Gregg Doyel is a bitter little man

by Paragon SC on Dec 8, 2008 12:30 PM PST in USC Football Comment 26 comments

Emphasis on little...

Looks like Doyel got up on the wrong side of the bed...

Quit your bitching, Texas. You too, Southern California.

Shut up, the both of you.

Didn't make it into the BCS title game? Boo-fricking-hoo. The system might not have worked in your favor this season, but it will one day. And that's the thing about being Texas or Southern California, and about being Florida or Oklahoma, for that matter: The even larger system -- the college football system -- is designed to funnel you into the BCS title game as smoothly as possible.

So Texas and USC didn't get there this season. So what. You will soon enough, maybe even next season. And if not next season, then the next. That's almost a sure thing. By the year 2011, both Texas and USC will have played again for the national championship -- and if it hasn't happened for either school by then, Mack Brown or Pete Carroll has screwed up.

Wow! Doyel doesn't get out much...

Of course, the argument can be made that SC losing to Oregon State kept them out of the BCS Title game. I think its now pretty clear that its a myth to say the earlier you lose the better off you will be within this system. Texas has a better argument if for no other reason that they beat OU head to head.

The fact is the system continues to be flawed with no hope of it ever being fixed. The AP isn't a part of it and their ballots are secret. Dennis Dodd wrote a great piece about the coaches not being in the equation and looking at the final regular season ballots of the season I can see why. There is some absolute madness here...(make sure you check this out its pretty cool!)

Doyle then goes off the deep end...

You're Texas. You're Southern Cal. Or you're Oklahoma or Florida. You have every advantage you could want, starting with the most important one -- the best recruiting base in the country. The best states for football talent always have been, and always will be, Texas and California and Florida. The populations are enormous. The weather is terrific. Football matters. Add it up, and you have the three most fertile recruiting grounds for football. Oklahoma isn't exactly in that mix, but Oklahoma has always been North Texas when it comes to recruiting. Oklahoma doesn't have the oil well in its backyard, no, but Oklahoma is close enough to be splashed by the crude.

So that's the talent factor. Texas and USC have access to it, and to their credit, they have turned that talent into All-Americans and Heisman Trophies and national championships. And that's where the tradition comes in. Talent equals winning equals tradition, and Texas and USC have it. Once you have tradition, you have everything else you need. You have alumni willing to give crazy money to keep that tradition going, because wealthy alumni like nothing more than to feel like they're part of something successful. They can't run or catch or tackle, but they can write a check. And so they do.
And so Texas and USC have the best facilities money can buy. And when they need a coach, they can go get the best coach money can buy.

Sorry Gregg, it would appear that you have not done your home work and because of it you lose all credibility.

USC DOES NOT have great facilities, I mean have you seen them? And the whole argument about recruiting talent didn't seem to help SC in the dark years of Hackett, Tolner and Smith.

This just goes to show you that guys like this in the press want to be the news instead of reporting it. This is the same guy who reported the link between Mayo and Guillory BEFORE Mayo came to SC and he should get props for it but being right once doesn't mean you are right all the time Gregg so its time to wake up.

Doyle seems to want to ignore what more and more of us are already figuring out...its the press that calls the shots when it comes to the BCS. The coaches are puppets in the game continue to do shoddy work in order to get good press.

The BCS is a flawed system and the way teams are judged are with consistent rules but on a sliding scale as to who is the flavor of the month. But it really shouldn't shock anyone...though I am shocked that Doyle is blind walking around without a cane with some of the nonsense he write here.

He's just a bitter little man.......

1 recs | Comment 26 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here is one thing I have always wondered

Why do people act as if USC has ever gotten preferential treatment or a handout from the BCS?

by Laughing Stock on Dec 8, 2008 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Being 1st at the beginning of every year is preferential treatment

Even if it’s not directly from the BCS.

by SuperBruinMan on Dec 8, 2008 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Coaching, recruits, previous year's results?

Ring a bell SuperBruinMan? I mean, c’mon! Where would you put your Bruins for next year’s pre-season? In the PAC 10? In the BCS?

Where would you put USC?

You see, being a Trojan. . . . .you can’t win on either side of the ball. (that’s what we have to deal with each and every year since our monopoly here)

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 9, 2008 7:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

USC hasn't won a national championship since 2004

Preseason Rankings
2004 – 1 (Auburn: 16)
2005 – 1
2006 – 3
2007 – 1
2008 – 2

Starting in the top 2 means you’ll almost definitely stay there unless you lose. That was very handy for USC in 2004. While previous years should be considered in making preseason rankings, they shouldn’t determine the National Champion as they did in ’04.

by SuperBruinMan on Dec 9, 2008 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What are you saying though? What's your point?

