Nebraska was ranked 14 coming into the game, then they play Oregon (19), California (8) and UCLA (11)

doesnt seem like a terribly easy schedule to me

Well, those East cost sports writers aren't entirely wrong. The PAC-9 is pretty bad.

Nebraska stinks and UCLA isn't a legitimate Top 25 team (like Nebraska, UCLA will be well out of the top 25 within a few weeks).

Oregon, at a generous 19, big deal.

Cal, we'll have to see. But even assuming they are legit, that's one game.

SEC teams have to fight for blood week in and week out. No cupcake/JC schedule like SUC.

SUC's schedule is terribly easy.

You may be right, doesn't SC play some Colorado team?

Edit.
Oops, just checked and it looks like Colorado is lucky and doesn't play USC.

Wasn't SC heavily favored vs. UCLA last year? ;)

http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/n..._logo_2003.gif

Didn't UCLA get destroyed last night?

Speaking of competition (or the lack of it), what do you know about a school called middle tennesee state?

If you want to compare schedules and claim that USC has it easy, compare it to #2. They already played the only team on the schedule that is ranked (WV), the rest are ...... well they aren't exactly contenders.

I sure do. They faired similarly to #9 VT in death valley. 44-0 for MTSU. 48-7 for VT, and that touchdown was a gift. I really don't think you wan't to stick your chest out about a PAC 10 schedule. The Tigers will face 6 or 8 ranked opponents while the condoms face 3 at best. The Tigers may face more top 10 opponents than the PAC 10 has ranked opponents. I think Coach Les Mile said it pretty well.

"I can tell you this, that they have a much easier road to travel." "They're going to play real knockdown drag-outs with UCLA and Washington, Cal-Berkley, Stanford -- some real juggernauts -- and they're going to end up, it would be my guess, in some position so if they win a game or two, that they'll end up in the title (game). I would like that path for us.

"I think the SEC provides much stiffer competition."

"I don't think there's any conference out there that has as many quality teams as ours."

Don't believe me, ask #9 Louisville if the SEC is tough.

I am not discounting that the SEC is very good, but Louisville almost lost to middle Tennessee state last week so losing to kentucky isnt really all that suprising

So is it only schools that you guys went to that you get all feisty about (my conference is bette than yours)? Or do you adopt a team and go from there? And did you go to a big Division 1 school? I'm always curious because I have never gotten into the "rah rah, my school rules" thing that I see some of my friends and colleagues do. My ex roommate did his undergrad at U of F, and he was an insane Gator fan. I went to a Div 3 school, then essentially a Division zero school, so maybe I just missed the whole experience. Then again, I also hated the greeks at my school, so I might just not be wired that way...

My allegiances start at the Pacific Ocean, I pretty much like everyone west of the Colorado River, if none of them are playing I move to west of the Mississippi, if none of them are there I watch bowling.

Did every player that was suited up for SC get to play the second half against that team?

During the USC game thay showed a graph & a map of voting for #1, don't know the source. LSU had about 4X as many votes as USC & the only "red" states were CA, WA, OR.

I saw that, in football it is the West Coast against the other 47 states. I know you guys hate it because USC is so good.

I remember when USC was so good that they lost to Texas in a national championship game, on their home turf. I don't remember them playing in the title game last year, but I'm sure I won't see them in it this year either. Overrated. The SEC is where it's at. However, whoever wins the conference is going to have one helluva ball game to play when they meet Oklahoma in New Orleans.;)

Not an OU fan.SmileWavy

Don't quote me on these numbers but IIRC, the first year Carrol took over at USC they went 6 and 6.
since then they've gone something like 62 and 6 with about 32 home game wins in a row.

According to wiki:
USC Trojans Football started in 1888 and has amassed an all-time won-loss record of 732-299-54, giving the program a .700 winning percentage. A December 1998 SPORT magazine ranking listed USC as the No. 4 all-time college football program of the 20th century.

The USC Football team has been voted National Champions 11 times. USC is also known for its Heisman Trophy winners. With the awarding of the 2005 Heisman to Reggie Bush, USC, Notre Dame and Ohio State (as of 2007) are tied for the most Heisman winners at 7. Three of the last five Heisman winners have been Trojans - Reggie Bush (drafted shortly after by the New Orleans Saints) in 2005, Matt Leinart (drafted shortly after Bush by the Arizona Cardinals) in 2004, and Carson Palmer (now with the Cincinnati Bengals) in 2002. Four other Trojan tailbacks have won the coveted Heisman Trophy as college football’s outstanding player: Mike Garrett in 1965, O.J. Simpson in 1968, Charles White in 1979 and Marcus Allen in 1981. Also notable, USC has the most players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame with 11. USC’s record against Pac-10 opponents is 367-153-29 (.695), and the Trojans have winning records against all nine other members.

Since 1959, the Trojans have won the conference championship 17 times and tied for the title on 6 other occasions. USC has the nation’s fourth best bowl winning percentage (.643) among the 65 schools which have made at least 10 bowl appearances and its 30 Rose Bowl appearances is an all-time best. USC players have been named first team All-American 129 times, with 44 consensus selections and 22 unanimous choices.

Yeah, they are over-rated and they suck.


BTW I'm not a USC fan. I just enjoy football and respect a winning program.

It is too bad the BCS had to emasculate the Rose Bowl, the Grand Daddy of the Bowls, the Bowl to watch on New Years Day, but they just couldn't handle California having it so made it into just some bowl game. USC and the Rose Bowl, or UCLA and the Rose Bowl, not some other who knows team in the Rose Bowl.

You don't happen to be the commissioner of the PAC 10, do you? He has nearly the same opinion, and is currently the strongest opponent to a making the 4 current BCS games into a playoff, and adding a 5th national championship game.

My question, who really gives a f-? So if USC is playing a bowl game for the national championship, the other team has to come to the Rose Bowl? I don't understand why people in CA have such a hard-on for the Rose Bowl. If USC is playing for the national championship, do they have to do it at home?

Matt...perhaps just a wee bit of tradition? Do you know where the first bowl game ever was held, what it was called? Lemme give you a hint...it wasn't Wichita, and it wasn't called the corn bowl....

I know you guys love it 'cause you play a bunch of weak limp wristed teams.

USC doesn't suck and they are over rated. Because of the size of their market they get every benefit of the doubt. Sportswriters tend to be based either on the west coast or the northeast, neither region very friendly to the south. Remember, the NCAA Championship is decided by votes, not a contest. Some years it reminds me of being chosen for a Jr. High cheer leading squad. Auburn goes undefeated & doesn't get a shot at the title? How many PAC 10 teams could go undefeated in the SEC?

Maybe you missed Coach Miles quotes so I'll post them again:

"I can tell you this, that they have a much easier road to travel." "They're going to play real knockdown drag-outs with UCLA and Washington, Cal-Berkley, Stanford -- some real juggernauts -- and they're going to end up, it would be my guess, in some position so if they win a game or two, that they'll end up in the title (game). I would like that path for us.

"I think the SEC provides much stiffer competition."

"I don't think there's any conference out there that has as many quality teams as ours."