for the title.

Personally, I think Auburn was the best team in the country last year, but they got screwed.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 27, 2005, 11:47:51 AM
See, I am not impressed by a team's winning streak.  Undefeated teams are not necessarily better than teams with 1,2 or 3 losses.  It is the end of season play, then time when a team puts it all together that really shows what they are made of.  USC didnt beat OU because they had a weaker schedule, they pummelled them because USC had FAR SUPERIOR athletes, plain and simple.

The problem with measuring teams by bowl games is that the teams have a month long break, which can change momentum. I give USC credit for playing well when it counts the most though. Your last point is correct but a team is measured through competition, which was something USC lacked most weeks. USC's athletes still don't match Miami from a few years ago when they were sending five or six guys to the first round. Miami faced a much more difficult schedule and was not able to compete for the national championship regularly.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 12:23:03 PM
See, I am not impressed by a team's winning streak.  Undefeated teams are not necessarily better than teams with 1,2 or 3 losses.  It is the end of season play, then time when a team puts it all together that really shows what they are made of.  USC didnt beat OU because they had a weaker schedule, they pummelled them because USC had FAR SUPERIOR athletes, plain and simple.

The problem with measuring teams by bowl games is that the teams have a month long break, which can change momentum. I give USC credit for playing well when it counts the most though. Your last point is correct but a team is measured through competition, which was something USC lacked most weeks. USC's athletes still don't match Miami from a few years ago when they were sending five or six guys to the first round. Miami faced a much more difficult schedule and was not able to compete for the national championship regularly.

co-sign. miami had to beat much tougher teams to get there.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: BIG H2001 on July 27, 2005, 12:30:53 PM
USC benefited greatly from watered down competition last year.  Not just in the Pac 10 but in all of college football. The traditional powers (Miami, FSU) had down years by their standards.  As much as I love my Tar Heels, there is no way we should ever beat Miami.  LSU, the previous year's co champion, was down a little as well. As mentioned before the Pac 10 was abysmal.      Auburn should have gotten their shot before Oklahoma and maybe could have given the Trojans a good game.  But when Utah and Pittsburgh are playing in a BCS game and Texas is winning one something is wrong.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 27, 2005, 12:54:38 PM
what about basketball?

oklahoma in 2006!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 12:56:01 PM
what about basketball?

oklahoma in 2006!

this is the football thread.  thanks.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 27, 2005, 01:46:25 PM
you guys are out of the loop...

it is BASEBALL season...just to inform ya!
give it a rest for a while.
or are u going to tell me u just don't understand the thinking man's game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 02:40:28 PM
See, I am not impressed by a team's winning streak.  Undefeated teams are not necessarily better than teams with 1,2 or 3 losses.  It is the end of season play, then time when a team puts it all together that really shows what they are made of.  USC didnt beat OU because they had a weaker schedule, they pummelled them because USC had FAR SUPERIOR athletes, plain and simple.

The problem with measuring teams by bowl games is that the teams have a month long break, which can change momentum. I give USC credit for playing well when it counts the most though. Your last point is correct but a team is measured through competition, which was something USC lacked most weeks. USC's athletes still don't match Miami from a few years ago when they were sending five or six guys to the first round. Miami faced a much more difficult schedule and was not able to compete for the national championship regularly.



You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman?  We had the hardest strength of schedule in the country that year, buddy.  Go back and look it up, if you don't believe me.

With schedules arranged 5 years in advance, we certainly are TRYING to play the tougher opponents.  Notre Dame isn't supposed to suck so much.  If you will remember, we kicked VT's ass to start off last year's season.  The year before that we kicked the season off by killing Auburn.  It's not all just bowl games, though we certainly kicked Iowa, Michigan, and Oklahoma's asses too.

No matter the game, USC has proven themselves to come up big when we need it. 


i have a hard time believing that any team playing in the PAC-10 can have the #1 strength of schedule.  proof?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 02:47:06 PM
Look it up yourself, buddy.  I remember from being there.

RAWR!!

fiesty!

(psst:  Go BIG BLUE!!!)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 02:53:42 PM
Look it up yourself, buddy.  I remember from being there.

well if you're so sure, you ought to be able to back it up. from what i remember, miami was playing much more impressive teams that year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on July 27, 2005, 02:59:04 PM
Look it up yourself, buddy.  I remember from being there.

well if you're so sure, you ought to be able to back it up. from what i remember, miami was playing much more impressive teams that year.

they were #1 IIRC, but that had a lot to do with teams like Oregon St and Ariz. St having high rankings... but not really deserving them.  The Pac-10 always has a good team or two, but top to bottom it is highly overrated.


how bout them USF bulls?!?  anyone.... 

anyone even heard of them??  no....

nm
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 03:01:53 PM
Look it up yourself, buddy.  I remember from being there.

well if you're so sure, you ought to be able to back it up. from what i remember, miami was playing much more impressive teams that year.

they were #1 IIRC, but that had a lot to do with teams like Oregon St and Ariz. St having high rankings... but not really deserving them.  The Pac-10 always has a good team or two, but top to bottom it is highly overrated.


how bout them USF bulls?!?  anyone.... 

anyone even heard of them??  no....

nm

yeah, we tampa folks know about them bulls.


but i still would like to see a link to this stength of schedule issue.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on July 27, 2005, 03:12:51 PM
Look it up yourself, buddy. I remember from being there.

well if you're so sure, you ought to be able to back it up. from what i remember, miami was playing much more impressive teams that year.

they were #1 IIRC, but that had a lot to do with teams like Oregon St and Ariz. St having high rankings... but not really deserving them. The Pac-10 always has a good team or two, but top to bottom it is highly overrated.


how bout them USF bulls?!? anyone....

anyone even heard of them?? no....

nm


Actually, that year we played Auburn, Colorado, Kansas State, Oregon State, Washington State, Cal, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, ASU, Notre Dame, and then Iowa in the Orange Bowl.

6 of those teams finished the year in the top 15.  Eat me.

nm... thought you were talking about 2004
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 03:19:48 PM
(http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=michigan+football/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/SIG=128tc96km/EXP=1122585564/*-http%3A//www.kopas.org/jms/2000-2001/kyle_d/michfx.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 03:24:20 PM
Really, darlin, when you know you've got two USC fans patrolling this thread, you're just embarassing yourself and your team by bringin up Michigan at all....


jsia ;D

am I gonna have to pull up the overall stats again??

 :-*
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 03:36:35 PM
Now for a cheer they are here,
triumphant!
Here they come with banners flying,
In stalwart step they're nighing,
With shouts of vict'ry crying,
We hurrah, hurrah, we greet you now,
Hail!

Far we their praises sing
For the glory and fame they've bro't us
Loud let the bells them ring
For here they come with banners flying
Far we their praises tell
For the glory and fame they've bro't us
Loud let the bells them ring
For here they come with banners flying
Here they come, Hurrah!

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
the leaders and best
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan,
the champions of the West!

We cheer them again
We cheer and cheer again
For Michigan, we cheer for Michigan
We cheer with might and main
We cheer, cheer, cheer
With might and main we cheer!

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan,
the champions of the West!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 03:42:59 PM
Sooooo longggggg.....

(unfortunately that's all that michiganders got with any significant length) ::)

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm a southern boy.

 :-*

(and what do you expect?  our song was written before the turn of the century!!)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 27, 2005, 03:45:11 PM
one more post!!

and I'm not worried.  I've got extra.

 ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 27, 2005, 04:50:54 PM
Rocky Top is the best fight song.  HTH.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on July 27, 2005, 09:23:55 PM

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 10:09:23 PM

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like crap against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on July 27, 2005, 10:25:46 PM
Quote
Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted

The heisman is for the best college football player. Not the best professional prospect. Ask Danny Wuerffel. Ask Eric Crouch. (You might already realize that wasn't a good argument since you used the eyeroll, but I'm not sure.)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 27, 2005, 10:33:59 PM
Quote
Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted

The heisman is for the best college football player. Not the best professional prospect. Ask Danny Wuerffel. Ask Eric Crouch. (You might already realize that wasn't a good argument since you used the eyeroll, but I'm not sure.)
It just seems that something is severely wrong if the very BEST PLAYER in college goes undrafted, doesnt it?  It is not like this in any other level of the game or any other sport.  The best high school player may not be the best college player, but he goes to a D-I team and generally plays well.
The system may place too much of an emphasis on stats and not enough on athletic ability demonstrated.  College scouts care about stats as a general reference point, but are much more interested in the qualities that make the athlete, and that is what they ultimately base their reccommendations on, wouldnt you agree?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on July 27, 2005, 10:38:34 PM

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like darn against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH

I understand your coulda woulda shoulda remark, but there's a few problems I have with your argument. Carson Palmer had a much better surrounding cast. What if he had mediocre receivers or a mediocre O-Line? Instead he had Mike Williams, a line that could give him 10 seconds in the pocket, and a dominant pass catching TE. With one of those ingredients missing, the stats wouldn't have been there. I know its purely speculative, but could you really disagree with that? Also, if Palmer was taken out at halftime during most of his games, he wouldn't have scored as many TD's or threw for as many yards.
Secondly, Johnson played on a team with only one significant receiving threat and a mediocre O-Line, and the only games he didn't dominate were against Ohio State and Michigan, a national champ and another team in the top 10. Also, if he was allowed to run rampant for the entire game instead of one-half, the rushing record would have easily been broken. Not to mention that teams lined up 8 guys in the box almost at all times...But again, its another woulda coulda shoulda.
And regarding Brad Banks...heisman voting came before he played USC, so that game is irrelevant. He took a team that played like sh*t in the first two games and went undefeated after that.
Since when did Heisman winners have to be drafted, or be good in the NFL?...Banks went undrafted b/c of his height. He had a rocket, but was only 5'10' or 5'11'. Did you forget about Charlie Ward? He was incredible, but didn't have the height to be a NFL quarterback. Look at Jason White..
And if your aunt had balls...then your uncle would be married to a hermaphrodite
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ahoipkem on July 27, 2005, 10:56:14 PM
Sooooo longggggg.....

(unfortunately that's all that michiganders got with any significant length) ::)

whoa whoa whoa...what is this unprovoked insulting of Michigan men? That low blow was definitely uncalled for. I'm sorry if your personal experience may be less than stellar, but lets not generalize  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 01:36:08 PM

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like darn against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH

I understand your coulda woulda shoulda remark, but there's a few problems I have with your argument. Carson Palmer had a much better surrounding cast. What if he had mediocre receivers or a mediocre O-Line? Instead he had Mike Williams, a line that could give him 10 seconds in the pocket, and a dominant pass catching TE. With one of those ingredients missing, the stats wouldn't have been there. I know its purely speculative, but could you really disagree with that? Also, if Palmer was taken out at halftime during most of his games, he wouldn't have scored as many TD's or threw for as many yards.
Secondly, Johnson played on a team with only one significant receiving threat and a mediocre O-Line, and the only games he didn't dominate were against Ohio State and Michigan, a national champ and another team in the top 10. Also, if he was allowed to run rampant for the entire game instead of one-half, the rushing record would have easily been broken. Not to mention that teams lined up 8 guys in the box almost at all times...But again, its another woulda coulda shoulda.
And regarding Brad Banks...heisman voting came before he played USC, so that game is irrelevant. He took a team that played like sh*t in the first two games and went undefeated after that.
Since when did Heisman winners have to be drafted, or be good in the NFL?...Banks went undrafted b/c of his height. He had a rocket, but was only 5'10' or 5'11'. Did you forget about Charlie Ward? He was incredible, but didn't have the height to be a NFL quarterback. Look at Jason White..
And if your aunt had balls...then your uncle would be married to a hermaphrodite
I know, I know, NFL=/=College football.  But Banks was not that good and I still think that Palmer deserved the trophy because his passes were on the money, between defenders, over the shoulder, in only a place that the receiver could get to, and always in stride. 

Heisman voting should be broken down my category since it is impossible to tell who is better when comparing an elite RB and QB
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 01:37:08 PM
AND I reiterate, in no other sport or level of football does the BEST PLAYER not move onto the next level
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on July 28, 2005, 06:02:24 PM
AND I reiterate, in no other sport or level of football does the BEST PLAYER not move onto the next level

I think the difference is that in the NFL, there is a much greater risk involved with drafting a player. The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport. The three most important things teams look at when drafting someone are (1) talent (2) room for physical growth (3) performance in college...probably in that order. I'd say that the NBA tends to look at all three of those characteristics as equals, where the NFL places much greater emphasis on physical attributes.
Also, there seem to be more #1 pick busts in the NFL than any other sport. These people tend to be chosen on their performance in college over their ability to develop in the NFL. I'd trade my #1 pick for a #8 and a #15 any day unless another Manning (not Eli) or Vick came around
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 06:10:17 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 06:22:01 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on July 28, 2005, 06:23:19 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

the amount of offseason wooden bat leagues kinda hurts your case
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on July 28, 2005, 06:26:48 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

the amount of offseason wooden bat leagues kinda hurts your case

What percentage of those drafted from NCAA baseball by MLB teams have played in wooden bat leagues? How many ABs have they taken on average? And how many ABs have they taken on average with aluminum? I'm sorry, but there is an amazing difference between the two, and three months during the summer is not going to make up for it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 28, 2005, 06:29:54 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

the amount of offseason wooden bat leagues kinda hurts your case

What percentage of those drafted from NCAA baseball by MLB teams have played in wooden bat leagues? How many ABs have they taken on average? And how many ABs have they taken on average with aluminum? I'm sorry, but there is an amazing difference between the two, and three months during the summer is not going to make up for it.

Hey, get your own thread! This is the COLLEGE FOOTBALL thread. >:(

Thank you. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 06:39:16 PM
AND I reiterate, in no other sport or level of football does the BEST PLAYER not move onto the next level

I think the difference is that in the NFL, there is a much greater risk involved with drafting a player. The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport. The three most important things teams look at when drafting someone are (1) talent (2) room for physical growth (3) performance in college...probably in that order. I'd say that the NBA tends to look at all three of those characteristics as equals, where the NFL places much greater emphasis on physical attributes.
Also, there seem to be more #1 pick busts in the NFL than any other sport. These people tend to be chosen on their performance in college over their ability to develop in the NFL. I'd trade my #1 pick for a #8 and a #15 any day unless another Manning (not Eli) or Vick came around

And if you are the best player in college football, you can say that your combination of talent and performance in college were the best, right? If not, then what does "best" mean?

The MVP of a team may not get drafted, but the best player should.  People often use best and MVP interchangeably.  That is not necessarily true.  The best (talent and performance) player must be able to move on to the next level because he could play for any team and improve it, but the MVP (great performance, without the most talent) may just be the lynchpin of a particular team and brings a unique skill set which may not be valuable to every team and thus may not move on to the next level.

The Heisman is frequently not given to the best player, but the MVP.  JMHO.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 06:40:53 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

the amount of offseason wooden bat leagues kinda hurts your case

What percentage of those drafted from NCAA baseball by MLB teams have played in wooden bat leagues? How many ABs have they taken on average? And how many ABs have they taken on average with aluminum? I'm sorry, but there is an amazing difference between the two, and three months during the summer is not going to make up for it.

Hey, get your own thread! This is the COLLEGE FOOTBALL thread. >:(

Thank you. Have a nice day.
cosign.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 07:33:42 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

No, I think that has little to do with it.  Although, I do think college should get rid of turbo aluminum bats.  From a cost perspective, I understand the use.

Everything from fielding to hitting still requires additional polishing before they can go to the majors.

Besides, according to your aluminum bat theory that would mean that pitchers would be ready faster, which isn't the case.  They require the same slow process, if not a longer one.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 28, 2005, 07:37:00 PM
Quote
The transition between playing college football and playing in the NFL is much more difficult than any other sport.

I'm going to disagree.  Baseball is the hardest sport to master.  Most players can't move from college to MLB.  They have to sit in the minors for a few years.

Could the transition from aluminum bats to wood bats contribute to that at all? I think it's nearly impossible to compare other sports to baseball since baseball is the only sport where progression to the professional level involves a change in a major piece of equipment.

No, I think that has little to do with it.  Although, I do think college should get rid of turbo aluminum bats.  From a cost perspective, I understand the use.

Everything from fielding to hitting still requires additional polishing before they can go to the majors.

Besides, according to your aluminum bat theory that would mean that pitchers would be ready faster, which isn't the case.  They require the same slow process, if not a longer one.

In case I was not clear the first time: GET THE FUKK OUT OF THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL THREAD WITH THAT BAT *&^%!

thanks.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 07:39:30 PM
Hey, looky, tips from the "Internet Hitting Coach," Andy Collins.

http://www.theinternethittingcoach.com/
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 07:43:19 PM
This is good form, but I think the left hand is coming off the bat too soon.

(http://www.javelinaathletics.com/baseball/2005/images/DeanJonCU2.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 28, 2005, 07:55:03 PM
Let's talk stadiums, folks.


Neyland Stadium is always on the list of top ten places to watch FOOTBALL:


(http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/images/neyland156.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 07:59:51 PM
Nothing beats THE SHOE.

(http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/osu/graphics/wallpaper2/osu-stadium-640.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 08:01:00 PM
Need a little help.  What stadium is this?

(http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/2600/football.png)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 08:05:29 PM
there is not a bad seat in the house at the Coliseum in Los Angeles but I doubt that anyone here is going to disparage their own stadium

jsia
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 28, 2005, 09:12:23 PM
Nothing beats THE SHOE.

(http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/osu/graphics/wallpaper2/osu-stadium-640.jpg)


(http://www.ticketcity.com/images/venue/michiganstadium.gif)

you'll see more wins here.

jsia
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 09:39:15 PM
Nothing beats THE SHOE.

(http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/osu/graphics/wallpaper2/osu-stadium-640.jpg)


(http://www.ticketcity.com/images/venue/michiganstadium.gif)

you'll see more wins here.

jsia

Not since this guy's been in town...jsia

(http://www.tothenextlevel.org/images/layout/misc/tressel_jim.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 28, 2005, 09:40:39 PM
we shall see, my friend.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 09:44:44 PM
we shall see, my friend.

We already have...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: creM of the crop on July 28, 2005, 09:46:31 PM
we shall see, my friend.

We already have...

talk to me after this years game.

I'll buy ya a beer to cry in.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 28, 2005, 09:49:02 PM
or this guy

(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/4563/espn25mt.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 09:49:58 PM
we shall see, my friend.

We already have...

talk to me after this years game.

I'll buy ya a beer to cry in.

Word in C-Town is that the Bucks are going to win the National Title.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 28, 2005, 09:51:49 PM
Need a little help.  What stadium is this?

(http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/2600/football.png)


very funny...got any pictures of the house that Ruth built?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 09:53:14 PM
Need a little help.  What stadium is this?

(http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/2600/football.png)


very funny...got any pictures of the house that Ruth built?


(http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Yankee_Stadium4.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 28, 2005, 10:15:58 PM
Need a little help.  What stadium is this?

(http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/2600/football.png)



very funny...got any pictures of the house that Ruth built?


(http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Yankee_Stadium4.jpg)


you are awesome!!! thanks, man!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 28, 2005, 10:19:19 PM
(http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Yankee_Stadium4.jpg)


now that is a stadium!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on July 28, 2005, 10:24:18 PM
we shall see, my friend.

We already have...

talk to me after this years game.

I'll buy ya a beer to cry in.

Word in C-Town is that the Bucks are going to win the National Title.

I'm moving to C-Town so it'll be tough for me...however don't be surprised if Ohio State gets knocked off by a hungry Penn State team in State College. Ginn and Holmes will be extremely frustrated by our secondary, and the only way I see OSU coming out with a victory is if our offense can't put 21 points on the board
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: BigSplitDC on July 28, 2005, 10:24:26 PM
TEXAS will romp OSU in the season opener.  Sorry Buckeyes.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 10:25:23 PM
TEXAS will romp OSU in the season opener.  Sorry Buckeyes.

Sorry, but those girls in Texas don't know how to play football like the mighty men of Ohio.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on July 28, 2005, 10:28:24 PM
TEXAS will romp OSU in the season opener.  Sorry Buckeyes.

Sorry, but those girls in Texas don't know how to play football like the mighty men of Ohio.


Paper, ya know I've always liked ya....but one more comment like that and I'm kickin you outta bed! >:( ;)

We'll just do it in the road, right?  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 28, 2005, 10:34:29 PM
(http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Yankee_Stadium4.jpg)


and, of course, THE BEST!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 28, 2005, 11:16:48 PM

and, of course, THE BEST!!!

Baseball is over.  It's time for preseason football; it's much more entertaining. 

nice try 8)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SmilinAllDay on July 29, 2005, 08:36:40 AM
we shall see, my friend.

We already have...

talk to me after this years game.

I'll buy ya a beer to cry in.

Word in C-Town is that the Bucks are going to win the National Title.

I'm moving to C-Town so it'll be tough for me...however don't be surprised if Ohio State gets knocked off by a hungry Penn State team in State College. Ginn and Holmes will be extremely frustrated by our secondary, and the only way I see OSU coming out with a victory is if our offense can't put 21 points on the board

I laughed so hard when I read this that I almost peed my pants.  OSU has best WR core in the nation and the best linebacking core in the nation.  Penn State has a senile 110 year old for a coach.  34-6
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 08:48:19 AM
I laughed so hard when I read this that I almost peed my pants.  OSU has best WR core in the nation and the best linebacking core in the nation.  Penn State has a senile 110 year old for a coach.  34-6

It's too bad that it has come to insulting Paterno like this, but when you stick around so long it is only a matter of time.

And to the earlier point about fight songs:

The Trojans has a damned good one.
Rocky Top is great only because it annoys everyone else.

UVa probably has the worst one.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on July 29, 2005, 01:10:33 PM
Do I even have to say it?  ::)

 ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:12:05 PM
Do I even have to say it?  ::)

 ;D

No, and we don't need to hear about that chop either.  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on July 29, 2005, 01:13:00 PM
Tehehehehe

Whatever

The chop rocks
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:15:18 PM
It's not as cool as 60k+ rocking back and forth.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on July 29, 2005, 01:19:49 PM
 :P

I disagree. I think 80k plus chanting and chopping in unision is pretty damn impressive.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:21:20 PM
Which is better: a crowd acting in drunken unison in a communal manner, or a crowd acting like cavement?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on July 29, 2005, 01:22:52 PM
Well I think both crowds are equally drunk.I think ours is more intimidating to the other team (at home.) It is very powerful.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:25:39 PM
I think a group of sorrority girls is more intimidating than our crowd. We are getting much better though. I will take nothing away from Doak...or the Swamp.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on July 29, 2005, 01:34:50 PM
Neither would I. THe Gators are very intimidating. THat is why FSU/UF games are so great. And as long as the crowd is into it and the game is good, its all good. God I am so excited. Football is so close! But LS is closer so that is tempering my excitement a bit.  :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:38:16 PM
Football is close. I bought a large, new television in time for the coming season. I will make time for the games...including a few in person. I have to line my tickets up still.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:53:08 PM
It is going to be a very sad reality for me if/when I go to a law school other than USC, because USC has such a great ticketing policy for students.  Any student can go to any home game, by paying one $130 fee.  No lotteries, no buying tickets for each game.  It ROCKS!

That is a not the best policy. At my alma mater let all students into games for free. There are rare instances when you had to make sure not to be the last one.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on July 29, 2005, 01:58:48 PM
That is a good problem to have.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 29, 2005, 05:33:50 PM
It is going to be a very sad reality for me if/when I go to a law school other than USC, because USC has such a great ticketing policy for students.  Any student can go to any home game, by paying one $130 fee.  No lotteries, no buying tickets for each game.  It ROCKS!

You must not have a very school spirited student body.  Even with the second largest collegiate stadium in the country, with a capacity of 110,000, there's no way UT could accomodate all the students that would want to go to any given football game.  All 36,000+ of us would try to get in for UT - UF.

And yes, ROCKY TOP rules.  It's part of our winning strategy.  Play it till the opposing team can't hear or see straight, then run it up the middle.  Works like a charm.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 29, 2005, 05:49:18 PM
It is going to be a very sad reality for me if/when I go to a law school other than USC, because USC has such a great ticketing policy for students.  Any student can go to any home game, by paying one $130 fee.  No lotteries, no buying tickets for each game.  It ROCKS!

You must not have a very school spirited student body.  Even with the second largest collegiate stadium in the country, with a capacity of 110,000, there's no way UT could accomodate all the students that would want to go to any given football game.  All 36,000+ of us would try to get in for UT - UF.

And yes, ROCKY TOP rules.  It's part of our winning strategy.  Play it till the opposing team can't hear or see straight, then run it up the middle.  Works like a charm.

If I wasn't enamored with (http://www.footballfanatics.com/images/products/VC-Schutt-Auth-nebraska-cornhuskers-s.jpg), I'd be a Vol fan.  That's a great football program. 
Spanx.  I agree. ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: RockyMarciano on July 29, 2005, 06:08:40 PM
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOOTBALL!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!! WE WILL BEAT NAU BUT GET CREAMED BY THE ENTIRE PAC 10!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on July 29, 2005, 06:16:05 PM
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOOTBALL!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!! WE WILL BEAT NAU BUT GET CREAMED BY THE ENTIRE PAC 10!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!
WTF  ???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2005, 01:44:56 AM
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOOTBALL!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!! WE WILL BEAT NAU BUT GET CREAMED BY THE ENTIRE PAC 10!!!! BEAR DOWN!!!
::)

*polishes National Championship trophies*
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on August 02, 2005, 06:38:34 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on August 02, 2005, 07:47:21 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)

At first, I thought that was the shoe in Columbus.  It's Razorback stadium.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on August 02, 2005, 08:10:06 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)

At first, I thought that was the shoe in Columbus.  It's Razorback stadium.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D You win the prize
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on August 02, 2005, 08:12:07 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)
how many does it seat? 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on August 02, 2005, 08:12:53 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)
how many does it seat? 
Like 80,000 or so
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on August 02, 2005, 08:19:07 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)
how many does it seat? 
Like 80,000 or so

too small. :-\
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on August 02, 2005, 08:23:50 PM
Anyone?

(http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg)
how many does it seat? 
Like 80,000 or so

too small. :-\

 ::) Well most stadiums arent the size of your precious tennessee. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 02, 2005, 08:40:55 PM
For Tra's enjoyment
USC v UW
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8113/reggie215ns.jpg) (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8113/reggie215ns.jpg)

(http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1498/reggie43fa.jpg) (http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1498/reggie43fa.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 02, 2005, 09:18:50 PM
one more for Tra and the Trojan fam.

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7884/rbushvuw2330et.gif) (http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7884/rbushvuw2330et.gif)
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 02, 2005, 09:43:45 PM
I found this over on twarga's poop thread. I think it came out her a$s.
(http://www.finishline.com/store/images/products/lgft0084642.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 02, 2005, 09:51:41 PM
she must have a high quality diet OR is the cat that laid the golden egg.  Maybe she can poop me out some USC cufflinks  :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 02, 2005, 11:34:57 PM
I am pumped and ready to go for the season.  Too bad I'll be in DC when the season starts, but it is a good thing that USC has the best alumni network in the country; it wont be hard to find a few alumni that I can watch the game with ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on August 03, 2005, 06:49:51 AM
My alma mater and my future alma mater are playing each other for the season opener in 2006.  I can't wait to see the ass-whooping that is going to go down! :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 03, 2005, 11:08:24 AM
My alma mater and my future alma mater are playing each other for the season opener in 2006.  I can't wait to see the ass-whooping that is going to go down! :D
I think this one time I'll be rooting for Berkley even if they are communist  ;)
(http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/3002/uscvscal1280x9609tg.jpg) (http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/3002/uscvscal1280x9609tg.jpg)

j/k Ruskie :-*
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on August 03, 2005, 11:20:16 AM
My alma mater and my future alma mater are playing each other for the season opener in 2006.  I can't wait to see the ass-whooping that is going to go down! :D
I think this one time I'll be rooting for Berkley even if they are communist  ;)
(http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/3002/uscvscal1280x9609tg.jpg) (http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/3002/uscvscal1280x9609tg.jpg)

j/k Ruskie :-*


Cal WILL lose.  HTH. :-*
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 03, 2005, 11:41:14 AM
tralala,

Who will you root for when you're in South Bend and Notre Dame -- which by the way, 3peat, has the best alumni network in the country -- plays USC?
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 03, 2005, 11:46:42 AM
I'll root for USC, of course!

