• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

USC's toughest game in 2005

Misanthrope said:
USC is reminding me of Miami and Florida State in the 90s.

No real threats in their conference so, with their highly regarded rep, it comes down to a one-game season for the mythical NC.

The worst thing ever to happen to scUM and tOSU - as it pertains to the playoff-less "national championship" - is to be the last game on each other's schedule. Seriously, how many NC shots have we cost each other over the years, whilst good teams from weak conferences play the system for a title?

This is reason #312 for a playoff...that will never happen in my lifetime.
AND we would have to play them in Pasedena. Bowl Game, schmole game. The place will be packed with USC fans. It's a home game for the NC! Huge advantage.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck said:
AND we would have to play them in Pasedena. Bowl Game, schmole game. The place will be packed with USC fans. It's a home game for the NC! Huge advantage.
Ok... I am not stupid enough to bet that the Bucks will be in the NC, or stupid enough to bet ANY team to be there at this point... but I know where the easy money rides. Now--if OSU and USC play in Pasedena, there will be more OSU fans there than USC fans. USC has a hard time selling out home games when they're putting on NC runs. OSU travels as well as any fan base in the country.
 
Upvote 0
Bullsfan, didn't you learn anything from the last time you went on one of your Pac10 rants?


I just read all my posts on that thread and I'm not exactly sure what I was supposed to "learn." The gist of that thread was that the Pac-10 is an anemic conference with a couple of good teams at the top, and I stand by that opinion. It would take the addition of a regional mid-major like Hawaii or Fresno State to make the conference as respectable as a Big 10 or ACC. Which is not to say the Pac-10 hasn't been an elite conference in the past or that it won't be in the future. It's that right now, and for the last couple of years, there has been a palpable lack of depth conference-wide.

I'm assuming, thomps, that you're bringing that thread up because, since it was written, USC won the MNC in convincing fashion. I respect you, and I think you're a good fan, but your logic is sorely lacking. Your argument is that the Pac-10 is an elite conference because USC won the OB. Which is the same as a Cryami fan saying that the Big Least was an elite conference because Cryami won 28 games in a row a few years ago.

Clearly this isn't true. Look objectively at the rankings, bowl opposition and talent levels in the Pac-10 and you'll see that the conference really isn't very good. Don't let the dominance of your favorite team override your ability be objective.
 
Upvote 0
bullsfan75 said:
Bullsfan, didn't you learn anything from the last time you went on one of your Pac10 rants?


I just read all my posts on that thread and I'm not exactly sure what I was supposed to "learn." The gist of that thread was that the Pac-10 is an anemic conference with a couple of good teams at the top, and I stand by that opinion. It would take the addition of a regional mid-major like Hawaii or Fresno State to make the conference as respectable as a Big 10 or ACC. Which is not to say the Pac-10 hasn't been an elite conference in the past or that it won't be in the future. It's that right now, and for the last couple of years, there has been a palpable lack of depth conference-wide.

I'm assuming, thomps, that you're bringing that thread up because, since it was written, USC won the MNC in convincing fashion. I respect you, and I think you're a good fan, but your logic is sorely lacking. Your argument is that the Pac-10 is an elite conference because USC won the OB. Which is the same as a Cryami fan saying that the Big Least was an elite conference because Cryami won 28 games in a row a few years ago.

Clearly this isn't true. Look objectively at the rankings, bowl opposition and talent levels in the Pac-10 and you'll see that the conference really isn't very good. Don't let the dominance of your favorite team override your ability be objective.

I may have some C&G in me, but my logic isn't the one that suffers from disconnects. You trash Cal because of their "pitiful conference and nonexistent OOC schedule" when their schedule strength is competitive with many top 10 teams. As I posted:

methomps said:
Massey (BCS computer) has Cal's schedule 9th overall (ahead of Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas, VaTech, Louisville, and Boise among top 10 teams)

Sagarin (BCS computer) has Cal's schedule 16th overall (ahead of every top10 team but Miami)
You then suggest that the Pac10 would be improved by adding a regional power like Hawaii or Fresno. Funny that you are quiet on the subject of SOS in this regards. Yes, Hawaii's 8-5 record would put them in the top half of the Pac10, but that 8-5 record was earned against a schedule ranked 76th by the old BCS SOS. No Pac10 team has a SOS that bad. The closest is Oregon (62nd). The average Pac10 SOS was 31.7


You said that Auburn got screwed, and I'm pretty sure you meant they should've gotten USC's spot since you expected USC to lose. You talk about Auburn playing in a tougher conference, but you miss that USC played a slightly better schedule. Here is the averaged computer rankings of every opponent for the 3 teams (prebowl):

SOS-prebowl.bmp


Despite your condemnations of USC's 'cakewalk', their road was very comparable to Auburn and Oklahoma.


