USC kills Notre Dame - Page 9

#**161** 01-03-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr. fager

I personally don't agree, but I don't see him there for more than 2 more years and feel he's earned it. It's not all wins and losses in cfb. And Ron English was a great hire. We'll see.

Yeah he's earned it. It's a shame that the powers that be feel obligated to Carr...but he did win a national championship, even though it was against Ryan Leaf (lol), and you can't take that away from him.

I just wish he'd resign and coach Auburn.

Cannon Shell · #**162** 01-04-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

They played one REALLY bad quarter of football. Without that one REALLY bad quarter of football, USC doesn't even win the game

If you watched the game and really think this to be true I have to wonder if your tv was on the fritz or your eyes are just maized over.

post2post · #**163** 01-05-2007, 12:54 PM

Brady Quinn is over rated....and so is ND.....that was the easiest pick all year.....

post2post · #**164** 01-05-2007, 01:00 PM

USC threw up against UCLA......they have zero complaints about the set up of the BCS

brianwspencer · #**165** 01-05-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you watched the game and really think this to be true I have to wonder if your tv was on the fritz or your eyes are just maized over.

If I remember, I think it was 3-3 before the quarter I referenced. My TV worked well enough for me to see that.

Which brings us back to one REALLY bad quarter of football that wins the game for USC. Playing bad football to a 3-3 tie at halftime is not getting routed by any stretch of the imagination. If USC was the wonderteam that everyone paints them as now, they would have blown the game open in the first half.

Which brings us right back to one REALLY bad quarter of football.

ddthetide · #**166** 01-05-2007, 01:55 PM

sc adjustments at halftime were excellent! sc dominated the whole second half. they exposed the poor tackling and weak over all play in the michigan secondary. same thing osu exposed weeks earlier . sc didn't have to run the ball any.

Cannon Shell · #**167** 01-05-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If I remember, I think it was 3-3 before the quarter I referenced. My TV worked well enough for me to see that.

Which brings us back to one REALLY bad quarter of football that wins the game for USC. Playing bad football to a 3-3 tie at halftime is not getting routed by any stretch of the imagination. If USC was the wonderteam that everyone paints them as now, they would have blown the game open in the first half.

Which brings us right back to one REALLY bad quarter of football.

Actually it was 2 bad quarters with one being REALLY bad. You didn't even comment on the 'maized' over remark.
As someone who watches a lot of college football, is not a fan of either team, had no money bet on the game, my opinion was that USC was a better team, more athletic, faster, and as physical as Michigan. I also think Carrol made the better adjustments and it did seem like a usc crowd but I think that if they played this game 100 times USC wins at least 75. One thing that made Michigan seem beter than they really were this year was turnover ratio. Coming into the game they had only committed 10 turnovers all year while getting 25 takeaways. Turnovers are usually more luck than skill. Meaning if you drop a football on the ground in the middle of the field 10 times in theory each team would get the ball 5 times. Not making turnovers is a sign of a good team but Michigans #'s were unreal.
Everyone forgets that Michigan was really close to losing to Ball State. Real close. and Ball State is awful. Ucla or Oregon State would be 25pt favs over BS.

brianwspencer · #**168** 01-05-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You didn't even comment on the 'maized' over remark.

I actually enjoyed very much even though I didn't comment on it. I love the word "maize" and every time it is used I am happy (I'm not being facetious here, I think it's borderline the best word on Earth to say out loud).

With that said, if you were to ask me the only college football team I am really a "fan" of, it would be the Portland State Vikings. I hate Michigan. I'm not from here, have no loyalty to it, no state pride, no nothing. It's just a stop on the journey back to Portland. So while it may appear that I am an overly zealous Ann Arbor inhabitant that attends UM, I neither attend the college nor really consider myself a real "fan" of the team. Especially not to the point where I would be willing to go down in flames with them no matter what just because they're UM. It’s impossible for my eyes to be “maized over.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I also think Carrol made the better adjustments.

I agree with you there. Outcoached for certain, but I don't agree that it makes them a better football team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually it was 2 bad quarters with one being REALLY bad.

That's part of the point I'm making. They played bad football for an entire HALF and got away with a 3-3 tie in that half. USC should have blown the game wide open there, but it took a REALLY bad quarter of football by Michigan for them to actually take advantage of the fact that Michigan was playing like crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everyone forgets that Michigan was really close to losing to Ball State. Real close. and Ball State is awful. Ucla or Oregon State would be 25pt favs over BS.

I didn't forget that Ball State nearly beat them, it was an exciting game.

But like you said, they were “really close to losing”. Yes, Michigan almost lost to a bad football team. They didn't

USC did. Twice.

Cannon Shell · #**169** 01-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Portland State Vikings.

Neil Lomax fan?

Cannon Shell · #**170** 01-05-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I agree with you there. Outcoached for certain, but I don't agree that it makes them a better football team.

the coach is part of the team

brianwspencer · #**171** 01-05-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Neil Lomax fan?

He's a legend out there, of course.

I wasn't around during his time so I can't say I'm a fan of his per se.

I've only been a Vikings fan since 2003 when I started going to school there, so he's about the only thing I know about them from before that time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

the coach is part of the team

you bet, but getting outcoached in a game doesn't by default indicate that your team is not better than the other team. it indicates that you done ****ed up.

Cannon Shell · #**172** 01-05-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I didn't forget that Ball State nearly beat them, it was an exciting game.

But like you said, they were “really close to losing”. Yes, Michigan almost lost to a bad football team. They didn't

USC did. Twice.

Embarassing may be a better word than exciting.

Surviving Ball State may be worse than losing close games to bowl teams.
Surviving Illinois is not something to be proud of.

We can compare schedules all we want but the truth is that USC finished with 2 losses and Michigan finished with 2 losses but USC BEAT Michigan pretty soundly and that is what counts.

Cannon Shell · #**173** 01-05-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

you bet, but getting outcoached in a game doesn't by default indicate that your team is not better than the other team. it indicates that you done ****ed up.

It wasn't the coach who was chasing Henne all over the place in the 3 rd quarter. It wasn't the coaches shutting Hart down. Jarrett does not coach though he did school the Michigan's DB's.

brianwspencer · #**174** 01-05-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It wasn't the coach who was chasing Henne all over the place in the 3rd quarter. It wasn't the coaches shutting Hart down. Jarrett does not coach though he did school the Michigan's DB's.

which once again brings us right back to the one really bad quarter.

they got outplayed, most obviously in the 3rd quarter. i'm not trying to say they deserved to win the game playing like that. i am just saying that that game was not a true representation of the Michigan squad of this season, and that Michigan is a better team than USC even though they were not in the Rose Bowl.

I mean, I watched it and everything people are saying here is stuff I've already seen. I saw them get outplayed. It's not news to me. It's simply an opinion based on a season-long analysis of Michigan vs. how USC fared this season.

No amount of rehashing it will make me think that USC is the better team just beacuse they won the other night -- just like we would not purport that Oregon State or UCLA are better teams than USC just because they won.

It was one game.