But that's kindof a weird question...I don't have any ND ties....did you think I did?

I don't know. For some reason I thought you were going to ND for law school. Must be someone else.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 03, 2005, 11:47:09 AM
prolly thought you were Irish

tralala,

Who will you root for when you're in South Bend and Notre Dame -- which by the way, 3peat, has the best alumni network in the country -- plays USC?

HA! ::)  No school has alumni love like USC, you better ax sombody
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 03, 2005, 11:48:18 AM
and Catholic.
prolly thought you were Irish

tralala,

Who will you root for when you're in South Bend and Notre Dame -- which by the way, 3peat, has the best alumni network in the country -- plays USC?

HA! ::)  No school has alumni love like USC, you better ax sombody
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 03, 2005, 12:02:29 PM
Heh, I *am* very Irish, but I am NOT at all Catholic.  And even if I were, my SC love would prevent me from being a traitor like that.

Nah, I haven't applied yet, look at my signature. 

I know. I know. I just got mixed up there for a minute.

Who is it that is going to Notre Dame?
Title: Re: College <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=77' target='_blank'>
Post by: DodgerLaw on August 03, 2005, 11:19:31 PM
Thanks Pancho (I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend all night trying to figure out all those characters).
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on August 13, 2005, 08:17:21 AM
Heh, I *am* very Irish, but I am NOT at all Catholic.  And even if I were, my SC love would prevent me from being a traitor like that.

Nah, I haven't applied yet, look at my signature. 

How can you call yourself a good Irishman and not be Catholic dammit?!?!  I just lost all respect for you seeing as you are an orange! J/K I'm as Irish Catholic as they come.  I think my bedtime lullaby as a baby was The fight song.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 14, 2005, 05:44:58 AM
boy dont you know tra and USC will smack the gold off your helmet?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on August 14, 2005, 02:57:33 PM
Heh, I *am* very Irish, but I am NOT at all Catholic.  And even if I were, my SC love would prevent me from being a traitor like that.

Nah, I haven't applied yet, look at my signature. 

How can you call yourself a good Irishman and not be Catholic dammit?!?!  I just lost all respect for you seeing as you are an orange! J/K I'm as Irish Catholic as they come.  I think my bedtime lullaby as a baby was The fight song.

Irish and not Catholic here, as well.  I could care less about ND.  Anxiously awaiting the return of the ND/PSU rivalry though.  It will be fun to beat ND.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bacchus on September 03, 2005, 07:54:52 AM
Georgia is gonna take care of Boise State
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bacchus on September 03, 2005, 08:03:07 AM
They're going to have to run a different offense then they had with Greene.  I think Shockley is going to have a good season, especially with that O-line (ranked #1 by sports illustrated)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 03, 2005, 08:15:38 AM
 ::)

(Go Big BLUE)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bacchus on September 03, 2005, 08:32:41 AM
If that picture is of you, then you are the hottest girl I've had an intelligent conversation about football with.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 03, 2005, 08:41:07 AM
Would it be bad karma to root for Miami over FSU?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 03, 2005, 10:07:51 AM
::)

(Go Big BLUE)

pisser off

no one asked you.

(http://www.college-traditions.com/COLLEGE/Big10/MIWolv/LF014F.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 03, 2005, 10:16:08 AM
#4 beeyotches.

(I honestly don't know why, unless our D has SERIOUSLY improved from last year.)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 03, 2005, 10:21:51 AM
All right ladies, this is it. The record breaking season we have all been waiting for.  USC is going to stomp a mudhole in the Rainbow Warriors tonight!  Everyone else is playing for second!

(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3418/flex3at.jpg)

Back-to-back-to-back!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 03, 2005, 11:32:06 AM
thought you could have a college football party and not invite the USC representative?

Ha! I smell your fear and :D laugh at you!

  :-* ;D

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 11:34:50 AM
Oklahoma having a ton of trouble with TCU right now, 10-0 TCU
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 12:47:51 PM
All right ladies, this is it. The record breaking season we have all been waiting for.  USC is going to stomp a mudhole in the Rainbow Warriors tonight!  Everyone else is playing for second!

(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3418/flex3at.jpg)

Back-to-back-to-back!

who the fu*ck are the rainbow warriors.  sounds like *i* could stomp a mudhole in them.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 03, 2005, 01:42:29 PM
All right ladies, this is it. The record breaking season we have all been waiting for.  USC is going to stomp a mudhole in the Rainbow Warriors tonight!  Everyone else is playing for second!

(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3418/flex3at.jpg)

Back-to-back-to-back!

who the fu*ck are the rainbow warriors.  sounds like *i* could stomp a mudhole in them.
they play for hawaii and are prolly better than OU. jsia

nice 'tar
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 03, 2005, 02:01:10 PM
OU loses 17-10 to unranked TCU

stats?
OU
THompson 11/26 for 108 yards and 1 int
Peterson 21 carries for 62 yards and 1 Td
T Wilson 5recs 52yds 0tds

TCU
T Gunn   26/46   224   1td   1int
R Merrill   10carries   36yards   1td
C Rodgers   11recs   80yds   0tds


what rank should OU drop to?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 03, 2005, 02:54:53 PM
THis is funny, Kirk Herbstreit awards "Herbies" in a few categories, some of them are not within the scope of legitimate college football analysis.  Like:

"Prettiest Coeds"

Ole Miss
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
USC

and

"All Uniform Team: Players who just look good in their uniform"
QB - Vince Young, Texas    DE - Mario Williams, NC State
RB - Reggie Bush, USC            DE - Ray Edwards, Purdue
RB - Adrian Peterson, Oklahoma    DT - Rodrique Wright, Texas
TE - Marcedes Lewis, UCLA    DT - Dusty Dvoracek, Oklahoma
WR - Tedd Ginn, Ohio State    LB - Xavier Adibi, Virginia Tech
WR - Robert Meachem, Tennessee    LB - Ernie Sims, FSU
C - Donovan Raiola, Wisconsin    LB - Willie Williams, Miami
G - Matt Lentz, Michigan    CB - Alan Zemaitis, Penn State
G - JB Closner, Alabama    CB - Michael Huff, Texas
T - Jonathan Scott, Texas    S - Nate Salley, Ohio State
T - D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Virginia    S - Darnell Bing, USC

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview05/news/story?id=2143245


One of the best Gameday Locations
(http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/30.gif)
USC -- I never thought I'd put a Pac-10 school on this list, but the Trojans' fans blew me away last year with their support. They showed up at 7:30 a.m. local time, and the thousands of Trojans fans let the nation know USC and the Pac-10 are to be taken seriously.

I was there!!!!!!  :) 8)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 04:32:48 PM
Herbstreit's little rant against the Wisconsin student section was amusing:

"(Wisconsin has always been one of my favorite places, but it lost serious points lately. Lighten up on the beer bongs. Have a little more respect for your opponents; and remember, there are kids around, too, so maybe yelling profanities in every other chant isn't such a good idea.)"
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 03, 2005, 04:38:39 PM
 >:(

it appears that we still can't stop the rush.

fucketyfuck.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: gailrules on September 03, 2005, 05:38:24 PM
Herbstreit's little rant against the Wisconsin student section was amusing:

"(Wisconsin has always been one of my favorite places, but it lost serious points lately. Lighten up on the beer bongs. Have a little more respect for your opponents; and remember, there are kids around, too, so maybe yelling profanities in every other chant isn't such a good idea.)"

*sniff* :'(

So proud of my alma mater...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 07:40:10 PM
THis is funny, Kirk Herbstreit awards "Herbies" in a few categories, some of them are not within the scope of legitimate college football analysis.  Like:

"Prettiest Coeds"

Ole Miss
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
USC

and

"All Uniform Team: Players who just look good in their uniform"
QB - Vince Young, Texas    DE - Mario Williams, NC State
RB - Reggie Bush, USC            DE - Ray Edwards, Purdue
RB - Adrian Peterson, Oklahoma    DT - Rodrique Wright, Texas
TE - Marcedes Lewis, UCLA    DT - Dusty Dvoracek, Oklahoma
WR - Tedd Ginn, Ohio State    LB - Xavier Adibi, Virginia Tech
WR - Robert Meachem, Tennessee     LB - Ernie Sims, FSU
C - Donovan Raiola, Wisconsin    LB - Willie Williams, Miami
G - Matt Lentz, Michigan    CB - Alan Zemaitis, Penn State
G - JB Closner, Alabama    CB - Michael Huff, Texas
T - Jonathan Scott, Texas    S - Nate Salley, Ohio State
T - D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Virginia    S - Darnell Bing, USC

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview05/news/story?id=2143245


One of the best Gameday Locations
(http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/30.gif)
USC -- I never thought I'd put a Pac-10 school on this list, but the Trojans' fans blew me away last year with their support. They showed up at 7:30 a.m. local time, and the thousands of Trojans fans let the nation know USC and the Pac-10 are to be taken seriously.

I was there!!!!!!  :) 8)

1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 07:46:13 PM
Notre Dame is absolutely whooping Pitt 35-13
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 03, 2005, 08:43:44 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 03, 2005, 08:45:45 PM
i hope FSU rapes UM like ND is doing to Pitt right now.... 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 08:46:01 PM
Miami is going to kill FSU on Monday. A friend of mine who just graduated from FSU even has no faith in that team this year...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 03, 2005, 08:51:19 PM
Go Seminoles! The hurricanes have won enough this week.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 08:54:16 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
you don't like robert? :'( :'(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 08:54:17 PM
I'd give FSU much more of a chance if Bobby grew a set and replaced his idiot son who's the offensive coordinator...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 08:56:04 PM
We seem to have a disagreement on which of UM and FSU is a better team.  But, I believe all of us CAN agree on one thing:


GATORS AIN'T *&^%!!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 03, 2005, 08:57:42 PM
i hope FSU rapes UM like ND is doing to Pitt right now.... 

I hear FSU football players frequently rape people. 

J/k...I couldn't resist.  As much as I bleed orange and green, I will always have respect for FSU's football team.  Bowden is a great coach, who is a tremendous recruiter (just committed the nation's top prospect), and Doak is tough for anyone.  We all know that no matter what, the Miami/FSU game is always going to be phenomenal, although I do think this just isn't the Seminoles' year, and we are MUCH better than we were last year.

Now, as a Seminole, how do you feel about Deion Sanders mentoring Hester?

 

im not a seminole.... just dont like UM
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 03, 2005, 08:58:31 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
you don't like robert? :'( :'(

just didnt like the out of the uniform comment, had to clarify i did not agree or condone such actions!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 09:01:31 PM
i hope FSU rapes UM like ND is doing to Pitt right now.... 

I hear FSU football players frequently rape people. 

J/k...I couldn't resist.  As much as I bleed orange and green, I will always have respect for FSU's football team.  Bowden is a great coach, who is a tremendous recruiter (just committed the nation's top prospect), and Doak is tough for anyone.  We all know that no matter what, the Miami/FSU game is always going to be phenomenal, although I do think this just isn't the Seminoles' year, and we are MUCH better than we were last year.

Now, as a Seminole, how do you feel about Deion Sanders mentoring Hester?

 

You're talking about Myron Rolle, he actually lives about 20 minutes away from me in Galloway Township, NJ. I did find it a little funny that he said he wanted to put a good amount of his decision into the academics of his school, yet he chose FSU over Michigan and Penn State...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 09:03:39 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
you don't like robert? :'( :'(

just didnt like the out of the uniform comment, had to clarify i did not agree or condone such actions!

what actions? tutoring?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 03, 2005, 09:05:34 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
you don't like robert? :'( :'(

just didnt like the out of the uniform comment, had to clarify i did not agree or condone such actions!

what actions? tutoring?

if that's what they call it these days....  jk
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 03, 2005, 09:08:30 PM


1)As a personal friend of Robert Meachem, and his former tutor, I can assure you that he looks much better *out* of his uniform. ;)

(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/178028.jpg)


2) Yes, Tennessee coeds are HOTT!

3) Tennessee = best college gameday.  period.


agreed, TN girls are hot and the accents are to die for
you don't like robert? :'( :'(

just didnt like the out of the uniform comment, had to clarify i did not agree or condone such actions!

what actions? tutoring?

if that's what they call it these days....  jk
That's ALL it was.  He WAS hot, but I was a senior and he was a freshman and I don't mix business with pleasure.  My 15 bucks an hour was too important to me.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 09:10:06 PM
i hope FSU rapes UM like ND is doing to Pitt right now.... 

I hear FSU football players frequently rape people. 

J/k...I couldn't resist.  As much as I bleed orange and green, I will always have respect for FSU's football team.  Bowden is a great coach, who is a tremendous recruiter (just committed the nation's top prospect), and Doak is tough for anyone.  We all know that no matter what, the Miami/FSU game is always going to be phenomenal, although I do think this just isn't the Seminoles' year, and we are MUCH better than we were last year.

Now, as a Seminole, how do you feel about Deion Sanders mentoring Hester?

 

You're talking about Myron Rolle, he actually lives about 20 minutes away from me in Galloway Township, NJ. I did find it a little funny that he said he wanted to put a good amount of his decision into the academics of his school, yet he chose FSU over Michigan and Penn State...

I thought I saw somewhere that his brother already goes to FSU, and he said that he felt that it was the best fit for him overall. 

Probably, since I had heard a week ago that his parents were already looking at condos down in Florida, I guess to watch him play.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 03, 2005, 09:13:47 PM
Oh and since I just switched to GT/Auburn since I was sick of waiting for ABC to switch to Texas A&M/Clemson, let me just say that I hate Bob Davie being put with Ron Franklin and breaking up the terrific Franklin/Mark Gottfreid announcing duo.

And Clemson has probably just beaten Texas A&M thanks to a field goal with 6 seconds left. Tommy Bowden had a look on his face like "Finally I get a week without worrying about my job!!!"...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 08:18:14 AM
USC won.

*as you were*
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 08:43:51 AM
FYI
The USC Alumni Association had they event at a restaurant/bar and it was great to see this place filled with SC fans and alumni. 
ANyway, i was watching the USC Hawaii game, and there were the jackasses hooting and hollering everytime Hawaii got positive yardage.  Even when SC was winning by 30+ points, they were still going crazy.  That would be perfectly fine, maybe even commendable, if they were actually Hawaii fans, but they were all wearing FSU or VT jersies and clearly not Hawaiian.  They even started chanting "overrated"!  ::)  tell me none of you, would be as ridic.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2005, 11:48:35 AM
for the attention deficit disordered...relax...it is STILL summer.






go












yankees!











Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 11:53:41 AM
get your own thread
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2005, 11:54:54 AM
bullshite....baseball fans care...

it is NOT college football season...it is the SUMMER season...

and that means...

BASEBALL!!!






for the attention deficit disordered...relax...it is STILL summer.






go












yankees!













No one cares outside of Boston-NYC. It's college football time.



relax!...wait till november when college football actually counts. ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 11:57:58 AM
no. its pre-basketball season.

because, honestly, i don't give a rats arse about who wins what football game. not anymore. i think i'm developing the traits of traitor to my own school.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2005, 12:05:59 PM
okay...

some of you are just a little bit OFF....


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 12:09:20 PM
get the huskies to win a game, THEN we'll talk.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2005, 12:12:22 PM












THE












BRONX










BOMBERS










RULE











SEPTEMBER!!!








Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 12:12:23 PM
close means nothing the bcs asswh*les. then again, i'm sure we could win it all and still see some random bowl in podunk, idaho on christmas.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 04, 2005, 12:20:50 PM
close means nothing the bcs asswh*les. then again, i'm sure we could win it all and still see some random bowl in podunk, idaho on christmas.

that's because the stregth of schedule is no longer a bcs factor. 

that's why auburn got screwed last year. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 12:21:22 PM
it is clearly college football season, and this is clearly the college football thread.  No reasonable person could find in Blue Warrior's favor, therefore I grant summary judgement against BW and dismiss his ludicrous claims.

*slams gavel*

as you were
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 12:30:49 PM
only for the purposes of this thread. for all my purposes, U$C is just rich and lucky.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 12:36:20 PM
compared to the rest of the PAC-10? They monetarily dominate the conference, and when it comes to decisive things like quality of players and coaching staff, it matters. Sure, compared to texas and football-heavy conferences they aren't giants, but versus the rest of "us"...it affects the game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 12:41:06 PM
Reggie Bush is diseased.  He does something ill everytime he touches the football.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 12:48:18 PM
compared to the rest of the PAC-10? They monetarily dominate the conference, and when it comes to decisive things like quality of players and coaching staff, it matters. Sure, compared to texas and football-heavy conferences they aren't giants, but versus the rest of "us"...it affects the game.

Well, start donating :P. 

The Pac 10 sucks, too.  Just so ya know :).

haha you're SO FUNNY! lol  :P it would be fun to be in a conference where football was strong....
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 04, 2005, 12:48:57 PM
um, my Razorbacks won yesterday. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PIG SOOOOOOOOOEY
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 01:00:56 PM
See you in two weeks ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 04, 2005, 01:02:02 PM
compared to the rest of the PAC-10? They monetarily dominate the conference, and when it comes to decisive things like quality of players and coaching staff, it matters. Sure, compared to texas and football-heavy conferences they aren't giants, but versus the rest of "us"...it affects the game.

Well, start donating :P. 

The Pac 10 sucks, too.  Just so ya know :).

haha you're SO FUNNY! lol  :P it would be fun to be in a conference where football was strong....
or if your team could dominate their own, regardless of strength. uhh wait... nm  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 01:08:24 PM
hmph.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bacchus on September 04, 2005, 02:00:50 PM
Go Dawgs
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: supergirluw on September 04, 2005, 02:04:19 PM
Go Dawgs

word.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 04, 2005, 04:04:12 PM
See you in two weeks ;)
Yeh, not really looking forward to the asswhooping thank you very much!  :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 05, 2005, 04:48:24 PM
Miami-Florida State game is coming up in a little over an hour, which means it's time for "How will FSU Lose?" Multiple Choice:

A) Wide Right V
B) Wide Left II
C) Final play of the game - passing touchdown
D) Final play of the game - rushing touchdown
E) Final play of the game - special teams touchdown
F) Final play of the game - defensive touchdown
G) Game-ending field goal
H) Blowout

Get in your picks now!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 05, 2005, 08:18:32 PM
FSU is winning but if it keeps going like this, Miami will win this game in the second half because Drew Weatherford looks like garbage...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 05, 2005, 08:39:44 PM
LOL Wide Left
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 10, 2005, 11:19:12 PM
looks like USC v Texas in the Rose Bowl
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 11, 2005, 04:01:46 PM
except that this year USC is better and Cal is worse; dont get your hopes up
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on September 11, 2005, 07:05:14 PM
Go Dawgs

Pfft.  #9 Ga was outplayed yesterday through and through by South Carolina that isn't even ranked.  If it weren't for South Carolina's inept kicker (a missed extra point and a missed field goal) Ga would have lost that game.

Ga should be ranked much lower because of that game, period.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on September 11, 2005, 08:11:59 PM
GO TEXAS!



that is all.

Yay Court. :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ASNetlenov on September 11, 2005, 09:30:36 PM
Hey my thread is still here! Go Hoos!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 11, 2005, 10:44:42 PM
GO TEXAS!



that is all.

Yay Court. :)
::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 11, 2005, 10:45:27 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/4829470

Just thought it was funny - that's all.
double  ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LaneSwerver on September 12, 2005, 08:52:16 AM
Baylor is favored over Army by 4 1/2. I'm sure that'll be a great game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 12, 2005, 11:38:49 AM
Rankings
AP
          
 
Fantasy Football - You haven't missed your chance. Leagues are still forming - Join now!
Polls
AP Top 25 Coaches Poll SportsLine 119 BCS Standings
 
DIVISION I
AP Top 25

1 Southern California
2 Texas
3 LSU
4 Virginia Tech
5 Tennessee
6 Florida
7 Georgia
8 Florida State
9 Ohio State
10 Notre Dame
11 Louisville
12 Purdue
13 Miami (Fla.)
14 Michigan
15 California
16 Georgia Tech
17 Boston College
18 Arizona State
19 Texas Tech
20 Clemson
21 Oklahoma
22 Iowa
23 Fresno State
24 Iowa State
25 Virginia

Coaches
1 Southern California
2 Texas
3 LSU
4 Tennessee
4 Virginia Tech
6 Georgia
7 Florida
8 Florida State
9 Ohio State
10 Louisville
11 Purdue
12 Notre Dame
13 Miami (Fla.)
14 Michigan
15 California
16 Boston College
17 Oklahoma
18 Georgia Tech
19 Texas Tech
20 Virginia
21 Iowa
22 Arizona State
23 Clemson
24 Alabama
25 Fresno State

Sportsline
1. Southern California
2. Texas
3. Georgia
4. Tennessee
5. Virginia Tech
6. LSU
7. Notre Dame
8. Ohio State
9. Boston College
10. Florida State
11. Louisville
12. Florida
13. Purdue
14. Miami (Fla.)
15. California
16. Wisconsin
17. Georgia Tech
18. Michigan
19. Iowa
20. Oklahoma
21. Texas Tech
22. Fresno State
23. Clemson
24. Colorado
25. Arizona State


http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 12, 2005, 11:40:01 AM
USC plays 4 teams in the top 25
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 12, 2005, 02:38:03 PM
what is sportsline smokingto have UGA at #3???  they BARELY beat USC
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LaneSwerver on September 12, 2005, 03:58:29 PM
what is sportsline smokingto have UGA at #3???  they BARELY beat USC

No kidding. They should have fallen for that.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 12, 2005, 04:02:26 PM
what is sportsline smokingto have UGA at #3???  they BARELY beat USC
Sorry, come again?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 12, 2005, 04:03:50 PM
South Cackalacka
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 12, 2005, 04:48:25 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on September 12, 2005, 05:53:18 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

You just knew I'd come around as soon as I saw that didn't you?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dante on September 12, 2005, 07:43:09 PM
It's nice to see the Weis might have the Irish moving in the right direction for a change...finally.  The Mich game was great, even if Mich offense couldn't find their ass with both hands.  Winning in their house is always a treat.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 12, 2005, 08:03:31 PM
It's nice to see the Weis might have the Irish moving in the right direction for a change...finally.  The Mich game was great, even if Mich offense couldn't find their ass with both hands.  Winning in their house is always a treat.

I

hope

you

die.

that is all.

(and I mean that in good Christian love.....)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LaneSwerver on September 12, 2005, 08:04:09 PM
Baylor is favored over Army by 4 1/2. I'm sure that'll be a great game.

Did you hear this, Merc?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Merc on September 12, 2005, 08:23:17 PM
Baylor is favored over Army by 4 1/2. I'm sure that'll be a great game.

Did you hear this, Merc?

dude.  Baylor is 2-0.  A better record than Michigan.

We beat SMU, who turned around and beat TCU.

go figure
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 13, 2005, 08:07:46 AM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

You just knew I'd come around as soon as I saw that didn't you?
ha, jus f'in with ya ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 13, 2005, 08:59:15 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

Ugh... USC=South Carolina

SC=those idiots out west.... 

 ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 13, 2005, 09:07:52 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

Ugh... USC=South Carolina

SC=those idiots out west.... 

 ;)

You're learning fast.  Let me add.

By virtue of being the earlier founded school (in IP terms, this is novelty) Tennessee = UT.  Texas = those idiots out west. :P
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on September 13, 2005, 09:32:17 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

Ugh... USC=South Carolina

SC=those idiots out west.... 

 ;)


Niiiiiice.  Notice the hat in the avatar.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 13, 2005, 09:35:59 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

Ugh... USC=South Carolina

SC=those idiots out west.... 

 ;)


Niiiiiice.  Notice the hat in the avatar.

10/29 is going to be a great game... we are alredy planning on keeping stats on visor throws

(http://i03.thefacebook.com/gpic/95/n9186.10.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 14, 2005, 01:47:59 PM
USC = back-to-back champs
USCacca = school no one cares about

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 14, 2005, 01:54:17 PM
boy my piggies are gonna get stomped Saturday.  Hell, we can't beat Vandy...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 14, 2005, 02:15:26 PM
only one USC

the other is USCacca

Ugh... USC=South Carolina

SC=those idiots out west.... 

 ;)


Niiiiiice.  Notice the hat in the avatar.

10/29 is going to be a great game... we are alredy planning on keeping stats on visor throws

(http://i03.thefacebook.com/gpic/95/n9186.10.jpg)

I GOTTA get that shirt!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 18, 2005, 09:28:51 AM
USC is going undefeated, winning the national championship and 3-peating for the following reasons:

1. The Trojans have the best combination of athletes on offense in the nation, maybe the best combination in the history of the game.  See the following stats and bios of these gamebreaking players:
   a. Matt Leinart
   b. Reggie Bush
   c. Lendale White
   d. Dwayne Jarret
   e. Steve Smith
   f. Dominique Byrd AKA Birdman PrRrArRRRRrrRRRrrR

2.  The defense may not be the greatest in the country, but it can compete with any offense in the nation.

3.  The combination of 1 and 2 leaves every other team at a terrible disadvantage when they play USC.

4.  Pete Carrol is 42-9 (82.4%) as a college head coach (all at USC). His losses were by a total of 42 points (4.7 average) and only 1 was by more than a touchdown (it was by 11 points). After starting off his Trojan career 2-5, he has gone 40-4 (90.9%). He is 28-5 in Pac-10 games, giving him an 84.8% winning mark (a league record).  He is 13-0 in November. His teams have posted 6 shutouts and have scored at least 20 points in the last 39 games (a school record). USC's 13, 25 and 36 wins over the past 1, 2 and 3 years represent the winningest 1-, 2- and 3-year periods in Trojan history. USC is riding a 22-game winning streak (as well as 21 straight home games, a Pac-10 record 15 consecutive league home games, 15 straight Pac-10 games and 9 road games in a row). USC has been AP's No. 1 team for a school-record 18 straight polls. http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/carroll_pete00.html.


DONT SLEEP ON THE TROJANS CUZ WE WILL F YOUR WHOLE *&^% UP
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on September 19, 2005, 03:40:14 PM
Just spent the weekend back in State College, only this time armed with a Press Box/Media Room/Field pass, courtesy of the Jimmy V foundation -- (dad won charity auction).  Met JoePa, Mark Rubin, the director of Football Operations, a couple other players, was down on the field, watched the game from the catered press box, attended the post-game, and oh yeah, enjoyed watching PSU's offense come back to reality.

Bring on the Big 10.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 23, 2005, 10:01:32 AM
click to get a load of the look on his face :D :D :D

(http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/4112/espnleinart4je.gif) (http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/4112/espnleinart4je.gif)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: gailrules on September 23, 2005, 10:05:11 AM
I am lonely for my UG this weekend.

It's the first conference game of the season, and we're playing Michigan, and it's a 5 o'clock game.

People will be RETARDED...

 ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 23, 2005, 10:13:45 AM
this thread has almost died.  where are all the college football fans?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 23, 2005, 10:19:56 AM
this thread has almost died.  where are all the college football fans?

pissed off since UT game got moved to monday and we have a midterm tuesday AM
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on September 23, 2005, 10:21:40 AM
we play bama tomrow...ugh...another loss I can see
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 23, 2005, 11:13:12 AM
this thread has almost died.  where are all the college football fans?

pissed off since UT game got moved to monday and we have a midterm tuesday AM
looks like me and you in the championship, have you reserved your rosebowl tix?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 23, 2005, 04:41:35 PM
this thread has almost died.  where are all the college football fans?

pissed off since UT game got moved to monday and we have a midterm tuesday AM
looks like me and you in the championship, have you reserved your rosebowl tix?

im hoping you were being sarcastic, just trying to be nice or somehow confused me with a LSU fan.... but I dont see UT getting anywhere near the Rose Bowl if they dont get their act together very quickly.  As of today it looks like USC and the wannabe UT will be in the rose bowl
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on September 29, 2005, 07:40:12 AM
The game was almost pure garbage, but did anyone see the amazing Derrick Williams catch (not to mention the 4th and 15 conversion) in the last minute of the PSU/Northwestern game last weekend?  If Penn State ever stops fumbling, they could be a real contender for the Big 10 this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 09:40:29 AM
this thread has died since everyone's tema has a loss.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: nolegirl on September 29, 2005, 09:44:54 AM
MINE DOESN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USC is going down!!!!!!!!!!

