THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[963BUSC]

If we start talking about what people 'don't wanna hear' socaljim, we can begin with Pete having zero National Titles during the BCS era. Can't count 2005 that was vacated and we all know why, and we can't count AP titles either because as part of the AFCA Pete and the PAC agreed the only recognized National Title was the BCS Title game winner.

You can go by what ever form of revised history you want Vitamike but having Reggie's step dad take money on a late December morning didn't suddenly make Reggie play magically better a couple of weeks later in January. To claim that Pete's team didn't win National Titles shows off your complete and total ignorance.

But hey if revising history makes you happy there is a whole section of Science Fiction books just for you to enjoy.

 

[RegentDenali]

That makes sense. Watching that game, Mariota didn't look like Mariota. I know tOSU's D-line pretty well manhandled Oregon's O-line, but he didn't have the ability to escape and improvise that we are used to seeing from him.

tOSU is built to stuff the run and by doing that masterfully, it forced the Ducks offense out of their comfort zone. They were forced into too many 3rd and longs which they aren't used to and couldn't convert. tOSU had their number.

Smash mouth teams like tOSU have always been the Ducks kryptonite. If this game was played 10 times, tOSU wins at least 8 of them.

 

[trojanfan12]

tOSU is built to stuff the run and by doing that masterfully, it forced the Ducks offense out of their comfort zone. They were forced into too many 3rd and longs which they aren't used to and couldn't convert. tOSU had their number.

Smash mouth teams like tOSU have always been the Ducks kryptonite. If this game was played 10 times, tOSU wins at least 8 of them.

True. I don't want to take anything away from tOSU and even if Mariota were 100% (assuming the Achilles rumors are true), they still may not have won.

But we've also seen Oregon in games with smashmouth teams where they looked bad for about a good chunk of the game, only to watch Oregon figure it out and get rolling.

He just didn't look like he had the explosiveness that we are used to seeing from him.

 

[socaljim242]

tOSU is built to stuff the run and by doing that masterfully, it forced the Ducks offense out of their comfort zone. They were forced into too many 3rd and longs which they aren't used to and couldn't convert. tOSU had their number.

Smash mouth teams like tOSU have always been the Ducks kryptonite. If this game was played 10 times, tOSU wins at least 8 of them.

I agree with Trojan fan. Oregon just looked off. Maybe the combo of the receivers being out and if Mariota was a bit nicked . They sure as heck didnt tackle like we are used to and the plays being called were odd. Maybe the coach was over matched. It was his first rodeo. OSU would probably win still but maybe it 3 out of 5 instead of the 8 out of 10 that it looked like. You say smash mouth team is their Kryptonite but how many are out there that qualify? Oregon beat Michigan State which ended the year as the #5 team in the country. We all gotta face that Ohio would have beat anyone the way they played.

 

[Vitamike]

First of all I couldn't care less about your history with him. He's an ass. He's an ass you've known for a long time, which still doesn't mean anything to me. His whole shtick since the bowl season began was look at how good FSU is and that the PAC doesn't hit-play defense and wait till PAC teams play real teams like in the SEC. Fact is more PAC players were voted AA defensive team. I don't mind someones different opinion but to call all PAC players soft is just being idiotic. The fact that he can't pimp his team so he goes on and on about the SEC is just pathetic considering his team got ass fucked by the team he's laughing at now. We don't do the team PAC thing here but his stupid ass is doing the team SEC thing when he's an FSU fan.
As far as Pete goes everyone knows how good his teams were. Everyone knows they beat the crap out of Oklahoma and how they played in one of the best title games in losing to Texas and everyone can see his BCS bowl game record. You can poo poo it all you want (and being a UCLA fan I assume you want to alot) but the fact remains that period in college football was the USC era.
Now about that "SEC system" . Solid lines , good run blocking , explosive backs good passing and attacking defense. Thats SEC system? Teams have been doing that for years. The Oregon offense was system. The Ohio State offense was nothing new.

You can go by what ever form of revised history you want Vitamike but having Reggie's step dad take money on a late December morning didn't suddenly make Reggie play magically better a couple of weeks later in January. To claim that Pete's team didn't win National Titles shows off your complete and total ignorance.

But hey if revising history makes you happy there is a whole section of Science Fiction books just for you to enjoy.

Some of you USC fans just can not accept the reality that has transpired from these true events that led us to the historical present day facts.

Yes, Pete played in exactly two BCS NT games. His teams lost one vs Texas and then lost the other as it was vacated. The fact of the matter, neither are counted for USC. In other words, a loss doesn't count, a vacate doesn't count and AP titles in the BCS era don't count because these are the rules all BCS teams have agreed to and are governed by.

