Nice job USC

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 7, 2007, 12:42 am

Hey Winnow....nice loss by your best team to a complete cheese dick team. Or are you going to be stupid enough to play the "this conference is so awesome that our best team lost at home when favored by 41" card?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 7, 2007, 2:54 am

Shows how good ASU was to beat Stanford on the road!

No excuses for USC.

Top Ten Teams in Pac-10 to lose to unranked teams: 1 (#2 USC)
Top Ten Teams in SEC to lose to unranked teams: 1 (Florida, there may be more but haven't kept track)
Top Ten Teams in Big Ten to lose to unranked teams: 3 (#5 Michigan, #5 Wisconsin, #9 Penn State)

Don't see the problem ranking the Pac Ten as the best conference behind the SEC.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » October 7, 2007, 1:09 pm

Who said USC was the best team in the pac 10?

Go Bears!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 7, 2007, 1:19 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:Who said USC was the best team in the pac 10?

Winnow.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » October 7, 2007, 2:26 pm

There was no excuse for what USC or UCLA did last night.

Very strange college football year.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » October 7, 2007, 4:23 pm

What's the deal UCLA? No wins for ND is ruined!

noel · Post by **noel** » October 7, 2007, 5:27 pm

Yeah no excuse for UCLA at all. It's not like they had to play the entire game with a walk-on quarterback because that fucking albatross Ben Olson got injured again, and their second-string quarterback is already out for the season.

As far as USC goes, Harbaugh said he was going to beat them before the season even started. I called him crazy at the time, but... look out world, here comes Stanford.

PS I totally agree with Pherr. Cal is rolling.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 7, 2007, 7:57 pm

Auburn is no longer unranked, and will probably hover in the Top 25 the rest of the season. Stanford cannot make that claim. They're about 2 notches above App. State, athletically.

USC coughs up at least one harbaughll (see what I did there?) every season, not because the Pac 10 has good teams from top to bottom, but because they are so consistently God-awful that when one actually shows up for a game, the Trojans have a stroke from shock.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 7, 2007, 9:06 pm

The 'look out world, here comes Stanford' comment was a joke. I thought that would be clear.

As far as the Pac-10 being consistently god-awful... I can't agree with that at all. It's unfortunate that Winnow has decided to become a Pac-10 cheerleader because it actually is a really good conference and has been for the last several years. USC has just been overconfident and sloppy for the last two games and it finally bit them in the ass.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 7, 2007, 9:12 pm

masteen wrote:Auburn is no longer unranked, and will probably hover in the Top 25 the rest of the season. Stanford cannot make that claim. They're about 2 notches above App. State, athletically.

Stanford received a few votes in the latest polls. Stanford also has the highest academic standards of all the teams in question...not something you could say for Appalachian State.

Current

* Stanford University's undergraduate program is ranked fourth among national universities by U.S. News and World Report (USNWR).[26], [27]
* Stanford University is ranked second among world universities and second among universities in the Americas by Shanghai Jiao Tong University,[28] sixth among world universities in the THES-QS World University Rankings,[29][30], seventh among national universities by The Washington Monthly,[31] second among "global universities" by Newsweek,[32] and in the first-tier among national universities by The Center for Measuring University Performance.[33] Stanford University also participates in the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)'s University and College Accountability Network (U-CAN).

Selectivity

Stanford is one of the most selective universities in the U.S. In 2006, Stanford's undergraduate admission rate was 10.8 percent, from a pool of 22,223 applicants—the lowest rate of undergraduate admission in the history of the university.[34]The acceptance rates at the university's law school (7.7 percent), medical school (3.3 percent), and business school (10 percent) are also among the lowest in the country. For the Class of 2011, Stanford admitted 10.29 percent of an undergraduate applicant pool of 23,956 students; the lowest percentage in University history.

Cut them some slack!

Pac-10 owns academically as well as athletically!

