ESPN's college football staff watched every game played by USC, Oklahoma and Auburn last season. And for what it's worth, the consensus of our group after the regular season -- not a unanimous opinion, by the way -- was that Auburn was the second-best team in the country. One person thought the Tigers were the best. Might a committee that watched every game have reached the same conclusion? Might the BCS championship game have had a different result? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know
ESPN's BCS Guru Brad Edwards
- Thread starter Sun Tzu
- Start date
i saw auburn, ou and utah all pretty close with sc well above each of them
i thought auburn or sc would have been a tougher match-up for sc than ou
utah was an awesome team last year....wish they could have shown more and played a higher profile team in a bcs game than pitt.....think utah-auburn would have been a great game to watch.
i thought auburn or sc would have been a tougher match-up for sc than ou
utah was an awesome team last year....wish they could have shown more and played a higher profile team in a bcs game than pitt.....think utah-auburn would have been a great game to watch.
I think both AU and OU would have lost to USC. We know how OU played, but we don't know how AU would have challenged USC. I think OU had better "star" players around the field to beat USC. AU has "star" players at the RB position and a very good QB (who btw was drafted 1st rd) Yes they had star players at other positions but not nearly as many as OU. But I don't think AU had nearly as balanced of an offense as OU. To beat USC, you need a balanced offense. It is that simple. You cannot pound your way into beating USC. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN against a Carroll defense. Both teams rushing attack basically cancel each other out, but I woud have given OU the nod in passing attack. On defense AU was better than OU but OU also had exceptional athletes on defense. I don't think there was a defense in the country last year that could hold USC to under 30pts. Especially for a bowl game where USC coaching staff has weeks to prepare. Plus AU and OU have not really seen an offense like USC so it is tough to defend against.
The facts?
We know Carroll is 1-0 against OU and 2-0 against AU! (1home and 1away) Neither team has/had a coaching advantage. IMO, coaching is everything in CFB.
The facts?
We know Carroll is 1-0 against OU and 2-0 against AU! (1home and 1away) Neither team has/had a coaching advantage. IMO, coaching is everything in CFB.
Hmm Less impressive defenses than Auburn's in Va Tech, Cal, and UCLA all held USC under 30, and pathetic Stanford almost did as well. Stanford and UCLA were off bye weeks (actually UCLA had 2 bye weeks) and of course Va Tech had a month of practice. But I guess those arent facts.
Sun Tzu said:
Nobody was going to hold USC to under 30 in their bowl game. USC was healthy on offense except for Lendale White (who BTW was awesome in OB despite injured ankle)
Against UCLA, USC was running the clock in 2h and playing conservative and USC lost their OL and replaced him with true frosh who had bad disk back. He is out this season because of that but he played through it against UCLA. That frosh was beat badly on 3 plays, I mean badly, and were huge plays for UCLA defense. I am talking like USC having 3rd and 2 and UCLA DT getting through line like nobody is blocking him. In the OB, the original starter was healthy and played against OU. Everyone knows OL is so important and USC did not have great depth at OL last year. (as you can see playing a true frosh as 2nd string with bad back) Oh yeah, isn't UCLA a rivalry game for USC? UCLA treated and had the time to treat USC game as a bowl game. USC had to prepare for their other rivalry game week before against ND. SO USC only had 1 week to prepare for UCLA which is another huge rivalry game for USC. Extremely tough and emotional to play back to back rivalry games.
CAL played USC early in season where USC was inexperienced on offense and Carroll's gameplan against CAL was to let CAL play ball control offense. Unfortunately Rogers was excellent and on fire that day.
V-Tech was 1st game of year on the road. USC had only 2 returning starters on OL, no returning starters at WR, no returning starter at FB, no returning starter at TE, off field situations with starting RB Dennis and Mike Williams. Give me a break. Carroll showed why he is the best coach in the country by winning that game! 60k plus hokie fans vs 15k+ USC fans. USC won?
Not making any of this up. But if you think the same USC offense in these games was the same offense AU would have faced in the bowl game, you are delusional. Safe to say, case closed on this argument!
Excuses, Excuses, no one will ever know for certain if USC would of beat Auburn! As Sun Tzu pointed out USC did not face a defense with the caliber of athletes and speed that Auburn presented and this would of presented a problem for the Trojans. In my opinion the best defense that USC faced all year was Va Tech and they got lucky to pull that game out on a phantom interference call that was just brutal, but I would have to rate Va Tech's defense a slight notch below the defense that Auburn presented last year. If they had played and the line would of been USC minus three or under then I would of taken the Trojans, but anything more then Auburn would of been a live dog.
.
Same can be said of 2 seasons ago, when USC played no defense near the caliber of the LSU D.
It is my opinion that USC has been the best team over the past 2-3 seasons, but I feel LSU was the best team in the nation 2 years ago and Auburn was the best team in the nation last year.
Master Capper said:
:nono:
Why would you say that was a bad pass interference call when you and everybody else did not see the play from the same angle the ref who threw the flag? ESPN never once showed the angle from the sidelines where the ref was standing.
