Don't bury USC yet

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 11:30 AM PDT in USC Football Comment 17 comments

While this loss is an absolute shock to most of us it should only be seen for what it is…just one loss.

Yes, we are going to take a hit in the polls but we have had that happen before and and we made our way back so it is way too early and there is a lot of football to be played before we bury anyone. Did anyone really think that SC was going to go undefeated this season?

I didn’t. All this talk about this team being different or the best ever (again) after only two games was a bit premature don’t you think?

SC has proven time and again that it can get up for big out of conference games but they struggle and can’t seem to put away some teams in the Pac-10. Its easy to be angry over last nights loss but people need to take a step back and stop letting their emotions get the best of them. I mentioned last night in the post-game thread that SC still has a shot at the MNC and here is why...

From PB at BON:

Even so, if USC fans understandably find themselves feeling sick to their stomachs in the wake of this letdown... they may still be on a very short list of front-runners for a national title game berth. Why? Though no longer leaders of the pack of zero-loss teams, USC shifts now to leader of the pack of one-loss teams. If they win out... and the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC fail to produce two undefeated teams... the Trojans will be sitting in the clubhouse winners of nine-straight, their only loss way back in September.

Best case scenario for USC? Ohio State runs the table in the Big 10 (or at least knocks out Penn State and Wisconsin), the top four SEC teams fail to make the case for a two-team SEC national title game, and neither Oklahoma nor Missouri emerges from the Big 12 unscathed. And there are even more plausible scenarios in which USC winds up in the top two of the final BCS standings. Don't bury 'em yet.

PB emailed me as the game ended and let me know he was writing this and it makes a lot of sense. How soon we forget that UGA was buried by Tennessee yet they were in the mix as one of the better teams to finish the season last year. SC is a national program and it has more than earned its place in the national discussion so I wouldn't count them out just yet.

Cowherd states it perfectly...

Does anyone else think that ANY team from the Big 12 or the SEC will go undefeated? I don't. The fact is conference play is tough regardless of the conference and we saw last year we had a 2 loss team in LSU make it to the title game.

Fans from other programs will take their shots at us and that is to be expected so we just need to accept it but those same fans are nuts if they think that SC is out of it this early in the season. SC has always finished strong and I see no reason as to why they won't this year. I could care less what the fans of other programs think, they have their agenda and we have ours. They want to bury us and that's fine but like I said its early yet and there is a lot of football to play so things are far from being decided.

USC got punched in the mouth last night and hopefully it got their attention so now its time to get back to work.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: not giving up, bcs, USC Trojans

Comments

Leader of the pack of one-loss teams?

Feel free to flame me as an SEC homer — although I think I’m usually pretty level-headed about comparing conferences — but the problem with PB at BON’s logic is your team’s remaining schedule. Do you really think, if it gets down to the end of the season with Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, and LSU with one loss each, that your team will be the leader of that pack in view of the schedules each team will have played?

I joke about how the polls move like that “I Love Lucy” episode where she’s desperately trying to keep the cakes from sliding off the conveyor belt. But this is one case where I really don’t think poll movement will be that mechanical.

Conference strength isn’t only about number of Top 25 teams on the conference schedule, but that’s a big part of how people evaluate BCS-caliber teams. Georgia has a schedule with @Az State, Alabama, @LSU, Florida (neutral), @Auburn, and perhaps LSU or Auburn at a neutral site. If they get through that with just two losses, let alone one, I’d expect most neutrals to rank them ahead of your team.

by PhilipVU94 on Sep 26, 2008 1:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

let me amend my response below...

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me…but Arrogant? Your words. Unbelievable…

Please, I am clearly not arrogant, you would be better served to read a number of my posts both here on CC and on other blogs to see that that is not the case. if there is a chance for us I will jump all over it. You have a nice program with some good wins but when you accomplish what SC has done give me a call.

That’s arrogant!

Good day!

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

> when you accomplish what SC has done

So you’re saying that you expect your team to be ranked in the top 2 on name and past accomplishment, not on wins and losses in 2008? Maybe it will work out that way. Who knows what the voters vote on. Good luck with that!.

by PhilipVU94 on Sep 26, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not on the next poll

but there is a lot of football yet to play. LSU gets to the title game last year with 2 losses so that shows anything is possible.

I am an eternal optimist… always!

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Optimism / arrogance

OK, I apologize for confusing your optimism with arrogance. (I’m sure hearing Lee Corso or whoever that was argue on Cowherd’s show that SC is in good shape because of their name made me inclined to expect the worst.) You want to find a way for your team to make it back into BCS contention, and that’s understandable.

But don’t underestimate how rare last year was, in that all the contenders but Ohio State picked up a second loss, so LSU ended up getting selected ahead of a whole slew of two-loss teams. That rarely plays out like that, and when it does, strength of schedule really is a trump card.

In fairness, SC’s situation shows perhaps the worst part of the present system, which is that teams get penalized for something over which they have no control. With nine conference games and ND, you guys scheduled the remaining two slots as tough as could be reasonably expected. It’s not your fault that Ohio State is not perceived as very good (we’ll see) and that the Pac-10 has been so disastrous this year. Not so long ago, around a month into the 2007 season, one could make a reasonable case that the Pac-10 was as tough as anyone.