Top Universities in the country:

1. Princeton University (NJ)

2. Harvard University (MA)

3. Yale University(CT)

4. Stanford University(CA)

5. University of Pennsylvania

5. California Institute of Technology

7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

8. Duke University(NC)

9. Columbia University(NY)

9. University of Chicago

11. Dartmouth College(NH)

12. Washington University in St. Louis

12. Cornell University(NY)

14. Brown University(RI)

14. Northwestern University(IL)

14. Johns Hopkins University(MD)

17. Rice University(TX)

17. Emory University(GA)

19. Vanderbilt University(TN)

19. University of Notre Dame(IN)

21. University of California—Berkeley *

22. Carnegie Mellon University(PA)

23. University of Virginia *

23. Georgetown University(DC)

25. University of California—Los Angeles *

25. University of Michigan—Ann Arbor *

27. University of Southern California

28. University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill *

28. Tufts University(MA)

30. Wake Forest University(NC)

Mark off your conferences top 30 national universities while combined with athletics.

Booya! Pac-10 again heads to the front of the pack.

Cal wins this one being the top public school (* marks public schools) and highest ranking.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 7, 2007, 9:16 pm

i don't see arizona state on that list

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 7, 2007, 10:37 pm

Arizona State leads the nation in students-turned-porn-stars!

I'll mark off the 7/12 schools in my conference in the AP Top 25, thank you very much. Plus 2 more receiving votes. Fancy book-learnin' turns men into sissified nancy-boys like you, Winnow.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 8, 2007, 1:30 am

Well hey, Green Bay lost tonight and Favre threw a couple picks, so maybe Winnow will forget about college fanboism and go back to Favre hating.

ps bye Leinart

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 4:14 am

Wulfran wrote:Well hey, Green Bay lost tonight and Favre threw a couple picks, so maybe Winnow will forget about college fanboism and go back to Favre hating.

ps bye Leinart

Favre just heaves the ball downfield. This year, he has some ballerina WRs that can go up and catch the balls thrown in their general direction so he hasn't looked as bad as usual these past five years. He's trying to play trash football with little flips and dinks to his receivers and the picks will mount these next few games. Someone needs to remind him that pro sports follow the Logan's Run laws and he should have reported to a sleepshop years ago. He's now officially a Runner and should be terminated!

Leinart's been disappointing this year. A couple months of watching Warner get the job done should motivate him. We need him as Warner's bound to get injured. He's been too distracted by his rock and roll lifestyle. Less playmates, more playbook studying is the answer!

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 8, 2007, 10:19 am

Winnow wrote:Booya! Pac-10 again heads to the front of the pack.

Cal wins this one being the top public school (* marks public schools) and highest ranking.

Looks like Ivy league is the runaway conference to me.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 8, 2007, 11:29 am

So USC struggles with a 2-3 Washington, loses to a terrible Stanford team, and falls 6 spots to #7? That sounds about right.

Who was it that was saying there wasn't a media bias for USC?

And does a 2-loss florida team really belong in the top 15?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 8, 2007, 12:14 pm

No shit, Sylvus. I agree with what Stewart Mandel over at Sports Illustrated said:

5) That USC is still a top-10 team. Wait ... what??? Far be it for me to question my fellow voters, but I have to say I was beyond stunned when the new polls came out Sunday and the Trojans had not dropped into the teens as I was expecting. The coaches actually voted them seventh. Seventh! How could any rational human being still think USC is one of the seven best teams in the country at this point? Apparently, you can suffer the biggest upset in the history of the sport (according to Vegas) and barely pay a price if you've won recent national championships and/or the game was shown on Versus (so no one saw it).

It'd be one thing if the USC-Stanford result happened in a vacuum. Then I could see chalking it up as a fluke and treating it accordingly. But c'mon, people. This is a team that had been showing signs of "overrated" syndrome since Idaho and had nearly lost to an inferior opponent just a week earlier. Its one tangible demonstration of excellence came against a Nebraska team that has since been exposed as a fraud. But apparently ... still a top-10 team. I dropped the Trojans to 20th on my AP ballot, and there seems to me a pretty clear double-standard in practice here. As you may recall, when Michigan lost to Appalachian State, it dropped from fifth to all the way out of the rankings. Granted, that was the first game of the season, and the Wolverines hadn't already won four games like the Trojans, and of course, Stanford is a Pac-10 team, App. State is I-AA. But if Appalachian State and Stanford had played each other Saturday, which team do you think would have been favored? (Even after beating USC, the 61st-ranked Cardinal are just seven spots higher than the No. 68 Mountaineers in Jeff Sagarin's Division I ratings). This was every bit as bad a loss, but wasn't treated as such by the pollsters.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 12:36 pm

USC had some major injuries while Michigan was at full strength. That plays a part.

