My Top 10 in November

[Simon]

Aside from Penn State, probably not a lot different than my Top10 in October or September. It'll annoy some people no matter what month it is.

 

1) Texas

2) Georgia

3) Alabama

4) Penn State

5) Miami

6) Ohio State

7) Florida

8) USC

9) LSU

10) Virginia Tech

 

Notes:

>Notre Dame doesn't make it because they haven't actually beat a real good team yet.

>USC is low because they haven't actually played a real good team yet. (for about 3 years)

>Florida State was a real factor until they found a way to lose to NC State.

>Georgia has Shockley back and deserves a lot more respect than they ever seem to get.

[bartshan-83]

1) Texas

2) Georgia

3) Alabama

4) Penn State

5) Miami

6) Ohio State

7) Florida

8) USC

9) LSU

10) Virginia Tech

 

Notes:

>Notre Dame doesn't make it because they haven't actually beat a real good team yet.

>USC is low because they haven't actually played a real good team yet. (for about 3 years)

>Florida State was a real factor until they found a way to lose to NC State.

>Georgia has Shockley back and deserves a lot more respect than they ever seem to get.

496660[/snapback]

 

 

I'll give you a pass on ND because I can imagine if I wasn't as fan, I could see that argument.

 

I don't quite understand Florida. How can you give them the same #7 and leave ND out on the same basis? WHO has Florida beaten besides Georgia w/o their QB? No one. They have lost their only tough games.

 

C'mon man, your USC argument is getting a little silly. This season alone they have beaten TWO very good football teams. First they trounced Oregon AT Oregon and handed them their only loss. And they beat Notre Dame South Bend. They have beaten the #7 and #11 teams AWAY. And what about last year? Does beating the #2 team in the country, Oklahoma, 55-19 in the NATL champ game not count? Wins over Cal, AZ St. and Michigan not count? Give them their due.

 

Mine would look like this:

 

1. USC

2. Texas

3. Alabama

4. Miami

5. VT

6. PSU

7. ND

8. Georgia

9. LSU

10. OSU

[smokinandjokin]

Aside from Penn State, probably not a lot different than my Top10 in October or September. It'll annoy some people no matter what month it is. 

 

1) Texas

2) Georgia

3) Alabama

4) Penn State

5) Miami

6) Ohio State

7) Florida

8) USC

9) LSU

10) Virginia Tech

 

Notes:

>Notre Dame doesn't make it because they haven't actually beat a real good team yet.

>USC is low because they haven't actually played a real good team yet. (for about 3 years)

>Florida State was a real factor until they found a way to lose to NC State.

>Georgia has Shockley back and deserves a lot more respect than they ever seem to get.

496660[/snapback]

 

 

Genius Simon is spewing more garbage around the college football forum. You immediately lose all credibility for placing Georgia at #2 and Alabama at #3. Florida at #7 and Southern Cal at #8??? You are a clown.

 

I already listed the Top-10 teams USC has beaten in the past three years here. But while stating that they haven't beaten a Top 10 team, you also stated that you place no stock in the info I listed because, in your opinion, the rankings are flawed. Oh yeah, and Bowl Games don't count. The national championship game is a pointless bowl game? If anyone else wants a good chuckle, you can read Simon's Einstein reply here.

 

As an alumni of USC, I don't pretend that my views are not biased. But I am also willing to wager that I have seen three-times as many USC games as you have over the past 4 years, and I have not seen a college team that is better. Texas can probably hang in with them, but other than that, USC is dominant. Because they beat teams by 35 points, you assume their schedule is weak. And yet you list Texas as your #1, playing in the INCREDIBLE Big 12.

 

Going on the road to defeat Notre Dame, Oregon, and Arizona State, plus Cal and UCLA in the next few weeks, is no easy task. But you keep making up things to defend your ass-backwards rankings. You think USC would have squeaked one out at home vs. Vanderbilt in OT, like your #7 Florida did?

 

Your #8 team has won 31 straight, #1 in the AP poll for 29 straight weeks, and has won 42 out of 43 games, with the only loss coming at Cal in 3OT. They have the best QB, the best RB, and one of the top 5 WR in the nation. I don't know why you have to continue to trash them and their schedule.

[R. Rich]

     

 

Genius Simon is spewing more garbage around the college football forum.  You immediately lose all credibility for placing Georgia at #2 and Alabama at #3.  Florida at #7 and Southern Cal at #8???  You are a clown.

 

I already listed the Top-10 teams USC has beaten in the past three years here.  But while stating that they haven't beaten a Top 10 team, you also stated that you place no stock in the info I listed because, in your opinion, the rankings are flawed.  Oh yeah, and Bowl Games don't count.  The national championship game is a pointless bowl game?    If anyone else wants a good chuckle, you can read Simon's Einstein reply here.

 

As an alumni of USC, I don't pretend that my views are not biased.  But I am also willing to wager that I have seen three-times as many USC games as you have over the past 4 years, and I have not seen a college team that is better.  Texas can probably hang in with them, but other than that, USC is dominant.  Because they beat teams by 35 points, you assume their schedule is weak.  And yet you list Texas as your #1, playing in the INCREDIBLE Big 12.

 

Going on the road to defeat Notre Dame, Oregon, and Arizona State, plus Cal and UCLA in the next few weeks, is no easy task.  But you keep making up things to defend your ass-backwards rankings.  You think USC would have squeaked one out at home vs. Vanderbilt in OT, like your #7 Florida did?

 

Your #8 team has won 31 straight, #1 in the AP poll for 29 straight weeks, and has won 42 out of 43 games, with the only loss coming at Cal in 3OT.  They have the best QB, the best RB, and one of the top 5 WR in the nation.  I don't know why you have to continue to trash them and their schedule.

496723[/snapback]

 

 

Be nice. Remember, attack the post, NOT the poster.

 

 

As for your "USC is the best in college football" statement, that may or may not be true. It's hard to discount what Auburn did last year in THE most competitive conference in the nation, no less! To run the table in the SEC? That's impressive. As long as teams like USC and Texas can recruit well (and they can), they should be in the mix regularly, since the Pac 10 and Big 12 conferences aren't nearly as competitive as the SEC, ACC, or the Big 11. Personally, I think USC is among the best right now (considering they've won 2 "national titles" and have Reggie Bush, who is clearly the most dynamic player in college football now), but to say they have the best team? I just don't know. I imagine they'd have a much tougher road playing the tougher defenses in the conference I mentioned earlier than they would running through the Pac 10. Now, if they were playing those teams weekly and still put up the numbers they have been, then I'd say they're clearly the best in college football.

