Coaches Poll is out!

[Coug LJ]

Not to get into a pissing contest, but the Pac-10 is not a cupcake conference. This year should be better, though I don't know if there will be two Top Ten teams like last year.

ASU crushed Iowa in 2004 and Oregon State outplayed LSU in Baton Rouge. Not to piggyback on Scott's stats, but it has been very difficult to go through the Pac-10 undefeated.

I picked ASU to beat USC last year and the Trojans were up 42-0 at half. Don't see the Sun Devils recovering from that in a year. My pick is Cal. They have proven they can play SC even and have the line and running game to push the Trojans around. ...You are not going to out-score the Trojans. Better off keeping them off the field. Marshawn Lynch and Cal may be able to do that.

Pac-10 teams are usually open to Home and Home series with Big 10 and SEC schools. Talk to your A.D.'s. I will say this about USC, they havn't had a history of shying away from the competition.

 

[Scott4USC]

Quote from Mel Kiper:

"USC would be more vulnerable if their schedule was difficult."

Pat Forde: Q. Why do you think the Pac-10 has the reputation of being soft...is it east coast bias?

A. Not necessarily a bias. I think there is some legitimacy to the fact the Pac 10 is not very deep...last year they had 2 really good teams in USC and Cal and then a big dropoff.

I am sorry, I do not respect anybody who throws out an opinion without backing it up. Any dummy can give an opinion. An intelligent person supports their opinion.

Funny how Forde says there were 2 really good teams in the pac 10 and then big dropoff. UMMM, didn't USC win the NC blowing out OU? Didn't USC have a tougher time beating at least 4-5 Pac 10 opponents than OU? Yep, BIG DROPOFF? Ask USC who has blown out 3 straight BCS opponents while having harding time in conf. play. GOOD DATA FORDE! :mj07:

Master Capper

even though you would have to question Cal after the Texas Tech debacle.

That was a severely injured CAL team who played Texas Tech. Not to mention a CAL team who didn't want to be there. The CAL team Texas Tech played was nowhere near the same CAL team who USC played that went down to the wire. Look at the starters in each game. Then edit your ridiculous comment.


Cie Grant

I would rank Texas #1. USC has too many ??? on defense. Mack Brown is a goat, and he will probably never win a national title, but preseason they deserve #1 due to all the experience and talent they return.

Ummm, Texas has zero question marks coming into next season? WOW! I did not know that. I think USC's only question marks are at DT, FG kicker and maybe LB. DB's might be question mark if injuries add up. Forget about any question marks on offense. I def. will be looking out for Texas if they don't have many question marks. Although Vince Young throwing the ball might be considered a question mark.


Coug LJ

CAL is a good choice but they play USC at the end of the year. Carroll always has his team playing excellent ball at the end of the year. Don't forget this will be the most experienced team Carroll has had at USC. By the time CAL plays USC, Carroll will have his stud freshman recruits playing experience. Best time to beat USC is early in season. Arky and Oregon are 2 excellent choices IMO. Fresno St. might be one with all their experience and chance USC might be taking them lightly.


soul train

The trojans returning only 5 players on the defensive side of the ball this season and that will be a problem.

USC only returned 2 starters on offense to start the season last year. You could argue 3 returning starters if you factor BUSH/White. I think the USC offense did fine last year. I also think you brought up valid pts on USC's defense but they might surprise you next year. Remember, they practice against USC's offense everyday in practice, and CARROLL runs intense practices. Talent on defense is not the issue, experience is.

 

[Master Capper]

That was a severely injured CAL team who played Texas Tech. Not to mention a CAL team who didn't want to be there. The CAL team Texas Tech played was nowhere near the same CAL team who USC played that went down to the wire. Look at the starters in each game. Then edit your ridiculous comment.



Injuries are part of the game so get over yourself and quit looking for excuses. Cal was completely manhandled by Tech and injuries, let downs, disappointments are no excuses when one team decimates another as severely ac Tech destroyed Cal. You made a similiar excuse for UCLA getting beat by Wyoming last year and it's getting old. There is not one team in the country that can go through the year without multiple injuries to key players so that excuse does not wash, I can only assume that you didn't watch the game because it was a slaughter, as the score is the bottom line FACTOID!