That is all (total drive by)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 10:03:48 AM
haha. nice one.  hmmm, how to rebut that airtight argument? ;)  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 11:00:13 AM
this thread has died since everyone's tema has a loss.

when you play in a real conference, one loss is not the end of the world
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 11:56:41 AM
USC has a tough schedule, so dont give me any of that. >:(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 01:43:40 PM
USC has a tough schedule, so dont give me any of that. >:(

that they do, but the Pac-10 still sucks
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 01:47:56 PM
well, half is pretty decent to say the least.  Half of a conference being ranked in the top 25 is pretty dam good.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: KayakAnyone on September 29, 2005, 02:49:05 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:24:07 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:29:03 PM
well, half is pretty decent to say the least.  Half of a conference being ranked in the top 25 is pretty dam good.

ASU choked against LSU... who just lost to UT
what has Cal done to deserve their ranking? they only beat Illinois by 15... MSU beat them by about 80
UCLA deserves to be ranked higher than Cal, still nothing impressive

I see 4 teams ranked: USC, ASU, UCLA, and Cal.  And the only team that has shown they are deserving of their current ranking is USC
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:30:12 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team


Riiiiiight.

USC struggled with UCF
USF destroyed UCF with over 300yds rushing
 ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:31:39 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

If UF can get any resemblance of an offense together by the end of the year they could easily give USC a game.  With Urban at the helm, as much as it pains me to say this, I could easily see UF's offense turning the corner as the year goes on. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: KayakAnyone on September 29, 2005, 03:33:07 PM
I'm not sure deluded is the best word -- but overly cocky since beating an over rated UL team...

and I think UF (four games from now)/UGA/Bama could give USC a run for their money

Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team


Riiiiiight.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:35:27 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team


Riiiiiight.

USC struggled with UCF
USF destroyed UCF with over 300yds rushing
 ::)

In 2004: USC beat USF 34-3
In 2005: USC beat UCF 24-15 with a redshirt sophomore quarterback in his first game.

Please...

USF is and always will be a turd school.

USF coach has said over and over he sacrificed last year with so much young talent to be prepared for this year... and so far it is working.  When is the last time USC beat a top 10 team?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: KayakAnyone on September 29, 2005, 03:38:59 PM
how is it possible that a school like south carolina ends up resurecting a football program while a school like UK can't even get one off the ground?  i mean seriously.... you'd think they could have sprung for a better coach than Brooks... and hal mumme?  guy morris?  bill curry?  if SAouth Carolina can get a decent coach and USF can get a decent coach and i mean in the 80s UL got Schnellenberger when they were on the verge of ending the football program - why can't UK manage to get one decent football coach???  i'm tired of praying for bball season to roll around.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 03:39:21 PM
well, half is pretty decent to say the least.  Half of a conference being ranked in the top 25 is pretty dam good.

ASU choked against LSU... who just lost to UT
what has Cal done to deserve their ranking? they only beat Illinois by 15... MSU beat them by about 80
UCLA deserves to be ranked higher than Cal, still nothing impressive

I see 4 teams ranked: USC, ASU, UCLA, and Cal.  And the only team that has shown they are deserving of their current ranking is USC
But the PAC-10 is not a garbage league, that is just something people say when they want to bolster their own conference.  LSU is the highest ranked SEC team and it BARELY won over ASU.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:41:45 PM
well, half is pretty decent to say the least.  Half of a conference being ranked in the top 25 is pretty dam good.

ASU choked against LSU... who just lost to UT
what has Cal done to deserve their ranking? they only beat Illinois by 15... MSU beat them by about 80
UCLA deserves to be ranked higher than Cal, still nothing impressive

I see 4 teams ranked: USC, ASU, UCLA, and Cal.  And the only team that has shown they are deserving of their current ranking is USC
But the PAC-10 is not a garbage league, that is just something people say when they want to bolster their own conference.  LSU is the highest ranked SEC team and it BARELY won over ASU.

Florida and UT are both better than LSU, the rankings have not been updated since the monday night game
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:43:50 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team


Riiiiiight.

USC struggled with UCF
USF destroyed UCF with over 300yds rushing
 ::)

In 2004: USC beat USF 34-3
In 2005: USC beat UCF 24-15 with a redshirt sophomore quarterback in his first game.

Please...

USF is and always will be a turd school.

USF coach has said over and over he sacrificed last year with so much young talent to be prepared for this year... and so far it is working.  When is the last time USC beat a top 10 team?

Considering that the only team that South Carolina played last year that ended up in the Top 10 was Georgia, there wasn't much of a chance.

Cocky and deluded.  I don't care what the coach says.

ok, so i just glanced at your schedules and im thinking the last time was maybe in 2001.  How long have you had a football program? USF just started the program in 1997 and just joined a BCS conference this year and yet if they played today it would be an equal game that USF would probably be favored to win.  I know that must really suck for USC, but deal with it. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 03:44:33 PM
WHo has Georgia beaten?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:46:48 PM
WHo has Georgia beaten?

Georgia sucks, i dont think anybody can reasonably defend them
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:52:31 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.

hey now... watch yourself... USF just raped Louisville and they have only been playing football since 1997!  give them a couple years and they will be a consistent top 25 team


Riiiiiight.

USC struggled with UCF
USF destroyed UCF with over 300yds rushing
 ::)

In 2004: USC beat USF 34-3
In 2005: USC beat UCF 24-15 with a redshirt sophomore quarterback in his first game.

Please...

USF is and always will be a turd school.

USF coach has said over and over he sacrificed last year with so much young talent to be prepared for this year... and so far it is working.  When is the last time USC beat a top 10 team?

Considering that the only team that South Carolina played last year that ended up in the Top 10 was Georgia, there wasn't much of a chance.

Cocky and deluded.  I don't care what the coach says.

ok, so i just glanced at your schedules and im thinking the last time was maybe in 2001.  How long have you had a football program? USF just started the program in 1997 and just joined a BCS conference this year and yet if they played today it would be an equal game that USF would probably be favored to win.  I know that must really suck for USC, but deal with it. 

Jesus, the hostility you have.  It's just college football, son.  Simmer down.

If USF and South Carolina met up today, it would be a similar game to their match up last year, no ifs, ands, or buts.

last year means nothing, get that through your head...

THIS year... USC struggled with UCF, two weeks later USF dominated UCF...  Outside of UCF, USC got destoryed by Bama, Lost to a bad UGA team and Beat Troy!  Outside of UCF, USF lost at PSU, beat a I-AA team and beat a ranked (top 10 at the time) Louisville team. 

Where in that do you think USC would "blow out" USF?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 03:53:29 PM
Exactly, Georgia sucks yet they are #6 or #7.  There is a predisposition to rank the SEC teams higher just because they are in the SEC. and the opposite is true for the PAC-10 teams
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 03:53:41 PM
WHo has Georgia beaten?

Georgia sucks, i dont think anybody can reasonably defend them


You're defending USF and then turning around and saying Georgia sucks? 

This is a joke, right?  You're pulling our legs, right?

did i ever compare USF to Georgia??
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on September 29, 2005, 03:54:25 PM
Southern Cal would beat the snot out of every NCAA football team in Florida

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:01:06 PM
WHo has Georgia beaten?

Georgia sucks, i dont think anybody can reasonably defend them


You're defending USF and then turning around and saying Georgia sucks? 

This is a joke, right?  You're pulling our legs, right?

did i ever compare USF to Georgia??

You're comparing them to South Carolina when South Carolina only lost to Georgia by two points on account of our kicker choking.  Offensively and defensively, that game was taken by USC. 

UGA is overrated.... USF blew out the overrated team they played, USC choked
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:03:25 PM
"What is USF's rank?  Oh yeah..."


USF is currently in the receiving votes category in one poll.  Where is USC? I seem to be missing them somewhere. They must be on here somewhere.  Oh yea...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:04:28 PM
"What is USF's rank?  Oh yeah..."


USF is currently in the receiving votes category in one poll.  Where is USC? I seem to be missing them somewhere. They must be on here somewhere.  Oh yea...

They recieved 7 votes.  Don't wet yourself.

how many did USC get?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:10:08 PM
"What is USF's rank?  Oh yeah..."


USF is currently in the receiving votes category in one poll.  Where is USC? I seem to be missing them somewhere. They must be on here somewhere.  Oh yea...

They recieved 7 votes.  Don't wet yourself.

how many did USC get?


Haha. 

You're pretty funny.  Our kicker screwed us out of a UGA win and we simply got outplayed by #15 Alabama.  That, I admit to.  Troy was a joke and we are going to have a tough season second half.

Am I on here raising hell that USC is going to dominate and all the crap you're spouting about USF?  Nope. 

where did I say they were going to dominate? I said in a few years they will be a consistent top 25 team, which is very beleivable if you have any common sense.  I also said if USF and USC played that USF would be favored to win, which is also true. 

hell they play at Miami this week and I dont expect them to win and it potentially could get ugly.  but when you start spouting off stupid stuff about USC im going to argue it, because, well, it is stupid.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:13:18 PM
"What is USF's rank?  Oh yeah..."


USF is currently in the receiving votes category in one poll.  Where is USC? I seem to be missing them somewhere. They must be on here somewhere.  Oh yea...

They recieved 7 votes.  Don't wet yourself.

how many did USC get?


Haha. 

You're pretty funny.  Our kicker screwed us out of a UGA win and we simply got outplayed by #15 Alabama.  That, I admit to.  Troy was a joke and we are going to have a tough season second half.

Am I on here raising hell that USC is going to dominate and all the crap you're spouting about USF?  Nope. 

where did I say they were going to dominate? I said in a few years they will be a consistent top 25 team, which is very beleivable if you have any common sense.  I also said if USF and USC played that USF would be favored to win, which is also true. 

Unfortunately for you, it's not true.  USF got lucky in one game and you honestly think they can come back and beat a team that beat them 34-3 just last year???   ::)

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree, Mary. 

are you in law school yet? when you argue a case or point do you cite outdated laws?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:19:31 PM
"What is USF's rank?  Oh yeah..."


USF is currently in the receiving votes category in one poll.  Where is USC? I seem to be missing them somewhere. They must be on here somewhere.  Oh yea...

They recieved 7 votes.  Don't wet yourself.

how many did USC get?


Haha. 

You're pretty funny.  Our kicker screwed us out of a UGA win and we simply got outplayed by #15 Alabama.  That, I admit to.  Troy was a joke and we are going to have a tough season second half.

Am I on here raising hell that USC is going to dominate and all the crap you're spouting about USF?  Nope. 

where did I say they were going to dominate? I said in a few years they will be a consistent top 25 team, which is very beleivable if you have any common sense.  I also said if USF and USC played that USF would be favored to win, which is also true. 

Unfortunately for you, it's not true.  USF got lucky in one game and you honestly think they can come back and beat a team that beat them 34-3 just last year???   ::)

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree, Mary. 

are you in law school yet? when you argue a case or point do you cite outdated laws?

One year ago is hardly outdated.  Think what you wish. 

I am reminded of a quote:

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

read back through this and really look to see who looks like an idiot... you never presented anything except USC won last year.  Iowa was good last year, they suck this year.  Penn St sucked last year but they are pretty good this year.  Utah was good last year, they suck this year.  Oklahoma was good last year (minus one game) and they suck this year.  Michigan St was nothig special last year, they are good this year.  Get the point yet?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 04:54:06 PM
South Carolina has the makings of being top 10 next year.

I was going to respond until i read this year.  If you think USF being a top 25 contender in a few years is farfetched yet you believe USC has the potential to be a top 10 team next year, you should look back at the quote you posted earlier
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on September 29, 2005, 05:00:21 PM
South Carolina has the makings of being top 10 next year.

I was going to respond until i read this year.  If you think USF being a top 25 contender in a few years is farfetched yet you believe USC has the potential to be a top 10 team next year, you should look back at the quote you posted earlier

Thanks, I'll look at it now....

Ok, I looked.  It reminds me that I have to end the discussion.  Can't have you beating me and all.  ;D

See you in Miami!

you coming up for the UT game? i'd love to see the look on your face when you realize how much USC really sucks
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: KayakAnyone on September 29, 2005, 05:34:34 PM
And, oh yeah, it was sure nice of USF to come out and and attend not one, but two consecutive South Carolina Outback bowl victories in Tampa.  Seeing as USF won't be seeing a bowl game in quite a while, it's nice to know that South Carolina could help 'em out.

USF is still in a running for a bowl game this year... granted it will be an uphill battle -- but my neighbors say they'll do it.  by the way they believe UL showed up. they also say its not a fluke because they won by more than 10 points --- and i didnt care to argue with them.  they're big guys with a pit bull...seriously though--- USF could be in a bowl this year.. and i think they will be.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: KayakAnyone on September 29, 2005, 05:43:26 PM
The only reason they would have a chance to go to a bowl game is their ridiculously easy schedule.

what will you do when UK beats ya'll?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on September 29, 2005, 10:34:02 PM
Haha Mark May was talking about the VT-WVU game and said that you can't even take your helmet off in Morgantown because the West Virginia fans will throw pennies at you...and that they throe pennies at you because they can't afford to throw nickels.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 02, 2005, 03:03:04 PM
*bump* this thread is funnier after this weekend's lovely showing by USC
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 02, 2005, 05:55:18 PM
we have the heart of a champion.

I'll reiterate what i said in another thread:
USC plays the hardest schedule in the country.  Every team they play is going to give them their best shot, the pressure is intense and the teams they play are great without the extra motivation.
1. #24 UO at Autzen
2. #14 ASU in the desert
3. #13 Notre Dame in South Bend
4. #12 Cal in Berkeley
5. Fresno State is the best in the WAC
5. #20 UCLA who always gets up for the rivalry game

If we go undefeated and win the rosebowl, we are the G.O.A.T.

BTW the SEC is overrated and Florida sucks

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 02, 2005, 06:00:09 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.
what do you neighbors think now? :D :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 02, 2005, 06:15:14 PM
we have the heart of a champion.

I'll reiterate what i said in another thread:
USC plays the hardest schedule in the country.  Every team they play is going to give them their best shot, the pressure is intense and the teams they play are great without the extra motivation.
1. #24 UO at Autzen
2. #14 ASU in the desert
3. #13 Notre Dame in South Bend
4. #12 Cal in Berkeley
5. Fresno State is the best in the WAC
5. #20 UCLA who always gets up for the rivalry game

If we go undefeated and win the rosebowl, we are the G.O.A.T.

BTW the SEC is overrated and Florida sucks

HTH
i was referring to South Carolina.... 

and the SEC is the best conference in the country from top to bottom
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 02, 2005, 06:16:32 PM
Whatever, tegra. Give me one SEC team that could give USC a run for their money and then perhaps I'll start taking you seriously.  ::)  The SEC is the most overrated, underperforming conference there is.  Give me a Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10 game anyday over the whiny girls that play in your conference.

according to my neighbors (granted they are Football players) USF Bulls could beat any top 10 team in the nation just as they did last week.. i had to laugh.. but the guys believes it.
what do you neighbors think now? :D :D

losing at Miami by 20 when committing 5 turnovers is not that bad... especially for a team that just started their program from scratch 8 years ago  ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 02, 2005, 06:19:06 PM
we have the heart of a champion.

I'll reiterate what i said in another thread:
USC plays the hardest schedule in the country.  Every team they play is going to give them their best shot, the pressure is intense and the teams they play are great without the extra motivation.
1. #24 UO at Autzen
2. #14 ASU in the desert
3. #13 Notre Dame in South Bend
4. #12 Cal in Berkeley
5. Fresno State is the best in the WAC
5. #20 UCLA who always gets up for the rivalry game

If we go undefeated and win the rosebowl, we are the G.O.A.T.

BTW the SEC is overrated and Florida sucks

HTH

um, first of all, this team almost slipped up this weekend. surely this isn't the time to brag.

furthermore, i am not certain that this is the hardest strength of schedule in the country.  yes, you play five ranked teams, but so does florida, and their opponents are more impressive:

1. #5 Tennessee
2. #15 Alabama
3. #4 LSU
4. #7 georgia
5. #6 Florida State

that's 4 top 10 teams and no (ranked) team below 15.

consider a similar case with Tennessee:

#6 Florida
#3 LSU
#7 Georgia
#13 Notre Dame
#15 Alabama

i could go on, but as one may imagine, this is the case with virtually every team in the SEC.

so let's talk about the SEC.

if auburn didn't get screwed out of playing for the championship last year, it would have been a blood bath, and it wouldn't be at cadillac williams' and ronnie brown's expense. unlike usc, who barely slipped by a mediocre ucla last year, auburn dominated each of the teams it played (playing more highly ranked teams than usc).

thank you. have a nice day.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 02, 2005, 06:38:05 PM
Pink, I love you but you are clearly not seeing the whole picture.  USC plays the hardest schedule in the country not only because of its opponents, but because it is going for a threepeat.  This adds two "dispositive" elements:

1. Every team they play is playing their own personal championship game against SC; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
2. The pressure inherent in trying to win a third straight national championship is incredible and the odds against SC are worse.

I think coming back from a 21-3 deficit is incredible no matter who USC was facing or where. But considering ASU is a great team and that USC was playing in 100+ heat and at ASU, you have got to hand it to them.


I have not seen any evidence that the SEC is the best conference in the country beside the rankings but the rankings prove my point that the SEC is overrated. 

As far as AU, USC spanked the holy crap out of AU the year before with exactly the same team and at home.  OU is and has been overrated but AU would have gotten their asses handed to them WORSE than OU.  DID YOU WATCH THEIR BOWL GAME???   They very nearly lost!  No way they could compete with USC in the last four years, including this one.

HTH

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 02, 2005, 06:55:52 PM
Pink, I love you but you are clearly not seeing the whole picture.  USC plays the hardest schedule in the country not only because of its opponents, but because it is going for a threepeat.  This adds two "dispositive" elements:

1. Every team they play is playing their own personal championship game against SC; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
2. The pressure inherent in trying to win a third straight national championship is incredible and the odds against SC are worse.

I think coming back from a 21-3 deficit is incredible no matter who USC was facing or where. But considering ASU is a great team and that USC was playing in 100+ heat and at ASU, you have got to hand it to them.


I have not seen any evidence that the SEC is the best conference in the country beside the rankings but the rankings prove my point that the SEC is overrated. 

As far as AU, USC spanked the holy darn out of AU the year before with exactly the same team and at home.  OU is and has been overrated but AU would have gotten their asses handed to them WORSE than OU.  DID YOU WATCH THEIR BOWL GAME???   They very nearly lost!  No way they could compete with USC in the last four years, including this one.

HTH



You could make those same points about every single one of Florida's or Tennessee's opponents.  In fact, the stakes are even higher because both Florida and Tennessee play teams that could potentially play for the national championship; this is not the case with USC. 

USC has looked downright vulnerable the last two weeks.  You cannot deny that.


Yes, coming back from a 21-3 deficit is impressive, but it's far more impressive when you get the job done with just 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter and you are playing a top 5 opponent.  See: Monday night game between Tennessee and LSU.

People like you say that the SEC is overrated.  I presume this is because it is teams that top the SEC are rarely undefeated within the SEC.  True, but that only speaks to the strength of the competition within the conference.  If every team was the punching bag that Vanderbilt usually is, this would not be the case.  The fact is, the SEC has a team in the running for the national championship EVERY year.  It is often the case, as it is this year, that more than one SEC team could be a national title contender.  This is simply not the case with the PAC-10.  You get one national title contender per year in that conference, and that's if you're having a particularly good year. 

Sorry, but objectively, a number of teams have a tougher schedule.  USC may still go undefeated (I doubt any team will this year, but let's presume it does, for the sake of argument), but it will not have done so playing any top 5 or even any top 10 teams.  And frankly, when you don't play worthy contenders, winning them all isn't so impressive.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 02, 2005, 07:01:54 PM
when one of the top teams from the SEC played one of the top teams from the Pac 10 this year the SEC won... at the Pac 10 teams home
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 02, 2005, 07:03:09 PM
your presumption of worthy opponents rests on the theory that the rankings are valid.  Is Florida really #5 or #14?  Two days ago they were in the running for the national championship, until they got spanked.  The only reason teams in the PAC-10 are not in the running this year is because everyone they have to overcome the stigma that is attached to the PAC-10.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The teams in the SEC are in the running because they are in the SEC.


USC's opponents have nothing to lose and everything to win; you cant say that about the opponents in the SEC because they are fighting for something too.

PLUS, none of the teams in teh SEC have the pressure that goes with winning a national championship 2 years in a row, let alone 3 years in a row.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 02, 2005, 07:07:20 PM
your presumption of worthy opponents rests on the theory that the rankings are valid.  Is Florida really #5 or #14?  Two days ago they were in the running for the national championship, until they got spanked.  The only reason teams in the PAC-10 are not in the running this year is because everyone they have to overcome the stigma that is attached to the PAC-10.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The teams in the SEC are in the running because they are in the SEC.


USC's opponents have nothing to lose and everything to win; you cant say that about the opponents in the SEC because they are fighting for something too.

PLUS, none of the teams in teh SEC have the pressure that goes with winning a national championship 2 years in a row, let alone 3 years in a row.

i agree that there must be an immense amount of pressure for usc to get a third championship, however, counsel, that is a purely subjective point and has nothing to do with the objective measure of usc's relative strength of schedule.  everything or nothing to lose has no bearing on the strength of schedule.  either you play a good team or you don't. period.  these outside considerations do not change the strength of schedule considerations. 

besides, who's to say which situation is most laden with pressure: the pressure to take (not win, because they did not win it the first time) a third championship or the pressure to rebuild the greatest football program ever (alabama)?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 02, 2005, 07:15:19 PM
your presumption of worthy opponents rests on the theory that the rankings are valid.  Is Florida really #5 or #14?  Two days ago they were in the running for the national championship, until they got spanked.  The only reason teams in the PAC-10 are not in the running this year is because everyone they have to overcome the stigma that is attached to the PAC-10.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The teams in the SEC are in the running because they are in the SEC.


USC's opponents have nothing to lose and everything to win; you cant say that about the opponents in the SEC because they are fighting for something too.

PLUS, none of the teams in teh SEC have the pressure that goes with winning a national championship 2 years in a row, let alone 3 years in a row.

i agree that there must be an immense amount of pressure for usc to get a third championship, however, counsel, that is a purely subjective point and has nothing to do with the objective measure of usc's relative strength of schedule.  everything or nothing to lose has no bearing on the strength of schedule.  either you play a good team or you don't. period.  these outside considerations do not change the strength of schedule considerations. 

besides, who's to say which situation is most laden with pressure: the pressure to take (not win, because they did not win it the first time) a third championship or the pressure to rebuild the greatest football program ever (alabama)?
I believe that the pressure to win a third national championship in as many years is much greater than the pressure to rebuild a football program AND it is intrinsic in the strength of a schedule because it gives the opponent a boost.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SeanVC on October 05, 2005, 09:21:03 PM
The SEC is the best conference in all of College football!  4 SEC teams were ranked in the preseason Top 10 in the AP poll.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on October 05, 2005, 09:23:56 PM
your presumption of worthy opponents rests on the theory that the rankings are valid.  Is Florida really #5 or #14?  Two days ago they were in the running for the national championship, until they got spanked.  The only reason teams in the PAC-10 are not in the running this year is because everyone they have to overcome the stigma that is attached to the PAC-10.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The teams in the SEC are in the running because they are in the SEC.


USC's opponents have nothing to lose and everything to win; you cant say that about the opponents in the SEC because they are fighting for something too.

PLUS, none of the teams in teh SEC have the pressure that goes with winning a national championship 2 years in a row, let alone 3 years in a row.

i agree that there must be an immense amount of pressure for usc to get a third championship, however, counsel, that is a purely subjective point and has nothing to do with the objective measure of usc's relative strength of schedule.  everything or nothing to lose has no bearing on the strength of schedule.  either you play a good team or you don't. period.  these outside considerations do not change the strength of schedule considerations. 

besides, who's to say which situation is most laden with pressure: the pressure to take (not win, because they did not win it the first time) a third championship or the pressure to rebuild the greatest football program ever (alabama)?
I believe that the pressure to win a third national championship in as many years is much greater than the pressure to rebuild a football program AND it is intrinsic in the strength of a schedule because it gives the opponent a boost.

It might be intrinsic in the strength of schedule, but the question then becomes: How much does that intrinsicality make up for the WEAKNESS of USC's schedule?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on October 05, 2005, 09:24:38 PM
p.s. I have no clue if "intrinsicality" is a word, but it sounded good to me at this point.  :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 05, 2005, 11:26:34 PM
when one of the top teams from the SEC played one of the top teams from the Pac 10 this year the SEC won... at the Pac 10 teams home

So the #1 (at the time) SEC team beat the #2 (3?) Pac-10 team. This proves what ???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 06, 2005, 12:52:39 AM
The SEC is the best conference in all of College football!  4 SEC teams were ranked in the preseason Top 10 in the AP poll.
That is a curcular argument. 

you need to study more. See the LRB for help.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 06, 2005, 05:06:25 AM
when one of the top teams from the SEC played one of the top teams from the Pac 10 this year the SEC won... at the Pac 10 teams home

So the #1 (at the time) SEC team beat the #2 (3?) Pac-10 team. This proves what ???

just because they were the top ranked SEC team at the time does not make them the best SEC team.  LSU is somewhere from 2-4 in thr SEC.  ASU is probably the same, 2-4 in the Pac10.  If the SEC is overrated, the similarly ranked Pac10 team should have taken care of the overrated SEC team playing the game in Pac10 country. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SeanVC on October 06, 2005, 08:11:18 AM
3peat,

USC and the PAC-10 are a joke!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bg on October 06, 2005, 08:47:05 AM
The SEC has the most talented players, but some of the worst coaches.  Would you want Phil Fulmer, Houston Nutt or Les Miles coaching your team in a big game?  And the bottom half of the SEC is just as bad as the bottom half of any other conference.  Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Kentucky are bad teams.

The SEC always has guys going high in the NFL draft.  But look at coaches who have come from the NFL like Pete Carroll, Charlie Weis and Al Groh.  Where were USC, Notre Dame and Virginia respectively before these guys took over.  It is not a coincidence that LSU is not as good without Nick Saban, a former NFL assistant coach.  Talent matters but coaching matters more because somebody has to recruit the players and coach them up.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SeanVC on October 06, 2005, 10:15:04 AM
bg,

"LSU is not as good without Nick Saban"??  Perhaps your prediction may turn out to be correct, however don't sellout Les Miles after only 1 loss. ---Clearly you are being presumptuous 

Also your assesment of Fat Phil was entertaining, however it was completely off (keep in mind that UT won the National Championship back in 1998 over a very good Florida State team).
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 06, 2005, 10:24:31 AM
3peat,

USC and the PAC-10 are a joke!
whatev, n00b.

I guess having 3 undefeated teams in a conference carries no weight with you, or blowing out OU, UM and UI in three consecutive years isnt impressive

but the opinion of a troll with a total of 6 posts hardly matters to anyone

XOXO HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bg on October 06, 2005, 10:28:26 AM
LSU has too many returning players on the defensive side of the ball to be mediocre.  They look tenative with Pelini as defensive coordinator and Miles is an offensive coach.  

As for your point on Fulmer, I'll disagree with you here.  They did win a national title, but he had bothced the Claussen/Ainge situation.  That team simply plays better with Claussen under center, even if he isn't as gifted physically.  Another great example of this was Major Applewhite at Texas (Mack Brown is an awful coach, Vince Young is a stud. I know it's a different conference).  For crying out loud, Alabama should be the best team in the conference and stupid Mike Shula leaves Tyrone Prothro in the game during a blowout and he hurts his leg.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 06, 2005, 11:10:37 AM
LSU has too many returning players on the defensive side of the ball to be mediocre.  They look tenative with Pelini as defensive coordinator and Miles is an offensive coach. 