[Simon]

How can you give them the same #7 and leave ND out on the same basis? WHO has Florida beaten besides Georgia w/o their QB? No one. They have lost their only tough games.

That's a fair argument. I think the win vs Georgia was a real quality win even with Shockley out. And I think they've played a far tougher schedule (Tenn, 'Bama, LSU, Georgia) than Notre Dame but have still compiled a better record. That's why I gave them the nod over the Irish.

 

Does beating the #2 team in the country, Oklahoma, 55-19 in the NATL champ game not count? ...........The national championship game is a pointless bowl game?

It's a solid win for them and maybe the best thing on their resume in the last 3 years. But I don't believe for a second that Oklahoma was the second best team in the country (or even in the Top10) when they beat them. The fact that they've dropped about 40 spots less than a year later seems to support that theory.

 

As an alumni of USC, I don't pretend that my views are not biased.

Well that about says it all right there, doesn't it?

 

Because they beat teams by 35 points, you assume their schedule is weak.

No, I assume their schedule is weak because the teams they play suck.

 

Going on the road to defeat Notre Dame, Oregon, and Arizona State, plus Cal and UCLA in the next few weeks, is no easy task.....You think USC would have squeaked one out at home vs. Vanderbilt in OT, like your #7 Florida did?

Wow, they lucked out and beat Notre Dame who hasn't beat anybody yet. Congratulations. And if you want to convince me that they have a difficult schedule, you can leave those PAC-10 tomato cans off your ridiculous list of "tough" opponents.

And I don't know if they'd have squeaked out a win vs Vandy. They may very well have been beaten.

 

Your #8 team has won 31 straight, #1 in the AP poll for 29 straight weeks, and has won 42 out of 43 games, with the only loss coming at Cal in 3OT. They have the best QB, the best RB, and one of the top 5 WR in the nation. I don't know why you have to continue to trash them and their schedule.

They've won 31 straight against a candy-assed schedule. They're #1 according to a bunch of figure skating judges. And Mike Williams was also "the best" until he had to play against real defenders for the first time in his life.

And saying your team is the 8th best team in the country is hardly what I call "trashing" them. Wow, you really get upset when somebody doesn't teabag your team like the national media.

 

I imagine they'd have a much tougher road playing the tougher defenses in the conference I mentioned earlier than they would running through the Pac 10. Now, if they were playing those teams weekly and still put up the numbers they have been, then I'd say they're clearly the best in college football.

Exactly

You take any one of those Top7 teams I listed and put them in the joke that is the PAC-10, they go undefeated every year and are considered some sort of dynasty.

But if you put USC in the SEC or the Big10 where they have to play real football teams throughout the season, then USC goes 9-2 or 8-3 and ends up on the outside with all the other good teams who don't get to play a postseason game because they had to play a real schedule in a real conference.

 

If USC wants my respect, they need to go play a few tough physical teams; not the pussified Pac-10. They don't even have to play anybody on my Top10 list; have them go play Wisconsin, Auburn, Florida State and Colorado like other teams have to. If they still go undefeated I'll consider putting them at the top even though they still won't have played a Top10 team. Until then, they can stay right around #8 where the Pac-10 "champion" belongs.

[smokinandjokin]

Wow, you really get upset when somebody doesn't teabag your team like the national media. 

496951[/snapback]

Not looking for a teabag, just looking for you to start making some sense. You should try watching a few games instead of just saying that the Pac-10 is soft.

 

But if you put USC in the SEC or the Big10 where they have to play real football teams throughout the season, then USC goes 9-2 or 8-3 and ends up on the outside with all the other good teams who don't get to play a postseason game because they had to play a real schedule in a real conference.

496951[/snapback]

The SEC is probably the best conference in the country, but the top teams aren't elite teams. Alabama and Georgia are both going to be exposed before this year is out. LSU blew a huge lead at home against a sad Tennessee team. Auburn has been flying under the radar, and Florida is nothing special. The rest of that conference is questionable at best. Tell me these aren't cakewalk games: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas?

 

And the Big 10??? Please!!! Penn State is a solid team, and Northwestern is entertaining to watch. Everyone else is a pretender in that conference. They all beat up on each other because they are all jokers who can't win on the road.

 

If USC wants my respect, they need to go play a few tough physical teams; not the pussified Pac-10. They don't even have to play anybody on my Top10 list; have them go play Wisconsin, Auburn, Florida State and Colorado like other teams have to. If they still go undefeated I'll consider putting them at the top even though they still won't have played a Top10 team. Until then, they can stay right around #8 where the Pac-10 "champion" belongs.

496951[/snapback]

 

First game of last season, USC @ Virginia Tech (in D.C.), USC wins 24-13. Yep, that same VT team that was the ACC "champion" last year and was as high as #3 this year.

 

First game of the 2003 season: USC @ Auburn, USC wins 23-0. Yep, that Auburn team had Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Cadillac Williams and was ranked #9 in the country at the time. USC walked into their house and destroyed them.

 

USC smothered Michigan, the Big 10 "champion", in the Rose Bowl 28-14. Michigan never had a prayer in that game. Oh yeah, bowl games don't count with you because players don't take them seriously. I forgot.

 

The first two games of the 2002 season (the beginning of these great Trojan teams) they beat Auburn at home 24-17, and beat Colorado in Boulder, 40-3. Then they beat the Big 10 "champion" Iowa in the Orange Bowl 38-17. Whoops, bowl game doesn't count, sorry about that.

 

JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE

 

Keep making things up, it only makes your posts more entertaining. Have fun sitting around in Big 10 land talking about how great Minnesota and Wisconsin are. Everyone in the college football forum is now dumber after reading your posts.

[Mark VI]

8) USC

496660[/snapback]

 

Dr. Z would be proud of your contrarian position.

 

At this point, your supposed to prattle on about you Heisman vote for the TE from Rice.

[PSU_Mouse]

I'll give you a pass on ND because I can imagine if I wasn't as fan, I could see that argument.

 

I don't quite understand Florida. How can you give them the same #7 and leave ND out on the same basis? WHO has Florida beaten besides Georgia w/o their QB? No one. They have lost their only tough games.

 

C'mon man, your USC argument is getting a little silly. This season alone they have beaten TWO very good football teams. First they trounced Oregon AT Oregon and handed them their only loss. And they beat Notre Dame South Bend. They have beaten the #7 and #11 teams AWAY. And what about last year? Does beating the #2 team in the country, Oklahoma, 55-19 in the NATL champ game not count? Wins over Cal, AZ St. and Michigan not count? Give them their due.

 

Mine would look like this:

 

1. USC

2. Texas

3. Alabama

4. Miami

5. VT

6. PSU

7. ND

8. Georgia

9. LSU

10. OSU

496682[/snapback]

 

VT AHEAD of PSU? what has VT done to deserve that ranking? they beat ?????? oh yeah BC. they just lost at HOME by 20.

[Simon]

You should try watching a few games instead of just saying that the Pac-10 is soft.

Watching a few games is exactly why I know the PAC-10 is soft. And if you really don't believe it's soft, you're so utterly delusional that there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

 

And yet you list Texas as your #1, playing in the INCREDIBLE Big 12.

I won't even mention their win over the same Oklahoma team you beat for your "national championsip" <giggle>, because it's not a very impressive win for them(of course for you its the best thing on your resume in the last 3 years ). I will mention their complete destruction of Texas Tech, who's a better team than anybody on your schedule this year. And their win at Ohio State, who's a better team than anybody on your schedule this century.

 

Tell me these aren't cakewalk games: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas

Of course they're cakewalk games; just like Washington, Wash St, Arizona, Arizona St, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon and Oregon St. All conferences have weak sisters, the difference here is that while the PAC-10 is composed almost entirely of weak sisters a strong conference like the SEC balances them out with strong teams like Georgia AND Alabama AND LSU AND Florida AND Tennessee AND Auburn. Meanwhile the PAC-10 balances them out with teams like USC, and...ummm and uhhhhh Cal.... and uhhhhh, well I guess that's it isn't it? And even Cal is weaker than they've been in years because Tedford can't find a real QB.

Watching somebody trying to make the PAC-10 look even average by disparaging the SEC is really embarassing to see. Hell, you'd have a tougher time in the freakin MAC.

 

 

 

And now he follows it up with the big impressive list of USC's awesome out of conference wins over real teams which finally prove the Trojans' greatness. Well, those are some inspiring victories; of course I'm sure you won't mind if we take a closer look at them to see just how great they all are, right?

 

First game of last season, USC @ Virginia Tech (in D.C.), USC wins 24-13. Yep, that same VT team that was the ACC "champion" last year and was as high as #3 this year.

You mean that same Virginia Tech team that also lost to NC State in the joke that was the ACC last year; not to mention got destroyed on national TV the other night? Wow, pretty impressive 24-13 win.

 

First game of the 2003 season: USC @ Auburn, USC wins 23-0. Yep, that Auburn team had Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Cadillac Williams and was ranked #9 in the country at the time.

Yep, that Auburn team that finished 8-5 and got beat worse in the SEC than they did by USC. Yeah, that's quite a resume builder.

 

The first two games of the 2002 season (the beginning of these great Trojan teams) they beat Auburn at home 24-17, and beat Colorado in Boulder, 40-3.

Ummmm, that Auburn team was 9-4 and while you beat them by 7 powerhouse Arkansas beat them by 21.

And that Colorado team finished 9-5 and had just lost to almighty Colorado State before USC beat them.

Wow those are some really great victories there. I guess in addition to USC's rigorous PAC-10 schedule they've also played lots of real great teams outside their conference.

If I laugh any harder, I'm going to need a doctor.

 

JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE

And just because you're in denial doesn't make it false.

 

 

You know, you sound amazingly similar to the 'Canes fans I was having this same debate with throughout the season which ended up with them getting their ass kicked by Ohio State when they had to play a real team for the first time in 3 years. The only real differences I see are that USC has faced a little more adversity which might bode well for them. And that those 'Canes fans were less delusional and insulting than you. With apologies to BADOL and dib, congrats to you smokinandjokin for reaching a level below even that of a Miami fan.

[smokinandjokin]

Wow those are some really great victories there. I guess in addition to USC's rigorous PAC-10 schedule they've also played lots of real great teams outside their conference.

498432[/snapback]

 

You know, you sound amazingly similar to the 'Canes fans I was having this same debate with throughout the season which ended up with them getting their ass kicked by Ohio State when they had to play a real team for the first time in 3 years.

498432[/snapback]

 

I don't know what you're all bitter about Simon. Every team that USC beats, you discount them as being bad. You say USC's best win in three years was the Oklahoma game, but that wasn't even a game. It was one team being outclassed by another. I think dominating the Big 10 champion two years in a row in BCS bowl games were better victories.

 

Your current Top 10 goes against everything you state in your arguments against USC. Your #2 Georgia (who has not even won all of their games)- who have they beaten this year? Tennessee (3-5)? Wow!!! And a nice non-conference win against Louisiana-Monroe.

 

Your #3 Alabama? Nice win at home against Florida (cough cough), but what else? A 6-3 trouncing (at home) against 3-5 Tennesee? Utah State? Middle Tennessee? IMPRESSIVE!!! Just as a point of reference, USC and Alabama both played Arkansas at home this year. Bama won 24-13, USC won 70-17.

 

Your #6 Ohio State? Lost to ranked Texas at home, and lost to ranked Penn State away. But they have beaten 5-4 Iowa and 5-4 Michigan State. Holy Chit, they are amazing.

 

Your #7 Florida? They beat one ranked team this year, and that was 14-10, while said team was playing without their QB. They allowed Alabama, who beat (3-5) Tennessee 6-3, (3-5) Ole Miss 13-0, and (2-7) Miss St 17-0, to run up 31 points against them. PATHETIC.

 

If you are going to use one method to trash a team, try using the same method when you evaluate the others. USC has beaten every team this year, and the year-and-a-half before that, both bad and good. Their best win is not against chump squads like Tennessee or Minnesota, but the same can't be said for other teams you place above them.

 

You can knock the PAC-10 all you want. I could care less. Texas, USC, and maybe Miami are the only teams in your Top-10 that could go into Notre Dame or Oregon and win. Winning 31 in a row (which would be 43 in a row barring a 3 point, triple-OT loss on the road) is not an accident. And you can't blame it on three years of bad competition. Dominating BCS bowl victories against the #3 (Iowa), #4 (Michigan) and #2 (Oklahoma) teams in the country cannot be discarded. USC had a month between games also, so you can set that shameful argument aside. Oh, and keep patting yourself on the back for guessing the Miami-OSU game. I won't even mention that they had that game won once already. A hilarious pass interference call makes you a genius. Nice.

 

Your rankings alone stamped moron all over yourself; but you've really impressed me with some extremely iditoic posts to back yourself up. Keep 'em coming.

[bartshan-83]

VT AHEAD of PSU?  what has VT done to deserve that ranking?  they beat ??????  oh yeah BC. they just lost at HOME by 20.

498424[/snapback]

Fair enough.

 

1. USC

2. Texas

3. Alabama

4. Miami

5. PSU

6. VT

7. ND

8. Georgia

9. LSU

10. OSU

[Chilly]

My 10...

 

1.) Texas

2.) USC

3.) Penn State

4.) Miami

5.) Alabama

6.) Georgia

7.) VT

8.) LSU

9.) ND

10.) OSU

[Simon]

I think dominating the Big 10 champion two years in a row in BCS bowl games were better victories......Dominating BCS bowl victories against the #3 (Iowa), #4 (Michigan) and #2 (Oklahoma) teams in the country cannot be discarded. USC had a month between games also, so you can set that shameful argument aside.

 

Yeah, both teams had a month between games; which is one of the reason that these bowl games are so meaningless as measuring sticks. The fact that teh players are there to party and the game isn't even their primary concern is another. If neitehr team is even close to the top of their game, there's simply no point in considering the outcome meaningful as far as how good the involved teams are.

 

 

Your current Top 10 goes against everything you state in your arguments against USC.

If you can use USC's games over the last 3 years to prove thier worthiness as a top pick, then I can use other teams' recent history as a gauge as well. All of the teams I have above your precious Trojans ahve been playing well against tough schedules for the last couple years. The only exception is 'Bama and they're up there because a team that's undefeated in the country's toughest conference belongs up there until there's a reason to knock them down.

 

 

Texas, USC, and maybe Miami are the only teams in your Top-10 that could go into Notre Dame or Oregon and win.

Now that's some high quality comedy!

You must be forgetting that Michigan State (the 8thplace team in the Big 10)also went into Soutn Bend and hung 44 on Notre Dame when they beat them. But yeah, nobody else could do it for sure but Texas and your big bad Trojans. Maybe I should put MichState up there too? Nahhhh, the Big 10 sucks.

Oh and great win over those dominating Oregon Ducks. Nobody else but Texas could have pulled it off. Of course Oregon had to eke out close home wins against FresnoState from the might WAC and 3-6 Arizona. But yeah I'm sure nobody else could go in there and win since Fresno and Arizona are both better than anybody (except USC and Oregon).

 

Oh, and keep patting yourself on the back for guessing the Miami-OSU game. I won't even mention that they had that game won once already. A hilarious pass interference call makes you a genius. Nice.

Nice selective memory. You left out the part where Miami was getting their ass handed to them all game and then needed a gimmick punt return, a couple Winslow miracles and a pack of zebras to even get them back in the game in the 4th qrtr. If not for the officiating crew, the 'Canes lose in regulation, and if not for some good fortune late, they lose by 2-3 scores.

For what it's worth I think USC is better than those 'Canes teams, but there are some similarities which when considered make one hesitant to prop USC up the same way Miami was propped up.

 

I don't know what you're all bitter about Simon...........

 

Genius Simon is spewing more garbage.....

You are a clown......

you can read Simon's Einstein reply.....

Toolbox.....

Everyone in the college football forum is now dumber after reading your posts.....

Your rankings alone stamped moron all over yourself.....

youve really impressed me with some extremely iditoic posts to back yourself up.....

 

Uh-huh, yeah. I'm the bitter one.

 

This is easier than yaggin' smalleys in a spring rain.

[smokinandjokin]

Yeah, both teams had a month between games; which is one of the reason that these bowl games are so meaningless as measuring sticks. The fact that the players are there to party and the game isn't even their primary concern is another. If neitehr team is even close to the top of their game, there's simply no point in considering the outcome meaningful as far as how good the involved teams are.

498739[/snapback]

Oh, I get it. You're punishing USC because their opponent isn't prepared to play IN THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE SEASON. Michigan wasn't concerned with winning the Rose Bowl, they'd rather party? For a guy who sweats the Big Ten, you should know that their season is defined by that game. Don't knock a team for winning a bowl game. They try to win 11 others so they have a chance to win that one.

Your arguing that point only pays more of a compliment to USC and their coaching staff. If it is that hard to keep players focused, USC's 3-0 record in BCS games over the past three years speaks volumes about their leadership.

If you can use USC's games over the last 3 years to prove thier worthiness as a top pick, then I can use other teams' recent history as a gauge as well.

498739[/snapback]

 

I'm not trying to prove their worthiness. I think two straight national titles justifies that. I'm merely responding to your claims that USC hasn't played a quality team in 3 years. I listed the AP Top 10 teams they had beaten, but you said those teams weren't any good either. You said you'd like to see them play "Wisconsin, Auburn, or Colorado," so I listed the games in the past three years when they had beaten the Big 10 champ (twice), as well as Auburn (twice, home and away) and Colorado (away). You proceeded to trash those opponents. You trash the win vs. Oklahoma, yet they handed your #1 Texas (with Cedric Benson) their only loss last year. You're dancing circles around yourself.

 

All of the teams I have above your precious Trojans ahve been playing well against tough schedules for the last couple years.

498739[/snapback]

Hey now! Big round of applause for playing well! Sorry Simon, but there's a HUGE difference between playing well and actually WINNING games. USC has miraculously found a way to do both.

 

For what it's worth I think USC is better than those 'Canes teams, but there are some similarities which when considered make one hesitant to prop USC up the same way Miami was propped up.

498739[/snapback]

This is a concise and understandable thought, Simon. Well done. I can see your apprehension to give USC the b.j. However, placing them #8 in your poll makes me skeptical as to what you're watching. If you are down on USC, I could see you placing them behind Texas, and maybe Miami after their trouncing at VT. But lower than that seems like you are going out of your way to disrespect the consensus #1.

I mentioned Arkansas before as a common opponent for USC and Bama. Your #2, Georgia, beat them 23-20 at home (yes, Shockley did get hurt that game.) USC beat them 70-17.

I watch a LOT of college football, mainly for financial gaming reasons. I see as many teams and games as I can, including West Coast games, which I know a lot of folks in the East don't do. USC is as good a team as you are going to see. Texas is dangerous, and Vince Young is a weapon. Miami is athletic as hell, but they blew their chance when they "played well" but lost to FSU. Penn State can play, but not at the level of USC or UT. Outside of those, I don't see another team to take seriously on a national scale.

