|
|
#231
11-23-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
people keep acting like usc got blown out or something. i don't think anyone actually watched this game, probably b/c it was on VS. injuries and booty's 4 second half picks (1 returned for touchdown) with broken finger notwithstanding, usc still would have won if it wasn't some amazing plays by their receivers in their last couple drives. i'm sorry but when receivers are making incredible randy moss type catches in double coverage repeatedly there is nothing you can do but watch the other team score.
|
|
#233
11-23-2007, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ QUOTE ]
7 teams managed to do something else. [/ QUOTE ] and stanford never came close to consistently making those plays like they did at the end of the sc game. obvious fluke
|
|
#234
11-23-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 7 teams managed to do something else. [/ QUOTE ] and stanford never came close to consistently making those plays like they did at the end of the sc game. obvious fluke [/ QUOTE ] So fluke losses just don't count? Is this your position?
|
|
#235
11-23-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 7 teams managed to do something else. [/ QUOTE ] and stanford never came close to consistently making those plays like they did at the end of the sc game. obvious fluke [/ QUOTE ] So fluke losses just don't count? Is this your position? [/ QUOTE ] no. all i'm saying is that in a playoff teams wouldn't be punished for these kinds of losses due to early season injuries
|
|
#237
11-23-2007, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they would be punished. They would be seeded around 6-8. This would mean probably 2 road playoff games against top 5 teams just to make the championship. [/ QUOTE ] and if they lost they'd play in the rose bowl anyway. that is hardly being punished
|
|
#238
11-23-2007, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
I think that Georgia and USC are very close in the battle for "best team at this moment that currently has two losses". If you ask what team is "best when fully healthy, among teams currently with two losses" though, my money is on Oregon. 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.
Of course USC >>>>> Oregon at the moment, because USC's injuries were early in the year and they're healthy now, while Oregon has just gotten more and more beat up as the year has progressed. And this is precisely why we shouldn't have a playoff. USC does not deserve to be rewarded for having *their* injury problems earlier in the year than Oregon did. Injuries are part of the game, and if you lose because of them it may mitigate things in the question of how "good" you are, but you still lost and should still be punished for it. In USC's case, that loss was to Stanford, and they should NOT have a chance to win the National Title at this point in the year, given that game.
|
|
#239
11-23-2007, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ 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 ] doubt that very much. i'd say they're maybe even, but usc probably has the edge. remember oregon only won by 7 at home against usc who was missing most of their front line and was starting sanchez. oregon has too many defensive liablities.
|
|
#240
11-23-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Pac 10 football thread
[ 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 ] You are saying you'd be a 6 point favorite over USC on a neutral field. I think you'd be a dog. Maybe I'm wrong, but you can't be right.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
