Posted on 01/03/2006 8:36:04 PM PST by BurbankKarl
Edited on 01/04/2006 2:22:49 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
"I do have to say that ALL the players from both teams with the exception of the USC quarterback were very pleasant after the game."
I turned off the game immediately after the clock ran out, so I don't know what I missed with the USC QB.
Did he whine about something?
Agreed -- SC could just have easily lost to ND and beaten Texas.
Yeah, he didn't take too kindly to the loss! He said, paraphrasing here, that they were STILL the BETTER team...go figure! He should have kept his lips shut instead, now he'll be known as the SOUR GRAPES kid!
Not to take away from USC's impressive winning streak, but history will look back at 2003-2005 and see this:
2003 Louisiana State 13-1, USC 12-1
2004 USC 13-0, Auburn 13-0
2005 Texas 13-0, USC 12-1
While it is a good run, it by no mean looks like "the greatest team of all time" and hardly "indisputed".
Mike, mail your playoff system idea to the BCS now!
BTW, congrats to the 4th different team from the Big 8/XII to win a National Championship in the last 15 years. (Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska three times)
'Tiny' 12, indeed.
"Bottom line, USC wasn't playing in the PAC-10 for this game." Don't give me the PAC 10 baloney. SC beat Big 10 teams the past two years. They could just as easily have won this game. They beat themselves.
correction -- big 12
lol!!
Did not know that!
I didn't see the interview walking off the field, but I read that it went something like:
"We're the better team, but they made all the plays..."
Later on in the locker room (while Texas was celebrating on the field), he said "Texas didn't win, we lost."
Our sports radio in KC is saying Carroll said something similar, which I'd like to see in print before believing.
All replays in ceollege originate from and are decided in the booth. However, Carroll should have called a timeout in order to give the booth a chance. Some are saying that it had something to do with a malfunction with the equipment. Oh well, it cost us an INT, too. Hook 'Em.
"He should have kept his lips shut instead, now he'll be known as the SOUR GRAPES kid!" Then he and Vince are even. Did you hear Vince's comments about the Heisman ?
If Young is projected anywhere near the top 15 then he needs to go now. With Vick regressing and McNabb going through his issues, running QBs are losing their luster in the NFL.
Unless he turns into Peyton Manning over the summer, he is never going to valued any higher than right now. Winning the Heisman is ok, but it doesn't give you any NFL value (ask Jason White) and it isn't the honor that it used to be.
>SC beat Big 10 teams the past two years<
That's supposed to mean something?
While Reggie Bush did not have a bad game (80+ yards rushing against a fast defense, 1 TD), I think he is fortunate they don't vote on the Heisman after the season.
Yeah -- it means this isn't a "conference" thing. You had two outstanding, undefeated teams. The played a helluva game and one came out on top. The suggestion that USC lost because their opponent wasn't in the Pac 10 is BS. If USC's status were merely the result of a weak conference, as he is suggesting, they wouldn't have won the last 2 years in non-conference games and national championship games and they wouldn't have lost by a mere 3 points in a game that could have easily gone the other way.
Could be. Michael Vick put on quite a show for VT a few years back. And he has yet to blossom as an NFL great. Young is tall and lanky. If he faced the Chiacgo bears right now, he would probably leave on a stretcher.
Fair enough -- but the same could be said for Leinart in the 2003 season when he lost to the Oklahoma QB -- but you didn't see Leinart bitching then. And Leinart voted for Young above himself this year (but put Reggie first, of course.) Young was, indeed, impressive in this game.
I cut you some slack...but now you have entered the "crying" phase.
PAC-10 finished this season with TWO teams in the top TWENTY. One of them (Oregon which was 10-1 in the PAC-10) was beaten by a 7-4 Oklahoma team. USC also lost its' bowl game. The SEC has 5 teams in the top twenty and TRHEE in the top ten.
Two years ago, USC beat Oklahoma for title, AFTER Oklahoma lost in the conference championship by a score of 45-6. USC didn't have to play LSU for the title, they had to play Oklahoma which had just lost 45-6. (LSU you will note was voted champ by one of the polls, and LSU beat Miami in the bowl this year by a score of 40-3)
Last year, USC again played Oklahoma, and BEAT them like a drum...USC didn't have to play an unbeaten Auburn...they had to play OK, which went 7-4 this year, but did beat a 10-1 Pac-10 team in the bowl.
If you want to defend the PAC-10, you need to look at where the conference is ranked overall, and particularly in defense..
No doubt -- but the vote was for the whole season.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.