Finally, when Cal loses you point to it as the Pac10 being exposed and talk about how it shows that USC is not as good as they may look. Then USC wins and you decide to present them as separate from the rest of the conference. You certainly weren't selling that line when Cal lost. Cal losing exposes USC and the conference, but USC winning does nothing for the conference. How convenient.
 
Upvote 0
CinciBuck: You raise a point that has always seemed relevent to me: The Rose Bowl, for both USC and for UCLA is, essentially a home game, with the distinct advantages that reality brings. Obviously, not much a B10 school can do about it if they chose to play in RB, but living out here and visiting L.A. occasionally, the Rose Bowl is a stone's throw from both schools.


Wonder how it would be if our Bucks played their traditional bowl game in an Upper Arlington stadiium?

I've got a good friend, USC grad., and he discounts my whole theme on this subject.
 
Upvote 0
I may have some C&G in me, but my logic isn't the one that suffers from disconnects. You trash Cal because of their "pitiful conference and nonexistent OOC schedule" when their schedule strength is competitive with many top 10 teams.

You're really painting yourself into a corner here, thomps. Let's see if you can fight your way out. First, let's look at Cal's OOC schedule in 2004:

@ Air Force
New Mexico State
@ Southern Miss

You may notice that these teams have something in common. What could it be? Oh, yes: NONE OF THEM ARE FROM A MAJOR CONFERENCE. The closest thing to a big-time program is Southern Miss. Of course, that's before lining up against the heavy hitters at Stanford, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington and the rest of the Pac-10 barnacles.

You then suggest that the Pac10 would be improved by adding a regional power like Hawaii or Fresno. Funny that you are quiet on the subject of SOS in this regards.

Funny indeed. Fresno and Hawaii will take on any team from any major conference in the nation. Last year Hawaii beat Michigan State and Northwestern, and Fresno walloped Kansas State and your mighty Washington Huskies. Meanwhile, Cal is polishing their image by playing tiddlywinks with service acadamies.

The average Pac10 SOS was 31.7

It's interesting that you're hiding behind SOS when the real issue is how poorly the Pac-10 performed against worthy foes. Take Oregon State, which had, statistically speaking, an elite SOS - possibly top-10 nationally -and was, by your composite computer rankings, the 23rd-best team in the nation. Sounds impressive, until you see that they got rolled by Boise State (another mid-major that would have thrived in the Pac-10) and just squeaked by New Mexico State. Oregon State's "big" wins? Pac-10 punching bags Washington, WSU, Stanford, Oregon and, in their bowl, a barely-conscious Notre Dame.

You said that Auburn got screwed, and I'm pretty sure you meant they should've gotten USC's spot since you expected USC to lose.

Again, you'd be mistaken. I repeatedly wrote, on this board and on BN, that Auburn-USC was the most attractive bowl possible. After watching Cal get exposed (and yes, they did get exposed - badly), I thought, as did many others, that it did not bode well for USC in the OB. Obviously I, along with many other observers, was incorrect.

Finally, when Cal loses you point to it as the Pac10 being exposed and talk about how it shows that USC is not as good as they may look. Then USC wins and you decide to present them as separate from the rest of the conference. You certainly weren't selling that line when Cal lost. Cal losing exposes USC and the conference, but USC winning does nothing for the conference. How convenient.

Wrong again, boyo. Here's a recap of my arguments: 1: Cal got exposed. 2. Because Cal got exposed, I had doubts that USC was for real. 3. My doubts were dispelled when USC rolled Oklahoma. 4. USC is the best team in the nation, which has nothing to do with the weak conference they come from.

Saying USC's championship makes the Pac-10 a great conference is like saying that Allen Iverson makes the 76ers a great basketball team.
 
Upvote 0
bullsfan75 said:
You're really painting yourself into a corner here, thomps. Let's see if you can fight your way out. First, let's look at Cal's OOC schedule in 2004:

@ Air Force
New Mexico State
@ Southern Miss

You may notice that these teams have something in common. What could it be? Oh, yes: NONE OF THEM ARE FROM A MAJOR CONFERENCE.
Yes, Cal is the only school in the country to do this.