I think if you stopped trying to sh*t on USC so much and actually watched them play, you might enjoy it. They were a better "team" last year, as a lot of starting defenders (seven, I think) graduated. But their offense is something to see, and very fun to watch.

[R. Rich]

Penn State can play, but not at the level of USC or UT

498858[/snapback]

 

 

As well as the PSU defense is playing this year, I'm sure they'd love to have a shot @ USC. I don't think USC is unbeatable this year. Were it not for the loss of so many defensive players, which has made their defense very ordinary, that might be true.

 

Now, last year's USC team vs last year's Penn State team? That would be very ugly for Penn State.

[smokinandjokin]

As well as the PSU defense is playing this year, I'm sure they'd love to have a shot @ USC.  I don't think USC is unbeatable this year.  Were it not for the loss of so many defensive players, which has made their defense very ordinary, that might be true. 

 

Now, last year's USC team vs last year's Penn State team?  That would be very ugly for Penn State.

498869[/snapback]

 

Agreed. Their LB's outplayed OSU's "best in the nation" LB's when those two played each other. As good as a defense can play, USC is still going to get their points. Teams like Arizona State and Oregon have stopped USC for a quarter+ or a half, but they didn't score enough on offense. ASU was up 21-3 at half, but needed to be about 34-3. The Trojans scored 5 TD's in the 2nd half to win. I'm not sure Robinson could put up enough points, because stopping USC means you held them in the 28-34 range.

 

I'm sure Miami is kicking themselves as well. Like usual, their defense is unbelievably fast. But after outplaying and losing to FSU, they lost their shot at USC or Texas.

[R. Rich]

Agreed.  Their LB's outplayed OSU's "best in the nation" LB's when those two played each other.  As good as a defense can play, USC is still going to get their points.  Teams like Arizona State and Oregon have stopped USC for a quarter+ or a half, but they didn't score enough on offense.  ASU was up 21-3 at half, but needed to be about 34-3.  The Trojans scored 5 TD's in the 2nd half to win.  I'm not sure Robinson could put up enough points, because stopping USC means you held them in the 28-34 range.

 

I'm sure Miami is kicking themselves as well.  Like usual, their defense is unbelievably fast.  But after outplaying and losing to FSU, they lost their shot at USC or Texas.

498888[/snapback]

 

 

It depends on what JoePa wants, in terms of scoring. When he gives Galen Hall and JayPa the green light, they can put points on the board, especially since we have an outstanding group of young receivers who can make big plays (and have done so) down the field. The only things I worry about are:

 

(1) PSU's offensive line, which isn't as dominant as their lines have been in the past. If they give good pass protection, Robinson can get the ball downfield to guys like Butler, King, and Norwood, who all have game breaking ability (I won't even mention Derrick, but he'll have more than his say next season).

 

(2) Robinson himself. If his head is in the game (as it has been for mosst of this season), he's very tough to beat. He does still have lapses where he'll miss wide open WRs though, and that's an issue that would really hurt PSU against a squad like USC (especially if the defense keeps them in the game, as I suspect they would). They would have to make good on their opportunities to score, and that would put the pressure on Robinson to do well.

 

 

If Robinson handles the pressure well, and the OL gives him the time he needs, then Penn State can beat ANY team in the nation. Yes, even USC.

[smokinandjokin]

If Robinson handles the pressure well, and the OL gives him the time he needs, then Penn State can beat ANY team in the nation.  Yes, even USC.

498907[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree. It would take a mistake-free game from Robinson, and he would have to cash in on every chance to get 7. Field goals just wouldn't cut it.

 

I think PSU has a nice team. I would have them at 4 behind Miami at 3, just because of UM's big win on the road. Both those teams would beat Alabama soundly, IMO.

 

They do have some playmakers, and it's nice to see the freshmen getting quality time and contributing. That should help with recruiting. IMO, JoePa's reluctance to play freshmen in the past hurt his recruiting more than his job uncertainty did. I know JoePa didn't have a "policy" regarding not playing freshmen; if you were good enough, you played. But all things being equal, Joe was old school, and would play the vet over the rook, even if playing the rook would've been better for the long term.

[bills_fan]

You know, you sound amazingly similar to the 'Canes fans I was having this same debate with throughout the season which ended up with them getting their ass kicked by Ohio State when they had to play a real team for the first time in 3 years. The only real differences I see are that USC has faced a little more adversity which might bode well for them. And that those 'Canes fans were less delusional and insulting than you. With apologies to BADOL and dib, congrats to you smokinandjokin for reaching a level below even that of a Miami fan.

 

Ummmm...if Willis McGahee doesn't get injured, Miami scores the TD and goes to OT again. There was no "ass kicking" in that game.

[e-dog]

8TH You put Southern Cal 8TH ???????

 

I've come to the following conclusions;

1. you don't watch college football.

2. you do watch a little and don't understand what your watching.

3. you hate them because they are good.

 

And Ohio St. didn't give miami an "ass kicking". how can you possibly say that ? The game went to ot on a highly questionable flag.

 

8th ???? That is a real good one.

[Simon]

For a guy who sweats the Big Ten, you should know that their season is defined by that game. Don't knock a team for winning a bowl game. They try to win 11 others so they have a chance to win that one.

Your arguing that point only pays more of a compliment to USC and their coaching staff. If it is that hard to keep players focused, USC's 3-0 record in BCS games over the past three years speaks volumes about their leadership.

The Big Ten's season is not defined by any single thing, but if it were it would be defined by getting to that game. I promise you that OSU is much more interested in whipping Michigan's ass than they are some West Coast team they might see once every 20 years.

And I'm not knocking anybody for winning a bowl game; I'm just not interested in placing much emphasis on the results of a game which I don't think tell much about either team.

I think USC's fine record in bowl games is mostly a result of the fact that in a game like that, natural talent usually wins out. USC is loaded with talent and this benefits them in a game where one team may have far more interest in the outcome than another.

But being loaded with natural talent isn't the same as being considered a great team.

 

I think if you stopped trying to sh*t on USC so much and actually watched them play, you might enjoy it. They were a better "team" last year, as a lot of starting defenders (seven, I think) graduated. But their offense is something to see, and very fun to watch.

Saying that USC is one of the best 10 teams in the entire country is hardly shlitting on them. I've seen them play enough to give them the credit they deserve.

And I fully agree that they were a much better team last year, as you didn't see me "shlitting on them" until this year. But I don't think they're nearly as good this year as they were last. As for their offense being fun to watch, it certainly is. I also enjoy watching Navy and Air Force's triple option offenses, but it hardly makes them great teams.

 

Here's my problems with USC in a nutshell:

I have serious questions about thier defense. Last year they were just solid enough that even with that very good offense they could still be considered sort of a balanced team. But as you say, they lost a lot of guys this year and it seems to me that what balance they had has completely disappeared. When they have to play a real good team, I have serious doubts about their ability to just simply outscore them.

Which leads me to also having serious questions about how thier offense would respond to playing against a good defense. I haven't seen it asked to do that this year (the highest ranked defense they've faced is ranked 48th)and you have to wonder how they'd respond to being in a real 4qrtr dogfight against a team that can and will D up all day.

 

I'm not saying USC sucks, I think they're very good and that's why I have them in my Top10. But I think there's a few more complete teams out there that USC never seems to have to play. I fully expect them to roll through the rest of their schedule and play a "nat'l championship" game <giggle> against Texas, who should also roll through the rest of their undaunting schedule(Funny how these title tilts always seem to involve a team or two who never had to play anybody ). But I think that there's a distinct possibility that Texas' massive and talented OLine is simply going to grind the USC defense into little bit-sized bits, putting together a bunch of grueling sustained drives that end in scores. And because of this imbalance the very good USC offense is going to find itself limited to a handful of possessions, all of them on a long field against the kind of defense they haven't seen in a very long time.

This is likely to spell trouble for the Trojans and I don't think Texas is the only team in the country that would give them that kind of trouble. Not trying to be a dick, that's just the way I see the field.

Cya

[e-dog]

My new top-10

 

USC

Texas

Miami,Fl.

LSU

N. Dame

Ohio St.

V.Tech

Penn St.

Auburn

Georgia

 

And the top-3 are no brainers.

 

Next -3

 

Alabama

Ucla

Oregon

[/dev/null]

My new top-10

 

USC

Texas

Miami,Fl.

LSU

N. Dame

Ohio St.

V.Tech

Penn St.

Auburn

Georgia

 

And the top-3 are no brainers.

 

Next -3

 

Alabama

Ucla

Oregon

501008[/snapback]

 

how can you rank Ohio State over Penn State.

That ranking was actually decided on the field

 

We ARE Penn State

[smokinandjokin]

1. Southern Cal

2. Texas

3. Miami

4. Penn State

5. LSU

6. Virginia Tech

7. Ohio State

8. Notre Dame

9. Oregon

10. Auburn

 

How bad is the Big 12? Texas is obviously nasty, but not much else going on there. The "second-best team" Texas Tech lost to OK State, who was winless in the conference. Colorado loses to Iowa State, but will probably still make the title game, even with 2 conference losses.

 

The SEC, home teams had a chance to git 'er done and couldn't. Alabama's charade is finally over. Nice D, pathetic O...You knew eventually somebody would score 13 points and beat them. Auburn hands Georgia their second loss with a big road win. Florida's quest for mediocrity continues with another loss, and this was a stinger: to Spurrier at South Carolina.

 

Southern Cal has two games left: home vs. #16 Fresno State, and at Pasadena vs. #12 UCLA. Both teams are used to winning games this year (only 1 loss each) so neither game is a complete gimmee, but I don't see USC having much trouble with either team. Texas will clearly win out, so we should have the matchup everyone wants to see:

 

#1 vs. #2, both undefeated, facing off in a bowl game. Several years ago, it would be USC-Penn State in the Rose Bowl, and Texas-Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl.

 

The BCS is far from perfect, but it DOES work.

[Simon]

The BCS is far from perfect, but it DOES work.

 

After repeatedly accusing me of being an idiotic moronic clown, you have now made by far the single most ridiculous statement in this thread.

Somebody miraculously went undefeated in one of the country's most pathetic conferences. They must be the best team in the nation! Go BCS!!!

 

How bad is the Big 12? Texas is obviously nasty, but not much else going on there. The "second-best team" Texas Tech lost to OK State, who was winless in the conference......

So how did "second best team" Oregon look against winless 0-7 Washington State this weekend? The way you've been talking them up I assume they must have rolled by 50.

Or wait, is UCLA the "second best team"? How'd they look against 1-5 Arizona last weekend? They're like way awesome and couldn't have possibly lost by 40.

 

we should have the matchup everyone wants to see:

Not everybody. Personally I'd rather see the nation's best teams run in some playoff games. But if you prefer the figure-skating format, well to each his own.

[smokinandjokin]

After repeatedly accusing me of being an idiotic moronic clown, you have now made by far the single most ridiculous statement in this thread.

Somebody miraculously went undefeated in one of the country's most pathetic conferences. They must be the best team in the nation! Go BCS!!!

502911[/snapback]

Come on man, use your head. I said the BCS is not perfect. I, like everyone else, would rather see a playoff. But read this thread over and look at the points you and I have been arguing. We are trying to determine who is good, who plays soft teams, which conferences suck, etc. You say Texas is better than USC. Without the BCS, that argument would continue on into infinity. At least now, those two teams, which are the clear-cut Top 2 to 99.9% of the United States (no matter what you think) will actually play each other. What an amazing concept. You can't tell me that looking back at the way the Bowl system used to be, the BCS is not an improvement. USC would win the Rose Bowl, Texas would win their Bowl game, and you and I would argue all through January about who was better. At least now it can be determined on the field.

 

So how did "second best team" Oregon look against winless 0-7 Washington State this weekend? The way you've been talking them up I assume they must have rolled by 50.

Or wait, is UCLA the "second best team"? How'd they look against 1-5 Arizona last weekend? They're like way awesome and couldn't have possibly lost by 40.

502911[/snapback]

Sick post Simon. Oregon, the 2nd best team in the PAC-10 (#10 in the AP), won 34-31 on the road at Washington State. UCLA, the 3rd best team (#12 in the AP), won by 10 vs. Arizona State.

 

But Texas MUST be awesome. The 2nd best team in the Big 12, Texas Tech (#21), lost 24-17 to Oklahoma State, who was winless in the conference. The 3rd best team, Colorado (unranked), lost at home to Iowa State. Losing is different from winning.

 

1) Texas

2) Georgia

3) Alabama

4) Penn State

5) Miami

6) Ohio State

7) Florida

8) USC

9) LSU

10) Virginia Tech

496660[/snapback]

 

You sure know your college football. Solid work when your #2, #3, and #7 all lose in the same weekend. Your #8 won though.