As for your point on Fulmer, I'll disagree with you here.  They did win a national title, but he had bothced the Claussen/Ainge situation.  That team simply plays better with Claussen under center, even if he isn't as gifted physically.  Another great example of this was Major Applewhite at Texas (Mack Brown is an awful coach, Vince Young is a stud. I know it's a different conference).  For crying out loud, Alabama should be the best team in the conference and stupid Mike Shula leaves Tyrone Prothro in the game during a blowout and he hurts his leg.

then what happened with Claussen and AInge at UF? Ainge played much better than Clausen there.  I agree Clausen should play, but to say Fulmer botched the situation is asinine.  When nobody seperates themselves as the starter you have to play both and manage.   

for goodness sakes, he won a national championship with Tee Martin at the helm? who? yea, thats my point
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SeanVC on October 06, 2005, 11:31:31 AM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 06, 2005, 03:03:28 PM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

Im fairly certain he goes to USC....
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: r. on October 06, 2005, 03:16:11 PM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

What USC bandwagon? You either went to the school or you didn't. For those of us that went to SC, just because we're enjoying the spoils now doesn't mean we just started cheering. I, and many others, endured several years of the Paul Hackett era. The less said about that, the better.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: r. on October 06, 2005, 03:55:28 PM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

What USC bandwagon? You either went to the school or you didn't. For those of us that went to SC, just because we're enjoying the spoils now doesn't mean we just started cheering. I, and many others, endured several years of the Paul Hackett era. The less said about that, the better.

People always say that when a team is doing really well.  I had to endure it when Miami had its run again a few years ago.  Except I've been a fan my whole life and I started at UM when we had our scholarships taken away and weren't even ranked .

For anyone who went to USC, you'll know that the student section is only maginally more packed in the good years than in the bad. SC is a football school and always will be. Every other fall Saturday the students will be out at the Coliseum, good year or bad.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 06, 2005, 04:34:24 PM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

Sorry guy, I graduated from USC and am in law school.  You seem pretty good at unwarranted assumptions and circular logic, maybe you shouldnt set yourself up for failure by hoping for Stetson or FSU; try Cooley or Dickinson.

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 06, 2005, 08:42:41 PM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

Sorry guy, I graduated from USC and am in law school.  You seem pretty good at unwarranted assumptions and circular logic, maybe you shouldnt set yourself up for failure by hoping for Stetson or FSU; try Cooley or Dickinson.

HTH

notre dame 34
usc 28

upset?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 06, 2005, 08:47:33 PM
I think the only chance ND has at upsetting USC next weekend is for Weis to do exactly what he did against Indy in the playoffs, which is play ball-control and keep the USC offense off the field. The problem is that ND's secondary isn't that good, though the front seven is pretty decent. I think this game will be closer than the last 3 years of 31 point blowouts under Willingham. Even though it pains me to say this as an ND fan, I'm going to say USC wins 38-24.

ND will beat USC in the next 2 years though, with the talent that Weis is going to bring in via recruiting. He's already gotten the commitment of Darrin Walls, who may be the top CB recruit in the country and from Raeshon McNeil, who has been ranked as a top 10 CB along with 2 4-5 star QBs in Demetrius Jones and Zach Frazier and a 5 star RB in James Aldridge.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 06, 2005, 09:59:04 PM
Just as a sidenote, in NCAA 2006, there is nothing better than scoring a TD in the Swamp and mocking the Gator Chomp.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 07, 2005, 06:34:45 AM
3peat,

I may be a N00b

But atleast I didn't jump on the USC bandwagon.  You strike me as the nerdy future law student who just recently started following D-1 ball.  In roughly 3 years, when USC starts going into a downward cycle, where will you be???

Sorry guy, I graduated from USC and am in law school.  You seem pretty good at unwarranted assumptions and circular logic, maybe you shouldnt set yourself up for failure by hoping for Stetson or FSU; try Cooley or Dickinson.

HTH

notre dame 34
usc 28

upset?
I think the only chance ND has at upsetting USC next weekend is for Weis to do exactly what he did against Indy in the playoffs, which is play ball-control and keep the USC offense off the field. The problem is that ND's secondary isn't that good, though the front seven is pretty decent. I think this game will be closer than the last 3 years of 31 point blowouts under Willingham. Even though it pains me to say this as an ND fan, I'm going to say USC wins 38-24.

ND will beat USC in the next 2 years though, with the talent that Weis is going to bring in via recruiting. He's already gotten the commitment of Darrin Walls, who may be the top CB recruit in the country and from Raeshon McNeil, who has been ranked as a top 10 CB along with 2 4-5 star QBs in Demetrius Jones and Zach Frazier and a 5 star RB in James Aldridge.

All I know is that it is going to be one hell of a game and I hope USC can pull it out.  If they do they are certainly going undefeated IMHO.  These last two weeks have been a terrible strain on my heart, I hope USC decides to play 4 quarters for the rest of the season so I can see them in Los Angeles on Jan 4th.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 07, 2005, 06:49:58 AM
I think the only chance ND has at upsetting USC next weekend is for Weis to do exactly what he did against Indy in the playoffs, which is play ball-control and keep the USC offense off the field. The problem is that ND's secondary isn't that good, though the front seven is pretty decent. I think this game will be closer than the last 3 years of 31 point blowouts under Willingham. Even though it pains me to say this as an ND fan, I'm going to say USC wins 38-24.

ND will beat USC in the next 2 years though, with the talent that Weis is going to bring in via recruiting. He's already gotten the commitment of Darrin Walls, who may be the top CB recruit in the country and from Raeshon McNeil, who has been ranked as a top 10 CB along with 2 4-5 star QBs in Demetrius Jones and Zach Frazier and a 5 star RB in James Aldridge.

ahhh but they didn't get Mitch Mustaine from here in northwest arkansas.  Second ranked QB in the country, and that's right he's coming right here to the University of Arkansas.  With him comes 2 of the top ten WRs along with out good running backs already here.  If we could only fire Houston Nutt now and hire Butch Davis we would be set to make a run in the next four years.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 07, 2005, 07:44:19 AM
Mustain actually was ready to commit to ND but Weis wanted a dual-threat QB so he offered to Demetrius Jones instead. Had Zach Frazier not signed so early, I would say that Mustain may have been an ND commit right now.

Doesn't matter though because I think Weis is gearing up to go after Jimmy Clausen next year, who is Casey and Rick's brother and is supposed to be the "LeBron James of football".
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 07, 2005, 07:46:36 AM
Mustain actually was ready to commit to ND but Weis wanted a dual-threat QB so he offered to Demetrius Jones instead. Had Zach Frazier not signed so early, I would say that Mustain may have been an ND commit right now.

Doesn't matter though because I think Weis is gearing up to go after Jimmy Clausen next year, who is Casey and Rick's brother and is supposed to be the "LeBron James of football".

Jimmy Clausen is OUTRAGEOUS...he will be a superstar
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 07, 2005, 07:56:52 AM
Mustain actually was ready to commit to ND but Weis wanted a dual-threat QB so he offered to Demetrius Jones instead. Had Zach Frazier not signed so early, I would say that Mustain may have been an ND commit right now.

Doesn't matter though because I think Weis is gearing up to go after Jimmy Clausen next year, who is Casey and Rick's brother and is supposed to be the "LeBron James of football".

Mustain would never be able to return home if he didn't come here, but on the other side, it probably would have gotten Nutt fired so...maybe it would have been a good thing
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 07, 2005, 09:29:17 PM
Watching the replay of Michigan-Michigan State on ESPN Classic, it just seems that Musburger was a little too excited about calling Michigan an underdog during the game...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 08, 2005, 11:52:20 AM
14-6 Texas..
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 08, 2005, 04:07:57 PM
Bwahaha Michigan lost to Minnesota 23-20 today.

Michigan could be better off firing Lloyd Carr, but that would be a personal insult towards Bo so they shouldn't even think about it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 08, 2005, 07:05:25 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 15, 2005, 02:12:48 PM
My predictions for today:

ND takes down USC.

LSU beats Florida.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 15, 2005, 02:16:28 PM
7-7 in the ND/SC game, ND brought out the green jerseys today.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 15, 2005, 02:18:02 PM
My predictions for today:

ND takes down USC.

LSU beats Florida.

I agree. ;D

Canes are looking surprisingly good this year.  

It seems that most of the teams who were getting all the pre-season press (my team included :( ) are not living up to the hype and there are a couple of break-away dark horses in the running, with Alabama being the biggest surprise.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 15, 2005, 02:28:34 PM
Canes are looking surprisingly good this year.  

Surprisingly?

We're in the top 10 every year!   :D

You don't have the talent you had when you dominated about 3 years ago.  Maybe top 10 as of late, but definitely not the football powerhouse that is the SEC.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 15, 2005, 02:31:33 PM
Canes are looking surprisingly good this year.  

Surprisingly?

We're in the top 10 every year!   :D

You don't have the talent you had when you dominated about 3 years ago.  Maybe top 10 as of late, but definitely not the football powerhouse that is the SEC.

Yeah, the ACC sucks.  It just happens to have 3 teams in the top 6.   ::)

The ACC doesn't have a history of domination.  Miami can't even compare to ND when it comes to having a legacy.  I wasn't talking about just this year or even the last three.  That's why I said Miami's performance is somewhat surprising this year.   
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 15, 2005, 02:43:08 PM
ND/SC is tied again, 14-14.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 15, 2005, 05:44:50 PM
Wow, just wow what a game...

After that, I'd walk to South Bend if I get accepted at Notre Dame
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 15, 2005, 06:03:55 PM
i hate USC... lucky bastards should have had the clock run out on them when leinart got stopped short
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 15, 2005, 06:04:56 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 15, 2005, 06:08:50 PM
Canes are looking surprisingly good this year. 

Surprisingly?

We're in the top 10 every year!   :D

You don't have the talent you had when you dominated about 3 years ago.  Maybe top 10 as of late, but definitely not the football powerhouse that is the SEC.

 :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 15, 2005, 06:14:59 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 15, 2005, 06:18:04 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...

it is amazing how the ball got spotted so close to the goalline
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 15, 2005, 06:20:22 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...

it is amazing how the ball got spotted so close to the goalline

Yeah, must've been homecooking. ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 15, 2005, 06:21:26 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...

it is amazing how the ball got spotted so close to the goalline

Yeah, must've been homecooking. ::)

ahem... Pac-10 refs....
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 15, 2005, 06:48:42 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...

it is amazing how the ball got spotted so close to the goalline

Yeah, must've been homecooking. ::)

ahem... Pac-10 refs....
Isnt the rule that the ball is spotted from where the player fumbled if it goes out of bounds?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 15, 2005, 08:53:09 PM

The ACC doesn't have a history of domination.  Miami can't even compare to ND when it comes to having a legacy.  I wasn't talking about just this year or even the last three.  That's why I said Miami's performance is somewhat surprising this year.   


Um...ND isn't in the SEC.

And Notre Dame, until this year, hasn't exactly been a dominating team lately.

I just think it's ridiculous to say that a team wasn't good last year because they weren't as good as they were a few years before that.  FSU wasn't at their best last year, but they would still beat the majority of teams and were ranked, as was Miami.  No, we weren't the best team in the nation, but we were still a good team.

Um, I never said ND was in the SEC.  Trust me, SEC girls know who is in it.  Notre Dame is has a history as one of the most dominant college football programs ever, along with the likes of Alabama and USC.  Miami, even albeit good as of late, cannot hang with those big dawgs in terms of history, legacy, and long-term dominance.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Sleezstak on October 15, 2005, 10:41:46 PM
GAME OF THE CENTURY: USC V ND

I am getting butterflies just thinking about it :o

The butterflies are going crazy.

Reggie Bush is the 2005 Heisman.

Good Game ND :)

PS Whoever runs the clock for the ND Stadium tried to get away with a fast one: arent they supposed to watch the ref and do what his signal says (e.g. stop the clock if he waves his hands across each other or let it run if he swings his arm in a clockwise circle)?, because if they were trying to take advantage of the fact that there was no instant replay then I hope they get fired.

It looked like on the replay that when Leinart fumbled the ball went out at the 3 yard line. Heh the clock thing was funny, took me back to 2001 Michigan - Michigan State...

it is amazing how the ball got spotted so close to the goalline

Yeah, must've been homecooking. ::)

ahem... Pac-10 refs....
Isnt the rule that the ball is spotted from where the player fumbled if it goes out of bounds?

Yes that is the rule...however, the ref on the field at the spot of the fumble didn't do a very good job at stopping the clock...in the booth the clock operator watches the officials for the signal..he should not be watching the game. the crew will be under some scrutiny for the fiasco.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 15, 2005, 11:06:58 PM
I can't imagine what it's going to be like for Tennessee next week going to Alabama. That game is going to be like a holy war for the people in Bryant-Denny...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 16, 2005, 07:11:24 AM
I can't imagine what it's going to be like for Tennessee next week going to Alabama. That game is going to be like a holy war for the people in Bryant-Denny...

it's going to be one of the most boring games ever, neither team will score on offense.... final: UT 4 Bama 2
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 16, 2005, 09:46:27 AM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Sleezstak on October 16, 2005, 10:22:12 AM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.

ND should have won as well...helping the runner is illegal and a 10 yard penalty.  it should have been called. When the offense committs a foul on the last play of the game the down is not replayed and the results of the play nullified. I don't think the official on the wing gave the stop the clock wave when the ball went out of bounds.  Those crews are going to get awful evaluations.   
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 16, 2005, 12:23:39 PM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.

ND should have won as well...helping the runner is illegal and a 10 yard penalty.  it should have been called. When the offense committs a foul on the last play of the game the down is not replayed and the results of the play nullified. I don't think the official on the wing gave the stop the clock wave when the ball went out of bounds.  Those crews are going to get awful evaluations.   
He prolly would have made it without the push.

ND would have won if they wouldnt have given up a 61 yard play on 4th and 9.

ND would have won if Matt Leinart wasnt a cold blooded assassin.  Or if Bush wasnt a reincarnation of Marshal Faulk or OJ Simpson

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 16, 2005, 12:37:49 PM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.

ND should have won as well...helping the runner is illegal and a 10 yard penalty.  it should have been called. When the offense committs a foul on the last play of the game the down is not replayed and the results of the play nullified. I don't think the official on the wing gave the stop the clock wave when the ball went out of bounds.  Those crews are going to get awful evaluations.   
He prolly would have made it without the push.

ND would have won if they wouldnt have given up a 61 yard play on 4th and 9.

ND would have won if Matt Leinart wasnt a cold blooded assassin.  Or if Bush wasnt a reincarnation of Marshal Faulk or OJ Simpson

HTH

USC could probably beat some bad NFL teams.  But Chad Henne is no cold-blooded assasin.  UM got 20 free yards and 2 extra seconds.  When PSU plays on January 1st and Michgan accepts its invitation to the Motor City Bowl, then I'll be smiling again.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Sleezstak on October 16, 2005, 04:25:45 PM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.

ND should have won as well...helping the runner is illegal and a 10 yard penalty.  it should have been called. When the offense committs a foul on the last play of the game the down is not replayed and the results of the play nullified. I don't think the official on the wing gave the stop the clock wave when the ball went out of bounds.  Those crews are going to get awful evaluations.   
He prolly would have made it without the push.

ND would have won if they wouldnt have given up a 61 yard play on 4th and 9.

ND would have won if Matt Leinart wasnt a cold blooded assassin.  Or if Bush wasnt a reincarnation of Marshal Faulk or OJ Simpson

HTH

I'm not denying the stellar performance of USC or Bush and Leinart...but Reggie Bush admitted to using all of his 200 pounds helping Leinart getting over the goal line.  So the fact remains the white hat missed that call just as the wing man missed stopping the clock.  that crew is doomed. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 16, 2005, 08:11:56 PM
Speaking of poor officiating, apparently if you play for Michigan, you don't need to have any feet in bounds for a catch to stand, and you can just get more time added to the clock if the coach asks the refs.

F UM.  Even in a good Penn State year, soemthing goes wrong.

ND should have won as well...helping the runner is illegal and a 10 yard penalty.  it should have been called. When the offense committs a foul on the last play of the game the down is not replayed and the results of the play nullified. I don't think the official on the wing gave the stop the clock wave when the ball went out of bounds.  Those crews are going to get awful evaluations.   
He prolly would have made it without the push.

ND would have won if they wouldnt have given up a 61 yard play on 4th and 9.

ND would have won if Matt Leinart wasnt a cold blooded assassin.  Or if Bush wasnt a reincarnation of Marshal Faulk or OJ Simpson

HTH

I'm not denying the stellar performance of USC or Bush and Leinart...but Reggie Bush admitted to using all of his 200 pounds helping Leinart getting over the goal line.  So the fact remains the white hat missed that call just as the wing man missed stopping the clock.  that crew is doomed. 
Yeah, they missed a couple of calls earlier that might have changed the game like the phantom personal foul that they called on SC and the personal foul that they didnt call on ND that same play.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Sleezstak on October 16, 2005, 08:23:18 PM
the UM/PSU crew is also gonna take some hits.  Two more seasons and I am going to apply to NCAA.  they will sometimes use PF when they don't know what else to call...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 16, 2005, 08:35:09 PM
UCLA 6-0 ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 16, 2005, 08:59:51 PM
just for the record.... from SIOC last year...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/sioncampus/09/15/best_weekends0916/ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/sioncampus/09/15/best_weekends0916/)

Best College Football Weekends
Maybe there's a better all-around college sports town -- we said as much last year -- but on any given Saturday in the fall, we know where we want to be: Knoxville

Think your school's game-day experience is all that and a bag of chips? Universities like to carry the one definitive aspect of their programs around like a trump card. But Tennessee sees whatever your school is bringing to the table and bets the House That General Neyland Built that it's got you beat.

What's the competition holding? Washington shows its floating tailgate off Puget Sound only to have Tennessee match it with the Volunteer Navy. Next up is Georgia and its famous bulldog, Uga. Sorry. Compared with Smokey, Tennessee's unflappable bluetick coonhound, Uga looks as clichd as a poker-playing bulldog.

Michigan and Ohio State put up the Big House (2003 average attendance: 110,918) and the pregame dotting of the i, respectively. Tennessee, however, responds with its own six-digit crowds ('03 average: 105,038), which detonate as the Vols run through the fabled T before the game.

The challengers keep coming: Auburn's Tiger Walk, Nebraska's Sea of Red and West Virginia's Country Roads. Tennessee answers: Vol Walk, Orange Nation, Rocky Top. And don't forget the fabled checkerboard end zone. King the Vols.
1. TENNESSEE

Total Score: 54

ATMOSPHERE: 10. There's plenty of local color, with the Fanta-flavored scene much like the line in Rocky Top: "Wild as a mink but sweet as soda pop." STUDENT SECTION: 8. Cargo-pocket roulette is a common method for sneaking Tennessee Mash into Orange Nation. GOD, COUNTRY, FOOTBALL: 10. Vols fans are notoriously loyal and will pay any price for a ticket. Good thing cops look the other way when it comes to scalping. GIPPER FACTOR: 8. Tennessee leads the nation in wins since 1926, when General Neyland took over. Phillip Fulmer has the highest winning percentage among active I-A coaches. IN-GAME TRADITIONS: 8. Pregame, the Pride of the Southland Band forms the T through which Smokey and the players run. After big wins the quarterback often will conduct the band. EXTRACURRICULARS: 10. "Lookin' for a moonshine still?" as Rocky Top asks. Then you must have a pregame Volguarita at Calhoun's while overlooking the Volunteer Navy on the banks of the Tennessee. But don't miss out on Vol Walk, when players strut down Peyton Manning Pass to the stadium.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 17, 2005, 08:15:01 AM
UT is nice.   :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 17, 2005, 03:29:20 PM
just for the record.... from SIOC last year...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/sioncampus/09/15/best_weekends0916/ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/sioncampus/09/15/best_weekends0916/)

Best College Football Weekends
Maybe there's a better all-around college sports town -- we said as much last year -- but on any given Saturday in the fall, we know where we want to be: Knoxville

Think your school's game-day experience is all that and a bag of chips? Universities like to carry the one definitive aspect of their programs around like a trump card. But Tennessee sees whatever your school is bringing to the table and bets the House That General Neyland Built that it's got you beat.

What's the competition holding? Washington shows its floating tailgate off Puget Sound only to have Tennessee match it with the Volunteer Navy. Next up is Georgia and its famous bulldog, Uga. Sorry. Compared with Smokey, Tennessee's unflappable bluetick coonhound, Uga looks as clichd as a poker-playing bulldog.

Michigan and Ohio State put up the Big House (2003 average attendance: 110,918) and the pregame dotting of the i, respectively. Tennessee, however, responds with its own six-digit crowds ('03 average: 105,038), which detonate as the Vols run through the fabled T before the game.

The challengers keep coming: Auburn's Tiger Walk, Nebraska's Sea of Red and West Virginia's Country Roads. Tennessee answers: Vol Walk, Orange Nation, Rocky Top. And don't forget the fabled checkerboard end zone. King the Vols.
1. TENNESSEE

Total Score: 54

ATMOSPHERE: 10. There's plenty of local color, with the Fanta-flavored scene much like the line in Rocky Top: "Wild as a mink but sweet as soda pop." STUDENT SECTION: 8. Cargo-pocket roulette is a common method for sneaking Tennessee Mash into Orange Nation. GOD, COUNTRY, FOOTBALL: 10. Vols fans are notoriously loyal and will pay any price for a ticket. Good thing cops look the other way when it comes to scalping. GIPPER FACTOR: 8. Tennessee leads the nation in wins since 1926, when General Neyland took over. Phillip Fulmer has the highest winning percentage among active I-A coaches. IN-GAME TRADITIONS: 8. Pregame, the Pride of the Southland Band forms the T through which Smokey and the players run. After big wins the quarterback often will conduct the band. EXTRACURRICULARS: 10. "Lookin' for a moonshine still?" as Rocky Top asks. Then you must have a pregame Volguarita at Calhoun's while overlooking the Volunteer Navy on the banks of the Tennessee. But don't miss out on Vol Walk, when players strut down Peyton Manning Pass to the stadium.

That's nice but it's no Happy Valley.
HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 17, 2005, 03:48:21 PM
so highly thought of it came in at #18...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 17, 2005, 04:07:25 PM
so highly thought of it came in at #18...

Yeah, I know... I read the article :)

I would like to get down to UT one day to see what the spectacle is all about.  I'd also like to check out LSU once.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 17, 2005, 05:38:10 PM
Texas Tech #6 in the BCS?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 17, 2005, 08:51:46 PM
Not this time next week.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 17, 2005, 09:07:16 PM
certainly not
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 17, 2005, 09:09:01 PM
And fine by me, too.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 18, 2005, 11:15:14 AM
Go Tech! ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 18, 2005, 11:17:28 AM
we're gonna whup some TU ass
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: PSUDSL08 on October 20, 2005, 07:32:44 PM
Haven't been on here in months...Anyway...I happen to remember a post where someone told me I was on crack to think Penn State would beat OSU this year...we'll in that case, I've definetly been hittin the pipe
As for last week's debaucle in Michigan...I watched the game with OSU fans who even said that the officiating was horrible. Not saying there's a conspiracy...but first 99, then Bryant Johnson's catch in 02 with both feet in bounds, now there's 05. A fumble's not a fumble if you're Mike Hart in the big house.
That being said, we're back!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 20, 2005, 07:51:31 PM
good job PSU

and, GO BRUINS! :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 20, 2005, 09:09:15 PM
Haven't been on here in months...Anyway...I happen to remember a post where someone told me I was on crack to think Penn State would beat OSU this year...we'll in that case, I've definetly been hittin the pipe
As for last week's debaucle in Michigan...I watched the game with OSU fans who even said that the officiating was horrible. Not saying there's a conspiracy...but first 99, then Bryant Johnson's catch in 02 with both feet in bounds, now there's 05. A fumble's not a fumble if you're Mike Hart in the big house.
That being said, we're back!

There are no rules for Michigan at home.  It is beyond fact, and it's a disgrace to the conference.  I think officials should be fired after that game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 21, 2005, 10:54:20 AM
how about this play guys?

(http://img450.imageshack.us/img450/9343/warevnd100x1003angles1pe.gif)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 21, 2005, 11:36:22 AM
how about this play guys?

(http://img450.imageshack.us/img450/9343/warevnd100x1003angles1pe.gif)

and he popped right up...that was a monster hit
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 21, 2005, 12:35:26 PM
Solid hit, but doesn't it get boring watching USC pretty much slaughter each opponent every week (no serious question -- I mean, a lot of the games are not competitive.  Is it still engaging?)

I'm used to needing all 4 quarters to win, as a PSU fan of late.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 21, 2005, 05:40:16 PM
Solid hit, but doesn't it get boring watching USC pretty much slaughter each opponent every week (no serious question -- I mean, a lot of the games are not competitive.  Is it still engaging?)

I'm used to needing all 4 quarters to win, as a PSU fan of late.

Actually my friend, it never, ever gets old ;D

And after last week's game which nearly gave me a heart attack, I would happily take blowouts the rest of the season.  However-although we had a fair share of non-competition games early on (Hawaii, Arkansas..) USC still must face three incredibly tough opponents:

UCLA-rivalry games are never a given, and UCLA has a damn good team this year!

Cal-they've done it to us once before

Fresno St- Sure, they are an unsung team, but they come out strong and hit hard all game long. 


USC fans respect our opponents.  We just hope we murder them anways.

(And may I also add, GO RED RAIDERS!!!! KILL TU!!!)

Yeah, I once recall an afternoon in State College watching PSU beat Akron 70-6 or something along those lines.  I was there until the last bell rang...that didn't get old.  Well, I have to say, I'm sure rooting for USC to lose, but don't take it personally; once your team leaves the undefeated club, you root for everyone else's to do the same.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 21, 2005, 10:27:35 PM
Solid hit, but doesn't it get boring watching USC pretty much slaughter each opponent every week (no serious question -- I mean, a lot of the games are not competitive.  Is it still engaging?)

I'm used to needing all 4 quarters to win, as a PSU fan of late.

Actually my friend, it never, ever gets old ;D

And after last week's game which nearly gave me a heart attack, I would happily take blowouts the rest of the season.  However-although we had a fair share of non-competition games early on (Hawaii, Arkansas..) USC still must face three incredibly tough opponents:

UCLA-rivalry games are never a given, and UCLA has a damn good team this year!

Cal-they've done it to us once before

Fresno St- Sure, they are an unsung team, but they come out strong and hit hard all game long. 


USC fans respect our opponents.  We just hope we murder them anways.

(And may I also add, GO RED RAIDERS!!!! KILL TU!!!)

Yeah, I once recall an afternoon in State College watching PSU beat Akron 70-6 or something along those lines.  I was there until the last bell rang...that didn't get old.  Well, I have to say, I'm sure rooting for USC to lose, but don't take it personally; once your team leaves the undefeated club, you root for everyone else's to do the same.
Yeah, I understand that because I want everyone else to lose too for a little insurance.

Here's a closeup ;D

(http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/2336/warevnd103x1353angles08bb.gif)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 22, 2005, 08:12:29 AM
Solid hit, but doesn't it get boring watching USC pretty much slaughter each opponent every week (no serious question -- I mean, a lot of the games are not competitive.  Is it still engaging?)

I'm used to needing all 4 quarters to win, as a PSU fan of late.

Actually my friend, it never, ever gets old ;D

And after last week's game which nearly gave me a heart attack, I would happily take blowouts the rest of the season.  However-although we had a fair share of non-competition games early on (Hawaii, Arkansas..) USC still must face three incredibly tough opponents:

UCLA-rivalry games are never a given, and UCLA has a damn good team this year!

Cal-they've done it to us once before

Fresno St- Sure, they are an unsung team, but they come out strong and hit hard all game long. 


USC fans respect our opponents.  We just hope we murder them anways.

(And may I also add, GO RED RAIDERS!!!! KILL TU!!!)

Yeah, I once recall an afternoon in State College watching PSU beat Akron 70-6 or something along those lines.  I was there until the last bell rang...that didn't get old.  Well, I have to say, I'm sure rooting for USC to lose, but don't take it personally; once your team leaves the undefeated club, you root for everyone else's to do the same.
Yeah, I understand that because I want everyone else to lose too for a little insurance.

Here's a closeup ;D

(http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/2336/warevnd103x1353angles08bb.gif)

Yup -- go Texas, go LSU, go Auburn.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 22, 2005, 11:53:24 AM
Is Reggie Bush a lock for the Heisman?  It seems after his awe inspiring play this season, and especially against ND, he is.  Is there another player that is nearly as exciting to watch?   Nope.  VY may be the MVP of his team, but if you could have any player on your team it would be Bush.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 22, 2005, 11:57:38 AM
No one is a lock for the Heisman in October. That said, Bush is the clear front-runner in my mind.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 22, 2005, 12:02:30 PM
I mean, assuming that he doesnt get  hurt and he continues to do what he has done his whole career, then I think he is a lock.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 22, 2005, 12:14:56 PM
It's tough to call any running back a 'must have' player without a good offensive line, and keep in mind USC has enough speed on the outside to make room for Bush in the middle.