I agree that USC should be out of the top ten and in the lower half of the top 25.

LSU vs Cal would be a nice National Championship Game if the season ended today.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 8, 2007, 12:53 pm

Sylvus wrote:So USC struggles with a 2-3 Washington, loses to a terrible Stanford team, and falls 6 spots to #7? That sounds about right.

Who was it that was saying there wasn't a media bias for USC?

And does a 2-loss florida team really belong in the top 15?

That would be Tyek:

Tyek wrote:I would just like to nominate Booghaz for the best line of the year contest.
Claiming the Pac-10 gets media preference is possibly the funniest line I have read all year.

Although I believe he thought I was referring to the Pac10 in general rather than the mediamonkey of USC.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » October 8, 2007, 1:22 pm

Winnow wrote:USC had some major injuries while Michigan was at full strength. That plays a part.

I agree that USC should be out of the top ten and in the lower half of the top 25.

LSU vs Cal would be a nice National Championship Game if the season ended today.

Except that Cal has zero defense.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 1:35 pm

Sabek wrote:
Winnow wrote:USC had some major injuries while Michigan was at full strength. That plays a part.

I agree that USC should be out of the top ten and in the lower half of the top 25.

LSU vs Cal would be a nice National Championship Game if the season ended today.
Except that Cal has zero defense.

Up until this past weekend, the average score for the winning Pac-10 team (in and out of conference) was 41 points. Just need to use the spread offense against east coast teams and no worries...or does that only work against Michigan?

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » October 8, 2007, 1:58 pm

Winnow wrote:
Sabek wrote:
Winnow wrote:USC had some major injuries while Michigan was at full strength. That plays a part.

I agree that USC should be out of the top ten and in the lower half of the top 25.

LSU vs Cal would be a nice National Championship Game if the season ended today.
Except that Cal has zero defense.
Up until this past weekend, the average score for the winning Pac-10 team (in and out of conference) was 41 points. Just need to use the spread offense against east coast teams and no worries...or does that only work against Michigan?

Must be a Michigan thing.
Toledo spread offense = dominated by the OSU defense
Washington spread offense = dominated by the OSU defense
Purdue spread offense = dominated by the OSU defense

Post by **Sylvus** » October 8, 2007, 2:00 pm

Man, the more I read today, the happier I get.

Rick Chandler wrote:But that doesn't make Saturday's result any less significant. Even if no one else is saying it, can I call this what it is? The biggest upset in college football history. USC opened as a 41-point favorite, and by game time the line was at 39-40. If the point spead is the standard, then this beats the runnerup, Oregon State (+36) over Washington, 21-20, in 1986. Other fun facts:

• Going into the game, Stanford was 2-14 since the start of last season and had been outscored 72-3 in the previous six quarters.
• It was the first start for quarterback Tavita Pritchard, who had thrown three passes in college.
• Stanford's defense was allowing 47 points per game in Pac-10 play.
• The Cardinal trailed 23-14 in the fourth quarter

Dan Shanoff wrote:Appalachian State over Michigan. Syracuse over Louisville. Last weekend's upheaval of the unbeatens. All were mere prelude to the mother lode:

Stanford beat USC: The poster child of college football in the 21st Century lost to its red-headed step-sibling.

Thinking back over the decade's Trojan Dynasty, there have been a few priceless moments of schadenfreude: The 2006 Rose Bowl. Reggie Bush's scandal. The 2007 BCS implosion. Matt Leinart's life.

This tops them all: USC -- mighty, dominant, loaded USC -- losing at home to a 41-point Stanford underdog that was so sorry, the Cardinal scored all of 3 points a week ago in a 41-3 loss to Arizona State (and might as well have not even shown up for a shutout blowout at home a year ago to USC.)

This isn't simply about USC flushing away any hopes it had of competing for a national title this season. Like many, I would argue that this is the single most humiliating loss in modern college football history.