 

[Scott4USC]

Injuries are part of the game so get over yourself and quit looking for excuses. Cal was completely manhandled by Tech and injuries, let downs, disappointments are no excuses when one team decimates another as severely ac Tech destroyed Cal. You made a similiar excuse for UCLA getting beat by Wyoming last year and it's getting old. There is not one team in the country that can go through the year without multiple injuries to key players so that excuse does not wash, I can only assume that you didn't watch the game because it was a slaughter, as the score is the bottom line FACTOID!

So if the last day of practice before the BCS NC game OU's Peterson and Clayton suffered injuries and couldn't play in the NC game you would say, "SO WHAT" "INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME" "NO EXCUSES" Give me a break! OU still could win, but their odds go down dramatically. If that happens, that means it is a valid excuse for losing! Now if a 2nd string players gets injuried or even 1 starter gets injured, I would not consider it a severe circumstance!

I strongly disagree with you on this issue. I agree injuries are part of the game and I would say every team suffers injuries or setbacks. However, some teams have it worse than others and it can have a direct impact on the outcome of the game. When it does, it is a VALID excuse. Would USC beat OU if Reggie Bush and Lendale White both didn't play? Or Starting WR's Smith and Jarrect didn't play? These are the same type of injuries CAL suffered! But go ahead and think Texas Tech beat a healthy CAL team if it makes you feel better. The truth is, Cal was not up to par physically and emotionally.

If the Boston Red Sox make it to the world series and both ORTIZ AND RAMIRAZ go down with injuries and can't play, does that have a direct effect on the outcome of the WS's? Is that a valid excuse for Red Sox losing the WS's? Or should everyone say, NO EFFECT, injuries are part of the game, who cares, they lost! I am not a fan of teams making excuses for losing, but if a team suffers severe injuries then you have no choice but to admit they were not on a level playing field vs their opponent. That is a valid excuse!

 

[Sun Tzu]

Last I checked Cal's problem against Texas Tech was defense. They didnt have injuries on that side of the ball. One could honestly say the injuries may not have made much difference in the outcome of the game.

Plus, if you believe the injury schpeel, then it makes even more sense for Cal not to have been put in the Rose Bowl.

However, I generally agree that injuries have to be looked at in doing evaluations. But I certainly dont buy the "let down" excuse that keeps getting floated out there for various teams.

 

[Scott4USC]

Last I checked Cal's problem against Texas Tech was defense. They didnt have injuries on that side of the ball. One could honestly say the injuries may not have made much difference in the outcome of the game.

For a defense to play well they need to be inspired. If you are flat, you will get scored on no matter how talented you are. Texas Tech is a horrible opponent to face because they have a unique offense and they pass at a high rate. I think most would agree CAL as a team were not 100% focused mentally on Texas Tech. There are so many examples in bowl season where teams come out flat and not inspired because they do not want to be there. CAL did not have pride which is a knock against them. I blame the coach even though I think Tedford is great coach. USC came out flat against Utah in Vegas Bowl (after winning something like 6 straight games and upsetting UCLA) and lost in year 1 of Carroll. I have been told later that USC players didn't care because they did not want to be there. Bowl games are all about your preparation for them! I am pretty confident CAL was not preparing hard in preparation for Texas Tech. Something tells me Texas Tech was happy to play CAL and inspired! I could be wrong!

A great offense makes a great defense. CAL's offense was very balanced (prior to all injuries) and could easily keep Texas Tech O off the field.

Plus, if you believe the injury schpeel, then it makes even more sense for Cal not to have been put in the Rose Bowl.

GOOD ARGUMENT! I agree. Some would argue its now about the currect situation but what the team accomplished. (I think CAL accomplished more) But I think I tend to side with argument if 2 teams are deserving of the RB, but 1 team is not nearly at full strength, I would go with the healthier team. Makes logical sense. We got a great game in the RB with Texas and Michigan.

However, I generally agree that injuries have to be looked at in doing evaluations. But I certainly dont buy the "let down" excuse that keeps getting floated out there for various teams.

Let downs happen all the time. A coach should be blamed IMO. How many times in CFB the superior team comes out flat against the opponent? TN and UGA are great examples. Now in a bowl game a team that clearly doesn't want to be there, and happens to be shorthanded, might not be ready emotionally for the game. Especially when bowl games are all about your preparation during the long layoff.

Texas Tech won fair and square, they showed up and won. GREAT! But they did not beat a healthy CAL squad (fact) and one can argue CAL was not excited to be there. 2 serious issues that were against CAL coming into that bowl game that were to the advantage of Texas Tech. I am kicking myself to this day for not betting Texas Tech BIG for these reasons. I learned from it and will look for it this coming bowl season!

