Pac-Stink?
- Thread starter dr. freeze
- Start date
UCLA's bowl game was against USC. UCLA had 3 weeks to prepare for USC. I think its safe to say UCLA is not playing like they want to be there. Not to mention they are undermanned.
BOLD PREDICTION! Pete Carroll in 4 seasons at USC has NEVER been blown out. (can't say the same for Stoops) On top of that, Pete Carroll in 4 seasons at USC has only lost 1 game by double digits and that was in his first season @ND USC lost by 11pts.
I would be suprised if OU beat USC by 20+ pts since that has NEVER happened under Pete Carroll. Maybe you know something!
BOLD PREDICTION! Pete Carroll in 4 seasons at USC has NEVER been blown out. (can't say the same for Stoops) On top of that, Pete Carroll in 4 seasons at USC has only lost 1 game by double digits and that was in his first season @ND USC lost by 11pts.
I would be suprised if OU beat USC by 20+ pts since that has NEVER happened under Pete Carroll. Maybe you know something!
lmao at Scott A week ago he was touting UCLA as such an improved club to justify his team's dreadful performance against frankly a dreadful team No to mention him telling us how the Pac-10 was gonna cruise throught the bowls. Now it's the old "they didnt care" excuse.
Sun Tzu said:
#1 This was not the same UCLA team that played USC.
#2 This was not a healthy UCLA squad
#3 I don't think UCLA cared about playing Wyoming. Their minds were on Las Vegas and 2 players were sent home being drunk.
#4 USC was UCLA's bowl game. UCLA had 3 weeks to prepare for USC.
Congrats to Wyoming. They came to play and won the game. UCLA did not look very good but they were undermanned. In addition to being undermanned, didn't UCLA starting QB get hurt during game?
UCLA is/was an improved club. They played very well against USC. Having 3 weeks to prepare helped. USC was UCLA's bowl game. I think its obvious they didn't come to Las Vegas to play football. They thought they were going to win by just showing up. They almost did despite being undermanned AND losing their starting QB.
BTW, where did I say the Pac 10 was going to cruise through the bowls? One of my bigger wagers this bowl season is on Purdue and teasers with Purdue. They are playing ASU (a pac 10 team)
Scotty Boy,
I have left you alone all year, but I cannot stand it any longer. UNDERMANNED!! They played a freakin Mountain West Team. Outside of Utah this conference stinks. If UCLA is/was so improved, they should have won despite being, what was it, oh yes UNDERMANNED. If the PAC 10 is so strong then they should have won, because the PAC 10 is so deep. This has nothing to do with your USC boys, and I am not saying anything bad about them, but face it, you will not win this debate, there is nothing you can say that will defend UCLA losing to Wyoming. Give it a rest.
I have left you alone all year, but I cannot stand it any longer. UNDERMANNED!! They played a freakin Mountain West Team. Outside of Utah this conference stinks. If UCLA is/was so improved, they should have won despite being, what was it, oh yes UNDERMANNED. If the PAC 10 is so strong then they should have won, because the PAC 10 is so deep. This has nothing to do with your USC boys, and I am not saying anything bad about them, but face it, you will not win this debate, there is nothing you can say that will defend UCLA losing to Wyoming. Give it a rest.
Yea, Scott.....I thought you were being more resonable here lately, but I am sorry there is no excuse for UCLA to lose this game to a team that used a victory against Appalachian State to make a bowl game.
UCLA was supposedly the 4th or 5th best team in the PAC 10 this year.......I cant see any other conference bringing their 4th or 5th best team into that game and losing....
Okie State or Texas Tech? NOPE
Ohio State or Purdue NOPE
Virginia or North Carolina NOPE
Tennessee or Florida NOPE
UCLA was supposedly the 4th or 5th best team in the PAC 10 this year.......I cant see any other conference bringing their 4th or 5th best team into that game and losing....
Okie State or Texas Tech? NOPE
Ohio State or Purdue NOPE
Virginia or North Carolina NOPE
Tennessee or Florida NOPE
The Big Tease
I somewhat agree there should be no excuses for UCLA losing. They are the more talented team and should have won. That said, I gave "valid" reasons as to why UCLA might have lost. Simple as that. Still, UCLA should have won but congrats to Wyoming. They wanted it more. Coaching/preparation from UCLA was poor.
