FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Given Andrew Luck some credit. He has been clutch many times. The O-line has been impressive as well. Lots of time to throw and big holes for the steamroller they call Toby.

But, I generally agree. Harbaugh would be a worse mistake than RR for Michigan. Go with a proven winner who knows how to recruit that area. Kelly at Cincy comes to mind.

USC passed on Toby. Can only draw that straw so many times. Unless Michigan is trying to form teams from other team's passes? That just doesn't sound like Michigan football.

I also liked when Michigan ran a pro-style offense. Certainly helps get players that are seriously considering the NFL.

It still got botched, no space in "conference". I guess I fail at posting URLs on Fannation.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel
/08/11/confere nce.debate/index.html

In case the URL got botched.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/11/conference.d ebate/index.html

For those looking for non-subjective measurements on conference strengths.

And, I'd disagree with your assessment that the Big East is better than the Big-10. Other than Cincinnati, I have not seen anything special from them this year.

I'd still give the nod to the Big-10.

Keep in mind that Oregon State gave Cincy a run for their money. It was a road game though. Other than a big 2nd quarter, Cincy wasn't able to do much the rest of the game.

First, you need to get your facts straight.

There has no situation in which USC has lost to a cellar dweller Pac-10 team in the final 2-3 weeks and was still in NCG consideration. The last time that remotely happened was when they lost to UCLA 13-9. Final game of the season. That removed them from the NCG. Few were crying from being left in the Rose Bowl, if any. Most reasonable fans realized that was a must-win game (you always have a nutcase or two).

The only other times have been Oregon State (3rd game last year) and Stanford (5th game). Of those two, only Stanford was a cellar dweller that year. Oregon State finished in the top 20 in the final BCS poll. If a Top 20 is a cellar dweller, I must be misunderstanding your definition of cellar dweller.

So, clearly you either have a poor memory or are biased in your reasoning.

OOC is mandatory when comparing conferences. In fact, when you look at non-biased, objective methods, you'll find that Pac-10 actually does quite well over the last decade. There have been numerous CNN/SI articles to this effect. Just takes a little time and energy to find them. They are only weak in the eyes of folks who have a preset bias towards them.

Using a conference's internally perceived SoS is an outstandingly poor mechanism for evaluating that conference's strength. How a conference performs against other conferences is all that really matters. In fact, when real new publications try to address this subject, this is one of their top criteria. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that idea.

It is true that USC did not directly schedule Michigan. Out of the 4 I listed, you found the one. I like how you conveniently ignore the other 3. Of course, as most reasonable College Football fans know, USC has scheduled a few more toughies besides them. The relevance is that USC played them. That lends credence to that fact that USC has no problem dispatching other conference champions (Texas being the lone example). Yet, has a habit of losing to conference opponents. The more logical conclusion, other than USC plays a weak OOC schedule, is that the Pac-10 isn't given enough credit.

If last year's bowl wins weren't enough to diminish your bias, then there isn't much else that probably can. It's ok to have a bias, as long as you acknowledge it. Otherwise, you are just a hater. All I can do is present the facts. It is up to you understand them.

Oh yeah, that same year they beat the third best Big-10 team...they also played the "best" Big-10 team. That "best" Big-10 team was an early favorite for the NCG until they ran into Iowa.

How that game went is all over the Internet.

Maybe there really was some justification for USC *to be considered* for the NCG? In fact, a lot of people said that result was a good reason to have a +1 format. So, it wasn't only USC fans.

Ohio State? Michigan? Auburn? Arkansas? I guess those teams don't matter anymore since they weren't mentioned. These are teams from the powerhouse conferences you hold so highly. I dare you to actually go see how those games turned out.

CNNSI's Stewart Mandel even recognized that USC has probably played the toughest OOC schedule over the last 5 years. This isn't just me wildly flailing in the wind.

What we learn is folks don't do their research. Oregon State wasn't 2-8, nor a bottom dweller, when they lost to them. That was Stanford (at the time) :D. Oregon State was a very good football team. They finished in the top 25 that year.

Your bias is showing still.

Didn't USC beat the Big-10 champ? In their house? Given where USC is likely to finish in the Pac-10, that doesn't say a lot for the Big-10.

You're getting a little carried away with your Pac-10 hate.

Last year folks underestimated the Pac-10 too. They then finished 5-0 in bowl games. Against the same conferences you just listed.

The Pac-10 is eating itself this year. And, there is still some eating to be had. Is that a sign of many good teams or a lot of bad teams?

It's the same schedule and the same teams. You think Oregon is that much different than last year...or even Stanford?

Consider your logic...

These teams had to finally beat (in some cases dominate) USC to get any credit. Of course, that is now your case for saying that the past USC teams were unworthy. If USC had beaten them, you'd say the Pac-10 is still the Pac-1+9.

It's logic like this that ruins College Football. People get all wrapped up in their biases and can't see things for what they really are.

Last I checked, USC still hasn't lost out of conference in many moons. And, they've played some of the toughest OOC schedules assembled. Maybe folks just haven't been giving the Pac-10 it's due....just maybe.

This isn't entirely correct.

USC is currently #1 in the Pac-10 due to their 6-1 record. Oregon State is only 5-1. Therefore, if you check the actual standings, you'll see they are #1.

And, even if Oregon State wins out, USC will win a share of the Pac-10 title to continue their streak. In the Pac-10, titles can be shared. The tiebreakers are only used to determine who gets the automatic bid (i.e Rose Bowl).

Because if they go to USC, that would further the mentality of a "5-star bench". This leads to pollsters thinking USC has too much depth to lose any games. They then get rated even higher.

Given how much East Coasters whine about USC's ranking, it would seem you do care where these 5-star players land.

Final game stats:

C.J. Gable: 10 carries, 108 yards, 10.8 ypc, 2 TDs
Stafon: 8 carries, 40 yards, 5.0 ypc, 1 TD

Nearly the same number of carries, but over twice the total production.

If this is what you mean by "THE MAN", you have no clue about football. Just stop please. You're discrediting all the real football fans out there.

Big East.

Petros believes Havili is the best all-around USC back. He says this every week.

It appears you don't even bother to watch the football games. No wonder you have no idea what is going on. You're not a fan. You could care less about the team. All you care about is if Stafon looks good. And, he isn't even the best back today.

Nothing is going your way today, is it?

1. Of course not. It's the smart thing to do. It is also the smart thing for the coaches to do too. However, your inconsistencies are striking. Your bias clouds your reasoning. You say you hate all types of politics, but, you don't criticize Stafon for it.

2. Odd, the coaches said today they'd be featuring C.J. Gable. Stats: 9 carries, 58 yards, 6.4 ypc, 2 TDs. Stafon: 7 carries, 36 carries, 5.1 ypc, 1 TD. Seems Stafon isn't quit "THE MAN" yet. More yards, better ypc, and more TDs. Seems C.J. is having the better day.

The second half will be a lot of Green and Tyler.

1. It wasn't anything special. At least, nothing more than what has already been posted (man on man content). I was repeating what he said in his previous post plus I linked some other threads that show Arejaydub throwing a hissy-fit when other people suggested he had a "man crush". I'm guessing he didn't want the word to get out. A lot of these posts have been borderline from both of us, but Arejaydub finally showed that, if you get too close to the truth, he will hit "Report Abuse".

2. Exactly. That's why C.J. Gable needs to shut up too. Play hard, play smart, get playing time. If you don't like it, leave. Moody did it. Others have done it. Stop blaming the coaches for lack of playing time. They've got more on the line than all of their players. What's worse is when you get their relatives in these forums spouting off what the player themself is directly contradicting in the public.

1. Are you suggesting that Stafon is lying? You mean he's playing politics? I thought you hated that stuff. Are you now going to hate Stafon?

2. Are you saying I can't believe Stafon? What about the good stuff he has said? Is he lying there too?

3. Yeap, I made comment #124. Apparently, it struck a nerve for you. The admins don't get involved unless someone reports the post. Means there was something in that post that you didn't like. You tend to blow a gasket anytime anyone suggests your "relationship" with Stafon. You are very defensive in that regard. Makes it more likely that it is true.

4. You're not from USC. You've never gone to USC. You only know Stafon. You'll have plenty of information I'm not privy to...like what foods you like and what's your favorite color.

5. You're a hater when you want to be a hater. That's all. Stafon plays politics and he's ok. Coaches play politics and you hate them. You're not even consistent.

6. Haha, you brought up politics. That's the biggest sign that you feel you're losing and have nothing of signficance to say. Why don't you just roll on your back and throw a tantrum too? You big, dummy! I can't believe you bring in politics. Why not call me an Obamanite and cover all your bases? You should seek some professional help. Seriously.

So, you're not a USC fan. Just a Stafon fan.

That begs the question...what is your obsession with Stafon?

You have to be a close friend or relative. No stranger would be considered sane with the fervor that you defend Stafon. Some of the things you say would get the police after you for stalking.

The only other possible answer is that you are Stafon himself. But, you would be directly contradicting everything that Stafon says in the newspapers. Stafon says he understands why he hasn't played. He agrees that he hasn't played up to his ability and understands the rotation. He even says he has questioned if he is good enough to play. All this is in a recent article in the LA Times.

Funny how even Stafon disagrees with you.

So, it is more likely you are a close friend or relative who thinks Stafon is getting a raw deal. It is funny how the LA Times also just recently had an article about crazy relatives/friends that harrass the coaches about the lack of playing time.

Worse, you have no vested interest in the success of USC. All you care about is Stafon. In fact, you will hurt USC if that benefits Stafon. You've demonstrated this several times.

Since this is the case, why don't you just recommend to Stafon that he transfers to another school?

That way he's out of the politics and can demonstate his ability to the rest of the world.

Well played...well played...

Agreed. Texas is close, but their defense still scares me in a tight game. I favor Penn State in that matchup.

I've met a lot of Penn State fans over the years. A lot of very loyal and courteous fans. I'm not sure what went wrong with this one.