Michigan lost to a two-time defending 1-AA champion. Louisville doesn't play defense. So what's USC's excuse?

Maybe USC wasn't as good as its preseason No. 1 ranking (or even last week's No. 2 ranking) would have suggested. That might explain a loss later this season at Cal or other would-be Pac-10 contender.

No: In the end, this USC team was so vastly (and, in hindsight, obviously) overrated that they couldn't hold serve at home against the worst team in the West, playing with a thoroughly inexperienced emergency starting QB and no expectation of victory, let alone the expectation of a last-minute come-from-behind game-winning drive.

I come not to haze the Trojans but to bury them: The USC dynasty, running from an October 12, 2002 win over Cal through October 6, 2007 is dead.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » October 8, 2007, 2:55 pm

Winnow wrote:
Sabek wrote:
Winnow wrote:USC had some major injuries while Michigan was at full strength. That plays a part.

I agree that USC should be out of the top ten and in the lower half of the top 25.

LSU vs Cal would be a nice National Championship Game if the season ended today.
Except that Cal has zero defense.
Up until this past weekend, the average score for the winning Pac-10 team (in and out of conference) was 41 points. Just need to use the spread offense against east coast teams and no worries...or does that only work against Michigan?

Grats the new top team in the PAC-10, Cal, holding the might Louisiana Tech squad to 12 points.
Other than that aberation they haven't held a single opponent to less that 24.

Learn to play even a little bit of defense than talk.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 8, 2007, 3:24 pm

Syvlus, are you trying to disparage USC, the voters, or simply recover some of Michigan's rep by comparing USC's loss to Michigan's?

Post by **Sylvus** » October 8, 2007, 3:49 pm

noel wrote:Syvlus, are you trying to disparage USC, the voters, or simply recover some of Michigan's rep by comparing USC's loss to Michigan's?

The voters for sure, and a little of recovering some rep. It's been a difficult year, what when you have to hear about Ohio State fans and Michigan State fans emptying the shelves of Appalachian State merchandise. I can no longer hope for a national championship this year, so I have to take solace in schadenfreude.

I have nothing personal against USC. They're a good team, and anything can happen in college football. The problem I do have is with the voters. I think it's arguable whether Stanford or Appalachian State is a better team. Sure, they're division 1-AA, but they've been the champions of that division for two years running. So how does a loss to one of those teams move someone from #5 to being unranked, where losing to the other team from #1 or #2 to #7 or #10 (depending on the poll you're looking at). I'm not saying that Michigan didn't deserve to fall out of the rankings (we absolutely did), I'm merely stating that some sort of a double standard is being applied.

The ASU-Michigan line ended up at Michigan -27. USC-Stanford was -40ish. The world spoke, and though there was a larger margin of strength between USC and Stanford, a loss didn't drop them from the top 10. In a nutshell, polls are fucked, and most opinions are worth shit (at least when it comes to opinions on the relative strength of college football teams).

Now, I'm sure you're asking yourself what this has to do with the price of tea in china or the near-championship the Sun Devils almost played for and lost in the late 1990s, and the answer is very little. Unfortunately that won't stop anyone from chiming in and talking about it anyway.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 8, 2007, 3:54 pm

Sylvus wrote:So USC struggles with a 2-3 Washington, loses to a terrible Stanford team, and falls 6 spots to #7? That sounds about right.

Who was it that was saying there wasn't a media bias for USC?

And does a 2-loss florida team really belong in the top 15?

Considering those losses are to ranked SEC opponents and not App. State, yes. We've got two more real tests, and if we dump one either to UK or to the OBC, I'll agree they should drop out of the top 25.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 8, 2007, 3:56 pm

I think we knew the voters were fucked (forever) but specifically last year when ND got a fucking bowl game. (I think it was last year).

FYI all the radio honks in LA agree with you. Stanford over USC was a bigger upset than App. State over Michigan.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » October 8, 2007, 4:24 pm

masteen wrote:
Sylvus wrote:So USC struggles with a 2-3 Washington, loses to a terrible Stanford team, and falls 6 spots to #7? That sounds about right.

Who was it that was saying there wasn't a media bias for USC?