I'd say he's going to win the Heisman.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 22, 2005, 06:22:18 PM
Did anyone see his punt return today?  dude is sick.  VY is legit, that's for sure, but he's not the President.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 23, 2005, 09:38:12 AM
Did anyone see his punt return today?  dude is sick.  VY is legit, that's for sure, but he's not the President.

How about PSU leading 56 to 3 AT THE HALF.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on October 23, 2005, 12:32:51 PM
Did anyone see his punt return today?  dude is sick.  VY is legit, that's for sure, but he's not the President.

How about PSU leading 56 to 3 AT THE HALF.

against Illinois, though.  No real large surprise.  63-10 is still an ass whoopin'.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on October 23, 2005, 12:34:15 PM
Did anyone see his punt return today?  dude is sick.  VY is legit, that's for sure, but he's not the President.

As much as I want to see Souther Cal go down, I have to say that that punt return and the one-handed catch by #8 were the best plays of this past saturday.  Both were pretty sweet.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 23, 2005, 03:54:58 PM
we're gonna whup some TU ass

Go Tech!

Oops!
Cpt. Obvious says:  Vince Young is legitimate.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 23, 2005, 10:30:26 PM
I have said it before.  He is great, there is no question about it.  Bush is just on another level.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 09:01:05 AM
It is hard to compare any two players, but is a necessity for the Heisman.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 24, 2005, 09:05:04 AM
we're gonna whup some TU ass

Go Tech!

Oops!

yeh, I dropped the ball on that one damn TU
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 24, 2005, 03:59:58 PM
U$C #2 in this week's B(C)S rankings. Discuss?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 24, 2005, 04:28:43 PM
U$C #2 in this week's B(C)S rankings. Discuss?

TU is the real deal unfortuately
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 07:32:59 PM
TU is the real deal because they beat an over-rated TTU.  USC has a much harder schedule and will be on top in a matter of weeks.

The kicker about this is that NO HUMAN POLL rates Texas over USC, but six computers think they are better.  They obviously dont watch the games.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 08:57:55 PM
*ahem*  Two time defending AP national champion
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 24, 2005, 09:00:20 PM
The main point is that UT and $C are the two best teams right now; as long as we don't see another monumental BCS fuckup on par with 2003, this will workout fine. If they win out, they will be in the rose bowl. Overall, I think UT has played better this season and deserves the #1 ranking, but as long as they make the rose bowl (if they win out), who really cares?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 09:24:27 PM
The main point is that UT and $C are the two best teams right now; as long as we don't see another monumental BCS fuckup on par with 2003, this will workout fine. If they win out, they will be in the rose bowl. Overall, I think UT has played better this season and deserves the #1 ranking, but as long as they make the rose bowl (if they win out), who really cares?

UT has played better football, but they have had a much easier schedule.  Their one tough road game was against OSU.  USC has to have the roughest nonconference schedule in the country.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 09:33:02 PM
Texas' next three opponents are oklahoma state, baylor, and kansas.  combine that with la-lafayyet and rice, and you are prolly going to be playing some good football. 

USC played/plays these road games Hawaii(not hard), Oregon(tough), Arizona state(tougher), ND(dam tough), Washington(easy peasy), and Cal(pretty tough). 

5 out of the last 7 games were away!!! and they still stayed undefeated
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 24, 2005, 09:34:08 PM
The main point is that UT and $C are the two best teams right now; as long as we don't see another monumental BCS fuckup on par with 2003, this will workout fine. If they win out, they will be in the rose bowl. Overall, I think UT has played better this season and deserves the #1 ranking, but as long as they make the rose bowl (if they win out), who really cares?

UT has played better football, but they have had a much easier schedule.  Their one tough road game was against OSU.  USC has to have the roughest nonconference schedule in the country.

you opened the season with HAWAII and ARKANSAS!!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on October 24, 2005, 10:01:59 PM
The main point is that UT and $C are the two best teams right now; as long as we don't see another monumental BCS fuckup on par with 2003, this will workout fine. If they win out, they will be in the rose bowl. Overall, I think UT has played better this season and deserves the #1 ranking, but as long as they make the rose bowl (if they win out), who really cares?

UT has played better football, but they have had a much easier schedule.  Their one tough road game was against OSU.  USC has to have the roughest nonconference schedule in the country.

you opened the season with HAWAII and ARKANSAS!!

...and should have lost to ND.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 24, 2005, 10:18:26 PM
The main point is that UT and $C are the two best teams right now; as long as we don't see another monumental BCS fuckup on par with 2003, this will workout fine. If they win out, they will be in the rose bowl. Overall, I think UT has played better this season and deserves the #1 ranking, but as long as they make the rose bowl (if they win out), who really cares?

UT has played better football, but they have had a much easier schedule.  Their one tough road game was against OSU.  USC has to have the roughest nonconference schedule in the country.

you opened the season with HAWAII and ARKANSAS!!

...and should have lost to ND.

agreed.  AND...Arkansas has a higher strength of schedule! 

AHAHAHA!
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt05.htm

http://www.warrennolan.com/football/2005/sos
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 24, 2005, 11:13:51 PM
Playing at ND is tough; the fans are on top of the field!  But being USC and playing at ND is much tougher given our long rivalry.

admittedly we opened with hawaii and arkansas, but they are much better than rice and la-lafayette. 

plus, going away for 5 of the last 7 games is incredibly tough.

and the Pac10 is no slouch this year, so get that part straight
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 27, 2005, 07:53:55 AM
TU is the real deal because they beat an over-rated TTU.  USC has a much harder schedule and will be on top in a matter of weeks.

The kicker about this is that NO HUMAN POLL rates Texas over USC, but six computers think they are better.  They obviously dont watch the games.

Right -- you get ranked based on how hyped your game is and then what you do or don't do in it.

PSU is like 7th in computer polls, but outside teh top 10 in some human polls.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on October 27, 2005, 03:00:57 PM


and the Pac10 is no slouch this year, so get that part straight

 ::)

how many times do we have to go through this
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 27, 2005, 03:04:26 PM


and the Pac10 is no slouch this year, so get that part straight

 ::)

how many times do we have to go through this

As opposed to the one-hit wonder that is. for instance, the Big XII this year
 ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 27, 2005, 03:54:17 PM


and the Pac10 is no slouch this year, so get that part straight

 ::)

how many times do we have to go through this
as many times as it takes to get it through your head  ;D

SEC is cool, dont get me wrong.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 27, 2005, 04:43:38 PM
Hey, give Arkansas 2 years and hopefully the firing of Houston Nutt and the bringing in of Butch Davis, along with Mitch Mustain and the talent at WR he will bring in to go along with a very talented backfield, we'll be back baby
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 29, 2005, 06:43:14 AM
Hey, give Arkansas 2 years and hopefully the firing of Houston Nutt and the bringing in of Butch Davis, along with Mitch Mustain and the talent at WR he will bring in to go along with a very talented backfield, we'll be back baby

I love this post -- that's a recipe for a whole new team!!!  But hey, when you're a fan, you gotta keep hope alive.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on October 29, 2005, 06:46:04 AM
Hey, give Arkansas 2 years and hopefully the firing of Houston Nutt and the bringing in of Butch Davis, along with Mitch Mustain and the talent at WR he will bring in to go along with a very talented backfield, we'll be back baby

I love this post -- that's a recipe for a whole new team!!!  But hey, when you're a fan, you gotta keep hope alive.

one must have hope my friend :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: 140am on October 29, 2005, 06:47:59 AM
Hey, give Arkansas 2 years and hopefully the firing of Houston Nutt and the bringing in of Butch Davis, along with Mitch Mustain and the talent at WR he will bring in to go along with a very talented backfield, we'll be back baby

I love this post -- that's a recipe for a whole new team!!!  But hey, when you're a fan, you gotta keep hope alive.

one must have hope my friend :)

You don't have to tell me -- PSU 3 wins and 4 wins the two years leading up to this one.  Now...sweet vindication for patience :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 29, 2005, 09:25:08 PM
How do you spell "disaster"?

T-E-N-N-E-S-S-E-E

They are going to get WRECKED against Notre Dame next week...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on October 29, 2005, 09:33:17 PM


you coming up for the UT game? i'd love to see the look on your face when you realize how much USC really sucks

*ahem*

South Carolina - 16
Tennessee - 15

Have a nice day, Rocky Top.


 :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 29, 2005, 10:16:47 PM
How do you spell "disaster"?

T-E-N-N-E-S-S-E-E

They are going to get WRECKED against Notre Dame next week...

boo hoo poor vols ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 29, 2005, 10:17:06 PM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 30, 2005, 01:55:19 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on October 30, 2005, 07:54:40 AM
It's funny, Tennessee retired Peyton Manning's number last night. I guess they figured they'd lose to Steve Spurrier once again in Manning's honor...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on October 30, 2005, 10:38:34 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*

A win is a win. nuff said.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 30, 2005, 01:28:41 PM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*

A win is a win. nuff said.
True.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 30, 2005, 02:53:36 PM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*

A win is a win. nuff said.

UCLA is the only team on USC's schedule that has what it takes to knock them off.  As a converted bruins fan, I think they will do it.

Sidenote, for all those smirking about Tennessee, I have some commentary:

I, as a die-hard Vols fan will be the first to admit that this season has been nothing short of embarassing this year.  However, knowing what I do about that program [having been an insider for 4 years], I cannot, in good conscience, blame the players.  We didn't get the top 5 pre-season rankings out of the blue.  This is a team that is stacked with talent (see: top ten recruiting classess over the course of the last 5 years) and a team loaded with returning seniors and 5th years who stuck around in lieu of going to the NFL.  Our defense remains true to the pre-season hype.  We consistently shut down top-notch SEC offenses, holding an undefeated team to a touchdown-less game.  What went wrong for Tennessee this year, and what has been getting progressively worse since 1998's departure of David Cutcliffe, is our offense.  I make no excuses for what happened there; they just suck!  But what I will say is that when you have the talent that they do in offensive positions and cannot win a game, that's a coaching problem.  That's why TN fans all over should be screaming for the offensive coordinator's head; it's at least 7 years overdue.

FYI: Randy Sanders is often mistakenly credited with the 1998 championship win.  David Cutcliffe's playbook was used the whole time, whith Cutcliffe on the phone calling the plays.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 30, 2005, 03:26:59 PM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*

A win is a win. nuff said.

UCLA is the only team on USC's schedule that has what it takes to knock them off.  As a converted bruins fan, I think they will do it.


This is a joke, right?

You are such a hater; since the begining of the season you were assuring everyone that USC would not go undefeated.

UCLA may, I repeat MAY, have what it takes to beat USC but it is highly unlikely.  Considering it took UCLA OT to win against STANFORD, what makes you think USC is going to lose at home against their rival?

USC is in midseason form right now and gets better as the season goes on.

BTW, the SEC doesnt play good defense, it just fails to play solid offense.

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 30, 2005, 04:01:29 PM
Oh yeah, by the way, UCLA 8-0!
Im glad for ya, but it was in overtime against Stanford (*lost to UC Davis).

 :-*

A win is a win. nuff said.

UCLA is the only team on USC's schedule that has what it takes to knock them off.  As a converted bruins fan, I think they will do it.


This is a joke, right?

You are such a hater; since the begining of the season you were assuring everyone that USC would not go undefeated.

UCLA may, I repeat MAY, have what it takes to beat USC but it is highly unlikely.  Considering it took UCLA OT to win against STANFORD, what makes you think USC is going to lose at home against their rival?

USC is in midseason form right now and gets better as the season goes on.

BTW, the SEC doesnt play good defense, it just fails to play solid offense.

HTH


USC's had a couple of close calls this season too, so there's not reason to bash UCLA for having one.  I am not ignoring the fact that UCLA was down to Stanford for quite some time, but I will also recognize that it takes a damn good football team to come back from such a huge deficit that late in the game and still pull out a win, overtime or not.

UCLA may not have talent comparable to some other unbeaten teams, but it has heart and it has something to prove.  And any football fan knows that those types of teams are the most dangerous.  UCLA knows that if it wasn't for that bull call last year, they would have won tht game, so they have everything to prove this year.  Also, they aren't playing the role of a spoiler as they were last year.  They have everything to gain from that win.

Yes, I said USC would not remain unbeaten and I still mainting that.  It's only mid season and there are still some games to play.  I think it's a bit early to be predicting a repeat, but that's just me.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 30, 2005, 04:19:04 PM
Oh, ruskie....you apparently have a lot to learn about both the bruins and the trojans.  Nice try though.
what exactly is there to learn?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on October 30, 2005, 04:25:24 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.

But, she makes a good point this time.  I don't think USC will finish undefeated, either.  I look for them to look ahead to UCLA, and get knocked off by either California or Fresno State.

Texas will win the title this year.  Anyone who can go into Ohio State and win has one helluva good team.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 30, 2005, 04:26:45 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.



with 4,000+ posts the truthfulness of that statement seems doubtful.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on October 30, 2005, 04:28:56 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.



with 4,000+ posts the truthfulness of that statement seems doubtful.

Maybe I'm thinking of other threads.  You provide so much opportunity...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Intuition on October 30, 2005, 08:23:50 PM
All I know is Florida once again ruined UGAly's season. That alone is enough to make my year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 30, 2005, 08:51:06 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.

But, she makes a good point this time.  I don't think USC will finish undefeated, either.  I look for them to look ahead to UCLA, and get knocked off by either California or Fresno State.

Texas will win the title this year.  Anyone who can go into Ohio State and win has one helluva good team.

You must not watch USC play if you think USC will lose to Cal or Fresno State.

They are in midseason form and as far as I can tell, if you dont beat USC early in the season, you aren't going to beat them at all.

We will see about Texas, but dont be one of those naysayers that gets run off the thread because you made a ridiculous prediction.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on October 30, 2005, 09:08:51 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.

But, she makes a good point this time.  I don't think USC will finish undefeated, either.  I look for them to look ahead to UCLA, and get knocked off by either California or Fresno State.

Texas will win the title this year.  Anyone who can go into Ohio State and win has one helluva good team.

You must not watch USC play if you think USC will lose to Cal or Fresno State.

They are in midseason form and as far as I can tell, if you dont beat USC early in the season, you aren't going to beat them at all.

We will see about Texas, but dont be one of those naysayers that gets run off the thread because you made a ridiculous prediction.

I admit that the odds are against it.  I'm not in the power curve, I'm sure.  But, I think there's a chance they'll look too far ahead to UCLA and get whacked.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 30, 2005, 09:16:56 PM
I don't normally step into this forum, except to call Ruskie out as a dumbass.

But, she makes a good point this time.  I don't think USC will finish undefeated, either.  I look for them to look ahead to UCLA, and get knocked off by either California or Fresno State.

Texas will win the title this year.  Anyone who can go into Ohio State and win has one helluva good team.

You must not watch USC play if you think USC will lose to Cal or Fresno State.

They are in midseason form and as far as I can tell, if you dont beat USC early in the season, you aren't going to beat them at all.

We will see about Texas, but dont be one of those naysayers that gets run off the thread because you made a ridiculous prediction.

I admit that the odds are against it.  I'm not in the power curve, I'm sure.  But, I think there's a chance they'll look too far ahead to UCLA and get whacked.

usually when you make a prediction, you want the odds to be at least 50/50
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on October 30, 2005, 09:32:42 PM
You are not a gambler, eh?

You'll never bang a woman more beautiful than you deserve with that attitude...  ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 31, 2005, 12:02:20 AM
You are not a gambler, eh?

You'll never bang a woman more beautiful than you deserve with that attitude...  ;)

lol  :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on October 31, 2005, 06:18:42 PM

Sidenote, for all those smirking about Tennessee, I have some commentary:

I, as a die-hard Vols fan will be the first to admit that this season has been nothing short of embarassing this year.  However, knowing what I do about that program [having been an insider for 4 years], I cannot, in good conscience, blame the players.  We didn't get the top 5 pre-season rankings out of the blue.  This is a team that is stacked with talent (see: top ten recruiting classess over the course of the last 5 years) and a team loaded with returning seniors and 5th years who stuck around in lieu of going to the NFL.  Our defense remains true to the pre-season hype.  We consistently shut down top-notch SEC offenses, holding an undefeated team to a touchdown-less game.  What went wrong for Tennessee this year, and what has been getting progressively worse since 1998's departure of David Cutcliffe, is our offense.  I make no excuses for what happened there; they just suck!  But what I will say is that when you have the talent that they do in offensive positions and cannot win a game, that's a coaching problem.  That's why TN fans all over should be screaming for the offensive coordinator's head; it's at least 7 years overdue.

FYI: Randy Sanders is often mistakenly credited with the 1998 championship win.  David Cutcliffe's playbook was used the whole time, whith Cutcliffe on the phone calling the plays.

Ok, whatever.

Be-all-end-all is that South Carolina isn't even playing that great this year and beat Tennessee at home (first time in thirteen years, I might add).  Tennessee sucks this year yet they were cocky enough to think that the Gamecocks would lay down and let them roll over them just because of their past record and less-than-promising record so far this year.  Tennessee has had this coming and I, for one, am proud as hell.

From ESPN.com:

"That is not what we expected," Fulmer said. "What you saw out there was unacceptable."

Tennessee has four regular-season losses for only the second time under Fulmer.

"In my 13 years, I've not had a season like this," Fulmer said. "I have never had anything that was easily handed to me and this (season) is not easy. We'll make whatever tough decisions need to be made ... personnel looks that need to be made. We're going to get this thing back on track."


Someone's trying to keep their job.   :D :D :D :D

Am I being unrealistic when I say that?

Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer had never lost to South Carolina. The last Tennessee coach who did, Johnny Majors, was forced out of his job six days later in 1992.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=253022633

Be all end all: Screw the Vols.  Their time is up.  They'll get stomped this week at Notre Dame, they will win against Memphis, Vandy will stomp them, and they will wrap up a dismal year with a close win at Kentucky.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 31, 2005, 10:47:59 PM

Sidenote, for all those smirking about Tennessee, I have some commentary:

I, as a die-hard Vols fan will be the first to admit that this season has been nothing short of embarassing this year.  However, knowing what I do about that program [having been an insider for 4 years], I cannot, in good conscience, blame the players.  We didn't get the top 5 pre-season rankings out of the blue.  This is a team that is stacked with talent (see: top ten recruiting classess over the course of the last 5 years) and a team loaded with returning seniors and 5th years who stuck around in lieu of going to the NFL.  Our defense remains true to the pre-season hype.  We consistently shut down top-notch SEC offenses, holding an undefeated team to a touchdown-less game.  What went wrong for Tennessee this year, and what has been getting progressively worse since 1998's departure of David Cutcliffe, is our offense.  I make no excuses for what happened there; they just suck!  But what I will say is that when you have the talent that they do in offensive positions and cannot win a game, that's a coaching problem.  That's why TN fans all over should be screaming for the offensive coordinator's head; it's at least 7 years overdue.

FYI: Randy Sanders is often mistakenly credited with the 1998 championship win.  David Cutcliffe's playbook was used the whole time, whith Cutcliffe on the phone calling the plays.

Ok, whatever.

Be-all-end-all is that South Carolina isn't even playing that great this year and beat Tennessee at home (first time in thirteen years, I might add).  Tennessee sucks this year yet they were cocky enough to think that the Gamecocks would lay down and let them roll over them just because of their past record and less-than-promising record so far this year.  Tennessee has had this coming and I, for one, am proud as hell.

From ESPN.com:

"That is not what we expected," Fulmer said. "What you saw out there was unacceptable."

Tennessee has four regular-season losses for only the second time under Fulmer.

"In my 13 years, I've not had a season like this," Fulmer said. "I have never had anything that was easily handed to me and this (season) is not easy. We'll make whatever tough decisions need to be made ... personnel looks that need to be made. We're going to get this thing back on track."


Someone's trying to keep their job.   :D :D :D :D

Am I being unrealistic when I say that?

Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer had never lost to South Carolina. The last Tennessee coach who did, Johnny Majors, was forced out of his job six days later in 1992.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=253022633

Be all end all: Screw the Vols.  Their time is up.  They'll get stomped this week at Notre Dame, they will win against Memphis, Vandy will stomp them, and they will wrap up a dismal year with a close win at Kentucky.



ouch.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on October 31, 2005, 11:12:29 PM
it's one bad season.  with the offensive coordinator officially fired, they'll recover next year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on October 31, 2005, 11:19:37 PM
I haven't been following this thread, and I'm not going to pretend I know a huge amount about college football, but I just want to say: "Woo hoo! The UA finally won a game!" It's probably the only time this year I'll be able to say it. Thanks for listening.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 01, 2005, 11:38:54 AM
lol :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on November 01, 2005, 12:14:49 PM
Uh huh. Tell that to Illinois.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Vannabunny on November 01, 2005, 12:18:47 PM
Poor IU sucks at football :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 01, 2005, 03:05:09 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 01, 2005, 03:17:57 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Wow thanks, but at least wait till the Rose Bowl to congratulate us ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 01, 2005, 05:14:44 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Wow thanks, but at least wait till the Rose Bowl to congratulate us ;D

The discussion above is referring to the University of Tennessee and the University of South Carolina.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 02, 2005, 08:49:01 AM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Wow thanks, but at least wait till the Rose Bowl to congratulate us ;D

The discussion above is referring to the University of Tennessee and the University of South Carolina.

Do you think?

 ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 02, 2005, 08:51:43 AM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Sum it up however you want to make you feel better.  The score says it all.  Tennessee sucks this year.

But don't let it get to you.  Every team has its ups and downs.  God knows, South Carolina has had their downs. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 02, 2005, 01:54:49 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Sum it up however you want to make you feel better.  The score says it all.  Tennessee sucks this year.

But don't let it get to you.  Every team has its ups and downs.  God knows, South Carolina has had their downs. 

I don't see anywhere in the post above where there is a disagreement about TN not performing well this year. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 02, 2005, 02:02:14 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Sum it up however you want to make you feel better.  The score says it all.  Tennessee sucks this year.

But don't let it get to you.  Every team has its ups and downs.  God knows, South Carolina has had their downs. 

I don't see anywhere in the post above where there is a disagreement about TN not performing well this year. 

Well, there's that ray of sunshine known as Ruskie.  Actually, I think it should get you down that Tennessee sucks this year.  In fact, I don't think the Tennessee football program is ever coming back.  They have fallen into the blackhole of suckiness, and will never escape its gravitational forces.

Sulk on that one, my dearest Ruskie.  :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 02, 2005, 02:27:50 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Sum it up however you want to make you feel better.  The score says it all.  Tennessee sucks this year.

But don't let it get to you.  Every team has its ups and downs.  God knows, South Carolina has had their downs. 

I don't see anywhere in the post above where there is a disagreement about TN not performing well this year. 

Well, there's that ray of sunshine known as Ruskie.  Actually, I think it should get you down that Tennessee sucks this year.  In fact, I don't think the Tennessee football program is ever coming back.  They have fallen into the blackhole of suckiness, and will never escape its gravitational forces.

Sulk on that one, my dearest Ruskie.  :)


yawn.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 02, 2005, 02:44:39 PM
for all the UT bashing going on, i'll sum it up for you...


USC squeeks by UT and heads roll on the UT coaching staff
If UT squeeks by USC, USC coaches get an extension


i'd like to thank USC for beating us because it forced the coaching staff to make changes.  Losing to USC is inexcusable.  If UT had gone on to end the season with another average finish, changes would not have been made.  But after that embarassment, things are better for the future.

really says alot about the USC program 



Sum it up however you want to make you feel better.  The score says it all.  Tennessee sucks this year.

But don't let it get to you.  Every team has its ups and downs.  God knows, South Carolina has had their downs. 

I don't see anywhere in the post above where there is a disagreement about TN not performing well this year. 

Well, there's that ray of sunshine known as Ruskie.  Actually, I think it should get you down that Tennessee sucks this year.  In fact, I don't think the Tennessee football program is ever coming back.  They have fallen into the blackhole of suckiness, and will never escape its gravitational forces.

Sulk on that one, my dearest Ruskie.  :)

wish I could agree with you, but they will be pretty powerful next year
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 02, 2005, 03:11:39 PM
too much tradition, pride, money, support, etc to be down for long...  Nobody will tolerate being down for very long, changes will be made until they get it right
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 02, 2005, 04:29:14 PM
not to pile on, but on Rome on monday:

"You can't spell, 'Fulmer cant hold Spurrier's jock without UT."

jsia
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 02, 2005, 04:43:38 PM
i'm about 95% sure Fulmer has the highest winning percentage of active coaches

UT is the winningest program since 1926 when Neyland took over the team

Won more SEC games over the last 10 and 20 years than any other team

Second all time in Bowl appearances

do i have to keep going....


UT sucks this year, we get the point, hell, we'll be the first to tell you..... but they will be back

just remember USC sucked balls not to long ago too
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 02, 2005, 05:24:53 PM
i'm about 95% sure Fulmer has the highest winning percentage of active coaches

UT is the winningest program since 1926 when Neyland took over the team

Won more SEC games over the last 10 and 20 years than any other team

Second all time in Bowl appearances

do i have to keep going....


UT sucks this year, we get the point, hell, we'll be the first to tell you..... but they will be back

just remember USC sucked balls not to long ago too

I think Fulmer may be down to #2 right now.  It's really close, so he shifts in and out of #1 on a weekly basis.  Either way, this is not a coach or a team that will be down for too long.  Too much of a winning history and too many top 10 recruiting classes. 

Hey tegra8, you think Fulmer will try Crompton next year?

The littlest Clausen is probably lost, but I have a feeling that is more of a Papa Clausen decision (God, don't remind me about Papa Leak) than his own.  We'll see.

I talked to a couple of the players this week and the ones who are staying for additional seasons are confident that they will recover from this.  A season like this will help; they play much better when they are the underdog.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 02, 2005, 05:32:59 PM
i'm about 95% sure Fulmer has the highest winning percentage of active coaches

UT is the winningest program since 1926 when Neyland took over the team

Won more SEC games over the last 10 and 20 years than any other team

Second all time in Bowl appearances

do i have to keep going....


UT sucks this year, we get the point, hell, we'll be the first to tell you..... but they will be back

just remember USC sucked balls not to long ago too

I think Fulmer may be down to #2 right now.  It's really close, so he shifts in and out of #1 on a weekly basis.  Either way, this is not a coach or a team that will be down for too long.  Too much of a winning history and too many top 10 recruiting classes. 

Hey tegra8, you think Fulmer will try Crompton next year?

The littlest Clausen is probably lost, but I have a feeling that is more of a Papa Clausen decision (God, don't remind me about Papa Leak) than his own.  We'll see.

I talked to a couple of the players this week and the ones who are staying for additional seasons are confident that they will recover from this.  A season like this will help; they play much better when they are the underdog.

i dont know anything about Crompton, other than he was pretty highly regarded coming out of high school.... but so was Ainge.  I don't have any faith in Ainge after the whole LSU endzone "toss the ball like a bouquet at a wedding" play, so I hope Crompton can do it. 

Little Clausen will not be at UT, there was an article that talked to the father and he just said with the stuff that happened with Rick, why would he think it would be any different with Jimmy.  I can't blame him.   

I really could see them shocking some people at ND this weekend, the team has not been playing good, but if they can put it together for one game they can play with anybody in the counrty outside of Texas, USC, VaTech.  The talent is there, but the execution has been horrible.       
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 02, 2005, 05:44:53 PM
i'm about 95% sure Fulmer has the highest winning percentage of active coaches

UT is the winningest program since 1926 when Neyland took over the team

Won more SEC games over the last 10 and 20 years than any other team

Second all time in Bowl appearances

do i have to keep going....


UT sucks this year, we get the point, hell, we'll be the first to tell you..... but they will be back

just remember USC sucked balls not to long ago too

I think Fulmer may be down to #2 right now.  It's really close, so he shifts in and out of #1 on a weekly basis.  Either way, this is not a coach or a team that will be down for too long.  Too much of a winning history and too many top 10 recruiting classes. 

Hey tegra8, you think Fulmer will try Crompton next year?

The littlest Clausen is probably lost, but I have a feeling that is more of a Papa Clausen decision (God, don't remind me about Papa Leak) than his own.  We'll see.

I talked to a couple of the players this week and the ones who are staying for additional seasons are confident that they will recover from this.  A season like this will help; they play much better when they are the underdog.

i dont know anything about Crompton, other than he was pretty highly regarded coming out of high school.... but so was Ainge.  I don't have any faith in Ainge after the whole LSU endzone "toss the ball like a bouquet at a wedding" play, so I hope Crompton can do it. 

