Game Thread Southern Cal 18, at tOSU 15 (Sept 12th, 8 pm, ESPN)

[LordJeffBuck]

They should have played in the title game last year, and probably vs OSU in 2007. They've gotten screwed, but the reason why they arent winning the titles they should have is the coaching. I think PC is a Top 3 coach in the country, but since Orgeron and Chow have left I havent really digged their other assisstants besides Rocky Seto.

I dont think they can keep these super recruits motivated for an entire season, and I think a lot of their assistants (Sark/Holt) were overrated.

I think their current staff is much more impressive. They should have another title before Barkley leaves, and if not then I'm really going to change my view on PC. I love the guy, but I think even USC fans could agree that if someone like McKay had this amount of talent at SC that they would have more than 1 unanimous title in what would be a ten year run (when Barkley leaves).

And who would've thought that Ohio State would win just one national championship between 1968 and 1975, with 31 first team All Americans, two Heisman winners (Archie Griffin, 1974-1975), two Lombardi and Outland winners (Jim Stillwagon in 1970 and John Hicks in 1973), the national defensive player of the year (Jack Tatum in 1970) and one of the greatest head coaches of all time?

The point is this: It is very difficult to win a national championship regardless of who have as your players and your coaches. Sometimes a good team is just a little bit better that day (see USC, 1974 and 1979) ... sometimes your opponent is sky high and plays a nearly perfect game (see UM, 1969) ... sometimes your team just comes out flat and goes nowhere (see UCLA, 1975; UF, 2006) ... sometimes everything goes wrong all at once (see MSU, 1998) ... and sometimes simple bad luck can cost you a chance at a title (see UM, 1996). Southern Cal fans have seen similar things happen to their team during the last four seasons.

But here's my original point: At the very highest levels, there's really not a very big difference in talent. I mean, how do you judge between the #1 and #2 quarterback prospects? Is #1 an eighth of an inch taller? Can he throw the ball three yards farther? Is he .1 second faster in the three cone drill? It is especially difficult to judge prospects for several reasons: (1) it is impossible to measure intangibles, and intangibles are a very real factor in performance, (2) it is impossible to judge how well a teenager will adapt to life away from home; (3) it is very difficult to judge how a teenager will mature physically and mentally at the college level; (4) it is very difficult to factor a player's high school system out of the equation (some systems show case a player's abilities and pad his stats, others don't); (5) sometimes high school players dominate because they are far better than the talent around them, and conversely (6) sometimes high school players look better than they really are because they are on loaded teams and have a ton of talent around them. There are other factors as well, but I think that you can see my point.

For all of USC's recent success at signing high profile skill players, they really have been winning the old fashioned way: playing solid defense and beating people at the point of attack. Of all their superstar skill position players, only wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett and quarterback Mark Sanchez really lived up to expectations:

Quarterbacks
Mark Sanchez (class of 2005; 5*, #1 PS-QB, #7 nationally): 313/487 (.643), 3,965 yards, 41 TD's, 16 INT's (#5 draft pick after huge junior year)
Aaron Corp (class of 2007; 4*, #3 PS-QB, #44 nationally): 2/4 (.500), 14 yards, 0 TD's, 0 INT's (looks to be a career mop-up guy)

Running Backs
Allen Bradford (class of 2006; 5*, #1 OLB, #9 nationally): 42 carries, 123 yards (2.93), 3 TD's (should've stayed on defense)
C.J. Gable (class of 2006; 5*, #3 ATH, #23 nationally): 231 carries, 1,194 yards (5.17), 12 TD's (has yet to emerge as a true threat)
Stafon Johnson (class of 2006; 5*, #2 RB, #18 nationally): 239 carries, 1,395 yards (5.84), 14 TD's (solid but far from spectacular)
Emmanuel Moody (class of 2006; 4*, #9 RB, #70 nationally): 79 carries, 459 yards (5.81), 2 TD's (transferred after one season)
Joe McKnight (class of 2007; 5*, #1 RB, #2 nationally): 183 carries, 1,199 yards (6.55), 5 TD's (big play threat, but not a work horse)
Marc Tyler (class of 2007; 5*, #2 RB, #17 nationally): 36 carries, 198 yards (5.50), 1 TD (has yet to make an impact)
Broderick Green (class of 2007; 4*, #14 RB, #177 nationally): 32 carries, 168 yards (5.25), 3 TD's (transferred after two years in the program)
D.J. Shoemate (class of 2008; 4*, #10 ATH, #96 nationally): no stats as a true freshman (moved to fullback)

Wide Receivers
Dwayne Jarrett (class of 2004; 4*, #2 ATH, #44 nationally): 216 receptions, 3,138 yards, 41 TD's (three excellent seasons)
Fred Davis (class of 2004; 5*, #3 WR, #19 nationally): 117 receptions, 1,408 yards, 13 TD's (decent senior year)
Patrick Turner (class of 2005; 5*, #1 WR, #2 nationally): 138 receptions, 1,752 yards, 17 TD's (four mediocre seasons)
Vidal Hazelton (class of 2006; 5*, #2 WR, #7 nationally): 56 receptions, 586 yards, 4 TD's (one decent season, transferred)
David Ausberry (class of 2006; 4*, #5 WR, #66 nationally): 32 receptions, 325 yards, 3 TD's (on the train to Bustville)
Ronald Johnson (class of 2007; 5*, #1 WR, #8 nationally): 40 receptions, 680 yards, 9 TD's (still has two years to prove himself)
Brice Butler (class of 2008; 4*, #13 WR, #79 nationally): redshirt in 2008

By way of comparison, Ohio State's 3* wide outs - Brian Robiskie and Brian Hartline - had careers that compared favorably to all the USC blue chippers except for Jarrett:

Brian Robiskie (class of 2005; 3*, #61 WR): 127 receptions, 1,866 yards, 24 TD's (second round draft choice)
Brian Hartline (class of 2005; 3*, #36 WR): 90 receptions, 1,429 yards, 12 TD's (left for the NFL after three seasons)

So tell me, is anyone still overwhelmed by USC's flashy recruiting?

Or are you really impressed with their play in the trenches?

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

LJB, with all due respect, the fact that SC had five or six back averaging over five yards a carry at one point is insane. On a good team, you are supposed to have a superb back averaging a little under six a carry, a sub averaging around four, and a couple of freshmen doing mop-up duty averaging less than four. That's the standard.

Ronald Johnson has proven to be a big time play-maker in his second season there.

McKnight toyed with OSU defenders. Even we had a clean shot at a tackle, he simply slipped out of our grasp.

Mustain could've started for a lot of programs in the SEC, especially after showing so much promise as a freshman. Remember the game that Arkansas lost to LSU? That was the coach inserting the SR quarterback who couldn't complete a single pass back into the lineup.

The big receivers that they have recruited have been flops in the sense that they lack the game breaking speed that fans expect. Prater seems to be in the same mode.

And of course, then there's the line....

 

[jwinslow]

LJB, with all due respect, the fact that SC had at once point five or six back averaging over five yards a carry is insane. On a good team, you are supposed to have a superb back averaging a little under six a carry, a sub averaging around four, and a couple of freshmen doing mop-up duty averaging less than four. That's the standard.

It might seem insane to someone who doesn't follow pac-10 football. Cal had 6 average over 5 YPC, including the fullback The year before that, all 5 backs averaged 5 YPC. Best 7.1 ypc, hawkins 8.6, the fullbacks averaged 5.8 & 7.7.

Oregon's top-3 backs? All over SEVEN yards per carry. The year before that their top-4 backs were all over 5.

Ronald Johnson has proven to be a big time play-maker in his second season there.

He averaged 20 yards per game in the last half of last year. Then again, you're arguing with a non-negative review by LJB.

McKnight toyed with OSU defenders. Even we had a clean shot at a tackle, he simply slipped out of our grasp.

Would you say he has played like the 2nd best sophomore in america?

Mustain could've started for any programs in the SEC, especially after showing a lot of promise during his freshman season.

Baloney.

Florida? No.
Georgia? No.
Kentucky? No.
Tennessee? No.

Remember the game that Arkansas lost to LSU? That was the coach inserting the SR quarterback who couldn't complete a single pass back into the lineup.

And yet Mustain's numbers were virtually identical to Dick's, if a bit behind. McCoy he was not.

The big receivers that they have recruited have been flops in the sense that they lack the game breaking speed that fans expect. Prater fit that mode.

Then why is an alright not great Brian Hartline beating out the best of that group, Turner?

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

It might seem insane to someone who doesn't follow pac-10 football. Cal had 6 average over 5 YPC, including the fullback The year before that, all 5 backs averaged 5 YPC. Best 7.1 ypc, hawkins 8.6, the fullbacks averaged 5.8 & 7.7.

Oregon's top-3 backs? All over SEVEN yards per carry. The year before that their top-4 backs were all over 5.
He averaged 20 yards per game in the last half of last year. Then again, you're arguing with a non-negative review by LJB.
Would you say he has played like the 2nd best sophomore in america?Baloney.

Florida? No.
Georgia? No.
Kentucky? No.
Tennessee? No.
And yet Mustain's numbers were virtually identical to Dick's, if a bit behind. McCoy he was not.
Then why is an alright not great Brian Hartline beating out the best of that group, Turner?

See edit. I realized after reading my post for the third time that I had wrote that Mustain could've started for any program. I meant to say that he could've started for a lot of programs.

PAC10 running stats certainly could be inflated due to the style of play, but in general, and especially in the case of SC, those backs have proven themselves verses the best competition from other conferences.

My comment about WRs was in agreement with what LJB had posted. What's there to argue?

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

With all that talent, USC should be on a six-year undefeated streak right now. So, what's the problem? Poor coaching? Overrated recruits? Or maybe there really isn't much difference between the #2 and the #200 kid in the country....

The Pac10 just doesn't get the respect that SEC or the B12 gets (conference title games do help those conferences). That's why teams with identical records from these other two conferences are leapfrogging SC into the BCS title matchup.

 

[jwinslow]

The Pac10 just doesn't get the respect that SEC or the B12 gets.

Are you really suggesting they deserve it?

USC does not play themselves. Who are these teams that compare to the 2-3 BCS caliber teams that typically emerge from the other two conferences?

The hype goes overboard, sure... but you're going to have to give me something to back up your statement here.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Are you really suggesting they deserve it?

USC does not play themselves. Who are these teams that compare to the 2-3 BCS caliber teams that typically emerge from the other two conferences?

The hype goes overboard, sure... but you're going to have to give me something to back up your statement here.

The only times when SC has made it to the BCS title game was when they had been undefeated. In '03, the year that they grabbed the AP title, Oklahoma was selected to play in the BCS game despite getting absolutely clobbered by KSU in the B12 title game, while SC had lost in triple overtime to Cal much earlier in the season. Since then, UF and LSU leapfrogged them in '06 and '07, despite having the same record. And just last season, there was no talk of SC in the title game even though the two teams that did go had the same number of losses.

So let's put this in perspective: The florida teams and lsu teams that made it to the title game this decade had three combined losses each, while the SC teams had zero. The OU teams had two, while Texas had zero as well. Clearly, the hurdle is higher for SC than some other powerhouses.

 

[OregonBuckeye]

They should have played in the title game last year, and probably vs OSU in 2007. They've gotten screwed, but the reason why they arent winning the titles they should have is the coaching. I think PC is a Top 3 coach in the country, but since Orgeron and Chow have left I havent really digged their other assisstants besides Rocky Seto.

I dont think they can keep these super recruits motivated for an entire season, and I think a lot of their assistants (Sark/Holt) were overrated.

I think their current staff is much more impressive. They should have another title before Barkley leaves, and if not then I'm really going to change my view on PC. I love the guy, but I think even USC fans could agree that if someone like McKay had this amount of talent at SC that they would have more than 1 unanimous title in what would be a ten year run (when Barkley leaves).

I swear you're Kirk Herbstreit.

 

[jwinslow]

I'm still waiting for you to back up why the Pac-10 should get more respect as a conference. Instead you talked about how deserving SC was. SC does not play themselves.

So let's put this in perspective: The florida teams and lsu teams that made it to the title game this decade had three combined losses each, while the SC teams had zero. The OU teams had two, while Texas had zero as well. Clearly, the hurdle is higher for SC than some other powerhouses.

This is a terrible comparison. You are comparing the weakest NC lineup in recent memory to arguably the greatest. Why aren't you comparing LSU 07 to USC 07?

USC suffered the worst upset in college football history (according to the point spread), AT HOME, and would still have made the title game if they had not lost again. Nobody deserved the NC berth in 07. Everyone and their mother choked it away, leaving a two-loss team against a rebuilding buckeyes squad.

I agree that the SEC favortism is overboard... but that's a completely different discussion from whether the Pac-10 deserves more respect like the B12/SEC. The argument for USC is that they deserve respect in spite of their conference, not because of it.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

And who would've thought that Ohio State would win just one national championship between 1968 and 1975, with 31 first team All Americans, two Heisman winners (Archie Griffin, 1974-1975), two Lombardi and Outland winners (Jim Stillwagon in 1970 and John Hicks in 1973), the national defensive player of the year (Jack Tatum in 1970) and one of the greatest head coaches of all time?

The point is this: It is very difficult to win a national championship regardless of who have as your players and your coaches. Sometimes a good team is just a little bit better that day (see USC, 1974 and 1979) ... sometimes your opponent is sky high and plays a nearly perfect game (see UM, 1969) ... sometimes your team just comes out flat and goes nowhere (see UCLA, 1975; UF, 2006) ... sometimes everything goes wrong all at once (see MSU, 1998) ... and sometimes simple bad luck can cost you a chance at a title (see UM, 1996). Southern Cal fans have seen similar things happen to their team during the last four seasons.

But here's my original point: At the very highest levels, there's really not a very big difference in talent. I mean, how do you judge between the #1 and #2 quarterback prospects? Is #1 an eighth of an inch taller? Can he throw the ball three yards farther? Is he .1 second faster in the three cone drill? It is especially difficult to judge prospects for several reasons: (1) it is impossible to measure intangibles, and intangibles are a very real factor in performance, (2) it is impossible to judge how well a teenager will adapt to life away from home; (3) it is very difficult to judge how a teenager will mature physically and mentally at the college level; (4) it is very difficult to factor a player's high school system out of the equation (some systems show case a player's abilities and pad his stats, others don't); (5) sometimes high school players dominate because they are far better than the talent around them, and conversely (6) sometimes high school players look better than they really are because they are on loaded teams and have a ton of talent around them. There are other factors as well, but I think that you can see my point.

For all of USC's recent success at signing high profile skill players, they really have been winning the old fashioned way: playing solid defense and beating people at the point of attack. Of all their superstar skill position players, only wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett and quarterback Mark Sanchez really lived up to expectations:

Quarterbacks
Mark Sanchez (class of 2005; 5*, #1 PS-QB, #7 nationally): 313/487 (.643), 3,965 yards, 41 TD's, 16 INT's (#5 draft pick after huge junior year)
Aaron Corp (class of 2007; 4*, #3 PS-QB, #44 nationally): 2/4 (.500), 14 yards, 0 TD's, 0 INT's (looks to be a career mop-up guy)

Running Backs
Allen Bradford (class of 2006; 5*, #1 OLB, #9 nationally): 42 carries, 123 yards (2.93), 3 TD's (should've stayed on defense)
C.J. Gable (class of 2006; 5*, #3 ATH, #23 nationally): 231 carries, 1,194 yards (5.17), 12 TD's (has yet to emerge as a true threat)
Stafon Johnson (class of 2006; 5*, #2 RB, #18 nationally): 239 carries, 1,395 yards (5.84), 14 TD's (solid but far from spectacular)
Emmanuel Moody (class of 2006; 4*, #9 RB, #70 nationally): 79 carries, 459 yards (5.81), 2 TD's (transferred after one season)
Joe McKnight (class of 2007; 5*, #1 RB, #2 nationally): 183 carries, 1,199 yards (6.55), 5 TD's (big play threat, but not a work horse)
Marc Tyler (class of 2007; 5*, #2 RB, #17 nationally): 36 carries, 198 yards (5.50), 1 TD (has yet to make an impact)
Broderick Green (class of 2007; 4*, #14 RB, #177 nationally): 32 carries, 168 yards (5.25), 3 TD's (transferred after two years in the program)
D.J. Shoemate (class of 2008; 4*, #10 ATH, #96 nationally): no stats as a true freshman (moved to fullback)

Wide Receivers
Dwayne Jarrett (class of 2004; 4*, #2 ATH, #44 nationally): 216 receptions, 3,138 yards, 41 TD's (three excellent seasons)
Fred Davis (class of 2004; 5*, #3 WR, #19 nationally): 117 receptions, 1,408 yards, 13 TD's (decent senior year)
Patrick Turner (class of 2005; 5*, #1 WR, #2 nationally): 138 receptions, 1,752 yards, 17 TD's (four mediocre seasons)
Vidal Hazelton (class of 2006; 5*, #2 WR, #7 nationally): 56 receptions, 586 yards, 4 TD's (one decent season, transferred)
David Ausberry (class of 2006; 4*, #5 WR, #66 nationally): 32 receptions, 325 yards, 3 TD's (on the train to Bustville)
Ronald Johnson (class of 2007; 5*, #1 WR, #8 nationally): 40 receptions, 680 yards, 9 TD's (still has two years to prove himself)
Brice Butler (class of 2008; 4*, #13 WR, #79 nationally): redshirt in 2008

By way of comparison, Ohio State's 3* wide outs - Brian Robiskie and Brian Hartline - had careers that compared favorably to all the USC blue chippers except for Jarrett:

Brian Robiskie (class of 2005; 3*, #61 WR): 127 receptions, 1,866 yards, 24 TD's (second round draft choice)
Brian Hartline (class of 2005; 3*, #36 WR): 90 receptions, 1,429 yards, 12 TD's (left for the NFL after three seasons)

So tell me, is anyone still overwhelmed by USC's flashy recruiting?

Or are you really impressed with their play in the trenches?

those teams were loaded, however they were paper tigers. much like many of the teams weve seen the past few years at ohio state, loaded yet missing. i think few all but a few overlook historically it takes two (or a few) lucky games, a favorable schedule, some other factors and a complete team. the past few years i havent seen a complete team. their have been obvious holes. then again i still maintain the 2002 nc title, well i thought usc was the best team in the country that year, they scared me more than miami. ive watched enough football in my day to see that the most talented teams (see maybe 1998 or one of the early 70s teams) dont win it, its some weird mix of multiple factors and opportunistic luck. that it what has drawn me to college football, then again the massive commercialization and a few other things seem to be driving me away....

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

I'm still waiting for you to back up why the Pac-10 should get more respect as a conference. Instead you talked about how deserving SC was. SC does not play themselves.

Where do you see me arguing that the Pac10 should get more respect?

This is a terrible comparison. You are comparing the weakest NC lineup in recent memory to arguably the greatest. Why aren't you comparing LSU 07 to USC 07?

Can we refrain from using words like "terrible" to characterize the other side in a discussion? We are just here to talk about football, lighten up. I don't think that's a terrible comparison at all. The two SC teams that made it to the title game had zero losses, while the Florida and LSU teams combined for three losses each. To most people that's pretty clear cut.

USC suffered the worst upset in college football history (according to the point spread), AT HOME, and would still have made the title game if they had not lost again. Nobody deserved the NC berth in 07. Everyone and their mother choked it away, leaving a two-loss team against a rebuilding buckeyes squad.

Agreed.

I agree that the SEC favortism is overboard... but that's a completely different discussion from whether the Pac-10 deserves more respect like the B12/SEC. The argument for USC is that they deserve respect in spite of their conference, not because of it.

Again, there isn't anything in my post suggesting that Pac10 deserves more respect. The whole point was that despite being worthy, SC falls short in the eyes of voters because they play in a relatively weak conference.

 

[BUCKYLE]

The two SC teams that made it to the title game had zero losses, while the Florida and LSU teams combined for three losses each. To most people that's pretty clear cut.

It may be the booze...but I'm confused as fuck by this little nugget.

"combined for three losses each"...what does that mean!?

Oh, and it's not like UF or LSU jumped over any major conference undefeateds to play for their respective NC's.

Florida had one loss in each of the seasons they won an NC this decade, so LSU and UF combined for five losses...right? I'm not good at math when I'm sober.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

It may be the booze...but I'm confused as [censored] by this little nugget.

"combined for three losses each"...what does that mean!?

Oh, and it's not like UF or LSU jumped over any major conference undefeateds to play for their respective NC's.

Florida had one loss in each of the seasons they won an NC this decade, so LSU and UF combined for five losses...right? I'm not good at math when I'm sober.

I stand corrected. The '06 Florida team had only one loss the entire season.

So the tally stands for combined losses by teams that made an appearance at a BCS title game:

UF teams: 2 combined losses
LSU teams: 3
OU: 2
OSU: 1
SC: 0
Texas: 0

Of course, Texas only made it to the title game once, whereas the others have made at least two appearances.

 

[jwinslow]

Where do you see me arguing that the Pac10 should get more respect?

In the post where I quoted one thing and asked:

The Pac10 just doesn't get the respect that SEC or the B12 gets.

Are you really suggesting they deserve it?

USC does not play themselves. Who are these teams that compare to the 2-3 BCS caliber teams that typically emerge from the other two conferences?

The hype goes overboard, sure... but you're going to have to give me something to back up your statement here.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

In the post where I quoted one thing and asked:

I still don't see where I called for more respect for the Pac10. Just because I acknowledge that Pac10 gets less respect does not mean I believe that they should receive more. The rest is your words, not mine.