And does a 2-loss florida team really belong in the top 15?
Considering those losses are to ranked SEC opponents and not App. State, yes. We've got two more real tests, and if we dump one either to UK or to the OBC, I'll agree they should drop out of the top 25.

Yeah, Florida deserves their rank. One of those losses was to LSU, who is ranked #1 and they almost pulled out a win over them...the other one was to Auburn, and it was a great game. Auburn was only unranked because of some problems we had earlier (loss to Florida State and Miss State lol) but we seem to have fixed whatever problems we were having and are back in the rankings now.

We beat them last year too and they went on to be national champs lol. Tebow STILL doesn't know what it feels like to beat us.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 8, 2007, 4:54 pm

masteen wrote:
Sylvus wrote:So USC struggles with a 2-3 Washington, loses to a terrible Stanford team, and falls 6 spots to #7? That sounds about right.

Who was it that was saying there wasn't a media bias for USC?

And does a 2-loss florida team really belong in the top 15?
Considering those losses are to ranked SEC opponents and not App. State, yes. We've got two more real tests, and if we dump one either to UK or to the OBC, I'll agree they should drop out of the top 25.

Really? With 3 losses you'd agree they wouldn't belong in the top 25? That's quite impartial of you.

Nowhere am I arguing that Michigan should be in the top 15 and Florida should not. I think that neither of them belong there, though I'll agree Florida should still be ranked ahead of Michigan, even after a third loss to Smelley's Cocks or what I'm told is the greatest QB in the history of CFB. Florida lost to an unranked Auburn team that is only ranked because it beat Florida. There seems to be a bit of a problem with recursion there. "Florida belongs in the top 15 because it lost to a team that is ranked because it beat a team that is ranked because it lost to a team that is ranked because..." whir, click, beep. *infinite loop*

There's 1 team in the top 20 that has 2 losses, and it's ranked ahead of a team in its own conference that has only 1 loss. 1 of the 3 teams in the SEC that have 1 loss or fewer. I realize you may think my view is clouded because of my undying support for the University of Michigan, but it all comes back to polls being total bullshit. What quality wins does Florida have, besides Tennessee? They are only ranked where they are because of meaningless pre-season polls that artificially inflate where a team belongs.

No offense to Florida, and I'm not saying that my Wolverines wouldn't get trounced by them. They are just ranked higher than they should be. Polls are fuxxed.

Also please note that USC's ranking is the most egregious of the poll offenses.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 4:57 pm

Lets not forget that App State lost to a college named "Wofford" so that 1-AA champion business may have meant something last year but this year they lost to a 1-AA college unknown to most of the nation.

Anyone listen to he Herd with Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio? He rips Michigan almost daily. He's definately pro Pac-10. He's been defending USC all day. While his ripping of Michigan is justified, I don't think USC deserves as much defense as it's getting from him today.

If you have a sub to ESPN's site, you can listen to "USC Falls To Seven" here:

http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/ ... Id=theherd

notable for ripping Michigan (someone from Michigan calls in) and his logic for why USC didn't drop as far as some other teams would have.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 8, 2007, 5:21 pm

Winnow wrote:Anyone listen to he Herd with Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio? He rips Michigan almost daily. He's definately pro Pac-10. He's been defending USC all day. While his ripping of Michigan is justified, I don't think USC deserves as much defense as it's getting from him today.

Colin Cowherd is a douchebag who steals his material from more intelligent people. One of those instances was from a Michigan blog, and he's known to urge vendetta against his enemies. I'm not surprised he's anti-Michigan, we (indirectly) exposed him as a hack and forced him to admit it on air.

Winnow wrote:Lets not forget that App State lost to a college named "Wofford" so that 1-AA champion business may have meant something last year but this year they lost to a 1-AA college unknown to most of the nation.

Yeah, I didn't forget that. Let's see if they can go into the tournament that determines the 1-AA champion and win it again, like they did the last 2 years. At any rate, Appalachian State would still probably beat Stanford.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 8, 2007, 5:30 pm

Yeah USC really did get cottled in this week's polls. However, I think it is a matter of games before they drop another one, so that doesn't bother me. I hope they can knock off Cal though, so OSU can move up to BCS game territory again.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 8, 2007, 5:36 pm

Colin Cowherd is easily the WORST sports talk on radio.