Little Clausen will not be at UT, there was an article that talked to the father and he just said with the stuff that happened with Rick, why would he think it would be any different with Jimmy.  I can't blame him.   

I really could see them shocking some people at ND this weekend, the team has not been playing good, but if they can put it together for one game they can play with anybody in the counrty outside of Texas, USC, VaTech.  The talent is there, but the execution has been horrible.       

Crompton was the #1 QB recruit last year, so let's see if he can live up to the hype.  Yeah, I have my doubts about Ainge and really don't understand why Fulmer refuses to stick with Clausen.  I think that that factor alone might be contributing to the poor execution.  TN has never been a rotating QB team.  These boys need an ever-present leader and they see that leader in Rick, not in Erik.  I guess Papa Clausen would be more justified in putting the pressure for his son to go elsewhere than was Papa Leak.  CJ was an idiot, and couldn't play QB.  Nothing unfair about not playing him -- and this comes from a rabid Casey Clausen hater. 

Not sure about this weekend.  It may have been too much of a shakeup for them to have all this drama with coaching go down mid-season and be this far down in their record.  But, if anything, I think they are more likely to take out ND than someone like Kentucky, given their past.

You know it's wierd, I talked to a buddy of mine (defensive lineman) who was on the 98 Championship team and he was talking about how little respect Sanders got and about how they had Cutcliffe on the phone calling that entire title game, but when I talked to my friend who is a defensive lineman on the team now he said that he was sad to see Sanders go.  Granted, that is nothing I have heard from any of the guys I know who play offense, but still interesting.  If you're on Facebook.com, you should search for a group called something along the lines of "Fire Randy Sanders." There are like 20 football players who are members.  Hilarious!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 02, 2005, 05:50:13 PM
been a member for a couple weeks in fire randy sanders!

word around here is that Cutcliffe might be coming back so I guess thats good
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 02, 2005, 06:15:39 PM
been a member for a couple weeks in fire randy sanders!

word around here is that Cutcliffe might be coming back so I guess thats good
Yeah, that's what my sources say as well.  Although it seems he's not extatic about the opportunity and would still prefer a head coaching job.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 02, 2005, 10:45:57 PM
I have no doubt that UT will be back next year, none at all.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 03, 2005, 02:46:24 PM
I have no doubt that UT will be better than they are this year, but I also have no doubt that South Carolina will be also.

Yeah, SC has had a mediocre team for a while now.  That's no surprise.  The real exceptional quality of South Carolina is the fan base.  What other mediocre college football team would have so much support year in and year out, filling a 88,000+ stadium in 1-10 seasons?  Anyone can root for a team that's consistently on top, a real fan is one that consistently pulls for a team that has the ups and downs.

Yeah, Tennessee will be a force to be reckoned with again next year, but so will South Carolina.  Even with this transition season we scared the hell out of Ga, beat Tennessee, and have a very good shot at another bowl.

In fact, the only tough game we have left this year is Florida, unless Arkansas pulls some real magic.

I predict that USC and Tennessee will be pretty much neck-and-neck next year if Tennesee gets their act back together and USC keeps improving.



But Tegra, USF still doesnt have a fart's chance in a hurricane against USC.  ;D.

Oh, and Ruskie...when I say "USC" im stil talking about South Carolina, dim one.  Keep up.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 03, 2005, 02:47:55 PM
I have no doubt that UT will be better than they are this year, but I also have no doubt that South Carolina will be also.

Yeah, SC has had a mediocre team for a while now.  That's no surprise.  The real exceptional quality of South Carolina is the fan base.  What other mediocre college football team would have so much support year in and year out, filling a 88,000+ stadium in 1-10 seasons?  Anyone can root for a team that's consistently on top, a real fan is one that consistently pulls for a team that has the ups and downs.

Yeah, Tennessee will be a force to be reckoned with again next year, but so will South Carolina.  Even with this transition season we scared the hell out of Ga, beat Tennessee, and have a very good shot at another bowl.

In fact, the only tough game we have left this year is Florida, unless Arkansas pulls some real magic.

I predict that USC and Tennessee will be pretty much neck-and-neck next year if Tennesee gets their act back together and USC keeps improving.



But Tegra, USF still doesnt have a fart's chance in a hurricane against USC.  ;D.

Oh, and Ruskie...when I say "USC" im stil talking about South Carolina, dim one.  Keep up.

I'll be at the game on Saturday Social...only game I ahve gone to this season, and only because my friend is coming in twon
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 03, 2005, 02:50:25 PM
I'm afraid that USC is favored heavily, though if we win it will be the first win we have made against Arkansas in Arkansas.  Have fun, man.  I'm looking to get my hands on some bowl tickets if we go.   ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 03, 2005, 02:51:13 PM
I'm afraid that USC is favored heavily, though if we win it will be the first win we have made against Arkansas in Arkansas.  Have fun, man.  I'm looking to get my hands on some bowl tickets if we go.   ;D

yeh, we suck this year, but we got Mustain coming baby, he is our Messiah! ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 03, 2005, 03:21:01 PM
I have no doubt that UT will be better than they are this year, but I also have no doubt that South Carolina will be also.

Yeah, SC has had a mediocre team for a while now.  That's no surprise.  The real exceptional quality of South Carolina is the fan base.  What other mediocre college football team would have so much support year in and year out, filling a 88,000+ stadium in 1-10 seasons?  Anyone can root for a team that's consistently on top, a real fan is one that consistently pulls for a team that has the ups and downs.

Yeah, Tennessee will be a force to be reckoned with again next year, but so will South Carolina.  Even with this transition season we scared the hell out of Ga, beat Tennessee, and have a very good shot at another bowl.

In fact, the only tough game we have left this year is Florida, unless Arkansas pulls some real magic.

I predict that USC and Tennessee will be pretty much neck-and-neck next year if Tennesee gets their act back together and USC keeps improving.



But Tegra, USF still doesnt have a fart's chance in a hurricane against USC.  ;D.

Oh, and Ruskie...when I say "USC" im stil talking about South Carolina, dim one.  Keep up.

1) If UT gets their act together... USC will not be neck and neck next year, UT will be top 10-15 team and USC MIGHT be top 25, MAYBE

2) USF would smoke USC if it was at USF, USF could beat a lot of top 25 teams if it is at USF.... on the road, they are lucky to stay within 2 TD's of average teams
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 03, 2005, 03:45:03 PM
The "real UT?"  You attend the University of Toledo?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 03, 2005, 03:55:56 PM
I have no doubt that UT will be better than they are this year, but I also have no doubt that South Carolina will be also.

Yeah, SC has had a mediocre team for a while now.  That's no surprise.  The real exceptional quality of South Carolina is the fan base.  What other mediocre college football team would have so much support year in and year out, filling a 88,000+ stadium in 1-10 seasons?  Anyone can root for a team that's consistently on top, a real fan is one that consistently pulls for a team that has the ups and downs.

Yeah, Tennessee will be a force to be reckoned with again next year, but so will South Carolina.  Even with this transition season we scared the hell out of Ga, beat Tennessee, and have a very good shot at another bowl.

In fact, the only tough game we have left this year is Florida, unless Arkansas pulls some real magic.

I predict that USC and Tennessee will be pretty much neck-and-neck next year if Tennesee gets their act back together and USC keeps improving.



But Tegra, USF still doesnt have a fart's chance in a hurricane against USC.  ;D.

Oh, and Ruskie...when I say "USC" im stil talking about South Carolina, dim one.  Keep up.

1) If UT gets their act together... USC will not be neck and neck next year, UT will be top 10-15 team and USC MIGHT be top 25, MAYBE

2) USF would smoke USC if it was at USF, USF could beat a lot of top 25 teams if it is at USF.... on the road, they are lucky to stay within 2 TD's of average teams

I wouldn't underestimate Spurrier's recruiting talents.  SC will be good next year, no doubt about that.  If Spurrier was able to do this much with the leftovers he got from Holtz, I would be scared about next year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 03, 2005, 05:36:30 PM

I wouldn't underestimate Spurrier's recruiting talents.  SC will be good next year, no doubt about that.  If Spurrier was able to do this much with the leftovers he got from Holtz, I would be scared about next year.

Precisely. 



1) If UT gets their act together... USC will not be neck and neck next year, UT will be top 10-15 team and USC MIGHT be top 25, MAYBE

2) USF would smoke USC if it was at USF, USF could beat a lot of top 25 teams if it is at USF.... on the road, they are lucky to stay within 2 TD's of average teams

If, if, if...

Face it Tegra, Tennessee lost.  You can speculate all you want, but you're eating crow after this statement:




you coming up for the UT game? i'd love to see the look on your face when you realize how much USC really sucks


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Winding you up is more fun than it should be, sport.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 03, 2005, 05:44:29 PM
who's getting wound up? I used your exact language about UT getting their act back together

go back read my posts, i acknowledged UT lost and said they suck and even thanked USC for beating us so the coaching changes happened

i still stand by my statement that USC sucks... beating UT this year means nothing

hell i wouldnt be surprised if we lost to Vandy or UK this season
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 03, 2005, 05:49:30 PM
who's getting wound up? I used your exact language about UT getting their act back together

go back read my posts, i acknowledged UT lost and said they suck and even thanked USC for beating us so the coaching changes happened

i still stand by my statement that USC sucks... beating UT this year means nothing

hell i wouldnt be surprised if we lost to Vandy or UK this season

I already spelled out the rest of your season.  UT will lose badly to ND, beat UK, and lose to Vandy.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 03, 2005, 05:51:51 PM
anybody watching Pitt-UL?

Pitt 7
UL 7
14:35 remaining in the FIRST quarter

UL scored on opening kickoff on muff by Pitt
Pitt returned next kickoff for TD
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 03, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
who's getting wound up? I used your exact language about UT getting their act back together

go back read my posts, i acknowledged UT lost and said they suck and even thanked USC for beating us so the coaching changes happened

i still stand by my statement that USC sucks... beating UT this year means nothing

hell i wouldnt be surprised if we lost to Vandy or UK this season

(http://www.macreportonline.com/maclogos/ToledoRockets_Color.jpg)

UT's loss to the Chippewas was tough.
http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/102905aad.html (http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/102905aad.html)

But, I don't see Vandy or UK on the schedule.  ???
http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/sched/tol-m-footbl-sched.html (http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/sched/tol-m-footbl-sched.html)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 03, 2005, 05:59:24 PM
who's getting wound up? I used your exact language about UT getting their act back together

go back read my posts, i acknowledged UT lost and said they suck and even thanked USC for beating us so the coaching changes happened

i still stand by my statement that USC sucks... beating UT this year means nothing

hell i wouldnt be surprised if we lost to Vandy or UK this season

(http://www.macreportonline.com/maclogos/ToledoRockets_Color.jpg)

UT's loss to the Chippewas was tough.
http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/102905aad.html (http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/102905aad.html)

But, I don't see Vandy or UK on the schedule.  ???
http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/sched/tol-m-footbl-sched.html (http://utrockets.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/sched/tol-m-footbl-sched.html)

 :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 12:01:20 AM
For the record:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9913303/
USC's a dynasty get over it
Deep South fans ridiculous to think their teams could challenge Trojans
Bush   
By JT the Brick
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 10:00 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005

John Wooden is commonly referred to as the "Wizard of Westwood," so USC coach Pete Carroll should now be called the "Wizard of Watts."

Most fans that call my radio show from the Deep South have no respect for the Pac-10 Conference and believe Southern California would lose several games if they played in the SEC.

Let me remind every fan that doesn't stay up past 10 p.m. on the East coast that if USC had a chance to play Florida this season they would win by 40 points. If they had to go to Alabama and play the Crimson Tide, they would be up by 30 at the half. Imagine the beating that Tennessee would take if the Trojans hosted the Volunteers at the Coliseum.

You get my point. We are witnessing a college dynasty and should applaud Carroll and his staff for looking more like an NFL team than a squad that practices on campus. Reggie Bush is the best college running back since Marshall Faulk, and LenDale White looks like he can run with as much power as Jerome Bettis did at Notre Dame.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 12:03:36 AM
They have beaten Virginia Tech and Auburn recently, and killed OU last year.

As much as I hat eto say anything good about the situation :-\
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 12:05:32 AM
They have beaten Virginia Tech and Auburn recently, and killed OU last year.

As much as I hat eto say anything good about the situation :-\

Thanks Bru  ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 12:06:26 AM
We're a basketball school anyway (forgeting the Steve Lavin era) ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 12:06:58 AM
They have beaten Virginia Tech and Auburn recently, and killed OU last year.

As much as I hat eto say anything good about the situation :-\

Thanks Bru  ;D

70 points on Arkansas.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 04, 2005, 12:19:29 AM
For the record:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9913303/
USC's a dynasty get over it
Deep South fans ridiculous to think their teams could challenge Trojans
Bush   
By JT the Brick
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 10:00 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005

John Wooden is commonly referred to as the "Wizard of Westwood," so USC coach Pete Carroll should now be called the "Wizard of Watts."

Most fans that call my radio show from the Deep South have no respect for the Pac-10 Conference and believe Southern California would lose several games if they played in the SEC.

Let me remind every fan that doesn't stay up past 10 p.m. on the East coast that if USC had a chance to play Florida this season they would win by 40 points. If they had to go to Alabama and play the Crimson Tide, they would be up by 30 at the half. Imagine the beating that Tennessee would take if the Trojans hosted the Volunteers at the Coliseum.

You get my point. We are witnessing a college dynasty and should applaud Carroll and his staff for looking more like an NFL team than a squad that practices on campus. Reggie Bush is the best college running back since Marshall Faulk, and LenDale White looks like he can run with as much power as Jerome Bettis did at Notre Dame.

This guy is picking on the mediocre teams of the SEC.   But, even that said, to think that USC would take Florida by 40 is ludicrous.  Florida is not top 5 material, doubtful they are even top 10, but there is no team in existence [in college football] that would hand them a 40 point loss, plain and simple.

3peat, I love you to death, but to state this lunatic's opinions as fact is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 12:30:36 AM
For the record:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9913303/
USC's a dynasty get over it
Deep South fans ridiculous to think their teams could challenge Trojans
Bush   
By JT the Brick
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 10:00 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005

John Wooden is commonly referred to as the "Wizard of Westwood," so USC coach Pete Carroll should now be called the "Wizard of Watts."

Most fans that call my radio show from the Deep South have no respect for the Pac-10 Conference and believe Southern California would lose several games if they played in the SEC.

Let me remind every fan that doesn't stay up past 10 p.m. on the East coast that if USC had a chance to play Florida this season they would win by 40 points. If they had to go to Alabama and play the Crimson Tide, they would be up by 30 at the half. Imagine the beating that Tennessee would take if the Trojans hosted the Volunteers at the Coliseum.

You get my point. We are witnessing a college dynasty and should applaud Carroll and his staff for looking more like an NFL team than a squad that practices on campus. Reggie Bush is the best college running back since Marshall Faulk, and LenDale White looks like he can run with as much power as Jerome Bettis did at Notre Dame.

This guy is picking on the mediocre teams of the SEC.   But, even that said, to think that USC would take Florida by 40 is ludicrous.  Florida is not top 5 material, doubtful they are even top 10, but there is no team in existence [in college football] that would hand them a 40 point loss, plain and simple.

3peat, I love you to death, but to state this lunatic's opinions as fact is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?

He may be exagerating, I really dont know because I havent watched enough of Florida, but I am pretty sure USC is capable dropping 40 on UF.  It doesnt seem likely but considering how we touched up OU last year and how this year everyone is older and wiser, it isnt impossible.

PS   This is the only thread that Ruskie and I have ever disagreed and she is the bomb dot com.  :-*, Ruskie
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 04, 2005, 12:38:01 AM
For the record:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9913303/
USC's a dynasty get over it
Deep South fans ridiculous to think their teams could challenge Trojans
Bush   
By JT the Brick
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 10:00 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005

John Wooden is commonly referred to as the "Wizard of Westwood," so USC coach Pete Carroll should now be called the "Wizard of Watts."

Most fans that call my radio show from the Deep South have no respect for the Pac-10 Conference and believe Southern California would lose several games if they played in the SEC.

Let me remind every fan that doesn't stay up past 10 p.m. on the East coast that if USC had a chance to play Florida this season they would win by 40 points. If they had to go to Alabama and play the Crimson Tide, they would be up by 30 at the half. Imagine the beating that Tennessee would take if the Trojans hosted the Volunteers at the Coliseum.

You get my point. We are witnessing a college dynasty and should applaud Carroll and his staff for looking more like an NFL team than a squad that practices on campus. Reggie Bush is the best college running back since Marshall Faulk, and LenDale White looks like he can run with as much power as Jerome Bettis did at Notre Dame.

This guy is picking on the mediocre teams of the SEC.   But, even that said, to think that USC would take Florida by 40 is ludicrous.  Florida is not top 5 material, doubtful they are even top 10, but there is no team in existence [in college football] that would hand them a 40 point loss, plain and simple.

3peat, I love you to death, but to state this lunatic's opinions as fact is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?

He may be exagerating, I really dont know because I havent watched enough of Florida, but I am pretty sure USC is capable dropping 40 on UF.  It doesnt seem likely but considering how we touched up OU last year and how this year everyone is older and wiser, it isnt impossible.

PS   This is the only thread that Ruskie and I have ever disagreed and she is the bomb dot com.  :-*, Ruskie
 

the swamp is not joke though. it's the only venue where the nation's winningest active D-I coach consistently tripped up.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 04, 2005, 07:02:52 AM
I'm sorry I couldnt read past By: JT the Brick

No team would beat UF by 40, and would be hard pressed to even put up 40 in the swamp
No team would put 30 on Bama by half, the have one of the better D's in the country
And as bad as UT is this year, they still have a good D so the game would be closer than you think

Funny he doesnt mention other "southern" teams that would be much more interesting games: LSU, UGA, hell even Miami
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 04, 2005, 07:07:48 AM
"God is smiling on the Gamecocks." -Steve Spurrier
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 04, 2005, 07:13:03 AM
sorry 3, but the REAL UT is gonna whup up on you guys in the championship game.  They have the D to throttle USC ENOUGH, and USC's D is VERY average, they wont be able to stop Vince Young and the UT offense
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 07:56:50 AM
I'm sorry I couldnt read past By: JT the Brick

No team would beat UF by 40, and would be hard pressed to even put up 40 in the swamp
No team would put 30 on Bama by half, the have one of the better D's in the country
And as bad as UT is this year, they still have a good D so the game would be closer than you think

Funny he doesnt mention other "southern" teams that would be much more interesting games: LSU, UGA, hell even Miami

No offense, UT would be playing our scrubs by the early part of the third quarter
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 07:59:04 AM
sorry 3, but the REAL UT is gonna whup up on you guys in the championship game.  They have the D to throttle USC ENOUGH, and USC's D is VERY average, they wont be able to stop Vince Young and the UT offense

BAFF this quote for January 5th 2006.  USC is not going to get whooped by ANYONE and no one is going to stop their offense this late in the season.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 04, 2005, 08:50:27 AM
I'm sorry I couldnt read past By: JT the Brick

No team would beat UF by 40, and would be hard pressed to even put up 40 in the swamp
No team would put 30 on Bama by half, the have one of the better D's in the country
And as bad as UT is this year, they still have a good D so the game would be closer than you think

Funny he doesnt mention other "southern" teams that would be much more interesting games: LSU, UGA, hell even Miami

No offense, UT would be playing our scrubs by the early part of the third quarter

we shall see my friend, I think you are BLINDED by your fanhood
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 08:59:34 AM
Its possible, but taken individually every player on our offense is going to play on Sundays and at least 4 are top 10 picks.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 04, 2005, 09:04:18 AM
How 'bout them Bulldogs!

(http://www.drake.edu/events/relays/2001/images/jerseydog.jpg)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 09:30:46 AM
How 'bout them Bulldogs!

(http://www.drake.edu/events/relays/2001/images/jerseydog.jpg)
Georgetown?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 04, 2005, 09:33:45 AM
How 'bout them Bulldogs!

(http://www.drake.edu/events/relays/2001/images/jerseydog.jpg)
Georgetown?

Georgetown?  Who are they?

I'm talking about the mighty men of Drake!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 04, 2005, 11:20:34 AM
How 'bout them Bulldogs!

(http://www.drake.edu/events/relays/2001/images/jerseydog.jpg)
Georgetown?

Georgetown?  Who are they?

I'm talking about the mighty men of Drake!

Damn, looks like Ugga fell in a can of blue paint.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 04, 2005, 07:48:17 PM
Drake of Des Moines Iowa?  My best friend goes there. I love Iowa... that is all :)

What did you like about Iowa?  I've always thought I'd like Iowa.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 10:14:50 PM
You are so hot britt!


Says the hottest one here! ;D :-*

don't sell yourself too short britt. You are a Bruin, remember :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 04, 2005, 10:15:41 PM
You are so hot britt!


Says the hottest one here! ;D :-*

I don't think there's an ugly girl on LSD (or so it seems).
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 11:17:43 PM
Drake of Des Moines Iowa?  My best friend goes there. I love Iowa... that is all :)

Welcome to the thread, bruin ::)  If you feel moved by the spirit of philanthropy, there are people in desparate need of an education that could use your donations.  Check out their website http://www.U.Cant.Learn.Anything.fUCLA.org
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 11:43:25 PM
Oh if that link only worked.  You guys can't even keep a website going.  geez.  Two more games until we are undefeated going in to the big game.  I'm going to the AZ state game.  Have fun with Stanford tomorrow!
All in good fun ;D
But in all seriousness, I hope we are both undefeated for The Game.  LA is going to go bananas.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 11:54:24 PM
Good luck with VaTech.   ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 11:55:10 PM
I checked e-bay the other day (because I decided that my 'after the LSAT' gift to myself was a trip to the game).  Holy *&^%, 1,200 bucks for a pair of tickets.  I'm not MADE of money!  I guess a tv at a bar will have to do.

I saw tickets going for $1500/each a couple of weeks ago. Saw tickets for the visiting (UCLA) section going for ~ $250/each at the same time :(

Bar isn't such a bad idea
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 11:56:42 PM
Tickets to individual games are cheap for students (like 10 bucks vs 50) but the ONLY way (as far as I know) to get a ticket to the BIG game (ucla/usc) is to be a season ticket holder.  Or you can pay 1,200 bucks on e-bay.

You can buy them if you are a student ($30 fot the $C game) even if you don't have the student season ticket package. But if you are an alumni/a, you're screwed.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 04, 2005, 11:57:37 PM
Seriously though, what can I cay about UCLA that hasnt been said about a snowball's chance in hell?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 04, 2005, 11:58:48 PM
Tickets to individual games are cheap for students (like 10 bucks vs 50) but the ONLY way (as far as I know) to get a ticket to the BIG game (ucla/usc) you have to be a season ticket holder.  Or you can pay 1,200 bucks on e-bay.

Wow.  We get in free for everything.


That's one nice thing about UVa; free student tickets.
UCLA is $59 for football tickets; or $129 for Football + Basketball (as of 2003-04). :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 12:01:19 AM
Hmmm, do you remember last year?  DO YOU?  We were so close... so close (considering it was 'sc and all)

we are significantly better than we were last year, and overall, U$C is not as good...

jsia
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:02:07 AM
Hmmm, do you remember last year?  DO YOU?  We were so close... so close (considering it was 'sc and all)[

Seriously though, what can I cay about UCLA that hasnt been said about a snowball's chance in hell?

Good thing close only counts in horeshoes and handgrenades or we might have lost an appendage.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:03:45 AM
There is no WAY UCLA ends USC's plethora of streaks at home, no way, not this year.  SOmeday for sure, but these guys are not going to lose.  Matt Leinart did not stay for his last year to lose to UCLA on the final game of the regular season.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:06:40 AM
You do have a point, and if there is a major injury to Leinart or Bush or Lendale or Jarret or Smith ALL BETS ARE OFF.  Baring that, USC wins handedly.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 12:07:26 AM
There is no WAY UCLA ends USC's plethora of streaks at home, no way, not this year.  SOmeday for sure, but these guys are not going to lose.  Matt Leinart did not stay for his last year to lose to UCLA on the final game of the regular season.

I don't know. I mean, if this were any other UCLA season, we would have lost at least 3 of these comeback games. Unlike typical UCLA teams, they are playing with heart, like they actually believe...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:09:45 AM
Read closely, I said "or"

But ND almost beat us in South Bend and ND is so much better than UCLA.  Come the @#!* on.  UCLA was trailing against STANFORD WHO LOST TO UC DAVIS.

How much do you want to bet that USC spanks Stanford by 3 touchdowns minimm?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 12:14:19 AM
I bet nothing.

I'm happy chica is on our side (the jedi side, if you will).  How sad will it be when you guys finially graduate Leinart and then you go 1-9 next year.  jsia

I hear UCLA is playing ND next year, I don't remember that being a team we played in the past.

We are playing them the next 2 seasons. I;m guessing home-and-home.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:15:07 AM
If UCLA was a better team than USC and had a chance at beating them, i would be the forst to acknowledge that.  Hell, the last thing I want is UCLA fans rubbing my nose in a false prediction.  And everyone knows that I have people just DYING for USC to lose so they can come one here and say See I told you so, USC sucks.  But this year is different and this team is something special.  USC will win that game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:21:32 AM
In a universe with a playoff because ND would beat UCLA if the game were played tommorrow.  In our sick and twisted BCS universe, UCLA is better than every other team with a loss... We all agree that isnt true, right?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 12:27:09 AM
In a universe with a playoff because ND would beat UCLA if the game were played tommorrow.  In our sick and twisted BCS universe, UCLA is better than every other team with a loss... We all agree that isnt true, right?

Sure. Because actually WINNING games doesn't matter
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:29:22 AM
You mean the system that ranked SC #2 for a week?  I like that system.

You liked it for one week then because it had USC #1 for many weeks before that

In a universe with a playoff because ND would beat UCLA if the game were played tommorrow.  In our sick and twisted BCS universe, UCLA is better than every other team with a loss... We all agree that isnt true, right?

Sure. Because actually WINNING games doesn't matter

No, winning does matter. Just a lot less if your close calls are against stanford, washington and washington state.  What would ND do to those teams?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:32:31 AM
You mean the system that ranked SC #2 for a week?  I like that system.

You liked it for one week then because it had USC #1 for many weeks before that

In a universe with a playoff because ND would beat UCLA if the game were played tommorrow.  In our sick and twisted BCS universe, UCLA is better than every other team with a loss... We all agree that isnt true, right?

Sure. Because actually WINNING games doesn't matter

No, winning does matter. Just a lot less if your close calls are against stanford, washington and washington state.  What would ND do to those teams?

Miami's 2001 championship year saw several close calls, one in particular against BC.  And I think WVa as well.  I don't remember.

But no one disputed that Miami was the best team that year.

That is not analogous and you know it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 12:37:39 AM
we are talking about who is a better team UCLA or ND and who would win.

we are not talking about what rank UCLA would be if it finished undefeated and no one else did.

while it is generally true that on any given saturday any team can win, sometimes teams are not as good as their record appears.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 12:38:04 AM
The best team is not always the team that wins on Saturday afternoon.

however, put enough of those wins together, and...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 05, 2005, 12:44:55 AM
You mean the system that ranked SC #2 for a week?  I like that system.

You liked it for one week then because it had USC #1 for many weeks before that

In a universe with a playoff because ND would beat UCLA if the game were played tommorrow.  In our sick and twisted BCS universe, UCLA is better than every other team with a loss... We all agree that isnt true, right?

Sure. Because actually WINNING games doesn't matter

No, winning does matter. Just a lot less if your close calls are against stanford, washington and washington state.  What would ND do to those teams?

Miami's 2001 championship year saw several close calls, one in particular against BC.  And I think WVa as well.  I don't remember.

But no one disputed that Miami was the best team that year.

That is not analogous and you know it.

I think they call it "The Chain of Fools"  You could use point dif. to make any team better than any other team.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 05, 2005, 11:28:35 AM
My picks for the big games of the day:

Notre Dame 37, Tennessee 19
Penn State 33, Wisconsin 17
Oregon 41, Cal 34
Va Tech 31, Miami 13



no way TN will score that many points, but that game should be closer than you think.
 
add a few points for V-Tech.