Minnesota (Toledo, Illinois St, Colorado St)
Missouri (Arkie St, Ball St, Troy)
Baylor (Texas St- San Marcos, UAB, North Texas)
Texas Tech (New Mexico, SMU, TCU)
Kansas State (Western Kentucky, Fresno State, UL-Lafayette)
Auburn (Citadel, UL-Monroe, La-Tech)
Ole Miss (Memphis, Wyoming, Arkie St)

Should we expect to see threads from you berating these schools and their conferences?

bullsfan75 said:
The closest thing to a big-time program is Southern Miss. Of course, that's before lining up against the heavy hitters at Stanford, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington and the rest of the Pac-10 barnacles.
Like USC and Arizona State?

bullsfan75 said:
Funny indeed. Fresno and Hawaii will take on any team from any major conference in the nation. Last year Hawaii beat Michigan State and Northwestern, and Fresno walloped Kansas State and your mighty Washington Huskies. Meanwhile, Cal is polishing their image by playing tiddlywinks with service acadamies.
Yes, we should let Fresno in because they beat the worst Pac10 team and 4-win KState. Even with this Fresno and Hawaii played schedules that were worse than any Pac10 team, including Cal.

bullsfan75 said:
It's interesting that you're hiding behind SOS when the real issue is how poorly the Pac-10 performed against worthy foes. Take Oregon State, which had, statistically speaking, an elite SOS - possibly top-10 nationally -and was, by your composite computer rankings, the 23rd-best team in the nation. Sounds impressive, until you see that they got rolled by Boise State (another mid-major that would have thrived in the Pac-10) and just squeaked by New Mexico State.
First of all, Oregon State played New Mexico, not New Mexico State. New Mexico (the team Oregon State played) went 7-5 against a schedule that was much better than that of your darlings Hawaii and Fresno State.

This is funny. You bash Cal for playing a light OOC schedule, and then you turn around and mock OSU for struggling against their OOC schedule of @ LSU (ranked), vs. Boise State (ranked), and @ NM (bowl team). 85-90% of the country would've gone 1-2 or worse against that slate.

bullsfan75 said:
Oregon State's "big" wins? Pac-10 punching bags Washington, WSU, Stanford, Oregon and, in their bowl, a barely-conscious Notre Dame.
If Fresno State or Hawaii had beaten Tennessee and Michigan, you would have orgasmed. Yet Notre Dame is 'barely-conscious'.

Oregon State's losses were all to ranked teams (LSU, Boise, USC, Cal, and Arizona State).

bullsfan75 said:
You said that Auburn got screwed, and I'm pretty sure you meant they should've gotten USC's spot since you expected USC to lose.

Again, you'd be mistaken. I repeatedly wrote, on this board and on BN, that Auburn-USC was the most attractive bowl possible. After watching Cal get exposed (and yes, they did get exposed - badly), I thought, as did many others, that it did not bode well for USC in the OB. Obviously I, along with many other observers, was incorrect.
You really should get a medal for this spinjob. You though OU was going to beat USC, while at the same time you thought it shouldve been USC/AU? There are only 3 posts where you mention Auburn, and I only found one related to the BCS (in the thread you started entitled "Cal getting exposed"). Here is what you said in that post:



---------------------------------------------------------------------
<table class="tborder" id="post122361" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="thead">
post_old.gif
12-31-2004, 09:03 AM <!-- / status icon and date -->
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="padding: 0px;"> <!-- user info --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2">
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap"> bullsfan75
user_offline.gif
<script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_122361", true); </script>
Sophomore
</td> <!-- START POST AWARD --> <td align="left" valign="middle" width="50%">
</td> <!-- END POST AWARD --> <td align="right" valign="top" width="50%"><!-- [START HACK='Awards/Medals/Cards by AnimeWebby' AUTHOR='AnimeWebby' VERSION='2.0' CHANGEID= 2 ] --> <!--spacegirl--> <!--spacegirl--> <!-- [END HACK='Awards/Medals/Cards by AnimeWebby' AUTHOR='AnimeWebby' VERSION='2.0' CHANGEID= 2 ] -->
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"> Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 45 vCash: 500
reputation_pos.gif
reputation_pos.gif
reputation_pos.gif
reputation_pos.gif
reputation_pos.gif
reputation_highpos.gif
reputation_highpos.gif
reputation_highpos.gif
reputation_highpos.gif
<!-- -->


</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- / user info --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1"><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- message --> Cal defenders,

Good points all, but you're missing the major point here. Cal's big numbers and impressive offensive stats were put up against a pitiful conference and nonexistent OOC schedule.

