Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhh what?

38 vs Idaho
49 @ Nebraska
47 vs Wash St
27 @ Wash*
24 vs Stanford*
20 vs AZ*
38 @ Notre Dame*
24 @ Oregon*
24 vs Oregon St
24 @ Cal
44 @ ASU

*games with multiple significant offensive injuries, including the quarterback

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very loose use of the asterisk...

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. We lost 3 offensive lineman including the center during the UW game, and they didn't all come back until after Oregon. This in itself is significant enough, but when you couple that with an injured QB and running back I don't see how you can feel that way.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhh what?

38 vs Idaho
49 @ Nebraska
47 vs Wash St
27 @ Wash*
24 vs Stanford*
20 vs AZ*
38 @ Notre Dame*
24 @ Oregon*
24 vs Oregon St
24 @ Cal
44 @ ASU

*games with multiple significant offensive injuries, including the quarterback

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very loose use of the asterisk...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just so unfair that SC has to suffer injuries while the rest of the conference skates by unscathed.

[/ QUOTE ]
now you're just trolling. we were discussing whether usc had an impressive offense this year not how unfair injuries are.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
So many SC fans seem to believe that potential is all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked Sagarin's ratings are results based.
[ QUOTE ]

As a side issue, can we all agree that ASU was significantly overranked? Their OOC schedule was a joke and they get beat by double digits by SC and Oregon, sneak by several other schools. I wouldn't be surprised if they lose next week to Arizona.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they were overranked but not significantly. ASU's only non impressive victories were both away and were 3 points at WSU and 4 points at UCLA. Everything else was pretty much blowouts.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
You really believe this don't you...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...

I guess I'll just say "LOL" and move on, because you aren't worth it. Personally I'd give USC 14/22 positions, with Oregon having 8, but the minor detail that two of Oregon's 8 are people who are the second best player in the COUNTRY at their position and that several of USC's 14 are by very slim margins leaves Oregon as the better overall team.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
You really believe this don't you...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...

I guess I'll just say "LOL" and move on, because you aren't worth it. Personally I'd give USC 14/22 positions, with Oregon having 8, but the minor detail that two of Oregon's 8 are people who are the second best player in the COUNTRY at their position and that several of USC's 14 are by very slim margins leaves Oregon as the better overall team.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between Oregon and USC? USC can win games when they have injury problems [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I should send a thank you to Karl Dorrell for this, because ASU is in with a win! The Fiesta Bowl, that is.

Here's an interesting question. If UCLA beats USC and NTU beats ASU, does Karl Dorrell keep his job?

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love this time of year. Delusional SC fans get excited about one win and start forgetting about losing to stanford at home, losing to Oregon, beating Arizona by 1TD at home, beating Washington by a FG, Cal by a TD, and focus on the most recent victory. The best was walking out of the Rose Bowl last year and hearing some SC fan say, "so there's a real chance we'll be #1!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, one USC fan said something stupid? I don't believe it!

All you USC-haters had your chance this year, and we still win the PAC-10, and will win another rose bowl. Because we win the games when it counts. We don't lose in November.

And I remember a year previously where we lost a close game to an unrated team from the bay area, and the next 2 years were pretty good. And I am not saying potential is all that matters. USC had a bad season this year, where they really had a chance to make a run at a national championship and did not for whatever reason. It reminds me a ton of 2003, and I can't wait for the next few seasons.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
You really believe this don't you...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...

I guess I'll just say "LOL" and move on, because you aren't worth it. Personally I'd give USC 14/22 positions, with Oregon having 8, but the minor detail that two of Oregon's 8 are people who are the second best player in the COUNTRY at their position and that several of USC's 14 are by very slim margins leaves Oregon as the better overall team.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between Oregon and USC? USC can win games when they have injury problems [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You did not just feed me this softball? I'm not even going to bother posting my comeback, I'll just let you figure it out on your own.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
You really believe this don't you...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...

I guess I'll just say "LOL" and move on, because you aren't worth it. Personally I'd give USC 14/22 positions, with Oregon having 8, but the minor detail that two of Oregon's 8 are people who are the second best player in the COUNTRY at their position and that several of USC's 14 are by very slim margins leaves Oregon as the better overall team.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between Oregon and USC? USC can win games when they have injury problems [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You did not just feed me this softball? I'm not even going to bother posting my comeback, I'll just let you figure it out on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I did. Come on. Play with me [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

You know what else I like? All this talk all year about Oregon and the national championship and how ASU is overrated, and ASU is one win away from being in a BCS game.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give us Dixon, Paysinger, Colvin, Johnson and Bacon back and we will beat a fully healthy USC 7 times out of 10 on a neutral site.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the homer in you talking. USC is significantly better at 20 of the 22 starting positons on the field. Stewart isn't that far ahead of the guys USC throws out there. Dixon is a huge edge over Booty, but I'd still make USC a 6 point favorite against Oregon on a neutral field. The times Booty plays as well as Dixon, which would be many, Oregon would have no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
You really believe this don't you...
... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...

I guess I'll just say "LOL" and move on, because you aren't worth it. Personally I'd give USC 14/22 positions, with Oregon having 8, but the minor detail that two of Oregon's 8 are people who are the second best player in the COUNTRY at their position and that several of USC's 14 are by very slim margins leaves Oregon as the better overall team.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between Oregon and USC? USC can win games when they have injury problems [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You did not just feed me this softball? I'm not even going to bother posting my comeback, I'll just let you figure it out on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I did. Come on. Play with me [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

You know what else I like? All this talk all year about Oregon and the national championship and how ASU is overrated, and ASU is one win away from being in a BCS game.

[/ QUOTE ]

ASU showed that they are not nearly as good as an injury-plagued Oregon and USC. They were ranked about evenly with those teams and hence overrated.

Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
 

*sigh*

Stanford, yadda yadda yadda. Moving on. The championship talk regarding Oregon was valid, with Dixon healthy they were probably the best team in the country at that point who hadn't already played their way out of the title hunt. You'll notice that when Dixon got hurt and the Ducks were suddenly out of the hunt, all that conversation stopped. The injury was unfortunate, and a shame, and it cost us a shot at the national championship, but at least we understand that injuries are a part of the game and with the injury we are out of the hunt. No Oregon fans would have claimed (even before today's loss) that "We were without Dixon against Arizona so it shouldn't keep us out of the title game." A loss is still a loss, and when you have two of them you don't play for the title, especially if one of them is to Arizona or Stanford.