God, I hope you are right about the Cal-Oregon game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 11:30:18 AM
My picks for the big games of the day:

Notre Dame 37, Tennessee 19
Penn State 33, Wisconsin 17
Oregon 41, Cal 34
Va Tech 31, Miami 13



no way TN will score that many points, but that game should be closer than you think.
 
add a few points for V-Tech.

God, I hope you are right about the Cal-Oregon game.

Why do you want Cal to lose?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 05, 2005, 12:16:57 PM
My picks for the big games of the day:

Notre Dame 37, Tennessee 19
Penn State 33, Wisconsin 17
Oregon 41, Cal 34
Va Tech 31, Miami 13



no way TN will score that many points, but that game should be closer than you think.
 
add a few points for V-Tech.

God, I hope you are right about the Cal-Oregon game.

Why do you want Cal to lose?

because they're bad.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 05, 2005, 03:31:09 PM
I'm lovin this ND game right now...

The SEC is sooooo overrated.

I'm also really hoping for the Canes to pull it out against VT.  Other than just not wanting BCS controversy at the end of the year, Miami is just way more fun to root for.

Now...if we could just do something about Bama...

sooo overrated ???

one of the bottom teams of the SEC is tied with ND in the third quarter... after the USC game everyone tried to tell us how great ND was


and USF 45- Rutgers 31
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 05, 2005, 04:04:07 PM
I'm lovin this ND game right now...

The SEC is sooooo overrated.

I'm also really hoping for the Canes to pull it out against VT.  Other than just not wanting BCS controversy at the end of the year, Miami is just way more fun to root for.

Now...if we could just do something about Bama...

Are you retarded or do you only seem that way?  A #8 team struggles for 3.75 wuarters with an unranked team that is second from the bottom in SEC east.


If they had beaten the *&^% out of LSU, Alabama or Georgia, MAYBE I would see your point.

Canes will lose.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 05, 2005, 04:16:35 PM
other games arent looking too good for you though
what the hell do i know....


I've come to the conclusion that Erik Ainge has the IQ of a 6yr old with down's syndrome
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on November 05, 2005, 05:13:32 PM
Omigod, the UA is beating UCLA 21-0 right now. I heart Tuitama.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on November 05, 2005, 05:26:38 PM
28-0. Is anyone else watching this?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on November 05, 2005, 06:44:16 PM
45-7.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jg983 on November 05, 2005, 06:50:49 PM
52-7. This is insane.

Does anyone know what's going on in the Ohio State game?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 05, 2005, 07:45:40 PM
Hmmm, do you remember last year?  DO YOU?  We were so close... so close (considering it was 'sc and all)

we are significantly better than we were last year, and overall, U$C is not as good...

jsia

Does anyone still think that ND would lose to UCLA?

Does anyone think that UCLA has a chance against USC?

Check yourself... cuz getting blowin out by AZ is bad for your health
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 05, 2005, 07:51:11 PM
i can't believe Az put such a hurtin' on UCLA
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bruin on November 05, 2005, 08:18:08 PM
wow.   Where is Bruin? 

Dammit.  I wanted them to be undefeated when we beat them!


never before have I been so glad to live in a city with crappy cable service...

My ass hurts just seeing that score.

back to the memo :(
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 05, 2005, 08:46:29 PM
wow. caneschica must be happy.

27-0 miami in the 4th.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:47:42 AM
Oh really?  Thanks, I was thinking of you watching the VT / Miami game.  I even told the couple I was having dinner with "I have a friend who will be very happy about this".  An e-friend anyway.   ;D

hUH?  Did you say my name?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:49:22 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 06, 2005, 02:08:30 PM
hey troj (I now refuse that 3peat name madness), you may be a football cocky ass sometimes, but all in all, I like ya.

In other news: I'm going in to enemy territory on Tuesday for the USC LS open house.  I'll be the one wearing blue.



GO BRUINS!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 06, 2005, 02:11:09 PM
Thanks!

I admire your dedication.  On a similar note, I BLAST Rocky Top every time I drive through gator country in Gainesville!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 03:17:03 PM
hey troj (I now refuse that 3peat name madness), you may be a football cocky ass sometimes, but all in all, I like ya.

In other news: I'm going in to enemy territory on Tuesday for the USC LS open house.  I'll be the one wearing blue.



 ;D I like you too
Title: !
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 03:39:34 PM
hey troj (I now refuse that 3peat name madness), you may be a football cocky ass sometimes, but all in all, I like ya.

In other news: I'm going in to enemy territory on Tuesday for the USC LS open house.  I'll be the one wearing blue.



 ;D I like you too

Congrats on the win 3peat! 

I laughed the other day when I read that some ridiculous sports writer (I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it) actually gave Stanford the advantage in that game.  He should be fired.   :D

Thanks, Congrats to you too!  Good luck with the rest of the season.

This offense is scary good.  They scored on thier first 7 possessions.  People cannot honestly believe that anyone is going to beat us this year.  Look at these stats!

Matt Leinart 2771 yds 26 TDs and 116 rating
Reggie Bush 1022 yds 11 TDs and 8.3 yds per carry
Lendal White 913 yds 14 TDs
Dwayne Jarret 964 yds 14 TDs
Steve Smith 822 yds and 4 TDs

Has a team ever had a 3000 yds passer, 2 1000 yd rushers, and 2 1000 yd receivers?
Title: Re: !
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 03:44:28 PM
hey troj (I now refuse that 3peat name madness), you may be a football cocky ass sometimes, but all in all, I like ya.

In other news: I'm going in to enemy territory on Tuesday for the USC LS open house.  I'll be the one wearing blue.



 ;D I like you too

Congrats on the win 3peat! 

I laughed the other day when I read that some ridiculous sports writer (I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it) actually gave Stanford the advantage in that game.  He should be fired.   :D

Thanks, Congrats to you too!  Good luck with the rest of the season.

This offense is scary good.  They scored on thier first 7 possessions.  People cannot honestly believe that anyone is going to beat us this year.  Look at these stats!

Matt Leinart 2771 yds 26 TDs and 116 rating
Reggie Bush 1022 yds 11 TDs and 8.3 yds per carry
Lendal White 913 yds 14 TDs
Dwayne Jarret 964 yds 14 TDs
Steve Smith 822 yds and 4 TDs

Has a team ever had a 3000 yds passer, 2 1000 yd rushers, and 2 1000 yd receivers?

you got very lucky against notre dame. if the refs hadn't screwed up and spotted the ball on the 1 after the fumble out of bounds, you'd not have won.

notre dame is NOT the best team in the country. they MIGHT be top 5.

USC isn't the best team in the country, and will get schooled in the championship game.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 03:45:44 PM
WooO!

Hey 3peat, other than just being a fellow badass trojan, you know what I love about you?  You make me feel better about postin at 4 in the freaking morning, since you posted 10 minutes ago.  Yeah to people who work hard AND play hard!!!

BTW, UT and Bama suck, HTH.  ;D  (I'm kidding!!! Really just Bama sucks....) ;D ;D

saving from post bulemia...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 03:51:55 PM
Whoa whoa whoa slow down skaiser brown

If you watch the replay of the game, which I have every night before I go to bed, you will see the ref start to signal a TD, and then realize the ball was fumbled.  If your beef is with the spot, then you havent seen all the angles or have a poor sense of depth because the ball went out at the 1.

But the real problem I have with your take is that you are not giving credit where it is due.  ND and the refs didnt lost that game for ND, USC won that game because they have STONES.

Matt Leinart 3rd and 20 hits Bush for 10.  Then on 4th and 9 he audibles to a fade and hits a one eyed Jarret for 61 yards.  That was friggin MACHO!

Dont blame the refs, credit USC for having ice in their veins and showing why it is the back to back champion.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 03:56:10 PM
bullcrap. the angle i saw had the ball pop out and go out of bounds at the 2.

and regardless, even if you win, so what, you BARELY beat a mid top 10 team. you'll get schooled by a real team like texas.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 03:56:58 PM
also, leinart was so unimpressive that game.

Reggie Bush was what won that game for the trojans. he was amazing.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 03:59:23 PM
bullcrap. the angle i saw had the ball pop out and go out of bounds at the 2.

and regardless, even if you win, so what, you BARELY beat a mid top 10 team. you'll get schooled by a real team like texas.

Well, you must have had a better look at it than the ref that was 37 inches from the play.


Dont hate on SC, it just makes you look desperate.  If you think USC is going to get "schooled" by anyone, then you dont watch football.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 04:04:17 PM
i'm not that impressed with bama. they don't dominate any games.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:04:31 PM
also, leinart was so unimpressive that game.

Reggie Bush was what won that game for the trojans. he was amazing.

Unimpressive if you only look at the stats.  But if you watched the game you would realize he is a cold hearted assassin that threw a dagger on 4th and 9.
bullcrap. the angle i saw had the ball pop out and go out of bounds at the 2.

and regardless, even if you win, so what, you BARELY beat a mid top 10 team. you'll get schooled by a real team like texas.

I love Texas, but their schedule hasn't exactly been difficult this year.  If Bama and UT go undefeated, Bama should go to Rose Bowl instead (assuming USC stays undefeated as well).

Although I have a feeling Bama will lose this weekend. Just a hunch.

But I wasn't too impressed with Leinart either in the ND game.  He started to break down mentally.  The whole 4th quarter his head was hanging and he seemed to lose his confidence.  Very disappointing, although it does show character that he pulled it out.

It shows SOME character that he pulled it out?  Throwing that pass and hitting Jarret in stride was f-ing MACHO.

His stats were not his best, but if you cannot be perfect ALL the time Ill settle for being perfect when it counts.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:06:06 PM
i'm not that impressed with bama. they don't dominate any games.

But you are sucking up UT because they have beaten Ohio State, Texas Tech  and Colorado?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 06, 2005, 04:06:33 PM
don't forget baylor :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:07:36 PM
I havent. :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 06, 2005, 04:45:28 PM
I dont know why you think he lost his confidence.  His final drive tell you everything you need to know about that.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 10, 2005, 02:05:49 PM
How did we go 4 days without talking about college football?


Ok...so who's your pick in the SEC - LSU or Bama?   Auburn or Georgia?

LSU, bama will lose to LSU, and GA is done without Shockley
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 10, 2005, 03:05:43 PM
LSU should beat Bama easily
Think Auburn will slip by Georgia, although I REALLY want UGA win so UF is not back in the running for the SEC

LSU to win SEC overall
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 10, 2005, 03:11:04 PM
Sucks about Tennessee this year.  What the heck is Fulmer doing?
seeing how long he can sit on his ass and use buzzwords that make everything sound good before he gets fired?

he actually said he had built up equity from his past success here recently

sad thing is my undergrad, USF, is doing better than UT this year.  Except for losses to your 'canes and at Penn St., USF is 4-1
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 10, 2005, 03:21:15 PM
i havent been around or followed UT long enough to really know whether it is his fault or if it is just a bad year, so I dont realy know how much I want him fired yet.  I thought it was the OC's fault, but the OC "resigned" and the play calling was the exact same thing as it was before (it has long been rumored that Fulmer called the plays and OC was just a puppet, so I guess this just proves it).  I cant complain too much because UT still has one of the best gameday weekends in the country, it would just be a lot more fun if the games didnt suck. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 10, 2005, 03:29:22 PM
he supposedly said this during the UT-ND game:
its a good thing I have built some equity.

the accuracy and context have been disputed, but it has been reported that way in several different outlets


his buyout or termination would cost $5mill+ some have reported, so it is doubtful he is going anywhere soon
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 10, 2005, 04:16:12 PM
How did we go 4 days without talking about college football?


Ok...so who's your pick in the SEC - LSU or Bama?   Auburn or Georgia?

LSU, bama will lose to LSU, and GA is done without Shockley

this is correct.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 10, 2005, 04:27:47 PM
i havent been around or followed UT long enough to really know whether it is his fault or if it is just a bad year, so I dont realy know how much I want him fired yet.  I thought it was the OC's fault, but the OC "resigned" and the play calling was the exact same thing as it was before (it has long been rumored that Fulmer called the plays and OC was just a puppet, so I guess this just proves it).  I cant complain too much because UT still has one of the best gameday weekends in the country, it would just be a lot more fun if the games didnt suck. 

have to disagree with you here.  fulmer has never called the plays, well until saturday.  i watched the game with that friend who was on the 98 championship game and he noticed an immediate difference in the playcalling and said, "yeah, no we're back to that old school run-it-down-their-f-ing-throats football. fulmer's calling the shots."  he didn't deny that sanders still had a role, but i think, having played both before and after sanders, he would notice the subtleties of playcalling differences that are not apparent to fans.

fulmer is too expensive to buy out and it doesn't need to be done.  at worst at the end of the day he (as an individual coach) is harmless.  his dogged dedication to sanders and the good ole boy network of coaching assitants is balanced out by his amazing recruiting abilities.  we would have to look long and hard before we find a head coach (available now) who would do the same.  timing kinda bit us in the ass.  had all this happened last year, the jost would have been offered to stev-o spurrier...and as much as we hate him, we all know he's the mad genius of college football.  there's not a coach in the country who's better, imo.

in other news, my inside sources tell me that there's some possibility that UT will take the shitload of money it would take to replace fulmer and just apply it towards luring chow out of nashville.  we'll see how that flies.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 10, 2005, 04:38:48 PM
Chow has denied the rumors repeatedly, unfortunately, but one can dream...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 10, 2005, 05:01:46 PM
Chow has denied the rumors repeatedly, unfortunately, but one can dream...

indeed.  ;D


but hell, i think anyknox county mental patient would do a better job....so these aren't big shoes to fill.

and re: chow, i think the right $ figure may sway his decision.
Title: USC
Post by: SCgrad on November 12, 2005, 05:58:51 PM
And I mean South Carolina.  Put a whoopin on TOBC former team today.  I envision a few years from now when someone says USC is the best team in the country, the other saying "which one?"
Spurrier is the greatest coach in the world.  Comes to Carolina and beats UT at Knox. (first time), Arkansas at Fay. (first time) and UF at home (first time ever!).  Now if Georgia can just lose to Auburn and *cough* Kentucky, we will be SEC east champs.  Go Cocks!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 12, 2005, 08:35:06 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 12, 2005, 09:41:22 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 13, 2005, 07:50:03 AM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 13, 2005, 11:16:54 AM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 13, 2005, 11:47:11 AM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D

dominant? go play some of the SEC West, the SEC East is having a terrible year... oh wait, you did and got smoked

and laugh all you want about USF... they are 5-3 and two of the losses were at Penn St. and at Miami.  If USF wins out they will be in a better bowl than USC
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 13, 2005, 07:06:20 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D

dominant? go play some of the SEC West, the SEC East is having a terrible year... oh wait, you did and got smoked

and laugh all you want about USF... they are 5-3 and two of the losses were at Penn St. and at Miami.  If USF wins out they will be in a better bowl than USC


 :D :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, that sounds impressive...until you look at their schedule:

Sat 9/3           at Penn State   L, 13-23   
Sat 9/10   Florida A&M   W, 37-3   
Sat 9/17   UCF           W, 31-14   
Sat 9/24   Louisville*   W, 45-14   
Sat 10/1   at Miami   L, 27-7   
Sat 10/15   at Pittsburgh*   L, 31-17   
Sat 11/5   at Rutgers *   W, 45-31    
Sat 11/12   at Syracuse*   W, 27-0   
Sat 11/19   Cincinnati*   12 PM   
Sat 11/26   at Connecticut*      
Sat 12/3   West Virginia*

Penn State and Miami are the only two teams on it that are worth mentioning other than Louisville, where they got lucky once.  Once.  You actually still think this dumpster team could defeat South Carolina?  You've been smoking too much of that bluegrass, son.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 13, 2005, 07:41:08 PM
only other teams to stay within 10 of Penn St: Ohio St, Michigan, and Minnesota... Wisconsin couldn't do it

What was the Miami-VaTech score? 27-7... interesting, USF went TO Miami and did the same

And when a team gets lucky, they win 1, 4, or 8 like USC, winning by 31 and calling off the dogs in the third quarter is not getting lucky. 


And don't get scared, USF has accomplished all this in under 10 years.  How long did it take USC to get to actually being respectable?

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 13, 2005, 08:54:01 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

Seriously, what is up with Tennessee this year?  What is Fulmer doing?  I'm soooo disappointed.

At least they won.   :-\

Couldn't tell you.  If they knew, maybe they would win more than 4 games this season.  But, yeah, it's disapointing, especially with that kind of talent!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 13, 2005, 08:56:37 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D


In case you missed the memo, it takes more than one winning season to dominate the SEC.  There are still at least 5 SEC teams who are better than SC (Auburn, LSU, UGA, Florida, Alabama.)  That's hardly domination.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 13, 2005, 11:14:34 PM
only other teams to stay within 10 of Penn St: Ohio St, Michigan, and Minnesota... Wisconsin couldn't do it

What was the Miami-VaTech score? 27-7... interesting, USF went TO Miami and did the same

And when a team gets lucky, they win 1, 4, or 8 like USC, winning by 31 and calling off the dogs in the third quarter is not getting lucky. 


And don't get scared, USF has accomplished all this in under 10 years.  How long did it take USC to get to actually being respectable?



Noone is scared, sport.  You talked your crap before the game so I figured I would hand it back to you.  Like I said before, it's pretty fun to watch you get all wound out of shape.



you coming up for the UT game? i'd love to see the look on your face when you realize how much USC really sucks


USF had one lucky game.  Get over your overhyped undergrad.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 13, 2005, 11:19:50 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D


In case you missed the memo, it takes more than one winning season to dominate the SEC.  There are still at least 5 SEC teams who are better than SC (Auburn, LSU, UGA, Florida, Alabama.)  That's hardly domination.

USC has had pretty damn good seasons in the past.  You're from Tampa, right?  You may remember two Outback bowls South Carolina won right there. 

And check out the score from Saturday's game against Florida.  Yeah, and how are they better than USC?  Also, Florida beat UGA just the week before they played USC.  So how is UGA better than South Carolina?  If you had actually watched the UGA/USC game you would know that USC outplayed UGA all over UGA's field and only lost becuase the kicker missed a field goal and an extra point. 

That's OK, though.  It's easy to hate the Gamecocks.  People have been doing it for years.  You can hate them again next year, after Spurrier has had his play in recruiting and molding the team to his preference.  Remember, this is only his FIRST year as head coach.  More, much more to come...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 13, 2005, 11:49:08 PM
Can someone provide me with ONE good reason for Fulmer's insistence to start Ainge over Clausen at QB?

...Yeah, I didn't think so. :-\

I got a good reason, it doesn't effing matter, they are going to suck either way.

SC as in Southern Cal, im assuming...

how soon you forget that SC absolutely sucked balls just a few years ago...  get in all your cheap shots now, we'll be back

Why?  You got your cheap shots in at the beginning of the season.  Suck it up.  Tennessee SUCKS and South Carolina is proving to be a dominant force in the SEC.

Hey, at least you have USF... ::) :D ::) :D ::) :D


In case you missed the memo, it takes more than one winning season to dominate the SEC.  There are still at least 5 SEC teams who are better than SC (Auburn, LSU, UGA, Florida, Alabama.)  That's hardly domination.

USC has had pretty damn good seasons in the past.  You're from Tampa, right?  You may remember two Outback bowls South Carolina won right there. 

And check out the score from Saturday's game against Florida.  Yeah, and how are they better than USC?  Also, Florida beat UGA just the week before they played USC.  So how is UGA better than South Carolina?  If you had actually watched the UGA/USC game you would know that USC outplayed UGA all over UGA's field and only lost becuase the kicker missed a field goal and an extra point. 

That's OK, though.  It's easy to hate the Gamecocks.  People have been doing it for years.  You can hate them again next year, after Spurrier has had his play in recruiting and molding the team to his preference.  Remember, this is only his FIRST year as head coach.  More, much more to come...

Just because you lucked out and beat Florida and Florida beat UGA, doesn't make USC a better team than UGA.  Such a conclusion is plainly laughable.  USC had a couple of decent seasons under Holtz, in the early years of his tenure there, but they were by no means dominant.  Even when you had those better seasons, you were the worst team in the SEC east.  So much for dominance there.

Face it buddy, even if TN is having a bad season, it's a team with richer tradition, a winning history (the most decorated team in the SEC east, third in NCAA in all-time bowl appearances, winningest D-I active coach in the nation) than USC has ever dreamed about being.  USC will do fine with Spurrier at the helm, of that there can be no doubt, but it's no Tennessee and it's decades from being an Alabama.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 12:38:46 AM
Did you know UK is in the SEC East?

Also, Spurrier OWNS Fat Phil, always has, always will.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 14, 2005, 01:28:17 AM
Did you know UK is in the SEC East?

Also, Spurrier OWNS Fat Phil, always has, always will.

oh, sorry, only marginally better than the worst team, KY.

fat phil still has a better record.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 04:22:55 AM
Did you know UK is in the SEC East?

Also, Spurrier OWNS Fat Phil, always has, always will.

oh, sorry, only marginally better than the worst team, KY.

fat phil still has a better record.

Yes this will change soon enough.  South Carolina is much better than UK, not that this is a huge accomplishment.  Don't forget about Vandy, how many times do you want to be wrong?

Also, Spurrier has a better record as an SEC coach (taking out his three years at Duke) even though Florida consistently plays a tougher schedule out of conference and he also has by far a better record in SEC play.  Oh, and did I mention he owns fat Phil?  Cause he does.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 14, 2005, 06:23:25 AM
FYI, USC = Univ. So. Cal. = Trojans = undefeated = back2back champions = smelling roses =/= So. Car. Game caca

HTH
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 06:38:26 AM
FYI, USC = Univ. So. Cal. = Trojans = undefeated = back2back champions = smelling roses =/= So. Car. Game caca

HTH

Yeah, but we're better at tailgating, whadaya think about that?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 14, 2005, 11:28:54 AM
carolina is pretty known for its tailgate parties
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 14, 2005, 11:42:00 AM
jesus christ, the other SC wins a few games and the fan base loses their minds.  Really now, what *good* teams have "little" USC beaten?  Florida sucks, Tennessee sucks.  The decent teams they have played have beaten their asses.  Did you guys see the Auburn or Alabama games?  Both teams beat the piss out of mighty USC.  The SEC East is WAY down this year (in truth the entire SEC is), and USC benefted from that.  The pecking order in the SEC East will almost always start with Tenn/UGA/Fla, in any order.  YOu guys better accept that 4th place is ok, especially at  a tradition deficit institution such as yours.

Roll Tide
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 14, 2005, 11:57:13 AM
jesus christ, the other SC wins a few games and the fan base loses their minds.  Really now, what *good* teams have "little" USC beaten?  Florida sucks, Tennessee sucks.  The decent teams they have played have beaten their asses.  Did you guys see the Auburn or Alabama games?  Both teams beat the piss out of mighty USC.  The SEC East is WAY down this year (in truth the entire SEC is), and USC benefted from that.  The pecking order in the SEC East will almost always start with Tenn/UGA/Fla, in any order.  YOu guys better accept that 4th place is ok, especially at  a tradition deficit institution such as yours.

Roll Tide

Yawn.

Yeah, I saw both of those games.  The gist is that South Carolina is making a turnaround.  We'll see what the score with the 'Bama/USC and Auburn/USC games are like in the years to come.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 14, 2005, 11:58:35 AM
I think that means you've never been to one of our games...

It may also be that you've never been to one of ours.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 14, 2005, 12:07:36 PM
USC was very loud leading up to kickoff, not so loud after we drove 80 yards in about 2:00 minutes.  Downright silent by the end of the 1st quarter.  You guys do get loud in pre-game though, kudos.

Roll Tide.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 14, 2005, 01:41:33 PM
only other teams to stay within 10 of Penn St: Ohio St, Michigan, and Minnesota... Wisconsin couldn't do it

What was the Miami-VaTech score? 27-7... interesting, USF went TO Miami and did the same

And when a team gets lucky, they win 1, 4, or 8 like USC, winning by 31 and calling off the dogs in the third quarter is not getting lucky. 


And don't get scared, USF has accomplished all this in under 10 years.  How long did it take USC to get to actually being respectable?



Noone is scared, sport.  You talked your crap before the game so I figured I would hand it back to you.  Like I said before, it's pretty fun to watch you get all wound out of shape.



you coming up for the UT game? i'd love to see the look on your face when you realize how much USC really sucks


USF had one lucky game.  Get over your overhyped undergrad.

how come when I make points your only response is "I like seeing you get riled up" or "USF still sucks"? I am not getting riled up, I can make an argument without getting mad, apparently that's a foreign concept to you. And USF is not too bad because the composite rankings put USF JUST behing USC.... http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

and thank god bama is here to further prove my point, the SEC East sucks this year and USC got spanked by the good teams in the west
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 14, 2005, 01:59:29 PM
Yeah, this is one of the rare years that the SEC West is better than the SEC East.  This was the year to beat up on East teams, next year I don't expect this to be the case.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 14, 2005, 04:52:21 PM
Yeah, this is one of the rare years that the SEC West is better than the SEC East.  This was the year to beat up on East teams, next year I don't expect this to be the case.



Bama, Auburn and LSU have been on the rise.  UGA has probably lived out its glory.  God only knows what the long-term prognosis for Tennessee and Florida is.  One thing is certain, if any program is slated to dominate the SEC next year, SC isn't it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 15, 2005, 01:47:27 AM
Yeah, I predicted 3 years for an East Title, for at the most.  Next year would be nice though.  I love hearing the traditionalists talk about history.  I'm sure Nebraska will be right back in the national picture next year.  They have more history than any SEC team outside of Bama, and they suck now.  Coaching is the biggest factor in college football.  And Spurrier is one of the best, nobody argues that.

PS  Gamecock tailgating is amazing, especially if you start at 9 AM for a 7:30 PM game... I doubt the Trojans touch it.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 15, 2005, 05:13:16 AM
The traditional SEC teams have the resources to go get whatever coach they want at any time and considering they are some of the better jobs in all of football, not many people turn them down
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 15, 2005, 06:03:20 AM
Then UT should have gotten Spurrier. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 15, 2005, 11:09:01 AM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 15, 2005, 11:47:30 AM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 15, 2005, 01:53:02 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 15, 2005, 03:20:08 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 15, 2005, 04:05:21 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 15, 2005, 04:55:10 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 15, 2005, 06:32:43 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

dont know any of the sorority girls here, just using undergrad stereotypes... only thing I know about sororities here is that their "base" is conveniently right by the law school and the building I live in is about 70% sorority girls
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 15, 2005, 08:17:17 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

dont know any of the sorority girls here, just using undergrad stereotypes... only thing I know about sororities here is that their "base" is conveniently right by the law school and the building I live in is about 70% sorority girls

lol, yes, very convenient.  i was in a low-level sociology class once and overheard a conversation between two sorority girls who were discussing their plans to eat lunch at the law school every day so that they could "grab 'em a rich husband."  so be careful! don't say ruskie didn't warn ya. ;)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: john83 on November 15, 2005, 08:24:13 PM
Quote
lol, yes, very convenient.  i was in a low-level sociology class once and overheard a conversation between two sorority girls who were discussing their plans to eat lunch at the law school every day so that they could "grab 'em a rich husband."  so be careful! don't say ruskie didn't warn ya. ;)

that's why i'm becoming a lawyer.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 15, 2005, 09:50:53 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

You mean, Phi MOOs.  Anyone that touches one of them deserves what he gets.

And the Tri Delt thing isnt true in the least...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 15, 2005, 10:10:30 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

You mean, Phi MOOs.  Anyone that touches one of them deserves what he gets.

And the Tri Delt thing isnt true in the least...

um, yeah, cause you're such an expert on UT tri delts. ::)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 15, 2005, 11:09:54 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

You mean, Phi MOOs.  Anyone that touches one of them deserves what he gets.

And the Tri Delt thing isnt true in the least...

um, yeah, cause you're such an expert on UT tri delts. ::)

You said Tri Delts, not UT Tri Delts. 

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 15, 2005, 11:13:00 PM
id rather go winless than have Spurrier as my coach

Looks like you are close to getting your wish... :D

beat a good SEC West team before you get too excited over there

You're right, beating UT isn't much to brag about.

its not... its like scoring with a Tri Delt, big deal, everyone else has

you go to UT, so you should know that the easiest girls on campus are actually Phi Mus.  Tri Delts will only sleep with you if you're an athlete or have money.

You mean, Phi MOOs.  Anyone that touches one of them deserves what he gets.

