One has to wonder...

#1
jakez4ut

jakez4ut

Patience... It's what's for dinner
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
73,061
Likes
135,064
#1
i'm not one to say Pete Caroll is under acheiving by any stretch............but..............


given the overwhelming talent advantage they obviously have against the competition in their own conf, one woudl think that that at some point these losses to Or st, or stanford or who ever seems to be the lucky card that year, would end.

don't get me wrong he's a great coach....10+ wins for as long as i can remember, bcs bowls for as long as i can remember, and multiple Pac 10 titles.....

there's no argument, he's an elite coach...arguably one of the best programs ever......but man, these kind of losses.....they should have wiped the floor with the beavers.

oof.
 
#2
#2
As I just happened to say in the other thread, the problem with being Pete Carroll is this: how do you convince your team that you they can really, possibly lose a game like this? They're so much better than everybody else in the conference that they end up sleepwalking through most of these games. And if you do that, then clearly once or twice a year it's going to bite you.
 
#3
#3
Plus the new clock rules make things even more upset-friendly. Once the Beavers got that improbable should-have-been-picked TD to end the first half to go up 21-0, USC was really behind the 8 ball. They were only going to get five or so possessions in the 2nd half, which means that they had to score almost every time and stop OSU from scoring almost every time. Fewer possessions benefit the underdog because that makes a fluke more likely.

(Which is why I thought the CBS guys were stupid for complaining about Fulmer going for it on 4th and goal at the end of the half last Saturday. You're down 3 touchdowns; you're only going to get the ball about five more times; you haven't forced a punt yet. A field goal would have been useless there.)
 
#4
#4
^ Good analysis, there.

I've watched Pac-10 football all my life, and it's my #1 viewing priority in college football aside from Tennessee games. And Pete Carroll teams losing these games to the complete dogs of the conference is still as inexplicable as ever. Especially a year like this when the Pac-10 looks as bad as it does. My bet is they still go on, win the rest of their conf. games with another close call or two, and win the Rose Bowl, or maybe the national title if that's the way the dice roll.
 
#5
#5
I am one of the rare people who posts on this site who likes to watch Pac 10 football. I run a low-grade football pool, but that means that football Saturdays in my house usually have 8-10 people here all day, multiple TVs set up next to each other, two dozen pool sheets taped up on the wall, etc. We start at noon and go all day, so football for 13 straight hours, basically. (Requirement: at halftime of whatever game you're watching, you have to go outside and throw a football around for 20 min.) I always try to have the last game on the sheet be one of the Pac 10 games that starts at 10 pm EDT, because I just enjoy sitting down usually by myself and watching that last game after the horde leaves. So compared to the average SEC guy, I watch a pantload of Pac 10 football.

Is the football, generally, as good as the SEC? No. Is it to be dismissed, as most SEC partisans would argue? Hell no. Anyone who thinks that USC wouldn't hold its own in the SEC is either blind or willfully stupid.
 
#6
#6
^ Thanks for what I tried to say around here a few years ago... Non-conf scheduling in the SEC can sometimes be pitifully weak. And I'm not here to debate the SEC's scheduling practices. So if any of you bring that up, so help me god, your posts will get deleted faster than you can say cupcake.

Point being the only time SEC teams usually see varied stiff non-conf comp is during bowl season, which isn't really a good indicator of anything by itself.

Glad to see you're actually an SEC guy who watches Pac-10 ball, though. I see a lot of people talk smack on the Pac-10, even though I'd be willing to bet money that most people who do probably watch maybe one or two full Pac-10 games a year.

As I have to do after every post I make comparing the Pac-10 to the SEC: I hereby recognize that the SEC is clearly the best conference in all of college football, and I was not trying to imply that Pac-10 football is better in any way, shape and form than the SEC, yada yada yada...
 
#7
#7
Believe me, I like to watch Pac 10 football. After a grim and punishing day of SEC football games, with scores like 14-7 and 13-10 and 24-6 and so on, it's enjoyable to sit back with a few beers and watch an entirely different style. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO the big difference between the Pac 10 and the SEC is that in the Pac 10, the best athletes on both teams are all playing offense. In the SEC, the best athletes are frequently playing defense.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
milohimself said:
As I have to do after every post I make comparing the Pac-10 to the SEC: I hereby recognize that the SEC is clearly the best conference in all of college football, and I was not trying to imply that Pac-10 football is better in any way, shape and form than the SEC, yada yada yada...
Click to expand...

It's just a different animal. The problem is that people are unable to deal in anything other than absolutes. Yes, the SEC is generally the best conference in college football, but no, that doesn't mean that everybody else sucks. SEC partisans are way too quick to deny that anybody else can be any good at all. Which is ridiculous -- if that were the case, then how the hell did the Tebows lose to Michigan last January?
 
#9
#9
Vercingetorix said:
Believe me, I like to watch Pac 10 football. After a grim and punishing day of SEC football games, with scores like 14-7 and 13-10 and 24-6 and so on, it's enjoyable to sit back with a few beers and watch an entirely different style. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO the big difference between the Pac 10 and the SEC is that in the Pac 10, the best athletes on both teams are all playing offense. In the SEC, the best athletes are frequently playing defense.
Click to expand...
Pretty much true. Bruisers play defense; the all-world athletes play running back and WR. That, and up until a few years ago, the Pac-10 collectively had far and away the most sophisticated offenses in college football. I'm sure you noticed in years like '04 and '05, watching Pac-10 games after watching the rest of them around the country, the offensive playcalling as a whole was on a completely different level.

They didn't always succeed in non-conf games, and that's because the Pac-10 has so much less home-grown talent than every other BCS conference. Only two teams in the whole conference (USC and UCLA) have a bevy of talent coming out of high schools in their backyard every year -- A trait shared by no other conference in the country.
 
#11
#11
I think what you are seeing is a symptom of success. I believe this same thing has happened to Fulmer over the years. A new coach comes in full of piss and vinegar eager to make his mark at the university. They build a team the right way disciplined and well coached. They put everything they have as a coach into it, and they have success, win a championship or two and recruiting gets easier.

Once they start getting the recruits they get a little lax because they know their talent should beat the other teams talent every time. But then comes along a well coached team full of heart and emotion and after a well schemed game tyhe better talent is beaten on the field. You see it happen a lot these days.
 
#12
#12
I think it's pretty simple. SC goes and plays these out of conference teams and they are scared s---less of them. The pac-10 teams are not. This is why SC has problems with the pac-10. That and maybe hte pac-10 isn't as bad as you boys think it is.
 
#13
#13
droski said:
I think it's pretty simple. SC goes and plays these out of conference teams and they are scared s---less of them. The pac-10 teams are not. This is why SC has problems with the pac-10. That and maybe hte pac-10 isn't as bad as you boys think it is.
Click to expand...
Familiarity of personnel and schemes helps.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
droski said:
I think it's pretty simple. SC goes and plays these out of conference teams and they are scared s---less of them. The pac-10 teams are not. This is why SC has problems with the pac-10. That and maybe hte pac-10 isn't as bad as you boys think it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Pac 10 is awful; I just think the gap between USC and everybody else in the conference is too wide to keep the players fully engaged.

USC has won or shared six conference championships in a row. That's like being both Ohio State AND Michigan in the Big 10. It's no wonder that they keep it in neutral for half their conference games.
 
#15
#15
Vercingetorix said:
I don't think the Pac 10 is awful; I just think the gap between USC and everybody else in the conference is too wide to keep the players fully engaged.

USC has won or shared six conference championships in a row. That's like being both Ohio State AND Michigan in the Big 10. It's no wonder that they keep it in neutral for half their conference games.
Click to expand...
very insightful.
 
#16
#16
Vercingetorix said:
I don't think the Pac 10 is awful; I just think the gap between USC and everybody else in the conference is too wide to keep the players fully engaged.

USC has won or shared six conference championships in a row. That's like being both Ohio State AND Michigan in the Big 10. It's no wonder that they keep it in neutral for half their conference games.
Click to expand...

ohio state has won something like 4 straight big-10 championships.
 
#18
#18
^ Crude way to put it, but pretty much. Other than Ohio State and Michigan, the next best power over recent history is thought to be Kirk Ferentz's Iowa team, and they've proven to be a total fraud.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top