USC lost in the Las Vegas bowl 4 years ago in Pete Carrolls 1st year. Glad USC didn't give up on him!
Skipper
I think losing starters prior to the bowl game qualifies being undermanned. I think losing your starting QB for more than a half qualifies being undermanned. I never said Wyoming was the more talented team because of this. I am stating the facts and UCLA came into this game undermanned.
Then you factor in UCLA not wanting to be there to play football. They wanted to party in Las Vegas but not play Wyoming. That scenario often happens in bowl games. 2 UCLA players were sent home drunk and I guessing there were more than 2 players partying for UCLA. They certainly didn't look prepared or sharp. Wyoming was geeked to play in Las Vegas and against UCLA. 4k UCLA tix sold vs 12k Wyoming tix sold.
Lastly, like it or not, USC was UCLA's bowl game. They had 3 weeks to prepare for USC. That is the same practice time that USC or OU have to prepare for the Orange Bowl. UCLA beating USC was everything to them, cross town rivalry and upsetting the #1 team in the country. Losing that game (and it turned out to be close) had an effect on UCLA.
The UCLA team that played USC was NOT the same team that played Wyoming and NOT the same team that started the CFB season.
I know people watched USC struggle against UCLA (which they really didn't if you watched the game closely) and OU blowing out CO. People pound OU. Now people saw UCLA lose to Wyoming. Immediately the books took more bets on OU. People are betting OU for the wrong reasons if this is a criteria for betting OU.
I am completely dumbfounded about this. OU destorys CO, NU, and Baylor and everyone is supposed to be impressed? I don't get it. Arizona, ND, and UCLA were MUCH tougher opponents USC finished the season against. People will be suprised on Jan. 4th.
I somewhat agree there should be no excuses for UCLA losing. They are the more talented team and should have won. That said, I gave "valid" reasons as to why UCLA might have lost. Simple as that. Still, UCLA should have won but congrats to Wyoming. They wanted it more. Coaching/preparation from UCLA was poor.
USC lost in the Las Vegas bowl 4 years ago in Pete Carrolls 1st year. Glad USC didn't give up on him!
Skipper
I think losing starters prior to the bowl game qualifies being undermanned. I think losing your starting QB for more than a half qualifies being undermanned. I never said Wyoming was the more talented team because of this. I am stating the facts and UCLA came into this game undermanned.
Then you factor in UCLA not wanting to be there to play football. They wanted to party in Las Vegas but not play Wyoming. That scenario often happens in bowl games. 2 UCLA players were sent home drunk and I guessing there were more than 2 players partying for UCLA. They certainly didn't look prepared or sharp. Wyoming was geeked to play in Las Vegas and against UCLA. 4k UCLA tix sold vs 12k Wyoming tix sold.
Lastly, like it or not, USC was UCLA's bowl game. They had 3 weeks to prepare for USC. That is the same practice time that USC or OU have to prepare for the Orange Bowl. UCLA beating USC was everything to them, cross town rivalry and upsetting the #1 team in the country. Losing that game (and it turned out to be close) had an effect on UCLA.
The UCLA team that played USC was NOT the same team that played Wyoming and NOT the same team that started the CFB season.
I know people watched USC struggle against UCLA (which they really didn't if you watched the game closely) and OU blowing out CO. People pound OU. Now people saw UCLA lose to Wyoming. Immediately the books took more bets on OU. People are betting OU for the wrong reasons if this is a criteria for betting OU.
I am completely dumbfounded about this. OU destorys CO, NU, and Baylor and everyone is supposed to be impressed? I don't get it. Arizona, ND, and UCLA were MUCH tougher opponents USC finished the season against. People will be suprised on Jan. 4th.
Scott,
Stop before you make an ass of yourself. This was the same UCLA team that gave USC fits and according to Dorrell the team was extremely motivated to play and if possible manhandle Wyoming. You cannot justify their loss to a inferior team ny saying they didnt want to be there or they had injuries, hell Wyom lost both their backs. This goes right to the heart of the Pac 10 and that is that the league is known for being soft when challenged in the trenches. All of your excuses are lame and yes I watched USC play UCLA and the Trojans did indeed struggle but I also watched UCLA play Okie State and the Cowboys manhandled UCLA. Quit with the sour grapes, you know damn well that if UCLA won this game then you would be adding a quiver to your bow to thump your chest about the Pac 10 in bowls.
Stop before you make an ass of yourself. This was the same UCLA team that gave USC fits and according to Dorrell the team was extremely motivated to play and if possible manhandle Wyoming. You cannot justify their loss to a inferior team ny saying they didnt want to be there or they had injuries, hell Wyom lost both their backs. This goes right to the heart of the Pac 10 and that is that the league is known for being soft when challenged in the trenches. All of your excuses are lame and yes I watched USC play UCLA and the Trojans did indeed struggle but I also watched UCLA play Okie State and the Cowboys manhandled UCLA. Quit with the sour grapes, you know damn well that if UCLA won this game then you would be adding a quiver to your bow to thump your chest about the Pac 10 in bowls.
Master Capper
I am sorry. The UCLA team who played USC was completely different than the team who played Wyoming. You can take the obivous reasons about the players missing against Wyoming for UCLA. That alone proves my assumption correct. :142lmao: Were you not aware UCLA was undermanned coming into the game? Were you not aware UCLA lost their starting QB during the game? Yet you say it was the same UCLA team who faced USC? That is using some sound logic!
I also think there might be a slim chance, a very slim chance that UCLA was more motivated playing their cross town rival AND the #1 team in the country in the same game. Or am I reaching here? UCLA was equally motivated playing Wyoming in the Las Vegas bowl? Interesting, I think practicing weeks straight to upset your cross town rival who is ranked #1 in the country would lead to some more, let say.......... INTENSE PRACTICES! As far as I know, no UCLA players came drunk to teem meeting the week prior to the USC game.
Lets see........USC 1 week to prepare for UCLA after beating rival ND. UCLA 3 weeks to prepare for cross town rival and #1 team in the country. Ummmm, INTERESTING!!!!!
NOBODY can say that Wyoming faced the same UCLA squad that USC faced. Sorry MC, it is NOT me who is making an "ass" out of oneself! I fully explained why!
As for Oklahoma St. playing UCLA. Well, UCLA lost their 4 starting defensive lineman in addition to their 2 key backups. Thats right, all 6 senior defenseive lineman graduated. So UCLA was suppose to stop OSU in their first game of the year? I laid big bet on OSU in that game for that reason alone! USC played UCLA at the END of the year where at least those young defensive lineman gained experience, something they did not have against OSU. YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE!
Wait a minute. Maybe you think Wyoming has a better offense and defense than USC. Then your accusations might be correct to a certain degree! :142lmao:
I am sorry. The UCLA team who played USC was completely different than the team who played Wyoming. You can take the obivous reasons about the players missing against Wyoming for UCLA. That alone proves my assumption correct. :142lmao: Were you not aware UCLA was undermanned coming into the game? Were you not aware UCLA lost their starting QB during the game? Yet you say it was the same UCLA team who faced USC? That is using some sound logic!
I also think there might be a slim chance, a very slim chance that UCLA was more motivated playing their cross town rival AND the #1 team in the country in the same game. Or am I reaching here? UCLA was equally motivated playing Wyoming in the Las Vegas bowl?
Interesting, I think practicing weeks straight to upset your cross town rival who is ranked #1 in the country would lead to some more, let say.......... INTENSE PRACTICES! As far as I know, no UCLA players came drunk to teem meeting the week prior to the USC game. Lets see........USC 1 week to prepare for UCLA after beating rival ND. UCLA 3 weeks to prepare for cross town rival and #1 team in the country. Ummmm, INTERESTING!!!!!
NOBODY can say that Wyoming faced the same UCLA squad that USC faced. Sorry MC, it is NOT me who is making an "ass" out of oneself! I fully explained why!
As for Oklahoma St. playing UCLA. Well, UCLA lost their 4 starting defensive lineman in addition to their 2 key backups. Thats right, all 6 senior defenseive lineman graduated. So UCLA was suppose to stop OSU in their first game of the year? I laid big bet on OSU in that game for that reason alone! USC played UCLA at the END of the year where at least those young defensive lineman gained experience, something they did not have against OSU. YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE!
Wait a minute. Maybe you think Wyoming has a better offense and defense than USC. Then your accusations might be correct to a certain degree! :142lmao:
Last edited:
Good thing Dorrell got that contract extension before the bowl game. Another pathetic bowl performance by Dorrell's boys. After last year and all the talk of not wanting play in the Silicon Valley Bowl, they say this year will be different. They hang with USC who beat two Mountain West teams 91-10 - BYU and CSU who in turn both crushed Wyoming and then this. They lay a god damn egg. Maurice Drew's excuse after the game - "We took them too lightly" Yeah think so Maurice??? They took something else too, my money. God I hate UCLA and their gutless performances. At least if Toledo was still there they would have covered the over. In an amazing display of betting ineptatude, I lost on UCLA 1st H, UCLA game, Over, then with the wind being such a major 1st half factor, I took Wyo in the 3rd getting the ball and with the wind and UCLA in the fourth. All losses.
Sorry, just had to vent.
Sorry, just had to vent.
Here we go again...Scott crusading all by himself for respect to be given to the pac-10. Face it, the Pac-10 sucks. (repeat for emphasis) the pac-10 sucks. And that terrible UCLA team was one missed fumble call away from beating your beloved trojans!!!
I could not agree with MC more, if UCLA had won that game, Scott would've been the first one to let everyone know.
And I'm glad Sun also remembers how good Scott said the Bruins were when they played USC, but now he reaches for excuses like they were hurt, or they didn't want to play, or they had menstrual cramps, etc., etc.
I could not agree with MC more, if UCLA had won that game, Scott would've been the first one to let everyone know.
And I'm glad Sun also remembers how good Scott said the Bruins were when they played USC, but now he reaches for excuses like they were hurt, or they didn't want to play, or they had menstrual cramps, etc., etc.
AU2001
UCLA represents the whole Pac 10?
I don't think so. UCLA blowing out Wyoming means very little. UCLA losing to Wyoming means very little. WHO CARES! Las Vegas bowl is a $hit bowl and UCLA obviously didn't care so why should I?
THEY WERE HURT!
THEY DIDN'T COME TO PLAY. UCLA DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THIS BOWL GAME! ISN'T IT OBVIOUS? LOOK AT THE PLAYERS QUOTES!
Its comical how much people are reading into the UCLA game last night.
2 years ago i bet huge on USC over Iowa and i heard the Pac 10 sucks etc.
Last year I bet HUGE on USC over Michigan and I heard the Pac 10 sucks etc.
Looks like I am hearing the same old things again!
UCLA represents the whole Pac 10?
I don't think so. UCLA blowing out Wyoming means very little. UCLA losing to Wyoming means very little. WHO CARES! Las Vegas bowl is a $hit bowl and UCLA obviously didn't care so why should I?
THEY WERE HURT!
THEY DIDN'T COME TO PLAY. UCLA DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THIS BOWL GAME! ISN'T IT OBVIOUS? LOOK AT THE PLAYERS QUOTES!
Its comical how much people are reading into the UCLA game last night.
2 years ago i bet huge on USC over Iowa and i heard the Pac 10 sucks etc.
Last year I bet HUGE on USC over Michigan and I heard the Pac 10 sucks etc.
Looks like I am hearing the same old things again!
I couldn't agree more.AU2001 said:
Without question, the game UCLA played was one of the most pathetic display of coaching and play on both sides of the ball that I have ever seen from an upper echelon Pac 10 team.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same UCLA team that actually outscored USC 14-9 in the 2nd half of their game on December 4th to only lose by 5 points? USC's non-conference wins have been against VA Tech, Colorado State, BYU and Notre Dame. I am not impressed considering that the records of the Pac 10 teams that they played are as follows:
Stanford 4-7 (USC won by 3)
California 10-1 (USC won by 6)
Arizona State 8-3 (USC won by 38)
Washington 1-10 (USC won by 38)
Washington St. 5-6 (USC won by 30)
Oregon St. 6-5 (USC won by 8)
Arizona 3-8 (USC won by 40)
Big deal. I am convinced that Oklahoma will roll these pretenders! Oklahoma's schedule makes USC's look like that of a New Mexico high school team's. I will post additional information to back up this play as soon as I get the bad taste out of my mouth after watching the football team that took the Trojans to the wire, choke against a Wyoming team that went 3-4 in the Mountain West.