And the Tri Delt thing isnt true in the least...

um, yeah, cause you're such an expert on UT tri delts. ::)

You said Tri Delts, not UT Tri Delts. 


um, actually, i limited the inquiry to UT.  i said ut phi mus, and implicit in that was that i was also talking about ut tri delts, as i took the time to point out that tegra8's stereotype of tri delts was no accurate at UT.  boy, they learn em good at souf karolaina.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 15, 2005, 11:16:08 PM
Hahaha.  Don't you have a department store to be ripping off or something?

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,38286.0.html
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 15, 2005, 11:28:31 PM
Hahaha.  Don't you have a department store to be ripping off or something?

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,38286.0.html

how does the fact that i was wrongfully accused of shoplifting negate the fact that you're an idiot who can't read?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 12:15:32 AM
Hahaha.  Don't you have a department store to be ripping off or something?

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,38286.0.html

how does the fact that i was wrongfully accused of shoplifting negate the fact that you're an idiot who can't read?

I can read just fine.  I can also carry on a conversation without resorting to name calling.

And the fact that you felt you needed justification from other forum members for your inane attempt to extort an apology and compensation from a store that utilized proper security protocol just goes to further exhibit your character.

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 16, 2005, 11:26:27 AM
Store security is supposed to stop people that they actually see shoplifting, not people they suspect without any evidence.  Think of how it would hold up in court on cross-examination:

Ruskie: So when did you see the D steal the shirt?

Barney Fife: Well, technically, i didnt see her steal it, but I suspected her.

Ruskie: On what evidence did you base your suspicion?

Barney: Well, she went into the dressing room with a black shirt and came out wearing her normal clothes.

Ruskie: Like everyother shopper that does not like the way the clothes fit, in the history of dressing rooms?

Barney: Um, yes.

Normal procedures my ass.  JSIA
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 11:28:40 AM
They did not detain her.  They merely asked her to come back into the store until they assessed the situation.  At no time did the security guard or other personnel physically detain her.  She was free to leave at any time.  Her rights were not violated in any way. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:32:54 AM
Store security is supposed to stop people that they actually see shoplifting, not people they suspect without any evidence.  Think of how it would hold up in court on cross-examination:

Ruskie: So when did you see the D steal the shirt?

Barney Fife: Well, technically, i didnt see her steal it, but I suspected her.

Ruskie: On what evidence did you base your suspicion?

Barney: Well, she went into the dressing room with a black shirt and came out wearing her normal clothes.

Ruskie: Like everyother shopper that does not like the way the clothes fit, in the history of dressing rooms?

Barney: Um, yes.

Normal procedures my ass.  JSIA


actually stores can detain customers if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting shoplifting, and they can detain them for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner to conduct an investigation into the suspicion of shoplifting.  I dont know what the exact statute is in california for a merchants defense to false imprisonment, but Im sure it is similar.   
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:34:06 AM
They did not detain her.  They merely asked her to come back into the store until they assessed the situation.  At no time did the security guard or other personnel physically detain her.  She was free to leave at any time.  Her rights were not violated in any way. 

phyiscal detention isnt required for false imprisonment, it is enough if she felt that she could not leave
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:36:19 AM
I know more about false imprisonment than I ever wanted to know since we had to write our final memo on it :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 16, 2005, 11:45:35 AM
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:47:19 AM
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 11:53:56 AM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 11:55:14 AM
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?

i left the item in the dressing room.  they didn't check it before coming after me.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:57:44 AM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?

i left the item in the dressing room.  they didn't check it before coming after me.


they probably should have checked the changing room first...they'd still prolly be safe though...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 11:59:25 AM
talk about threads veering WAYYY off topic :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 12:01:11 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 12:03:55 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 12:06:51 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.


oops, nm. that wasn't you.  sorry.

either way.  i don't really see what the problem is with what i said. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 12:09:07 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 12:11:09 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...

sorry, got confused by responding to two different posters.  see edit above.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 12:11:47 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...

sorry, got confused by responding to two different posters.  see edit above.

noted.  I retract my comment :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 16, 2005, 12:39:09 PM
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 12:40:49 PM
man I hate having to say that texas will win the title, but alas, Im afraid it is true
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 01:53:22 PM
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 01:55:56 PM
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.

chill with the arkansas sucking, at least we have an excuse, Tennesee was in the top five at the beginning of the season
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 16, 2005, 01:56:39 PM
man I hate having to say that texas will win the title, but alas, Im afraid it is true

I could so see Mack Brown blowing one of the last 2 games on the schedule and turning the BCS into a mess again...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 16, 2005, 02:02:51 PM
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.

chill with the arkansas sucking, at least we have an excuse, Tennesee was in the top five at the beginning of the season

this IS very true.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 02:03:04 PM
man I hate having to say that texas will win the title, but alas, Im afraid it is true

I could so see Mack Brown blowing one of the last 2 games on the schedule and turning the BCS into a mess again...

nah, they wont lose to A&M, and no one in the North can beat them
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 16, 2005, 02:40:05 PM
I just brought Arkansas into it to try to offend as many of the recent posters in this thread as possible to get it back on to football...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 16, 2005, 02:41:42 PM
I just brough Arkansas into to try to offend as many of the recent posters in this thread as possibel to get it back on to football...

hey, give us two or three years and we're in the hunt baby!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 16, 2005, 02:59:50 PM
the line in the Vandy/UT game is crazy.  No way UT covers that spread.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 16, 2005, 03:01:17 PM
the line in the Vandy/UT game is crazy.  No way UT covers that spread.

what is it?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 16, 2005, 03:02:49 PM
the line in the Vandy/UT game is crazy.  No way UT covers that spread.

what is it?

I heard 16 this morning on the radio. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 16, 2005, 03:04:52 PM
LOCK OF THE YEAR

Take Bama and 7 versus Auburn this weekend.

Take a loan, sell stuff, whatever you need to do to make the play.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 03:45:03 PM
I just brought Arkansas into it to try to offend as many of the recent posters in this thread as possible to get it back on to football...

Good job.  I regretted veering the thread off topic the moment it happened.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 03:50:13 PM
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful

Sorry, but my money is on Vandy.  Has been for three weeks on this game.

Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us

I rag you a lot on USF for kicks, but in all seriousness if you put USF in the ACC or SEC they would sit right at the bottom.  Well, they may beat Arkansas...(sorry bea10dwn   ;D)


When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never

As long as South Carolina keeps winning games he can come over and kick my damn dog for all I care.

SC will not be national champions this year

Southern Cal?  I think that, unfortunately, they will.

Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT

...perhaps, but at least they aren't near as big a dissapointment.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: social drinker on November 16, 2005, 04:02:53 PM
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

My last post on this nonsense:

1)  In case you haven't noticed, a department store is not a court of law.  Probable cause is a grey area.  Suspicious activity is enough to warrant further investigation and questioning a shopper is a warranted act of further investigation.  I am not making this up, I have a pretty extensive knowledge of security protocol.  Thanks for playing, though.

2)  Polite?  Did they yell at you?  Curse at you?  Were you physically assaulted?  Were you in fear of being harmed?  The answer is "NO!" to all of the above. 

3)  In case your lack of character wasn't exhibited before, the statement, "my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs." certainly does.  That was the most distasteful comment that I have read in quite a while. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 16, 2005, 05:26:13 PM
re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.


You know I cant let this revisionist history slide.
A. USC was ranked #1 in both human polls before the B(C)S bowls came out in 2002/3
B. The coaches were legally obligated to crown the winner of the LSU OU game; LSU was a BCS champ by a technicality, USC was the people's democratic champion
C. AUBURN was neither #1 nor #2 in either the coaches or AP poll
D. Everyone agreed that OU would have handled UA before USC embarassed OU
E. UA almost got beat by VT (who lost to USC at VT) in their bowl in stark contrast to the stomping USC gave OU

You doubt SC so much even though we have beaten 43 of our last 42 opponents.  You were the one that said there was no way USC could go undefeated becaue they play such a tough schedule.  Well, here we are at 10-0 looking at our last two opponents.  Still think USC wont go undefeated?

BTW, UT has not played anyone special except OSU, but USC has played Oregon(away), ND(away), Cal(away), and will play Fresno and UCLA.  Explain how UT is your clear favorite?
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 16, 2005, 06:51:54 PM
1) I wouldnt bet against Vandy, but they really lost a lot of incentive in this game when they became ineligible for a bowl last week... HOWEVER, being an instate game, there will always be alot on the line.  It should be a good game... if nothing else I lucked out and got damn good seats...

2)Re USF: I would argue this, but if anyone knows anything about being at the bottom of the SEC it would be a USC fan so I guess you have the best perspective on this

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 16, 2005, 06:57:15 PM
www.firecoachmeyer.com

LMFAO
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Vannabunny on November 16, 2005, 07:32:25 PM
IU vs. Purdue this weekend
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 16, 2005, 07:47:44 PM
1) I wouldnt bet against Vandy, but they really lost a lot of incentive in this game when they became ineligible for a bowl last week... HOWEVER, being an instate game, there will always be alot on the line.  It should be a good game... if nothing else I lucked out and got damn good seats...


Vandy has planty of incentive, a win versus the evil empire (UT) makes their season.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 16, 2005, 07:53:32 PM
re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.


You know I cant let this revisionist history slide.
A. USC was ranked #1 in both human polls before the B(C)S bowls came out in 2002/3
B. The coaches were legally obligated to crown the winner of the LSU OU game; LSU was a BCS champ by a technicality, USC was the people's democratic champion
C. AUBURN was neither #1 nor #2 in either the coaches or AP poll
D. Everyone agreed that OU would have handled UA before USC embarassed OU
E. UA almost got beat by VT (who lost to USC at VT) in their bowl in stark contrast to the stomping USC gave OU

You doubt SC so much even though we have beaten 43 of our last 42 opponents.  You were the one that said there was no way USC could go undefeated becaue they play such a tough schedule.  Well, here we are at 10-0 looking at our last two opponents.  Still think USC wont go undefeated?

BTW, UT has not played anyone special except OSU, but USC has played Oregon(away), ND(away), Cal(away), and will play Fresno and UCLA.  Explain how UT is your clear favorite?

I doubt Oklahoma would've handled Auburn. It would've been like the 2004 Sugar Bowl with those two playing, namely the Auburn defense shutting down Jason White because he was known to not be able to handle strong defenses (examples: KSU in the Big XII title game, LSU in the Sugar Bowl, Texas holding him down despie the 12-0 victory, AP had to carry it for them, and USC making him look silly) along with Auburn using the running game to pull out a win. Auburn's defense probably shuts down Peterson as well, as aside from the SEC title game against Tennessee, they were mauling other teams RBs.

People also forget that VT was a very good team last year. They lost by 1 point to NC State and were a questionable pass interference call away from possibly scoring an upset over USC...

Also abou Texas, its Mack Brown, which is why I'm not putting them in the Rose Bowl yet. Colorado beat them in 2001 and that Texas team had tons of talent as well, but a complete mental midget at QB. I don't think VY is like that, but you never know.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 16, 2005, 08:00:30 PM
Also Bill Snyder is retiring after this year. Interesting little sidenote: Both of Hayden Fry's coaching proteges, Snyder and Barry Alvarez, are both retiring this year.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 17, 2005, 05:06:14 AM


When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never

IDK, When will Fulmer stop being the first in line at the Golden Corral?


Quote about Spurrier - "He can take his'n and beat your'n and he can take your'n and beat his'n"
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: be10dwn on November 17, 2005, 06:19:13 AM
ah and to I think it was Ruskie, U of A is definitely not the WORST team in the SEC, you forget about Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Miss. State
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 17, 2005, 08:12:18 AM

Quote about Spurrier - "He can take his'n and beat your'n and he can take your'n and beat his'n"

This quote was not made in regard to Spurrier, this quote has been around for 20 years.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 18, 2005, 06:07:38 PM

Quote about Spurrier - "He can take his'n and beat your'n and he can take your'n and beat his'n"

This quote was not made in regard to Spurrier, this quote has been around for 20 years.


Yes, but it is a quote, right?  And it applies to the man in question? Yes.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: hummer69 on November 18, 2005, 06:24:20 PM
I laugh reading these as people talk about how great USC and the PAC-10 is.  How many ranked teams does USC have to play in a single season.  Their schedule is a freaking joke.  Remember in 2002 when everyone thought Miami was unbeatable then OSU beat them in the national championship?  Why? because Big Ten teams consistently have more difficult schedules than most other conferences.  I mean, seriously, who can really argue that the PAC-10 is a better conference than the SEC or the Big Ten.  And Texas in the Big-12.  Oh God, they sure did a great job playing Baylor.  Come on, let's get serious.  I mean, I realize they beat OSU (which I guarantee they couldnt do again), but it's one thing to play a couple difficult games in a season, and playing a difficult game week after week. 

I mean I will not devulge into why I hate the ranking systems now, but look how teams have evolved over the course of the season.  We need a playoff system.  That is the only way we can declare an undisputed champion; and until that happens kids are going to female dog how their team deserved a shot at the title and didn't get it.

P.S. - OSU v. Miami in the Orange Bowl - Rematch of 2002 - how sweet would that be

P.S.S. - Yes, I understand the Big Ten has 11 teams.  Penn State was added later, which only further fuels my hatred for them.  They ruined everything.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SoCal760 on November 18, 2005, 06:44:15 PM
I laugh reading these as people talk about how great USC and the PAC-10 is.  How many ranked teams does USC have to play in a single season.  Their schedule is a freaking joke.  Remember in 2002 when everyone thought Miami was unbeatable then OSU beat them in the national championship?  Why? because Big Ten teams consistently have more difficult schedules than most other conferences.  I mean, seriously, who can really argue that the PAC-10 is a better conference than the SEC or the Big Ten.  And Texas in the Big-12.  Oh God, they sure did a great job playing Baylor.  Come on, let's get serious.  I mean, I realize they beat OSU (which I guarantee they couldnt do again), but it's one thing to play a couple difficult games in a season, and playing a difficult game week after week. 

I mean I will not devulge into why I hate the ranking systems now, but look how teams have evolved over the course of the season.  We need a playoff system.  That is the only way we can declare an undisputed champion; and until that happens kids are going to female dog how their team deserved a shot at the title and didn't get it.

P.S. - OSU v. Miami in the Orange Bowl - Rematch of 2002 - how sweet would that be

P.S.S. - Yes, I understand the Big Ten has 11 teams.  Penn State was added later, which only further fuels my hatred for them.  They ruined everything.

USC will play six teams this year that have been ranked at some poin in time during the season.  One thing that hurts their strength of schedule is the fact that all of the teams on their schedule has to recover from get blown out by USC.  You must not remember the national championship game last year.  The best conference in college football is either the ACC, Pac-10, or the SEC.  The Big XI is not in the picture this year and the Big XII has one team that is deserving of a ranking.  Ohio State has two loses and I am sorry to break it to you Texas beat them at Ohio State so I can't help but call you a Ohio State homer.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 19, 2005, 10:07:53 AM
If Michigan wins the Big Ten title today after that BS time snafu in the Penn State game, I think I'm going to be physically ill.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 19, 2005, 02:27:31 PM
Bwahahahaha Lloyd Cooper is now 1-4 against Jim Tressel...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 19, 2005, 02:34:51 PM
FUKK, YOU ALABAMA, WHERE THE SKIES ARE SO BLUE.  FUKK YOU ALABAMA, CAUSE AUBURN IS OWNING YOU!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: hummer69 on November 19, 2005, 02:46:01 PM
Who the hell is Lloyd Cooper...

You must mean Lloyd Carr.

Bucks are rolling.  Let's just hope PSU loses to MSU.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 19, 2005, 02:52:35 PM
It was a play on the fact that Carr used to dominate John Cooper when Cooper coached OSU, now it looks to be the other way around...

Cooper was quite famous for having great seasons and bringing in top recruiting classes, but was 2-10-1 against Michigan, which pretty much got him canned from OSU.

It seems as since Tressel came to OSU, Carr has turned into John Cooper...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: beatendown on November 19, 2005, 02:53:50 PM
Bwahahahaha Lloyd Cooper is now 1-4 against Jim Tressel...

Lloyd Carr right?

and Aubrun is whuppin up on Bama right now
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 19, 2005, 04:23:17 PM
The way the PSU-MSU game is going with all of the MSU turnovers, we might get another John L. Smith meltdown like the one against OSU...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 19, 2005, 05:27:03 PM
PSU wins and is going to a BCS bowl. I'm very much hoping for PSU-ND...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 19, 2005, 05:51:11 PM
FUKK, YOU ALABAMA, WHERE THE SKIES ARE SO BLUE.  FUKK YOU ALABAMA, CAUSE AUBURN IS OWNING YOU!

GO to hell you whore.

We owned your ass this year.  Along with the rest of the league.  Now go cook me some pie beaytch.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 19, 2005, 05:54:51 PM
FUKK, YOU ALABAMA, WHERE THE SKIES ARE SO BLUE.  FUKK YOU ALABAMA, CAUSE AUBURN IS OWNING YOU!

GO to hell you whore.

We owned your ass this year.  Along with the rest of the league.  Now go cook me some pie beaytch.

sucks in UT's worst year in decades you could only win 6-3 even with our team handing you the game

I think Auburn just scored again
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 19, 2005, 05:56:47 PM
FUKK, YOU ALABAMA, WHERE THE SKIES ARE SO BLUE.  FUKK YOU ALABAMA, CAUSE AUBURN IS OWNING YOU!

GO to hell you whore.

We owned your ass this year.  Along with the rest of the league.  Now go cook me some pie beaytch.

sucks in UT's worst year in decades you could only win 6-3 even with our team handing you the game

I think Auburn just scored again
As did VANDY.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 19, 2005, 06:00:49 PM
Rocky top ole rocky top
You'll always be home to that slut ruskie
Go to hell rocky top
Fukk you tennessee
Fukk you tennessee
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Paperback Writer on November 19, 2005, 06:17:02 PM
Just thought I'd come by and say, Hey Ruskie, Tennessee sucks the hind tit!!  :D

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/boxscore?gid=200511190071 (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/boxscore?gid=200511190071)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bama on November 19, 2005, 06:24:56 PM
Just thought I'd come by and say, Hey Ruskie, Tennessee sucks the hind tit!!  :D

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/boxscore?gid=200511190071 (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/boxscore?gid=200511190071)

I'm sure all the football players miss her "tutoring."
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: SCgrad on November 19, 2005, 08:07:53 PM
I guess they still have Kentucky... but we'll see...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChlorasepticRelief on November 19, 2005, 11:21:55 PM
Reggie Bush is a god. :o

Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ChlorasepticRelief on November 19, 2005, 11:47:10 PM
Reggie Bush is a god. :o



He has now been demoted to provisional status. Bad time for a fumble.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 20, 2005, 03:06:59 AM
Haha, I think Tennessee fans are the last people who should talk smack today. 

Hey, at least we admit it when we suck.  Much more than you can say for some delusional Bama fans in present company.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: beatendown on November 20, 2005, 06:18:05 AM
and Arkansas is definitely not the worst team in the SEC FWIW :)
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 20, 2005, 04:11:28 PM
with only limited results in, it appears that USF will be ranked ahead of South Carolina this week, fwiw...

http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

And I have no doubt that Texas can and will beat USC after watching some of the Fresno St. game
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 20, 2005, 06:48:25 PM
tegra8, jason mitchell is coming out here for surgery today so hopefully i can pick his brain and see what happened this season.  but, seriously, what dedication on his part! playing with a torn ACL for 8 games.  THAT's why SEC football is the best in the world!
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 20, 2005, 08:42:16 PM
you went to USF?

if soo first fellow Bull I've seen on the boards

 :D go bulls

i hope that wasnt a sarcastic go bulls....  i wish i was still in Tampa so I could watch a winning football team...

Quote
tegra8, jason mitchell is coming out here for surgery today so hopefully i can pick his brain and see what happened this season.  but, seriously, what dedication on his part! playing with a torn ACL for 8 games.  THAT's why SEC football is the best in the world!

why is he going out there for surgery? you would think there would be a team doc around here that would do it

supposedly a bunch of players, 10 or so, threw/left their helmets in the endzone in disgust after the Vandy loss, I hope everyone of them gets kicked off the team
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 20, 2005, 08:52:12 PM
you went to USF?

if soo first fellow Bull I've seen on the boards

 :D go bulls

i hope that wasnt a sarcastic go bulls....  i wish i was still in Tampa so I could watch a winning football team...

Quote
tegra8, jason mitchell is coming out here for surgery today so hopefully i can pick his brain and see what happened this season.  but, seriously, what dedication on his part! playing with a torn ACL for 8 games.  THAT's why SEC football is the best in the world!

why is he going out there for surgery? you would think there would be a team doc around here that would do it

supposedly a bunch of players, 10 or so, threw/left their helmets in the endzone in disgust after the Vandy loss, I hope everyone of them gets kicked off the team

the doctor he wanted is out here.  the team docs don't do surgery anyways, they just do the minor *&^%.  i'll ask him about the helmet throwing.  he's supposed to be in in a half hour.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: matts720 on November 20, 2005, 09:06:34 PM
From what I've heard, ABC is pretty much hellbent on getting a Notre Dame vs. Penn State matchup in the Fiesta Bowl, which would probably do insane ratings, with the game's ratings higher in the East than it will be for USC-Texas in the Rose Bowl on the East Coast...
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 20, 2005, 09:30:33 PM
you went to USF?

if soo first fellow Bull I've seen on the boards

 :D go bulls

i hope that wasnt a sarcastic go bulls....  i wish i was still in Tampa so I could watch a winning football team...

Quote
tegra8, jason mitchell is coming out here for surgery today so hopefully i can pick his brain and see what happened this season.  but, seriously, what dedication on his part! playing with a torn ACL for 8 games.  THAT's why SEC football is the best in the world!

why is he going out there for surgery? you would think there would be a team doc around here that would do it

supposedly a bunch of players, 10 or so, threw/left their helmets in the endzone in disgust after the Vandy loss, I hope everyone of them gets kicked off the team

the doctor he wanted is out here.  the team docs don't do surgery anyways, they just do the minor *&^%.  i'll ask him about the helmet throwing.  he's supposed to be in in a half hour.

Albert Toeina (?) is supposedly one of the main culprits as he also spit and cursed at one of the jumbotron cameramen... according to VolQuest
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on November 20, 2005, 09:32:13 PM
you went to USF?

if soo first fellow Bull I've seen on the boards

 :D go bulls

i hope that wasnt a sarcastic go bulls....  i wish i was still in Tampa so I could watch a winning football team...

Quote
tegra8, jason mitchell is coming out here for surgery today so hopefully i can pick his brain and see what happened this season.  but, seriously, what dedication on his part! playing with a torn ACL for 8 games.  THAT's why SEC football is the best in the world!

why is he going out there for surgery? you would think there would be a team doc around here that would do it

supposedly a bunch of players, 10 or so, threw/left their helmets in the endzone in disgust after the Vandy loss, I hope everyone of them gets kicked off the team

the doctor he wanted is out here.  the team docs don't do surgery anyways, they just do the minor sh*t.  i'll ask him about the helmet throwing.  he's supposed to be in in a half hour.

Albert Toeina (?) is supposedly one of the main culprits as he also spit and cursed at one of the jumbotron cameramen... according to VolQuest

yeah, albie is something.  he threa some guy off the phi sig house balcony the first week he spent on campus.  i am not surprised.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 20, 2005, 09:55:12 PM
I laugh reading these as people talk about how great USC and the PAC-10 is.  How many ranked teams does USC have to play in a single season.  Their schedule is a freaking joke.  Remember in 2002 when everyone thought Miami was unbeatable then OSU beat them in the national championship?  Why? because Big Ten teams consistently have more difficult schedules than most other conferences.  I mean, seriously, who can really argue that the PAC-10 is a better conference than the SEC or the Big Ten.  And Texas in the Big-12.  Oh God, they sure did a great job playing Baylor.  Come on, let's get serious.  I mean, I realize they beat OSU (which I guarantee they couldnt do again), but it's one thing to play a couple difficult games in a season, and playing a difficult game week after week. 

I mean I will not devulge into why I hate the ranking systems now, but look how teams have evolved over the course of the season.  We need a playoff system.  That is the only way we can declare an undisputed champion; and until that happens kids are going to female dog how their team deserved a shot at the title and didn't get it.

P.S. - OSU v. Miami in the Orange Bowl - Rematch of 2002 - how sweet would that be

P.S.S. - Yes, I understand the Big Ten has 11 teams.  Penn State was added later, which only further fuels my hatred for them.  They ruined everything.

 ::)  Count the teams that have played a harder schedule than USC.  What makes the PAC-10 so bad and the SEC and Big 10 so good?  Didnt you see USC spank UM in 2004 RB? 

PS: USC played 6 ranked teams this season
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 20, 2005, 09:56:17 PM
with only limited results in, it appears that USF will be ranked ahead of South Carolina this week, fwiw...

http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

And I have no doubt that Texas can and will beat USC after watching some of the Fresno St. game

People dont give Fresno St. enough credit.  They are a really good team and would give any team in the country a serious challenge.  This is the game that I was most nervous for because people never give FSU enough credit and it would be easy for them to catch us overlooking them for UCLA. 

DONT SLEEP ON FRESNO STATE

BTW, Texas hasnt played anyone this year and USC is officialy battle tested.

PS: Bush needs to clear some space on his mantle for a large trohpy.
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: tegra8 on November 20, 2005, 10:07:25 PM
I laugh reading these as people talk about how great USC and the PAC-10 is.  How many ranked teams does USC have to play in a single season.  Their schedule is a freaking joke.  Remember in 2002 when everyone thought Miami was unbeatable then OSU beat them in the national championship?  Why? because Big Ten teams consistently have more difficult schedules than most other conferences.  I mean, seriously, who can really argue that the PAC-10 is a better conference than the SEC or the Big Ten.  And Texas in the Big-12.  Oh God, they sure did a great job playing Baylor.  Come on, let's get serious.  I mean, I realize they beat OSU (which I guarantee they couldnt do again), but it's one thing to play a couple difficult games in a season, and playing a difficult game week after week. 

I mean I will not devulge into why I hate the ranking systems now, but look how teams have evolved over the course of the season.  We need a playoff system.  That is the only way we can declare an undisputed champion; and until that happens kids are going to female dog how their team deserved a shot at the title and didn't get it.

P.S. - OSU v. Miami in the Orange Bowl - Rematch of 2002 - how sweet would that be

P.S.S. - Yes, I understand the Big Ten has 11 teams.  Penn State was added later, which only further fuels my hatred for them.  They ruined everything.

 ::)  Count the teams that have played a harder schedule than USC.  What makes the PAC-10 so bad and the SEC and Big 10 so good?  Didnt you see USC spank UM in 2004 RB? 

PS: USC played 6 ranked teams this season

Hell, USF has just as hard of a schedule as USC... USF played at Penn St, at Miami, Louisville and WVU.  Your best games were Oregon, Notre Dame, Fresno St. and UCLA.  The rest of the Big East game are abou the same as the rest of the Pac 10. 
Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 20, 2005, 10:19:12 PM
I laugh reading these as people talk about how great USC and the PAC-10 is.  How many ranked teams does USC have to play in a single season.  Their schedule is a freaking joke.  Remember in 2002 when everyone thought Miami was unbeatable then OSU beat them in the national championship?  Why? because Big Ten teams consistently have more difficult schedules than most other conferences.  I mean, seriously, who can really argue that the PAC-10 is a better conference than the SEC or the Big Ten.  And Texas in the Big-12.  Oh God, they sure did a great job playing Baylor.  Come on, let's get serious.  I mean, I realize they beat OSU (which I guarantee they couldnt do again), but it's one thing to play a couple difficult games in a season, and playing a difficult game week after week. 

I mean I will not devulge into why I hate the ranking systems now, but look how teams have evolved over the course of the season.  We need a playoff system.  That is the only way we can declare an undisputed champion; and until that happens kids are going to female dog how their team deserved a shot at the title and didn't get it.

P.S. - OSU v. Miami in the Orange Bowl - Rematch of 2002 - how sweet would that be

P.S.S. - Yes, I understand the Big Ten has 11 teams.  Penn State was added later, which only further fuels my hatred for them.  They ruined everything.

 ::)  Count the teams that have played a harder schedule than USC.  What makes the PAC-10 so bad and the SEC and Big 10 so good?  Didnt you see USC s