 

[Sun Tzu]

Hmm I know a guy who knows the Big 12 rather well that said to take Texas Tech on the ML.

 

[Master Capper]

Cal lost badly they were humbled on the field so your excuses are weak. You said about the same exact thing on why UCLA got beat by Wyoming last year, so if the Pac 10 teams dont want to be at these bowls then why do they not turn down the invite? Yes, I would of said the same thing about Okie if they had laid diwn like dogs in a bowl game. You act as though the whole Cal team was injured but they played with Lynch, Arrrington, Rodgers and Makonnen on offense. Tehy looked like Nebraska against Tech as they gave up 520 yards passing to the Raiders and Tedford siagrees with your not wanting to be there thought:"We didn't lose the game tonight because we didn't go to the Rose Bowl," Tedford said. "It had nothing to do with focus and preparation because we didn't go to the Rose Bowl.

 

[Scott4USC]

Cal lost badly they were humbled on the field so your excuses are weak.

I think my excuses are valid. If you are missing multiple key starters, you are not nearly at full strength. On top of that, nobody knows how mentally prepared CAL was for this game. I think most would agree CAL did not want to be there. I am not denying CAL lost, I am explaining WHY they lost.

You said about the same exact thing on why UCLA got beat by Wyoming last year, so if the Pac 10 teams dont want to be at these bowls then why do they not turn down the invite?

CAL any other year would have been excited to play Texas Tech. The problem is they thought they were deserving of the Rose Bowl. Pac 10 teams are not the only teams who come out flat in bowl games or don't want to be there.

Yes, I would of said the same thing about Okie if they had laid diwn like dogs in a bowl game. You act as though the whole Cal team was injured but they played with Lynch, Arrrington, Rodgers and Makonnen on offense.

I say key starters were missing for CAL and they were a team nowhere near full strength. Remember, CAL is not a team LOADED with depth. They do not recruit top 10 recruiting classes.

Tedford siagrees with your not wanting to be there thought:"We didn't lose the game tonight because we didn't go to the Rose Bowl," Tedford said. "It had nothing to do with focus and preparation because we didn't go to the Rose Bowl.

Realistically, what would you expect Tedford to say? "We wanted to play in Rose Bowl badly, but since we were not invited, we are not too motivated to play TT" On top of that, we are not at full strength, so who really gives a $hit"

 

[Bob Stoops]

Funny how Forde says there were 2 really good teams in the pac 10 and then big dropoff. UMMM, didn't USC win the NC blowing out OU? Didn't USC have a tougher time beating at least 4-5 Pac 10 opponents than OU? Yep, BIG DROPOFF? Ask USC who has blown out 3 straight BCS opponents while having harding time in conf. play. GOOD DATA FORDE! :mj07:

Great Logic! Didn't OU blow out UCLA who barely lost to USC? Didn't OU Blowout Texas Tech who blewout Cal?

C'mon Scott. Give it a rest. The Pac-10 is soft. USC was clearly the best in the country, but the rest of the conference was weak.

 

[Scott4USC]

Great Logic! Didn't OU blow out UCLA who barely lost to USC? Didn't OU Blowout Texas Tech who blewout Cal?
.

I tend to give more emphasis to a bowl game, especially a NC game. USC blew out OU and OU was no challenge at all. The fact remains, OU was #1 in Big 12, #2 in the country, and USC had much harder time beating at least 5 Pac 10 teams than OU. Now some of it has to due with USC being inexperienced for the first half of year while OU faced a bunch of freshman and sophomores who were seasoned.

That alone, contradicts the argument that the Pac 10 last year was 2 great teams followed by poor teams. Or whatever he said.

C'mon Scott. Give it a rest. The Pac-10 is soft. USC was clearly the best in the country, but the rest of the conference was weak

Based on what? Did someone tell you the Pac 10 was soft? I heard USC was soft and the Pac 10 being soft 3 straight years prior to USC's BCS bowl games. The result? 3 straight BCS bowl blowouts. So if everyone thought USC was soft for 3 straight years, and obviously they are not, maybe you are also wrong about the Pac 10 being soft. Especially when USC does NOT cruise their way through the Pac 10 schedule. But USC seems to cruise their way through 3 straight BCS bowl blowouts? Interesting. I love your analysis supporting the Pac 10 being soft and weak. SUPERB ANALYSIS!

 

[taoist]

Blah, blah, blah... USC... Blah, blah, blah... USC... Blah, blah, blah... USC... Blah, blah, blah... USC... Blah, blah, blah... USC...


Scott!!!

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

I tend to give more emphasis to a bowl game,

. . . unless I'm talking about Cal and then I tend to give more emphasis on the regular season.

 

[Scott4USC]

. . . unless I'm talking about Cal and then I tend to give more emphasis on the regular season.

Depends on what you are trying to debate. Every situation is different. I think you know that! But maybe you think a NC BCS game is a similar situation to whatever bowl game Cal played in. I don't even remember the name. Holiday Bowl?

 

[Nickelback]

A couple thoughts:

Everyone knows (or should know) that in football I root for Michigan and Arizona (in that order) and in basketball its all about Arizona.

That being said, Michigan is so overrated it is not even funny. This team was a couple lucky comebacks away from staying out of the top 25 last year! Who was the difference maker??? Edwards by far. . . so what will they do without Edwards? They have a couple other great receivers but not the same. Also, their defense is horrific. . . look at how Young had such an easy time making the Wolves miss. Granted Young is incredible but Michigan made him look even better than he is. Teams will find a lot of success going to the air against the Wolves this year which will spread out Michigan's defense up front. . . I believe they are in for a tough season.

I wouldn't expect a lot out of Florida either. Everyone thinks they will adopt Urban's system immediately which is complete b.s. it takes time to make a new system work and even though everyone thinks its up to form already, I highly doubt it. S.I. has Florida #3 which to me is absolutely crazy. The Vols have got to be considered the front runners in the SEC.

USC's schedule is much tougher than most believe. . . I wouldn't be shocked if they dropped a game in the regular season but I would if they didn't make it to the championship game as I believe one loss and they still go this year. The game against Cal will be a war and Oregon is not a gimme either.

 

[Nickelback]

Best value to me for a future bet: Tennessee +1800 to win it all

Remember, I said best value!

 

[Scott4USC]

Nickelback

Good post and thanks for the Michigan write-up. I am a fan of Michigan (basically all traditional schools) and you might have saved me some money early in year from betting on Michigan. I wished more posters would post info about there teams and educate us. I appreciated your post!

I wouldn't expect a lot out of Florida either. Everyone thinks they will adopt Urban's system immediately which is complete b.s. it takes time to make a new system work and even though everyone thinks its up to form already, I highly doubt it. S.I. has Florida #3 which to me is absolutely crazy. The Vols have got to be considered the front runners in the SEC.

I agree and disagree with your FL comments. Yes it is tough for new coach to have success and installing his system in year 1. I know this because USC was not good on offense with Chow in year 1. Chow is #1 OC in CFB. BUT, Urban inherits a boatload of talent and experienced QB. Zook was an awesome recruiter and FL as a team showed a lot of heart at the end of last year. So if Urban is as good as advertised, he will have a lot of success starting this year. Winning the SEC type success.

USC's schedule is much tougher than most believe. . . I wouldn't be shocked if they dropped a game in the regular season but I would if they didn't make it to the championship game as I believe one loss and they still go this year. The game against Cal will be a war and Oregon is not a gimme either.

I agree. USC 2 toughest games are @Oregon and @ASU. Games at the end of the year I am not worried about. USC is always vulnerable in the beginning of the year.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Best value to me for a future bet: Tennessee +1800 to win it all

Remember, I said best value!

Tennessee is a nice team but I dont see value there at all. it is very unrealistic to think they are gonna win outrights as dogs in back-back games on the road v Florida and LSU. And they play at an improved Alabama, plus if they do anything the SEC title game. It will probably take an undefeated season to ge to the Rose Bowl and I just dont see Tennessee doing that.

 

[The Judge]

CAL any other year would have been excited to play Texas Tech. The problem is they thought they were deserving of the Rose Bowl.

Cal clearly proved in the Holiday Bowl that they did not deserve to play in the Rose Bowl, despite any excuses including lack of motivation or injuries. If the Bears couldn't get up for that game because they felt slighted, it shows a lack of character which is no excuse in my book.

 

[Nickelback]

Good points Sun. . . it certainly could take an undefeated season for the Vols to get in the title game but I still think value wise at +1800 is pretty decent.

Of course part of my reasoning is that I don't believe Florida will be as strong as many are picking them to be. . . give them a year under the new system and see what happens. The Gators could be very strong at the end of the season but struggle a little during the beginning and middle.