That NOBODY should lose a game? That USC does OR does not get preferential treatment?

That is the topic matter in this small little thread is it not?

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 9, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I mean,

If you THINK we get preferential treatment, is it not warranted?
If you don’t think we get preferential treatment, why are we even bothering here?
I don’t get it?

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 9, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A #1 ranking doesn't seem to unusual

Especially since we lost a total of 9 games since the 2001 season ended.

2002 K-State & WSU
2003 Cal
2004 None
2005 Texas
2006 OSU & ucla
2007 Oregon & Stanford
2008 OSU

We ended up in the top 5 at the end of the 2002-2007 seasons. Its a safe bet that the pre-season rankings will put us in a spot close to the one where we were at the end of the previous year unless we had a massive talent loss or rebuilding year on the horizon. Pete Carroll has proved that rebuilding doesn’t necessarily need to happen provided you out-recruit your opponents.

by frak on Dec 9, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's still an advantage

Yes being number two did benefit Oklahoma (and Texas a year later), but they haven’t consistently had that ranking. Championships shouldn’t be won the previous season (nor should Heismans, but that’s a different matter). Part of the reason USC gets this advantage is simply because it’s USC. Same for Notre Dame and Alabama in recent years, as well as UCLA in the rankings in basketball.

by SuperBruinMan on Dec 9, 2008 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it not warranted? (high rankings or "preferential treatment")

For the last time.

(and to think Laughing Stock’s earlier post HAD to do with preferential treatment towards the 2nd half of the season- going into the bowl selection process. Am I right Laughing Stock?)

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 10, 2008 6:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No

Preferential treatment is never warranted, even if perception may be.

by SuperBruinMan on Dec 10, 2008 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What should we do about . . .

. . .pre season rankings. Or, for that matter, rankings- at all?

How about a ranking that is put in place after the 6th week from the start of DIV. I season?

What would you deem as a reliable, as-close-as-objective selection of rankings or of team strength based on some criteria or order?

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 10, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The preferential treatment argument is a bad one

The Trojans delivered on their ranking. 9 losses in 6 seasons shows a level of consistency that warrants a high ranking. If the Trojans were to falter after being ranked highly then maybe I would think you have a point, but the bottom line is that we have the ranking that we deserve + or – a few spots. We end up close to where we are ranked at the beginning of the season. We have a reputation for being consistently excellent over the past 6 seasons, there just isn’t any merit to the claim that we receive any more credit than we deserve. The Trojans are one of the nation’s best teams. Its a fact, not an opinion. The numbers and the records reflect that.

by frak on Dec 10, 2008 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent comments!

And I give them all 2-thumbs up!

Furthermore. . . . I tend to think that LStock was referring to USC getting preferential treatment in the final top-tallying of the the #’s 1 ~~though~~ 10 BCS rankings going into the bowl selection process?

Question: do we get preferential treatment at the end of the year, that obviously some people say we get in the beginning of the football season?

I say no. We don’t get nearly as much love in the end of the season as we do at the beginning of the season.

Here’s my conspiracy-oriented theory on that: Any of you remember the the 2006 World Cup? Well, as a refresher: some how the world soccer powers “that be” put USA as a #6 or #7 ranking. (stay with me! stay with me on this). And trust me, I’m a HUGE SOCCER FANATIC- the Americans were a #15, nay- a #18 world ranked TEAM AT BEST AT THE TIME. The conspiracy? We are/were hated so much by the world at the time – when aren’t we it seems- that those “soccer powers that be” purposely placed us that high so that we’d get a shellacking. We were ranked higher than 5 teams who’s “B” and “C” teams were rightfully superior to ours. The result: we LOST EVERY GAME, and only played (of all people) Italy very good. Italy ended up beating France (Zizi’s head butt? remember?) for the championship.

My take: we get ranked high (rightly so, no hatin’ on that), and so do some of our PAC 10 bretheren. BUT. . . . we can’t mess up. Can’t lose. Or else. (we almost were playing for the Holiday Bowl this year guys !!!!!)

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 11, 2008 7:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The PAC-10 has been to the BCS final game 2 times

Both times USC was undefeated going in to the championship game. If anything the PAC-10 is getting hosed. Just ask Oregon in 2001, and USC in 2003. Both times PAC-10 teams were excluded by computers and went on to destroy their opponents in other BCS games. Meanwhile Nebraska and Oklahoma lay an egg in the BCS championship.

by frak on Dec 11, 2008 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I meant the bowl selection process

by Laughing Stock on Dec 12, 2008 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not handy for Oklahoma as well?

I’m calling bullshit on that implication. You’re suggesting that the national championship was effectively given to USC because of their #1 ranking. But, Oklahoma started out the 2004 season ranked #2 on the strength of their championship game loss to LSU. So while you’re right that the high ranking for USC and an unbeaten season helped them to the championship game, there were 2 undefeated teams in that game who had started out in the top 2, and Auburn left on the outside looking in. There was also the minor detail of USC having to beat Oklahoma in the championship game, which was in no way guaranteed.

Point being – it would be one thing to imply that USC got an unfair advantage over Auburn if 1) Oklahoma hadn’t started in the top 2 in 2004, and 2) Auburn was the only other unbeaten team. Neither of those two things were true. The system is biased, but not so much that it guaranteed USC a national championship for the 2004 season.

This, mind you, is the potential advantage of a play-off for a national championship: one could have seeded in USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn against 11 – 1 teams or whatever, and let the games play out.

by DC Trojan on Dec 9, 2008 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No one in their right mind

would have picked Auburn over us in that year. Auburn was beating people by less than 10 all year, we blew out almost everyone we faced, with a few exceptions.

by frak on Dec 9, 2008 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm so down with a playoff

Let’s say the world “all of the sudden” accepted a playoff. Then the playoffs would occur based on “seeding” or “ranking”- excluding conference champions, and whatnot- only rankings.

The play and selection would bear out who most likely wins and who most likely advances. The losers and winners to be evaluated, as well as other criteria like recruiting, personnel hires/fires, player experience (1st team/2nd team experience on the field of play), etc-

And then, after a 6-week start to the season= a more objective, less subjective ranking is put forth.

Would that satisfy close to everyone.

More than likely. No. and a No Way at that.

But hey DC and frak. I’d like it.

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 11, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If no playoff?

Then let the Bowl games play out first, according to all economies, tie-ins, handshakes, etc., etc. After the bowl games have played and someone’s sorta-number crunching gets tallied. . . the #1 and #2 rated teams play in a championship game. Yes? No? Maybe? Maybe so?

I dunno either. Somethings f’ed up alright!

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 11, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

California, Texas, and Florida?

What about Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Notre Dame? Sure, three of those schools are down now, but they were powers right up there with CA, TX, and FL schools just a few years ago. And wasn’t our recruiting ground just as fertile in California in the 90s when we fielded some absolutely horrible teams?

by FanAcrossTown on Dec 8, 2008 1:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I never complained about the BCS

This year, I can’t really argue with the BCS formula. I do think my team would be competitive with all the top 5 teams. I do think we could beat any of them on any given day. But the BCS awards the NC game bid to the most deserving team, and this year its Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. We don’t deserve it because our conference pretty much stinks this year, and the Trojans can’t point to all the conference victories that they have and call them big wins. The Big 12 south and the SEC have some good teams, and thats what saved them. The Big 12 was the best conference this year in my opinion.

Now way back in 2003 when the Trojans didn’t make the big game despite being #1 in both polls, now I bitched and moaned about that for weeks, because that was just plain bullshit. This year, I’m fine with how it worked out. As for the Longhorns, karma is a bitch. I would feel sorry for them if they hadn’t screwed Cal out of a Rose bowl in 2004. Mack Brown reaps what he sows on this one.

by frak on Dec 8, 2008 6:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

With the system in place, seven teams have a single loss and all make some claim to be “deserving” of the title game. The only team that really has a gripe is Texas for not getting to the Big 12 title game after beating Oklahoma.

I’m actually tired of hearing about people wanting to see more conference title games. Consider that Missouri could have won the Big 12 with a single win over Oklahoma. They would have had two more conference losses than both Texas and Texas Tech and one more loss than Oklahoma but would have won the conference based on the title game alone. I say forget the title games and start playing all the teams in conference like the PAC 10.

by FanAcrossTown on Dec 8, 2008 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Won't happen, but would be nice

I hate the ~~money grab~~ conference title games, and the >10 team conferences that were created in order to stage them (and the Big Ten’s weird 11-team status). Not to mention that the SWC or the Big 8 could have added Boise, BYU, and/or Utah recently and been fine.

by drothgery on Dec 9, 2008 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ParagonSC, I read this post once more

In it’s entirety, again this morning.

The part that got me rollin’ ??? “USC DOES NOT have great facilities!”

Amen brotha! I’ve been to the Univ of Texas (awesome facilities), Ucla’s (really really good facilities), Stanford’s (top notch, if not one of the best), and Cal’s (hey? they’re working on it).

USC would come in dead last place with all the above football programs as far as “facilities” are concerned. You are so right.

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 11, 2008 7:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs