As pathetic as USC is, they still could end up the title game

[hippieki11er]

'SC needs all of the following to happen:

1. Both Alabama and Florida each need to lose before the SEC CCG and then a two-loss Florida needs to beat a one-loss Alabama in the CCG.

2. OU needs to lose again.

3. Mizzou needs to win the Big 12 CCG.

4. Texas would need to lose again also if above scenario #1 doesn't happen.


Bottom line, it's not going to happen. Way too many upsets needed in a year where there hasn't been many.

 

[sarcean]

'SC needs all of the following to happen:

1. Both Alabama and Florida each need to lose before the SEC CCG and then a two-loss Florida needs to beat a one-loss Alabama in the CCG.

2. OU needs to lose again.

3. Mizzou needs to win the Big 12 CCG.

4. Texas would need to lose again also if above scenario #1 doesn't happen.


Bottom line, it's not going to happen. Way too many upsets needed in a year where there hasn't been many.

Not to mention if Oregon State wins its next 3 games then USC wont even win its own conference :missingte and that is assuming USC doesnt drop one by itself over the next 3

 

[jblonghorn]

If Mizzou knocks off whoever they play in the title game or Alabama or Fla get clipped before the title game & then win, USC backs right in (where they have no business)

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh dude, no way. No way. You're dreaming.

 

[OTK]

'SC needs all of the following to happen:

1. Both Alabama and Florida each need to lose before the SEC CCG and then a two-loss Florida needs to beat a one-loss Alabama in the CCG.

2. OU needs to lose again.

3. Mizzou needs to win the Big 12 CCG.

4. Texas would need to lose again also if above scenario #1 doesn't happen.


Bottom line, it's not going to happen. Way too many upsets needed in a year where there hasn't been many.

Why would they need all that? All they need right now is for Mizzou to win the Big 12 and they should be in vs Florida (or bama if for some strange reason they win the SEC). Penn St is not going to get in over USC. No Big East or ACC team is going over USC. That leaves the Big 12, SEC and USC. SEC would have FLorida or Bama and USC would need Mizzou to win the Big 12 to eliminate them. They also need Oregon St to lose a game, but I think that happens.

USC pretty much just needs OSU to lose a game and Mizzou to win the Big 12. I'd put them as a 10 point dog to OU or Texas in the conf finals, but they still have a small shot. It's not near impossible for USC to make it, and if they do, they will in.

 

[OTK]

USC plays in the worst major conference by far this year.

I think CFN sums it up best

"The Pac 10 is awful. Really, really bad. Oooooh, USC shut out Arizona State, Washington State and Washington. It took way, way too long to put away mediocre Arizona and California teams. USC is struggling way too much against mediocre teams, and it hasn't played a truly great team all year (considering Beanie Wells wasn't playing for Ohio State and Terrelle Pryor didn't come in until it was too late)."

And a national title game worthy team not lose to Oregon State. Hell USC is not even in control of its own destiny right now to win its conference

I usually like your posts as they're typically intelligent, thought out opinions, even if you hate on imo the best team in the nation (USC), BUT this is just absolutely ridiculous. I will say the Pac 10 isn't that good this year and I couldn't care less because I don't care about any conf. and I think the best team could easily be from the worst conf., but I just can't believe someone would say they are worse than the Big East and ACC. Oregon, Oregon St, California, and Arizona could all win both those conferences easily. The Mountain West is better than the BE and ACC.

 

[REDEYE]

Why would they need all that? All they need right now is for Mizzou to win the Big 12 and they should be in vs Florida (or bama if for some strange reason they win the SEC). Penn St is not going to get in over USC. No Big East or ACC team is going over USC. That leaves the Big 12, SEC and USC. SEC would have FLorida or Bama and USC would need Mizzou to win the Big 12 to eliminate them. They also need Oregon St to lose a game, but I think that happens.

USC pretty much just needs OSU to lose a game and Mizzou to win the Big 12. I'd put them as a 10 point dog to OU or Texas in the conf finals, but they still have a small shot. It's not near impossible for USC to make it, and if they do, they will in.

I believe Oregon St is irrelavant to USC getting in to Title game. Oregon St has nothing to do with that, Rose Bowl yes

 

[guitarjosh]

I believe Oregon St is irrelavant to USC getting in to Title game. Oregon St has nothing to do with that, Rose Bowl yes

Well they should, since Georgia got dropped from #2 to #6 last year because they didn't win their conference.

 

[REDEYE]

Well they should, since Georgia got dropped from #2 to #6 last year because they didn't win their conference.

I'm not sure if you get anything by winning conference as far as BCS standings are concerned. Maybe I'm wrong. The fact that Oregon St keeps winning helps USC SOS

 

[OTK]

I believe Oregon St is irrelavant to USC getting in to Title game. Oregon St has nothing to do with that, Rose Bowl yes

I don't know if the BCS takes it into consideration, but imo a team that doesn't win their conf. shouldn't get a chance at the title no matter what. If not winning your conf. doesn't matter then I would say USC has almost no shot because even if OU or Texas lost to Mizzou in the Big 12 title game the other team would be in the title game vs UF.

 

[REDEYE]

I don't know if the BCS takes it into consideration, but imo a team that doesn't win their conf. shouldn't get a chance at the title no matter what. If not winning your conf. doesn't matter then I would say USC has almost no shot because even if OU or Texas lost to Mizzou in the Big 12 title game the other team would be in the title game vs UF.

Who would Florida play then if USC doesn't win Conference and Missouri does win B12 ? Somebody has to play in that game. penn St won't get in

 

[Conan]

Not to mention if Oregon State wins its next 3 games then USC wont even win its own conference :missingte and that is assuming USC doesnt drop one by itself over the next 3

All these subtle little expressions tell me that you just plain don't like USC and just plain don't want them to go anywhere near whomever it is you support. I have read your posts and they are usually intelligent, but this sounds like typical SEC backwash not much different from the ignorant SEC 20-year old idiots that post here.

"Pathetic" USC is aren't they? I've seen that expression used too. How off the wall is that? Plain lying bullshit for a start. I am beginning to think you are just full of yourself. Didn't used to think that way about you. You like how your own words sound a little bit too much don't you? Maybe if you talk about it enough that will somehow make the lustre fall off of the Trojans. Keep trying. Nothing else seems to work.

Just look at what happened to your overrated SEC. Didn't they have something like 7 teams in the top 10 at one point? That has truly proven to be BS and everyone knows it was bullshit now because 4 of those 7 turned out to be mediocre or a lot worse than that and probably couldn't cut it in most any conference. I wonder where those same BS SEC teams would rank today if they played some real non-conf opponents? What's the real truth? No doubt they would rank much lower had they only played an "average" OOC schedule. (Chickenshits) The kicker is that there are a ton of seniors on those "top 7". At least the Pac-10 is loaded down with a shitload of Frosh and Sophs starting this season & a lot of first time starters because the rest of their starters from last season are playing in the NFL now. What's your excuse?

What is really pathetic beyond anything else is the way the SEC blowhards are so full of themselves, as evidenced by the way so many of your teams fell off the charts this year after ranking so high at the beginning. Well I suppose that's what you get for playing inferior OOC teams at the start to inflate your BS W/L records trying to fool everyone into thinking you are as good as you say you are. THAT is pathetic and also kind of wierd.

Now you have joined up with that contingent by the way your posts are starting to sound.

 

[hippieki11er]

Why would they need all that? All they need right now is for Mizzou to win the Big 12 and they should be in vs Florida (or bama if for some strange reason they win the SEC). Penn St is not going to get in over USC. No Big East or ACC team is going over USC. That leaves the Big 12, SEC and USC. SEC would have FLorida or Bama and USC would need Mizzou to win the Big 12 to eliminate them. They also need Oregon St to lose a game, but I think that happens.

'SC needs all of that because they're currently #6 in the BCS and going nowhere fast. A one-loss SEC CCG winner would rank above a one-loss 'SC in the BCS. That's why Florida somehow needs to lose another game before the CCG and then beat Alabama. It would be nice if Alabama lost before the SEC CCG as well.

A one-loss Big 12 CCG winner (let's say TTech for example) would rank above a one-loss 'SC.

A one-loss OU and a one-loss UT would both rank above a one-loss 'SC as well, just like they currently do in the BCS.

Also, OSU doesn't need to lose again, but they will most likely anyway.

Finally, I never said anything about Penn State, the Big East, or ACC threatening to leap 'SC. Re-read my last post and then take a look at the current BCS standings. It's very clear 'SC needs 3 of the 4 things I listed to make the NC game.

 

[Conan]

HK, I think Oregon St. will beat Cal next weekend.
They seem to have had the Bear's number lately.
I am much more concerned about their game @ AZ,
however they have a pretty good track record vs the Cats.
The Civil war is @ Reser and they should own that one vs the Ducks.

It's one game at a time now but it's definitely within their
ability to win out. I for one hope they do. I'd love to see a
PSU/OSU rematch in Pasadena now that those 12 new starters
on the Beaver team have some experience playing together.

USC is good enough to deserve a BCS Bowl berth if not the NC.
If Oregon State wins the Pac-10, that would break USC's streak... fine.
But I can see a few of the bowl committees elsewhere falling all over
themselves trying to get USC into their bowl game.

This could be a very interesting bowl season if that happens and one
of the non-BCS conferences qualifies... say Utah or Boise St. (or both?)

 

[hippieki11er]

HK, I think Oregon St. will beat Cal next weekend.
They seem to have had the Bear's number lately.
I am much more concerned about their game @ AZ,
however they have a pretty good track record vs the Cats.
The Civil war is @ Reser and they should own that one vs the Ducks.

It's one game at a time now but it's definitely within their
ability to win out. I for one hope they do. I'd love to see a
PSU/OSU rematch in Pasadena.

All 3 remaining games are potential roadblocks for OSU. Cal will be dangerous off the 'SC loss and should bounce back ok. Naturally the game at AZ looks like the most obvious trouble spot, but the civil war can easily be a toss-up as well, so I just see it a bit unlikely that OSU escapes all 3.

If OSU and USC both run the table however, does OSU automatically get the rose? And if so, 'SC will be ranked absolutely no lower than #5 in the BCS at year-end (more likely #3 or #4), so would they automatically qualify for a BCS game as well?

 

[Conan]

All 3 remaining games are potential roadblocks for OSU. Cal will be dangerous off the 'SC loss and should bounce back ok. Naturally the game at AZ looks like the most obvious trouble spot, but the civil war can easily be a toss-up as well, so I just see it a bit unlikely that OSU escapes all 3.

If OSU and USC both run the table however, does OSU automatically get the rose? And if so, 'SC will be ranked absolutely no lower than #5 in the BCS at year-end (more likely #3 or #4), so would they automatically qualify for a BCS game as well?

I think all 3 of OSU's games have their issues, but I wouldn't think of Cal as a "bounce back" type team. Remember how they tend to collapse? The loss to USC as far as they are concerned was for all the marbles FWIW, and I think they will not bounce back. The other Beavers' games are to be taken one-week-at-a-time and if Riley keeps preparing them to play as he has been doing, they could run it. Likely that they will????? No, but not likely that they will lose any of the 3 in particular either. It's up in the air.

Anyway...

If USC finishes within the top 4, they are guaranteed a BCS berth should they lose the conference.

 

[hippieki11er]

Are you sure the Rose is still obligated to take the conference winner, as long as they're not already tied-in to the NC game of course?

If OSU and 'SC both run the table and the Pac gets two BCS teams, things will be real ugly around here, justifiably so. I don't know which Rose Bowl would be more unappealing to the common fan... last year's disaster of USC - Illinois or a potential OSU - PSU rematch from this year. For some reason I thought the Rose Bowl was no longer contracted to select the Pac-10 and Big-10 conference winners(?).

 

[sarcean]

I usually like your posts as they're typically intelligent, thought out opinions, even if you hate on imo the best team in the nation (USC), BUT this is just absolutely ridiculous. I will say the Pac 10 isn't that good this year and I couldn't care less because I don't care about any conf. and I think the best team could easily be from the worst conf., but I just can't believe someone would say they are worse than the Big East and ACC. Oregon, Oregon St, California, and Arizona could all win both those conferences easily. The Mountain West is better than the BE and ACC.

Fair enough (although the ACC deserves a little more credit)

But what is so impressive about USC this year is my question? Losing to Oregon State and then struggling with Arizona and California. The Ohio State victory in retrospect is not as big as deal as it seemed at the time. Sure they destroy teams like Washington and WSU who are likely the bottom two BCS conference teams and Arizona State who is having a very very down year..but again it doesnt seem so impressive.

Maybe I am missing something but their resume doesnt sound title game worthy

 

[sarcean]

Are you sure the Rose is still obligated to take the conference winner, as long as they're not already tied-in to the NC game of course?

If OSU and 'SC both run the table and the Pac gets two BCS teams, things will be real ugly around here, justifiably so. I don't know which Rose Bowl would be more unappealing to the common fan... last year's disaster of USC - Illinois or a potential OSU - PSU rematch from this year. For some reason I thought the Rose Bowl was no longer contracted to select the Pac-10 and Big-10 conference winners(?).

I don't think they are obligated by any means but they see it as an ideal matchup for "traditional reasons"

If you remember last year the Rose Bowl was going to select Georgia to face USC in the Rose Bowl...since LSU was going to be in the Sugar and Ohio State going to the title game. But then the #1 and #2 team in the nation both fell that last week so LSU went to the title game and the Sugar grabbed Georgia. Instead USC had to face Illinois which they of course destroyed and we all missed out on a great UGA-USC matchup.

 

[Conan]

Are you sure the Rose is still obligated to take the conference winner, as long as they're not already tied-in to the NC game of course?

If OSU and 'SC both run the table and the Pac gets two BCS teams, things will be real ugly around here, justifiably so. I don't know which Rose Bowl would be more unappealing to the common fan... last year's disaster of USC - Illinois or a potential OSU - PSU rematch from this year. For some reason I thought the Rose Bowl was no longer contracted to select the Pac-10 and Big-10 conference winners(?).

100% sure of that HK. The Rose Bowl has had that tie-in with the Pac-10 and Big-10 for decades.

Ugly around here? Do you mean that aside from all the complaints about USC's "eligibility" or "deservingness" to play in the NC game people don't even consider USC a BCS quality bowl team?

Let them complain. Ridiculous. That would border on some form of mental illness.

:missingte



But like you say, it's not likely to happen that way... though very possible.

 

[Conan]

I don't think they are obligated by any means but they see it as an ideal matchup for "traditional reasons"

If you remember last year the Rose Bowl was going to select Georgia to face USC in the Rose Bowl...since LSU was going to be in the Sugar and Ohio State going to the title game. But then the #1 and #2 team in the nation both fell that last week so LSU went to the title game and the Sugar grabbed Georgia. Instead USC had to face Illinois which they of course destroyed and we all missed out on a great UGA-USC matchup.

The "traditional" part involves which 2 conferences are represented. If one of the conferences sends a team to the NC game, the Rose Bowl is not obligated except for "tradition" at their own discretion. Hence Illinois was selected last year instead of UGA (but I think UGA might have had some sort of tie-in with the Sugar Bowl... not 100% on that one though.)

PS... according to BCS bowl selection rules, a 4th ranked team is guaranteed a BCS berth.

Also, to me at least I find a Oregon St./PSU rematch very intriguing. Look at how far ORSt. has come since the 3rd week of the season. PSU won't be playing a team where the players are hardly acquainted with one another as before.