 

Not everybody. Personally I'd rather see the nation's best teams run in some playoff games. But if you prefer the figure-skating format, well to each his own.

502911[/snapback]

 

They have been playing playoff games. You lose and you're out. Only two teams haven't lost yet. Make all the excuses you want- all that matters is winning.

[Chilly]

But Texas MUST be awesome. 

502993[/snapback]

 

Texas IS awesome.

[Simon]

At least now it can be determined on the field.

And what about the other 6 teams who are just as good as USC and maybe Texas but don't get the opportunity for a playoff game because they play in real conferences? Too bad for them the Soviet judge didn't give them high enough marks.

 

Oregon, the 2nd best team in the PAC-10 (#10 in the AP), won 34-31 on the road at Washington State. UCLA, the 3rd best team (#12 in the AP), won by 10 vs. Arizona State.

Big tough Oregon who you've been howling about beat 0-7 Washington State on a last second field goal. Impressive.

And UCLA who you've been sweating all year lost by 40 points to 1-5 Arizona.

But USC must be awesome.

 

You sure know your college football. Solid work when your #2, #3, and #7 all lose in the same weekend. Your #8 won though.

My #2 lost a close game to a team that was ranked about 10 spots away. Wow, what a huge upset.

My #3 lost a close game to a team that was ranked about 6 spots away. Wow, another huge upset.

But hey, those are the kind of things that happen when teams have to play real schedules instead of 9 games against the Little Sisters of the Poor practice squad.

 

So how did the teams you've been crowing about do this weekend? Northwestern (who you declared the only other worthy team in teh Big10) got predictably slaughtered by Ohio State. Well, it was predictable to those who know what they're talking about.

Oregon (who you've repeatedly told us how great they are) eked out a last second FG win over 0-7 Washington State. Impressive stuff there.

Wow, you sure know your college football.

 

 

They have been playing playoff games. You lose and you're out. Only two teams haven't lost yet. Make all the excuses you want- all that matters is winning.

When teams are playing their "playoff games" (whatever) against the kind of opponents that are even remotely comparable, then winning will be the bottom line. For now the bottom line is that teams in the most pathetic conferences(USC, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, etc) play for "national championships" <giggle>, while teams in the toughest conferences play real opponents.

[smokinandjokin]

And what about the other 6 teams who are just as good as USC and maybe Texas but don't get the opportunity for a playoff game because they play in real conferences? Too bad for them the Soviet judge didn't give them high enough marks.

503066[/snapback]

Those teams, whoever they are, had the same opportunity to show the Soviet judge what they could do. Actually, using your logic, they had a better opportunity to show what they could do, seeing as they play "real" teams in "real" conferences. Perhaps Miami should have scored more than 7 points vs. Florida St. Maybe Penn State's vaunted defense should have made a 4th down stop with the game on the line. What if LSU didn't blow a 21-0 lead at home against Tennessee? Virginia Tech already had Texas sweating out the #2 spot, as they were gaining ground every week. Then they forgot to show up for a home game. Don't blame the "judges" for rewarding the two teams who have gotten it done week in and week out, home and road, against good teams and bad.

 

Last year, USC was leading #7 Cal 23-17. Cal drives to the 8-yard line at the end of the game, behind Aaron Rodgers' 23 consecutive completions. What happened? The defense tightened on four straight plays to the end zone to preserve the lead and the win. USC loses, they're out. No excuses. But a good team will find a way to win. You have to win games Simon. That concept seems to be lost on you.

 

My #2 lost a close game to a team that was ranked about 10 spots away.

My #3 lost a close game to a team that was ranked about 6 spots away.

503066[/snapback]

You said it all. LOST is the key word, but you also could have included lost at home, or in Georgia's case, my #2 lost for the second time. Try winning your home games before you try winning a national championship.

So how did the teams you've been crowing about do this weekend? Northwestern (who you declared the only other worthy team in teh Big10) got predictably slaughtered by Ohio State. Well, it was predictable to those who know what they're talking about.

503066[/snapback]

Once again, just because you say something doesn't make it true. I said NW plays entertaining games. I like they way QB Basenez plays. But their 52-21 loss to Arizona State (from the soft Pac-10) this year proved that they are not worthy. I respect the Big 10. My rankings have PSU at #4 and OSU at #7. Please don't write my posts for me.

And as far as predictable, I had a large chunk of cheddar on Ohio State giving 19 points to NW. My wallet suggests that I do know what I'm talking about.

 

Oregon (who you've repeatedly told us how great they are) eked out a last second FG win over 0-7 Washington State. Impressive stuff there.

Wow, you sure know your college football.     

503066[/snapback]

Oregon won on the road in the freezing rain. The teams you've been slurping on all lost at home. Nice.

I'm not trying to say WSU is a good team. 0-7 in the conference speaks for itself. But what 0-7 doesn't mention is the scores. Throw out a loss by 11 at Oregon State and a loss by 42 at USC, and they've lost the other 5 Pac-10 games by 3, 3, 4, 3, and 3 points. Winning on the road in a rainstorm against a team who plays everyone tough is nothing to be ashamed of.

teams in the toughest conferences play real opponents.

503066[/snapback]

 

And lose!!! At home!!!!

 

You continue to make it easier and easier to tool on your posts.

 

Simon's mid-November Top 10

 

1. Texas

2. LSU- Simon thinks they played well in the loss at home to Tennessee (goff!)

3. Alabama- Where's the defense? Bama O put up their usual 10 points, D let LSU get 13! The nerve!

4. Ohio State- Simon really thought they were going to win those two they lost

5. Georgia- Second-best two-loss team in the country

6. Penn State- Not fair! Their defense thought UM was going to kick a FG on that 4th down play, down by 4. "But we stopped them on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down!"

7. U Buffalo- Big win against a powerful Kent State team vaults them into Top 10

8. Florida- Third loss of the year drops them down a spot.

9. USC- Cal sucks this year and Trojans only won by 25. Chumps.

10. Virginia Tech- Simon thought about Miami at #10, but if they played again, Virginia Tech might win.

[Alaska Darin]

Throw out a loss by 11 at Oregon State and a loss by 42 at USC, and they've lost the other 5 Pac-10 games by 3, 3, 4, 3, and 3 points.  Winning on the road in a rainstorm against a team who plays everyone tough is nothing to be ashamed of. 

503560[/snapback]

The only thing this little tidbit proves is Simon's point about how weak the rest of the conference is.

 

Party on.

[LongLiveRalph]

Dang, Simon and Smokin are getting after it! I questioned everything Simon said after reading the first post when he had Southern Cal at 8 and Georgia/Alabama at 2/3. Smokin, you know the Pac10 is not a tough conference. There are some adequate teams, but I see Oregon and UCLA more as pretenders than contenders.

 

That being said, here's my top 10:

 

1. USC

2. Texas

3. Penn State

4. Miami

5. LSU

6. Notre Dame

7. Ohio State

8. Virginia Tech

9. Auburn

10. Oregon

 

Simon you did provide some humor for your case against USC. However, IMO, your case is pretty weak. They take every team's best shot every week and win ballgames. I know it's the Pac10, but their schedule has them play the four other teams (Oregon, UCLA, Cal, and Arizona State) all on the road this season, plus Notre Dame on the road. Those five games right there are tougher than Texas' schedule (I'll call the away games at OSU and ND equally tough, but the rest of the Big12 has nothing.) But even Texas was outplayed for much of the game in Columbus against a team who was having serious QB issues at the time.

 

The way I see it, USC has won 31 in a row. Texas has won 17 in a row. You can't blame all of that on the competition. Until a school puts 11 guys on the field who can beat either one, they are the top 2. USC has beaten the champion of the ACC (VT), Big 12 (OU), and Big 10 (UM) over the past two seasons. Texas took Michigan's best shot last year and won in the Rose Bowl.

 

The Big10 and SEC have solid talent, but every team has been inconsistent at one point or another this season. USC and Texas have been the model of consistency.

[Simon]

You have to win games Simon. That concept seems to be lost on you.

And the concept that teams who have wildly divergent schedule qualitites shouldn't be judged on only wins and losses seems to be lost on you. Just because USC beats my high school alma mater 100 times in a row doesn't mean they are better than Georgia who went 50-50 against Auburn.

 

It's obvious that neither one of us is ever going to be able to consider the others' perspective on this issue. I can't make myself a blind USC alumni who's such a homer that they need to convince themselves that the oft-repeated fallacies of the hype-driven media are truths. And you can't make yourself into a rational, reasonably intelligent football fan who can take an impartial view while looking at the bigger picture and the vagaries which permeate it.

 

And judging from your weak attempt to mock my Top10, I can tell that you're eagerly awaiting my next installment. Unfortunately you'll have to wait for the December Top10, but you'll be glad to know that USC has rocketed toward the Top6 as they looked good in their second toughest game of the year vs. 3-4 Cal.

[Hirly5]

And the concept that teams who have wildly divergent schedule qualitites shouldn't be judged on only wins and losses seems to be lost on you. Just because USC beats my high school alma mater 100 times in a row doesn't mean they are better than Georgia who went 50-50 against Auburn.

 

It's obvious that neither one of us is ever going to be able to consider the others' perspective on this issue. I can't make myself a blind USC alumni who's such a homer that they need to convince themselves that the oft-repeated fallacies of the hype-driven media are truths. And you can't make yourself into a rational, reasonably intelligent football fan who can take an impartial view while looking at the bigger picture and the vagaries which permeate it.

 

And judging from your weak attempt to mock my Top10, I can tell that you're eagerly awaiting my next installment. Unfortunately you'll have to wait for the December Top10, but you'll be glad to know that USC has rocketed toward the Top6 as they looked good in their second toughest game of the year vs. 3-4 Cal.

504656[/snapback]

According to this website http://teamrankings.com/ncf/27powerratings.php3 USC's SOS is 63 while Texas' SOS is 94.

 

If USC is playing high school teams, Texas must be playing midget teams.

[BuckeyeBill]

USC has to be Number 1, until they lose. Not losing for three years, I don't care if they win by the skin of their teeth each week, they deserve to be #1.

 

Texas has to be Number 2, undefeated... and beating my Buckeyes in the shoe is not easy.

 

OSU should also be in the top 5 (losing to Texas BARELY (if one of three plays would have gone differently, Buckeyes win that one), and losing to Penn State (was one play gone wrong), not to mention we were playing on a hostile stadium.

 

Also, the Buckeyes are a much better team now then they were losing those two games... an offense that is on fire... which all the world will see when the Buckeyes destroy Michigan IN Michigan.

 

And Penn State doesn't get its props. They are literally one bounce of the ball away from being undefeated. They deserve a top 5 placement too.

[e-dog]

Where does Miami and LSU belong then. They both lost a couple of fluke games.

 

I would love to see a play-off with the top eight teams. That would become the biggest thing in sports imo. Seed them 1-8 and get a true National Champion.

[smokinandjokin]

And the concept that teams who have wildly divergent schedule qualitites shouldn't be judged on only wins and losses seems to be lost on you. Just because USC beats my high school alma mater 100 times in a row doesn't mean they are better than Georgia who went 50-50 against Auburn.

504656[/snapback]

I fully grasp that concept. But just because the conference as a whole is better does not mean the teams are better. LSU losing to Tennessee is a perfect example. Should we place LSU ahead of USC, when LSU's loss (at home) is to a team who got destroyed by Notre Dame, who USC beat on the road? Penn State, same thing. You have to put yourself in a postition to argue that you have the tougher schedule, and losing is not how you put yourself into position.

And you're right, Georgia and Auburn would probably go 50-50. The fact that USC would go 80-20 against either of them makes USC better.

It's obvious that neither one of us is ever going to be able to consider the others' perspective on this issue. I can't make myself a blind USC alumni who's such a homer that they need to convince themselves that the oft-repeated fallacies of the hype-driven media are truths. And you can't make yourself into a rational, reasonably intelligent football fan who can take an impartial view while looking at the bigger picture and the vagaries which permeate it.

504656[/snapback]

One team in the past 43 games has been able to beat USC, in 3OT at their field, no less. That zaney media must be writing their own scores every week. I've already included some of the teams, which were conference champions, who have lost to USC over the past 43 games. That was irrelevant for you. You call yourself a rational football fan, just take a look at post #1 of this thread. That's as rational a ranking as the judges in your favorite sport, figure skating. I think you have a future. If USC is not the best team, why hasn't somebody stepped up and proven it?

 

I guess as you concede this argument, we'll just have to wait until December's rankings, at which time USC will have won 34 in a row and will be on track to meet Texas in the title game. I can't wait to see which two-loss teams are more deserving than the undefeateds, according to the Polish judge.

[e-dog]

Smokin, whats your take on Virgina Tech at Virginia game this Saturday ?