Law School Discussion

College Football

ASNetlenov

Re: College Football
« Reply #180 on: June 15, 2005, 12:24:09 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.

Nole

  • ****
  • 2469
  • Go Noles!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #181 on: June 15, 2005, 12:26:06 PM »
Ahhhhh. I was about to loose faith in you as a football fan!  :D

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #182 on: June 15, 2005, 12:40:59 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

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #183 on: June 15, 2005, 12:47:48 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.

Nole

  • ****
  • 2469
  • Go Noles!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #184 on: June 15, 2005, 12:53:29 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.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #185 on: June 15, 2005, 12:57:35 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. 


Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #186 on: June 15, 2005, 01:05:58 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?

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #187 on: June 15, 2005, 02:03:48 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

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #188 on: June 15, 2005, 02:24:38 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?

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #189 on: June 15, 2005, 02:33:34 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.