2nd, how could you say that was a bad PI when replay clearly shows the V-Tech WR putting 2 hands on the USC DB. Technically that is a PI because a WR is not allowed to put 2 hands on a DB. Sorry, but the V-Tech WR had 2 hands on USC DB. That is a fact! Now we do not know how much or if at all the WR pushed off. That we don't know. We do know the USC DB over-ran the play, was it his momentum or was it partially because the V-Tech WR pushed off? All we do know is that the WR had his 2 hands on the USC DB and the Ref called a PI from an angle YOU DID NOT SEE because ESPN never showed replay from the refs viewpoint. But what we did see from the ESPN replay was the V-Tech WR putting 2 hands on USC DB.
Not a bad PI call. You could argue call could go either way but the "facts" are against you AND you did not see same viewpoint as ref. Wishful thinking. V-Tech played hard but would have lost with or without that PI call. BTW, I think V-Tech playing USC helped the hokies win the ACC. All summer I think they put extra effort conditioning and practices to try and upset the #1 team in the country. Previous years they might have slacked off tad because they opened up against crap OOC opponnent. Props to V-Tech accepting to play USC who was ranked #1 pre-season. Although it was home game for V-Tech.
Sorry, no way was I going to let you get away with that ridiculous comment. Especially when there is no evidence to support your accusation. The evidence in fact is against you from replay! As I clearly stated!
USC would have been 7 pt favorites over AU prior to USC blowout over OU. After the OU game, I think USC prob. would have been 10pt favorites but sportsbooks said USC would have been 7pt favorites over AU.
It was not only a bad call but a brutal call that turned the tide of the game. That call normally goes to the offense nine out of ten times, but your right I was not on the sidelines like you to see the play.
Master Capper said:
I watched the game from my TV and I tape all USC games. I watched that play maybe 5-10 times. It is ridiculous for you to scrutinize that call. I know you are an intelligent person and you know your CFB, but you are way off base in this argument.
#1 You never saw the same angle the ref did. ESPN NEVER showed any other angle. Ref was on opposite sideline of the ESPN Camera shot. Right there you have no argument against the Ref because you NEVER saw what the ref saw.
#2 The V-Tech WR had not one, but BOTH hands on the USC DB. This is a fact! This was 30+ yards downfield. A WR is technically is not allowed to put his hands on the DB. The ESPN Camera shot CLEARLY showed the WR doing this. Now some refs allow physical play, and other do not. But according to the rule book, and from the ESPN camera angle, that was an offensive PI because he did have both hands on the USC DB. The camera doesn't lie! :mj07:
#3 Did the V-tech WR push offf or just touch the USC DB? I don't know and nobody knows. But we do know he had his hands on the USC DB and the USC DB overran the play. Why did he overrun the play? Was it his momentum carrying him (maybe), or was he pushed (maybe)? But we do know that the V-Tech WR had his hands on the USC DB. We saw it from the ESPN camera shot. We don't know what the ref saw because ESPN NEVER showed a camera shot from the ref's viewpoint.
THESE ARE ALL FACTs! You have no argument on this. In fact, you have not supported your argument. You just threw out your opinion thinking that enough. WRONG!
I uess the phantom whistle against UCLA ddidnt matter either. It is these type of posts that you make that take away any credibility you might have had.
Scott, I have patiently read through your seemingly endless posts defending USC since the end of the 2004/2005 football season and I have to say that there is some truth in what Sun Tzu says.Sun Tzu said:
While your posts generally consist of well researched information, you as much as anyone (and maybe more that most) consistently spin the information that you provide to fit your specific agenda. Now, this is certainly something that everyone of us does at times but it is apparent in your case that you feel there is no room for opposing opinions.
I know that you have repeatedly stated that you welcome a debate supported by facts but any attempt to debate with you is almost always met with a rant of some kind or another and it will inevitably end when the other person gets tired of your endless defense of your beloved Trojans.
Everyone has an alma mater or a favorite team but I must say that in my experience, your brand of homerism is unparalleled.
Good luck with your season and if I could make a suggestion; tone it down a bit and you might find your time spent here at Mad Jack's a little more enjoyable.
Oh, and by the way, there is nothing I would rather see than for Texas to get a shot at you west coast girlie boys in the Rose Bowl!
Hook 'em Horns!
:Yep:
Scott,
These are not facts they are your opinions and this does not make them facts. That play is rarely if ever called the way it went down if anything the offensive player is given more slack. I suggest you watch that play again and seperate yourself from being a USC fan and you will clearly see that the defender impeded the receiver even if he did not intentionally try to do so.