Hawaii, Boise State and Utah aren't bad comparisons in this regard. They, and Cal, put up gaudy numbers all year long, but you wouldn't hear Timmy Chang's stats displayed the way Rodgers or Arrington's have been all year long, because everyone knows Hawaii plays in a mid-major. Well, guess what? This year the Pac-10 IS a mid-major.

As far as USC, they beat Iowa and Michigan fairly handily, but this USC team isn't the team that the 2002 and 2003 versions were. This year have a soft D and lost key playmakers, particularly Mike Williams, on O.

I wouldn't be ranting about this if I didn't hear the media's nonstop glorifying of these teams, but at this point they're fair game. It's clear now that Auburn got a royal screw-job by the BCS.
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth.


- Master Shake
<!-- / sig -->
<!-- controls -->
</td></tr></tbody> </table> -----------------------------------------------------------------------



Let's see, you rant and rant about Cal, USC, and the Pac10. You then mention that "It's clear now that Auburn got a royal screw-job by the BCS". But you expect us to believe that you meant that Auburn should've been playing USC? Once again, your exact quote:

I wouldn't be ranting about this if I didn't hear the media's nonstop glorifying of these teams, but at this point they're fair game. It's clear now that Auburn got a royal screw-job by the BCS.
You say that in a thread specifically about the Pac10, but you expect us to believe that you felt USC's spot was justified?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Yes, Cal is the only school in the country to do this.

Minnesota (Toledo, Illinois St, Colorado St)
Missouri (Arkie St, Ball St, Troy)
Baylor (Texas St- San Marcos, UAB, North Texas)
Texas Tech (New Mexico, SMU, TCU)
Kansas State (Western Kentucky, Fresno State, UL-Lafayette)
Auburn (Citadel, UL-Monroe, La-Tech)
Ole Miss (Memphis, Wyoming, Arkie St)

Should we expect to see threads from you berating these schools and their conferences?

I never said Cal was the only team with a pitiful OOC schedule. My point was that we shouldn't have been surprised by their horrible showing in their bowl game, seeing as though they were rarely tested all season long. How much clearer can I make this?

Like USC and Arizona State?

At last we come to agreement. Cal faced two respectable foes all year, and beat exactly one of them. Amazing, no?

Yes, we should let Fresno in because they beat the worst Pac10 team and 4-win KState. Even with this Fresno and Hawaii played schedules that were worse than any Pac10 team, including Cal.

Bottom line: Hawaii and Fresno schedule elite teams. K-State was a potential Big 12 contender in the preseason, and Washington used to be decent. Their scheduling was courageous, which is more than I can say for that of Cal. And, of course, you're disregarding the fact that Hawaii faced, and beat, a pair of mid-level Big 10 teams. Talk about convenient.

First of all, Oregon State played New Mexico, not New Mexico State.

I'm sure they're both outstanding football programs.

This is funny. You bash Cal for playing a light OOC schedule, and then you turn around and mock OSU for struggling against their OOC schedule of @ LSU (ranked), vs. Boise State (ranked), and @ NM (bowl team).

Now I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post. I explicitly stated that Oregon State had an outstanding OOC schedule, but, in typical Pac-10 fashion, failed to rise to the challenge.

Since you're preoccupied with SOS, I need to point out the fact that Boise State was among the worst SOS teams in the nation. In any case, I think we can both agree that OSU played a tougher OOC schedule than Cal, whose schedule you have yet to successfully defend.

If Fresno State or Hawaii had beaten Tennessee and Michigan, you would have orgasmed.

Many things bring me to orgasm. College football is not one of them.

Yet Notre Dame is 'barely-conscious'.

At the time of their bowl, they were in complete shambles. You may remember a high-profile firing on their team just before the bowl. Or maybe you don't.

Oregon State's losses were all to ranked teams (LSU, Boise, USC, Cal, and Arizona State).

North Carolina also had one of the toughest schedules in the nation. They were also beaten by many ranked teams. Does that mean they're a quality program?

Let's see, you rant and rant about Cal, USC, and the Pac10. You then mention that "It's clear now that Auburn got a royal screw-job by the BCS". But you expect us to believe that you meant that Auburn should've been playing USC?

It was clear that Auburn got screwed. The BCS's removal of the SOS component (a tactic that was inspired by USC getting screwed the year before) meant that the team that rolled through the toughest conference in the nation was punished for a system they had nothing to do with.