Now, I didn't make that up, them are the facts as it stands today. Pete Carrol is credited for exactly ZERO National Title games during the BCS era under the BCS guidelines agreed to and since ignorance is a lack of information or knowledge maybe you should check into the details BUSC before you look real bad here amongst us all.

Now I'd like to say, the two of you are pretty cool peeps and both fine posters, so I don't want to rustle either of your jimmies too too much but it wasn't I who fired the first shots across the bow here. Just thought I'd have my two cents as I listed these facts of 'big games' as they were expressed.

As for SJ76 jim, like I said, take it for what it's worth. If you have a very different view point or opinion, it may be for good reasons. I know the man to be a good poster, a bit of an antagonist in some ways but that's besides the point. Thought I'd vouch for the guy as many of you would do for one of yours that was getting worked by the crowd a bit, so sue me for standing up for a good guy who you may not like very much, we can't all be friends.

That said, we all have our short comings and if we can't look at ourselves in the mirror before we take others to the carpet than something is very wrong. None of us are saints and we all have our biases.

For me, that's what makes this place interesting. A difference of opinions that may not always agree with either the status quo or our own ideas help us all to understand and expand our own paradigms. We actually get an opportunity to grow, unless we are too arrogant to let others be our mentor whether or not we feel we may be looking up, down or across the way.

As far as the system thing goes, let's face it the PAC relies on a high level of QB play and the SEC does not. Huge difference. These are very different system approaches where one relies on a high level of QB play and the other relies on basic fundamentals of team play.

Last, I do see some irony in the fact that SJ's argument is busted by his own teams NT and Heisman in 2014 that is sort of in the mold of PAC team systems. I personally believe it's more about the match-ups, level of play and health these teams are currently at as they approach the big game.

LOL, that's all I got!

Cheers my PAC brothers!

 

[963BUSC]

Some of you USC fans just can not accept the reality that has transpired from these true events that led us to the historical present day facts.

Yes, Pete played in exactly two BCS NT games. His teams lost one vs Texas and then lost the other as it was vacated. The fact of the matter, neither are counted for USC. In other words, a loss doesn't count, a vacate doesn't count and AP titles in the BCS era don't count because these are the rules all BCS teams have agreed to and are governed by.

Now, I didn't make that up, them are the facts as it stands today. Pete Carrol is credited for exactly ZERO National Title games during the BCS era under the BCS guidelines agreed to and since ignorance is a lack of information or knowledge maybe you should check into the details BUSC before you look real bad here amongst us all.

Now I'd like to say, the two of you are pretty cool peeps and both fine posters, so I don't want to rustle either of your jimmies too too much but it wasn't I who fired the first shots across the bow here. Just thought I'd have my two cents as I listed these facts of 'big games' as they were expressed.

As for SJ76 jim, like I said, take it for what it's worth. If you have a very different view point or opinion, it may be for good reasons. I know the man to be a good poster, a bit of an antagonist in some ways but that's besides the point. Thought I'd vouch for the guy as many of you would do for one of yours that was getting worked by the crowd a bit, so sue me for standing up for a good guy who you may not like very much, we can't all be friends.

That said, we all have our short comings and if we can't look at ourselves in the mirror before we take others to the carpet than something is very wrong. None of us are saints and we all have our biases.

For me, that's what makes this place interesting. A difference of opinions that may not always agree with either the status quo or our own ideas help us all to understand and expand our own paradigms. We actually get an opportunity to grow, unless we are too arrogant to let others be our mentor whether or not we feel we may be looking up, down or across the way.

As far as the system thing goes, let's face it the PAC relies on a high level of QB play and the SEC does not. Huge difference. These are very different system approaches where one relies on a high level of QB play and the other relies on basic fundamentals of team play.

Last, I do see some irony in the fact that SJ's argument is busted by his own teams NT and Heisman in 2014 that is sort of in the mold of PAC team systems. I personally believe it's more about the match-ups, level of play and health these teams are currently at as they approach the big game.

LOL, that's all I got!

Cheers my PAC brothers!

In no world even the realm of make believe where you rewrite history does a vacated game equal a loss. Sorry you can choose to refuse to acknowledge that Pete coached a team that won a national title or pretend that the game wasn't played on the field and never happened. But you can't even pretend it was a loss.

 

[RegentDenali]

Ellis McCarthy (UCLA) and George Farmer (USC) will enter the NFL draft.

 

[Vitamike]

In no world even the realm of make believe where you rewrite history does a vacated game equal a loss. Sorry you can choose to refuse to acknowledge that Pete coached a team that won a national title or pretend that the game wasn't played on the field and never happened. But you can't even pretend it was a loss.

Oh geez BUSC!

Read the words that are posted. I never said that Pete never coached a team that won an NT or pretended that the game wasn't played on the field or never happened as you are stating here. I have said the USC vs OU NT game was lost because it was annulled or declared invalid not that it was a loss.

Look, I really don't mean to be rude but look up the word vacate and get back to us here. If something was originally valid and then later declared invalid, than it's something that was credited and then later discredited so it was something that USC had that they no longer have so it was 'lost' however never have I pretended the actual game played was a loss.

 

[socaljim242]

Oh geez BUSC!

Read the words that are posted. I never said that Pete never coached a team that won an NT or pretended that the game wasn't played on the field or never happened as you are stating here. I have said the USC vs OU NT game was lost because it was annulled or declared invalid not that it was a loss.

Look, I really don't mean to be rude but look up the word vacate and get back to us here. If something was originally valid and then later declared invalid, than it's something that was credited and then later discredited so it was something that USC had that they no longer have so it was 'lost' however never have I pretended the actual game played was a loss.

Your bias is evident. History will show USC was treated much harsher than it should have been for one player and his parents. The fact that the person in charge of investigating and giving out the punishment to USC was the same person in charge of a program that had players in the 70s ( not the year, the amount of players) getting illegal benefits is an irony lost on no one. USC did deserve punishment but it shouldn't have been what it was and even with that it does not cancel the winning that happened. Years before Reggie Bush , Carson Palmer was there winning . Years after Mark Sanchez was there winning Rose Bowls. The fact is even with the vacated year USC was 5-1 in BCS games. Which gets me back to my original point (before you tried to give us your misplaced opinion). That USC under Pete showed up in big games. The current Oregon dynasty or streak or what ever you want to call is has been win some lose some. So thats why you shouldn't compare Oregon now to USCs Pete days.

 

[963BUSC]

Oh geez BUSC!

Read the words that are posted. I never said that Pete never coached a team that won an NT or pretended that the game wasn't played on the field or never happened as you are stating here. I have said the USC vs OU NT game was lost because it was annulled or declared invalid not that it was a loss.

Look, I really don't mean to be rude but look up the word vacate and get back to us here. If something was originally valid and then later declared invalid, than it's something that was credited and then later discredited so it was something that USC had that they no longer have so it was 'lost' however never have I pretended the actual game played was a loss.

Look if the NCAA had a standard process or a set of rules that said if an ineligible player is used and it is later discovered then the game is vacated. And if that were applied consistently then you would have a valid point. But as it is currently only applied in random instances before and after USC's case. Then stating that it was vacated or going over it is meaningless. Even going to the official NCAA sites they only remember to put an * next to it half the time if that. The scores are always recorded, the records from the game are all listed.

So yes, I will continue to mock you or anyone who tries to claim the title being vacated at random has any meaning. Even in the BCS official site they only remember to * it half the time if that.

BCS all-time records by school

 

[RegentDenali]

(Drum roll......)

And the Cougs have a defensive coordinator!!!


Fox Sports- Missouri safeties coach Alex Grinch will take over as the new defensive coordinator at Washington State, Cougars head coach Mike Leach told FOX Sports Wednesday morning.

Leach had dismissed defensive coordinator Mike Breske after a season where the Cougars ranked No. 97 in total defense and No. 114 in scoring defense and had a 3-9 record.

Grinch, a 2002 Mount Union grad who was part of three D3 national title teams, worked with WSU receivers coach Dave Yost at Mizzou. Prior to his time on Gary Pinkel's staff, Grinch spent three seasons as the secondary coach at Wyoming.

He also was a colleague of Chip Kelly when the two worked together at New Hampshire. "He's a stud," Kelly told FOX Sports Wednesday. "He's a real rising star. One of the best teachers I've been around."

 

[Not Neutral]

How can you choke when one team is just better?

Not so, Mamba. The quality of the Oregon team is not in doubt and they were not 20 points worse than the Buckeyes. IMO it was the experience of the coaches in this situation that made the difference and that is not said to put down the Duck coaching or minimize the Buckeye's win. Sorry for the Ducks fans to get so close but on the other hand, only four teams in cfb had a shot at it. It did bring back the feeling I had when the Trees manhandled the Devils in the CCG last year but that was a case where the team was definitely outclassed; you can live with it. Not the case here. But the PAC did have a team in the NCG and finished the season with six teams in the top 25. We have a legitimate claim as #1. But having said all that, Mamba, I do have an h/o for the Ducks: who would have thought that a third string QB could beat MM and the Ducks? I didn't and it got me right where it always hurts the most, in the wallet. The Ducks owe me.