These are not facts they are your opinions and this does not make them facts. That play is rarely if ever called the way it went down if anything the offensive player is given more slack. I suggest you watch that play again and seperate yourself from being a USC fan and you will clearly see that the defender impeded the receiver even if he did not intentionally try to do so.
scott,
no sportsbook said southern cal would have been a 7 point favorite over Auburn. everything i saw and read said southern call would have opened as a 3 to 3.5 just like they did against oklahoma. besides, what does a line have to do with which team wins the game.
osc
no sportsbook said southern cal would have been a 7 point favorite over Auburn. everything i saw and read said southern call would have opened as a 3 to 3.5 just like they did against oklahoma. besides, what does a line have to do with which team wins the game.
osc
The Judge said:
I disagreee. Of course what I post supports my opinion. But if someone else brings up a good argument, I acknowledge it. Even if the person has made personal attacks towards me in the past. If someone has not made good arguments, I do not acknowledge it and pretend that they did. I hold everyone accountable for what they say. If someone just states their opinion, that is worthless info to me. Just like people who post their picks without analysis or don't keep a record to date. There is no accountability. I like to hold people accountable. That is my opinion.
The Judge said:
I wish these other west coast posters here would support the SEC etc because it would be entertaining for me to debate them. They often support their opinion with facts. Most of these SEC posters etc. think debating is stating your opinion and thats good enough. Do you have a problem with someone counter arguing? That is a form of debating. Taking what the other person says and either explaining why you disagree, why they are wrong, or why it doesn't help their argument. Nothing wrong to counter argue. And I like said before, if someone brings up a good point, I always acknowledge it and give them props.
During the off-season I usually talk more about the Pac 10 vs everyone else. But usually when I do talk about USC, it is in response to someone else mentioning them. I always get a kick out of those posters who say I talk about USC or debate the conf. too much when at least 75% of my posts are replies to other posters talking about the same subject.
All in all, I enjoy interacting with posters here at MJ's, it is fun thing to do. Luckily for me it usually takes me less than 5min. to make a post. If I couldn't type and gather my thoughts fast, I would be in trouble with all the time spent here. I respect everyone here to a certain degree and with this forum I sorta get the feeling of like knowing posters in real life. A personal type feeling. Maybe that is why some choose to make personal attacks. I try and refrain myself from that.
:tongue
Beat OU first, then we can talk.
Master Capper said:
:nooo:
If the TV shot shows the V-Tech WR having his 2 hands on the USC DB, that is a FACT!
If ESPN never shows the same shot as the ref who through the flag, then saying those exact words is a FACT! ESPN never showed the same view that the ref running down the sidelines saw. Hell, maybe the ref never even saw the V-Tech WR's hands on the USC DB. I do know for a "fact" from the ESPN camera shot, that the V-Tech had his 2 hands on the USC DB.
Whether that play is rarely ever called is a subjective opinion. IMO, I think the WR prob. gets away with that 70% of the time. But you cannot say it was a bad call when the rulebook says, A WR CANNOT PUT HIS HANDS ON A DB DOWNFIELD! So therefore, it is not a bad call on technical reasons. In addition, you never even saw the same viewpoint as the ref.
No, I do not have the tape. I tape over every USC game the following week. But I did remember watching the play at least 5 times. Fast motion, slow motion and puasing it. Why? Because it was a big play! I wanted to see if USC caught a break or not. IMO, they might have caught a break, but that was def. not a bad call. Yes, the call could have gone either way, I will admit that. But it def. was not a bad call and to top off, and I will say it again, YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE, NEVER SAW WHAT THE REF SAW! From the viewpoint we did see, the V-Tech WR had 2 hands on the USC DB. These are not my opinions, they are facts supported by what the camera showed! Sorry to disapoint you!
Sun Tzu said:
I agree the Reggie Bush fumble could have gone either way but the ref blew whistle, so you cannot fumble after the whistle. 2nd, the UCLA player who recovered, would have been run down by faster players surrounding him. So UCLA still would have had to score.
If you are going to mention the big break USC caught, why not mention the HUGE break UCLA caught early in the game. The break where UCLA ran the kickoff return for a TD early in the game. A UCLA player blatantly held a USC player and no flag was thrown. The result? Open space for the UCLA returner and a TD. Not all holding penalties get called, you can find 10-20 of them in a game that refs see but let players get away with. HOWEVER, you never should let a player get away with a holding when it results in a TD for their team. NEVER SHOULD HAPPEN! Maybe that ref was an AU or OU alum?
I get a kick when UCLA fans mention that Bush fumble, but never like to comment on the blatant hold that was not called and resulted in a UCLA TD. At least with the Bush call, the whistle blew and the UCLA player who recovered would have been run down. No excuses for the non holding call that resulted in a TD.
oldschoolcapper said:scott,
no sportsbook said southern cal would have been a 7 point favorite over Auburn. everything i saw and read said southern call would have opened as a 3 to 3.5 just like they did against oklahoma. besides, what does a line have to do with which team wins the game.
osc
I know I posted an article where a sportsbook said what the line would have been USC vs AU. I think I remember it saying USC -7 over AU, but def. could be wrong on that. Maybe it read OU -7 vs AU but I doubt that. I dunno. But I do remember myself posting that article and I really wanted USC to play AU than OU.