I think USC should have dropped more last week after their horrible game to Washington. How are you the number 2 team in the country with 6 turnovers?

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » October 8, 2007, 7:40 pm

noel wrote:Colin Cowherd is easily the WORST sports talk on radio.

The only way he can fill an entire show slot on the radio is the repeat the same f'ing thing like 30 times after he says it the first time.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 8, 2007, 7:53 pm

Sueven's CFB rankings:

1. Louisiana State
2. South Florida
3. Ohio State
4. California
5. Boston College
6. South Carolina
7. Missouri
8. Oregon
9. Oklahoma
10. Illinois
11. Florida
12. Arizona State
13. West Virginia
14. USC
15. Kentucky

others receiving votes: Cincinnati, Kansas, Auburn

Don't like it? Suck a dick!

Couple explanations: I think that Cal and Oregon are fairly evenly matched teams (as demonstrated by their head-to-head matchup). Both have great offenses with lots of speed and dynamic playmakers. Both have mediocre defenses. I think that Oregon's loss makes them a little underrated, while Cal's win makes them a bit overrated. Cal has a legit shot at the championship, because they only play two tough games the rest of the season (and USC is at home). Both teams remind me of OSU last year: No real defense, capable of putting up lots of points, coast through the season due to an easy nonconference schedule, capable of being humiliated by a real powerhouse in a big game. If Cal does make it through, I think they'd be murdered by any of the three teams I have ranked above them. They're both legitimate top ten teams, but I don't think either is a serious title contender without some real defensive changes. Honestly, I think USC is still the Pac Ten's best shot for a title this year. They have a couple easy games to get it back together, and if they can roll through Cal, Oregon and Arizona State, all will be forgiven, and they'll be around the top of the one-win heap.

Arizona State deserves credit for taking care of business and playing tougher defense than the rest of the Pac Ten, but Colorado's their only real win so far, so let's have the ASU fans pause sucking one another's cocks for a couple more weeks.

Missouri might not be great, but they've been impressive so far. They went on the road against big conference opponents the first two weeks of the season and pulled out both games. Illinois is looking like a more and more impressive win, and Ole Miss might not be great, but Missouri still walked into an SEC stadium and pulled out a win. Now they've humiliated Nebraska, the preseason favorites in the Big Twelve North. Nebraska might not be looking great right now, but they were still ranked last week, and they have a legitimate offense which Missouri shut down.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 8, 2007, 8:42 pm

I think your list looks great other than where you have ASU. Your reasoning is sound, but I can't see ranking them as high as you have them until they beat USC, Cal or Oregon. Minor change, and I definitely think your list looks good.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 8, 2007, 9:07 pm

My bad, was the wrong link!
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2006/28.pdf

56% grad rate for your football players. They should sign up for some online classes at tOSU so they can finish up easy degrees.

WTG, can hardly win most years and stupid all in one shot. I give you a top 10 ranking for that Winnow.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 9:10 pm

OSU ranked 3rd is the next fraud to be revealed...well, unfortunately maybe not until a bowl game because they have zero competition unlike the Pac-10's murderer's row for every team in the conference!

ASU is a solid team this year. I've watched every game and Erikson is doing a great coaching job. They won't make stupid mistakes. I'm waiting for the games against Oregon, Cal and USC though. Washington is this week. We can compare how ASU fares against Washington vs OSU's performance and get an idea of how ASU might fare against OSU. ASU is a slow starting team as well with some monster comebacks in the second half this year.

ASU does have a hint of defense and an outstanding offense so teams will need to score points. (held the team that beat #2USC to 3 points!)

-------

Raistin: that's Arizona (UofA), not Arizona State! Gooooo Devilllls!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 8, 2007, 9:20 pm

Cowhered is an opinionated imbecile who can't ever back anythign up with any facts whatsoever. I stopped listening after he explained how Tiger Woods was hands down far and away better than Nicklaus ever was.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 8, 2007, 11:30 pm

Winnow wrote:OSU ranked 3rd is the next fraud to be revealed...well, unfortunately maybe not until a bowl game because they have zero competition unlike the Pac-10's murderer's row for every team in the conference!

