Nation's love affair with USC now appears to have hit the rocks

[johngateswhiteley]

I would take any of the top 3 big 12 south teams and/or florida and think that any one of them could beat usc.

all 4 of those teams have the talent & potential to put it all together in one game & blow anyone out of the water or slow them down enough to beat them.

sure, they 'could', but i doubt they would. i love all these posters making all this noise...lol.

[cash459]

sure, they 'could', but i doubt they would. i love all these posters making all this noise...lol.

i love how youre knocking my post & have made the same type of posts but in reverse and you have absolutely NOTHING to base it on also. youre going on as much of an assumption as i am, so if im the one "making all this noise" then so are you!

[KewlKat00]

i would be scared of florida and texas. i really think it could go either way in those games. it seems that usc only gets up for the big games in recent years, so i'm hoping that we end up in the sugar or orange bowl.

bandwagon fans happen everywhere. it is easy for people to blame it on the whole southern california at ude, but i think in most places it is just a little less extreme. i certainly don't remember a good majority of people in texas wearing burnt orange all the time when i was younger. anyway, i'm actually glad that people are supposedly leaving the bandwagon because it might allow my friends who graduated after 2004 to get season tickets. furthermore, anyone knocking pete carroll isn't even a fan. i might not agree with some of the calls or outcomes, but i'm certainly not going to call out a coach who not only restored a program that had become irrelevant but has the highest winning percentage of any active coach.

[j-6]

I'd like someone to explain to me how all the Cali HS talent manifests in to one dominant program and nine also-rans in that conference. Why can't UCLA, Cal, and Stanford use the sheer resources of that state to at least achieve a legit second dominant squad? Cal had a Tech year fairly recently (that Mack kiboshed) so it's not like the resources aren't there. Florida has three BCS champion schools in the last ten years and if California is that fertile of a football breeding ground, there's got to be some excuse on why they can't do the same. I'd like to hear an excuse or two.

[leemajors]

so true.

greatness

[leemajors]

I'd like someone to explain to me how all the Cali HS talent manifests in to one dominant program and nine also-rans in that conference. Why can't UCLA, Cal, and Stanford use the sheer resources of that state to at least achieve a legit second dominant squad? Cal had a Tech year fairly recently (that Mack kiboshed) so it's not like the resources aren't there. Florida has three BCS champion schools in the last ten years and if California is that fertile of a football breeding ground, there's got to be some excuse on why they can't do the same. I'd like to hear an excuse or two.

pete carroll gives good head. the best.

[KewlKat00]

I'd like someone to explain to me how all the Cali HS talent manifests in to one dominant program and nine also-rans in that conference. Why can't UCLA, Cal, and Stanford use the sheer resources of that state to at least achieve a legit second dominant squad? Cal had a Tech year fairly recently (that Mack kiboshed) so it's not like the resources aren't there. Florida has three BCS champion schools in the last ten years and if California is that fertile of a football breeding ground, there's got to be some excuse on why they can't do the same. I'd like to hear an excuse or two.

i have no clue so i'm not going to attempt to explain. perhaps the players aren't being developed as well as at other schools. if that is the case, i would say that oregon state and stanford should succeed because of good coaching, but both have big disadvantages in recruiting (location and academics, respectively). i think the real test to that excuse will be ucla in a few years. they should do well, regardless of facing off against usc for talent. who knows about cal though. they've never really been strong, and people are already questioning tedford.

of course, maybe the hs talent isn't as fertile as other areas. i don't know, but usc gets a number of big-time players from other areas (just a few examples: mike williams, dwayne jarrett, lendale white, brian cushing, taylor mays, kris o'dowd, damian williams...)

[johngateswhiteley]

I'd like someone to explain to me how all the Cali HS talent manifests in to one dominant program and nine also-rans in that conference. Why can't UCLA, Cal, and Stanford use the sheer resources of that state to at least achieve a legit second dominant squad? Cal had a Tech year fairly recently (that Mack kiboshed) so it's not like the resources aren't there. Florida has three BCS champion schools in the last ten years and if California is that fertile of a football breeding ground, there's got to be some excuse on why they can't do the same. I'd like to hear an excuse or two.

well, i don't think the Pac-10 is as bad as people make it out to be, and even in recent years i think there have been some good teams outside of USC. since 2000, the Pac-10 is 10-5 against the SEC (exclusive of this year) with only 4 of those wins by SC.

furthermore, last year the pac 10 was 4-2 in bowl games and if ucla's kick is made in the finals seconds against byu, they go 5-1. there were some good wins in there, with the only bad loss being ASU getting killed by t.u..

another factor it appears is that after USC rapes the state and various schools from across the country cherry pick, the leftovers aren't as quality as say florida and texas. meaning, texas and florida have deeper talent.

adding further, outside of Carrol, Belotti, Tedford, and Riley there haven't been the quality coaches of other power conferences. now that ucla, arizona state, and stanford seem to have some new good coaches i think you'll start to see the conference improve. don't forget this is Neuheisel's first year and only the second years for Erickson and Harbaugh.

there are a lot of factors that go into the maturation of talent...some years it works out and some it doesn't. why do conferences, as well as teams go through peaks and valleys? A&M has consistently been getting top 20 talent, but they haven't been anywhere near a top 20 team.

thats the best i can explain it...i think.

[MajorMike]

Oh come on, you beat around a weak AFA team by less than a TD, a Maryland team with a losing record, an Illinois team that hard zero clue how to spell BCS, while UCLA ends up with a losing record after getting beat by BYU and your 2nd place team gets slaughtered just down I-8 from their own house by the 4th best team in the B12.

You seriously going to say that Cal beating Air Force 42-36 in the Bell Helicopter Amred Forces Bowl after AFA is up 21-0 and the the starting QB tears his ACL/MCL allowing Cal to get back in it and then Ore State coming from behind to a Maryland team that was 3-5 (9th place) in the frickin ACC in the San Fransisco Emerald Bowl proof that the P10 was a good league last year. For real?

Crimeny, you are the king of spin.

[IronMexican]

I'd like someone to explain to me how all the Cali HS talent manifests in to one dominant program and nine also-rans in that conference. Why can't UCLA, Cal, and Stanford use the sheer resources of that state to at least achieve a legit second dominant squad? Cal had a Tech year fairly recently (that Mack kiboshed) so it's not like the resources aren't there. Florida has three BCS champion schools in the last ten years and if California is that fertile of a football breeding ground, there's got to be some excuse on why they can't do the same. I'd like to hear an excuse or two.

Growing up out here, all the athletes talk about USC, and not one word of UCLA. I have no idea why. Pete Carrol is just a genius.

[johngateswhiteley]

Oh come on, you beat around a weak AFA team by less than a TD, a Maryland team with a losing record, an Illinois team that hard zero clue how to spell BCS, while UCLA ends up with a losing record after getting beat by BYU and your 2nd place team gets slaughtered just down I-8 from their own house by the 4th best team in the B12.

You seriously going to say that Cal beating Air Force 42-36 in the Bell Helicopter Amred Forces Bowl after AFA is up 21-0 and the the starting QB tears his ACL/MCL allowing Cal to get back in it and then Ore State coming from behind to a Maryland team that was 3-5 (9th place) in the frickin ACC in the San Fransisco Emerald Bowl proof that the P10 was a good league last year. For real?

Crimeny, you are the king of spin.

i really don't want to get into this...cause you are a straight up tool. its incredible.

1) maryland was 6-6 going into the bowl

2) Cal had suspended players that didn't play until they were down 21-0, not to mention Riley came in and Cal stopped turning the ball over

3) you joking about illinois is ridiculous

4) BYU was in the top 20, i believe...and yet, ucla could have easily won

5) Oregon stomped on a ranked and good South Florida team...you left that out


i'm the king of spin? off.

[chode_regulator]

. since 2000, the Pac-10 is 10-5 against the SEC (exclusive of this year) with only 4 of those wins by SC.........




furthermore, last year the pac 10 was 4-2 in bowl games and if ucla's kick is made in the finals seconds against byu, they go 5-1........

hmmmm...yeah i guess one team having 40% of wins against a conference isnt alot.


and IF gideon caught that potential interception, UT is still undefeated. If Tom Brady doesnt hurt his knee the pats go undefeated again. If Bush were never elected we wouldnt have gone to war in two countries......so on and so forth