I defy you to find a post where I explicitly stated that Auburn should have usurped USC. Call it a spin-job if it makes you feel better - I felt that Auburn should have been #1 in the BCS and the AP, an opinion I formed long before Cal got slapped around like Tina Turner in their bowl game. It's true that I stated that Cal's showing didn't bode well for USC. It's also true that I have been proven wrong, and have admitted it repeatedly in the weeks since.

Bottom line, thomps: You have yet to mount a serious counterargument that the Pac-10 was an elite football conference in 2004. If you have one, please submit it.
 
Upvote 0
bullsfan75 said:
Now I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post. I explicitly stated that Oregon State had an outstanding OOC schedule, but, in typical Pac-10 fashion, failed to rise to the challenge.
Typical Pac-10 fashion? I said that 85-90% of the teams in the nation would go 1-2 or worse on that slate. It has nothing to do with the Pac10


bullsfan75 said:
At the time of their bowl, they were in complete shambles. You may remember a high-profile firing on their team just before the bowl. Or maybe you don't.
Now that you've crossed that line, I will tell you that Cal was in shambles going into the TTech game. For one, they were without their top 2 WRs. But more importantly, they were emotionally out-to-lunch. For most of October and all of November, they had been trying to get to the Rose Bowl. Every time they read the local papers, in every story about Cal, the Rose Bowl kept coming up. "Cal looking to get to the Rose Bowl for the first time in almost 50 years". They were in the driver's seat, too.

Then their coach decides not to run up the score on Southern Miss and they get voted down. They had no desire to be in San Diego, and it showed. They weren't exposed, they were lethargic.

bullsfan75 said:
Bottom line, thomps: You have yet to mount a serious counterargument that the Pac-10 was an elite football conference in 2004. If you have one, please submit it.
Well, perhaps I will give it the old college try.

The SEC is an elite conference, right? Well, what would you say if I told you that, since 2000, the Pac10 has out-performed the SEC in non-conference play? No, I'm not talking about head-to-head, but rather out-of-conference as a whole. Straight up record favors the SEC (but only very slightly). But let's look at things by situation. Let's start with home games:

Out-of Conference Home Games
(Winning Percentage since 2000)
home.bmp


Now here is how you read this chart: The SEC has a 16-14 record at home against BCS teams (basically teams from the six major conferences and Notre Dame). Thus, they win 53.33% of their home games against BCS teams. The Pac10 is 19-12 at home against BCS teams. They win 61.29% of the time in that situation. NonBCS teams are teams from the 'minor' conferences.

Now let's look at away games:

Out-of Conference Home Games
(Winning Percentage since 2000)
away.bmp


This chart is read the same way.

Bowl Games
(Winning Percentage since 2000)​

bowls.bmp


Note that this chart does not include USC's win over Oklahoma, so the Pac10 is actually 12-11 (52.17%) against BCS-conference teams in bowl games. I calculated the NonBCS bowl games, but it should probably be disregarded as there are not enough games in the sample.

Here is a summary of the results:

summary.bmp


As you can see, the Pac10 is competitive in every category, and actually leads in everything but the bowl games versus BCS-conference teams. So how does the SEC end up having a slightly better OOC record? For that answer, we turn to what kind of games the conferences tend to play. This next chart shows what proportion of each conferences OOC games are played by type:

gametype.bmp


Here is how to read this chart: The SEC plays 78.26% of all its OOC games at home. The Pac10 plays 63.37% of its OOC games at home. 14.49% of the SEC's OOC games are home games against BCS-conference schools. 13.53% of the SEC's OOC games are road games against BCS-conference schools. 53.14% of the SEC's OOC games are home games against Non-BCS schools. Here is another breakdown of the game types:

Out-of-Conference Games by Type
breakdown.bmp



Even though the Pac10 is better at every game situation (excluding bowls), the SEC is able to have a slightly better overall record because they play a higher percentage of the games that are 'easier (home games, games against Non-BCS or D1-AA teams). They play very few of the kind of games that they struggle in (away games against BCS-conference schools).

Now, let me guess your top criticism. "Maybe the SEC plays tougher teams than the Pac10 teams do". For the bowl games, this is likely true. The Pac10 has terrible bowl tie-ins, and we won't upgrade as long as our incompetent commish is getting out-worked by everyone else. However, I do not expect this to be true for the regular OOC games. If my Internet conneciton holds out (and it probably wont with the rain), I'll look at the BCS-conference teams played by the two conferences and compare records.

I do not expect to find a significant difference. At the very least, I do not expect a difference great enough to explain why the SEC is not lightyears ahead of the Pac10 (since the Pac10 is, in your words, a minor conference).
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top