Riiiiight. Just like our 'first big test' was against UW (per media coverage (also a Pac 10 school we beat a hell of a lot more soundly than USC)), then when that failed horribly to be a game, they moved our 'first big test' to Purdue last weekend. I wonder when our next 'first big test' will be. By the way, both of our first big tests were away games. Just something to think about.

Oh, and to match up against UW, I'll even forget that you have home field advantage, since that means jack shit in the Pac 10 this year.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2007, 11:54 pm

Zamtuk wrote: I wonder when our next 'first big test' will be. By the way, both of our first big tests were away games. Just something to think about.

You could play a ranked team for starters. Try playing a schedule with three top ten teams on it.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 9, 2007, 12:09 am

Guess we didn't just knock Purdue out this past week. And what team plays 3 top ten teams?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 9, 2007, 12:41 am

The entire idea of puffing out your chest over ranks in polls is stupid. 99.9% people know the polls are more fucked over by personal fan boy voters.
Not to mention pre season rankings, that give an unfair advantage to teams that don't deserve it. How about waiting 5 weeks in to it, and then starting the rankings? USC can bitch and cry about how theres a west coast hate, but they lose to a unranked team and drop so little. Same with Florida and the SEC.

People keep claiming that PAC 10 and SEC are the best. Their top teams are hardly winning vs bottom dwellers and have lost to unranked,below .500 teams. Look at Wisky, they were number 5, and lost to a 4-1 team,at their home,the very same team that hardly lost on the road vs a Big 12 team who has a 5-0 record and yet drops 10 slots. USC lost to a 1-4 team, at home and only drop 6 slots.

If rankings are a true measure of how things are played out then USF>Auburn>LSU>Florida ? USF won at Auburn, who beat Florida at home,LSU almost lost to Florida at home. This makes as much sense as saying all PAC 10 teams who are ranked, deserve it. Do they, or are they going to once again lose to semi good teams the day they finally play them.

But I will guess that beating San Jose St, Colorado, SDSU, Oregon St, Stanford and Wash St. require you to be the best of the best with a total combined record of 16-18.

Or I could use Winnow smarts and say
Wisconsin>Arizona State>Washington St>Stanford>USC
Wisconsin wrecked Washington St by 21, that Washington St only lost to Arizona St by 3, Stanford who spanked USC at home who had beat um Wash. State, and Idaho?

All too fucking confusing. Ranking and comparing different conferences gets lame. We all are fan boys of them, and will never agree because its all stupid twisted truth. All it boils down to is who ends up number 1 at the end of the season, and the bowl game records.

In that case, Penn State and Wisky > SEC
Texas/USC> Meatchicken
Florida>Ohio State>ACC ??

Who knows. I hope USF wins it all since my pissy lions want to bleed their fucking pussies away over a cave man of a quarter back with a monkey as QB coach who calls the most fucking stupid plays. I wish to fucking god Steve Spurrier had come to PSU. That would be so god like!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 9, 2007, 12:52 am

Zamtuk wrote:Guess we didn't just knock Purdue out this past week. And what team plays 3 top ten teams?

#13 Arizona State

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 9, 2007, 2:41 am

noel wrote:I think your list looks great other than where you have ASU.

Fair point. Thinking about it, they really haven't proved much more than Cincy.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 9, 2007, 9:03 am

Winnow wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Guess we didn't just knock Purdue out this past week. And what team plays 3 top ten teams?
#13 Arizona State

And most those teams all play each other before you. I promise you they won't be top ten teams when you get to them.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 9, 2007, 9:08 am

They won't all 3 be top ten at the end of the year. Cal especially is going to get exposed.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » October 9, 2007, 10:45 am

Fair point. Thinking about it, they really haven't proved much more than Cincy.

Comparing schedules up til now, I'd say Cincy has outperformed ASU.
They have two common opponents. Both of which UC spanked, and ASU had struggles with.
UC has a win over a ranked opponent (on the road). ASU hasnt played a ranked opponent.
And UC has a dominating win over a backyard rival (Miami,Oh. Granted, they have struggled this year.) But rival games are always a bit different.

And UCs defense is ranked near the top nationally.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 9, 2007, 11:31 am

I like the Bearcats.