 

[Vitamike]

Your bias is evident. History will show USC was treated much harsher than it should have been for one player and his parents. The fact that the person in charge of investigating and giving out the punishment to USC was the same person in charge of a program that had players in the 70s ( not the year, the amount of players) getting illegal benefits is an irony lost on no one. USC did deserve punishment but it shouldn't have been what it was and even with that it does not cancel the winning that happened. Years before Reggie Bush , Carson Palmer was there winning . Years after Mark Sanchez was there winning Rose Bowls. The fact is even with the vacated year USC was 5-1 in BCS games. Which gets me back to my original point (before you tried to give us your misplaced opinion). That USC under Pete showed up in big games. The current Oregon dynasty or streak or what ever you want to call is has been win some lose some. So thats why you shouldn't compare Oregon now to USCs Pete days.

So, you are going to tell us all here that my bias is evident because I speak of what history is telling us 'today' and then in your next sentence you want to tell us what history 'will' tell us in the future.

'My Bias'.... Good God that is rich!



Let's not pretend, the 'big game' comment didn't come after any other specific 'big game' other than the NT game on Monday.

TBT I'm not interested in delving deeper into what is construed as a 'big game' other than what was implied, outside of the obvious.

That said, I don't recall a huge difference in the overall results in other 'big games' outside of the NT game. I could be wrong but as I recall, outside of the NT game, both programs have done well in terms of overall success in big games.

If you want to elaborate and enlighten me, be my guest.

I would be surprised if there was a significant difference.

 

[socaljim242]

So, you are going to tell us all here that my bias is evident because I speak of what history is telling us 'today' and then in your next sentence you want to tell us what history 'will' tell us in the future.

'My Bias'.... Good God that is rich!



Let's not pretend, the 'big game' comment didn't come after any other specific 'big game' other than the NT game on Monday.

TBT I'm not interested in delving deeper into what is construed as a 'big game' other than what was implied, outside of the obvious.

That said, I don't recall a huge difference in the overall results in other 'big games' outside of the NT game. I could be wrong but as I recall, outside of the NT game, both programs have done well in terms of overall success in big games other than the NT.

If you want to elaborate and enlighten me, be my guest.

I would be surprised if there was a significant difference.

Good lord you're dense. Since 1998 season BCS games were college footballs "big games".

USC is 6-1 or 5-1 if you want to discount the vacated year.

Oregon is 3-3

Now I don't know in what universe you live in but here on earth most people would say the team with the 6-1 or 5-1 record showed up for the big game.
The same people would say the team with the 3-3 record was so so or average. Oh and Oregon was 3-2 in BCS games. Which was better than after Monday but not that much better. I still would have said what I said.
If these facts and logic don't "enlighten" you then I guess nothing will.

 

[GreenNickle]

Is USC back up to 85 scholarships?

I can't wait for them to get it rolling again

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

In no world even the realm of make believe where you rewrite history does a vacated game equal a loss. Sorry you can choose to refuse to acknowledge that Pete coached a team that won a national title or pretend that the game wasn't played on the field and never happened. But you can't even pretend it was a loss.

Just like a true Ruin fan

 

[trojanfight]

Is USC back up to 85 scholarships?

I can't wait for them to get it rolling again

should be up around 70. going to be probably 2016 when they are full strength.

 

[socaljim242]

Is USC back up to 85 scholarships?

I can't wait for them to get it rolling again

No it cant take more than 24 this year . With the seniors out of eligibility and juniors who have declared for the draft it will only ad about 10 players to what USC had this past season. USC might be playing with around
64 scholarship players this next season and might be around 70-72 in the 2016 season. So two more years to get back to regular numbers.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Is USC back up to 85 scholarships?

I can't wait for them to get it rolling again

USC will only be at 80 at the close of NSD

 

[Vitamike]

Good lord you're dense. Since 1998 season BCS games were college footballs "big games".

USC is 6-1 or 5-1 if you want to discount the vacated year.

Oregon is 3-3

Now I don't know in what universe you live in but here on earth most people would say the team with the 6-1 or 5-1 record showed up for the big game.
The same people would say the team with the 3-3 record was so so or average. Oh and Oregon was 3-2 in BCS games. Which was better than after Monday but not that much better. I still would have said what I said.
If these facts and logic don't "enlighten" you then I guess nothing will.

You know what Jim, I've always respected you but now that opinion is on thin ice however from your post, I doubt you care. Too bad brother because it means something to me.

Just to make the point, I did in fact concede that I didn't know or care (Care to look it up, that is) but stated I would like to know in case you guys knew better and I was way off base.

So what approach do you take? Just throw out an insult as if we never met or as if I was some poster making a statement of fact, neither of which are true.

By looking at your 'facts' I would guess they include NT games, I did exclude them in my speculation if indeed we are not talking about the 'big game' as in the National Title game.

I can't say I am not disappointed in your response, I thought you would present yourself with more decorum for one of your long term fellow PAC posters here.