So I hate that the system penalizes programs who schedule tough when their opponents end up disappointing, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

by PhilipVU94 on Sep 26, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're good here...

apologies…I have been fighting flamers all day so I am a little on edge.

SC is in a HUGE hole here but they have been down before and they worked their way back. Yes, last year was rare but it shows that it can happen so that is what I will grab a hold of…if not the Rose Bowl suits me fine.

The system does suck but I am not in favor of a play off so I have to fight the battles I think I can win.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing to be done about it

It’s effectively impossible to generate an empirically defensible way of generating a championship game from the current conference system – far too many variables that can’t be accurately compared, small sample size, etc.

But the logic of the present system is clear enough – regardless of strength of schedule adjustments, you fundamentally have to win. USC didn’t do that yesterday.

How that affects their standing for bowl attendance remains to be seen. As Paragon says, if they win out, there are circumstances under which they could be picked for the championship game. How good an idea that would be for USC and college football rather depends on how a lot of teams’ seasons shake out.

by DC Trojan on Sep 26, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its an early loss

so if SC rolls through the rest of their schedule they may be right back in the mix. This time maybe the polls will work us…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 1:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Paragon,

you vastly underestimate how horrible a loss this was. This isn’t “just another loss”. It’s a loss to a team that we were expected to blow out. It’s a loss to a team that we had no business NOT blowing out. It’s a loss to a team that is greatly inferior to USC in talent and coaching.
I would be shocked — shocked — if another one-loss team didn’t get in before ‘SC, unless that team happened to lose to Duke, Indiana, or Baylor.
This is not “letting my emotions get the best of me”, either. Fact — USC lost last night to a really, really mediocre/bad football team. Just like Stanford last year. Oregon St. will be fortunate to eke a bowl invite this year (although, given this win, if they become eligible, they’ll go) It may look like “one loss” on the ledger … but it’s so much more in reality.
You mention that SC “has shown they can get up for big out of conference games, but struggle and can’t seem to put away some teams in the Pac-10”. What you should have written is, “SC has shown they can get up for big out of conference games, but, for some reason, fail to prepare for some teams that don’t belong on the same football field.”
One more time … SC didn’t lose to a team (Stanford or OSU) that had comparible talent level … on each occasion, they lost to teams that had no business even being competitive with them. SC came in unprepared psychologically, and they got their asses kicked by an inferior program. Please call a spade a spade.

I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.

by Vacafan on Sep 26, 2008 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

See above

run the table and anything is possible…

SC came in unprepared psychologically, and they got their asses kicked by an inferior program. Please call a spade a spade.

No one is debating that…but again its early.

I refuse to simply roll over not after LSU made it happen last year.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Sep 26, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm bias but I watch a lot of your games

and listen to a lot of what the media has to say. I’ll give you my view if you want it.

First and foremost, the media—a media which to my biased ears—has been biased towards SC for years now. Even so, before this loss, the pundits were talking about the rest of the PAC-10 being an anchor around your neck and how, even with 12 wins, you shouldn’t be in title game over a 11-1 SEC or Big 12 team. However, this was a small undercurrent of thought. Most of the media had been playing this team, as they do almost every year, as the greatest team of all time.

I don’t believe that there is a Trojan out there or that I have talked to that wanted such attention. None wanted to be number one this early in the season for obvious reasons. But the media does what it does. Now, the media are suffering a credibility gap because they have been wrong year after year about these heightened expectations. Credibility is what they make their bread and butter on. So, the tide begins to turn in the media against you and even I, a biased person, can see it.

It really is the media’s fault but your team will live and die by that. I wouldn’t be talking about winning-out because the myth of invincibility has been shattered for a time and there are teams in the PAC-10 that can beat you if you played like you did last night. So, the best advice I would give is to get back to playing football, turn the TV’s off, close the practices, and put your nose back to the grindstone. I would go into every game saying, this team can beat us.

by Bruins102NCAA on Sep 26, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You pretty much hit nail on the hammer

But I don’t know maybe we should Ban you as did B(M)N me for posting Sam Gilbert stuff, I would have to say not. I just have one question what is it with Nestor and the greek named dude over there they sound like a bunch of hackeling housewives?

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 28, 2008 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I forgot

You might get a kick out of this one

Darryl Keith Henley (born October 30, 1966) was a cornerback in the National Football League. He was drafted by the Los Angeles Rams in the 1989 draft from UCLA. In his career he played in 76 games, he amassed 12 interceptions. Currently, Henley is serving a 41 year sentence for trafficking cocaine and for attempting to murder the judge from his cocaine trial by hiring contract killers.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 28, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes to all points

Very much agreed.

by DC Trojan on Sep 28, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess you can't handle it

Come on 102 what do you think about your homey in prison?

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 29, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

An alternative take

Don’t know this author at all but he gives reasons on why USC WON’T be back:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26896993/

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Sep 26, 2008 2:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Always a good chance to work out the invective

I don’t disagree with the premise. I am entertained at the speed with which sports writers and broadcasters have completed their 180 degree turn from OMG USC is the bestest! to OMG USC sux and Pete Carroll is teh loser. I suspect that some of the tone is the “fool me once” backlash.

by DC Trojan on Sep 26, 2008 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs