[utk1976]

Originally Posted by jaymode

Yea he is still going to be quarter back, pretty much before he even returned had the position of starting qb, imo. His competition for the spot was not that great unless we had some awesome recruits(which I will say we did get a lot of the top recruits in VA, but no qb's that would be able to come in and be good enough). Sean Glennon the backup last year will probably stay at backup or may even take a backseat to Cory Holt, a guy that is not talked about as much but is really good. He is really athletic, and probably better than Glennon.

Okay, I've got a VT question. What the heck is that thing on the side of Frank Beamer's face? I'm not cracking on him, I'm just curious. Was he badly burned or something?

[Grassroots082]

Originally Posted by utk1976

Okay, I've got a VT question. What the heck is that thing on the side of Frank Beamer's face? I'm not cracking on him, I'm just curious. Was he badly burned or something?

Looks like he got burnt real bad, just my guess.

[jaymode]

Originally Posted by Grassroots082

Looks like he got burnt real bad, just my guess.

I am not really sure either, but that would be my guess.

THe funny thing is, is when he appears in person it does not look as bad as it does on TV. I did not notice it when I saw him speak in front of the students for a pep rally thing but definitely saw it on tv, its weird.

[utk1976]

Originally Posted by Iron Warrior

Ah you lucky bastard. USC is just too unbelievable. Luckily, Tedford has produced great college QB's (Akili Smith, Trent Dilfer, Joey Harrington, Aaron Rogers) so I hope losign Rogers won't be so damaging, and Marshawn Lynch is gonna tear it up.

Someone will probably take a run at me for saying this, but here goes... USC is the new Miami. They play in a weak, underpowered conference with no real competition other than Cal (who they almost lost to). Also, their non-conference opponents are typically weak. V. Tech was the exception last year - and Tech came very close to winning that game.

If USC had to play in the Big 12, Big 10, the new ACC, or the SEC, they wouldn't enjoy the same success. In those conferences you play a quality team almost every week, and injuries are more prevalent. USC only plays about 4 "big games" a year - and the rest are just cupcakes.

That's my $.02.

[yankees3]

Originally Posted by utk1976

Someone will probably take a run at me for saying this, but here goes... USC is the new Miami. They play in a weak, underpowered conference with no real competition other than Cal (who they almost lost to). Also, their non-conference opponents are typically weak. V. Tech was the exception last year - and Tech came very close to winning that game.

If USC had to play in the Big 12, Big 10, the new ACC, or the SEC, they wouldn't enjoy the same success. In those conferences you play a quality team almost every week, and injuries are more prevalent. USC only plays about 4 "big games" a year - and the rest are just cupcakes.

That's my $.02.

I agree about the conference thing but they're destroying people in bowl games. Maybe it would be a little different if they played in a conference like the Big 10 where teams spend all season pounding the snot out of each other and the competition is so fierce everyone can beat anyone on any given week.

[Iron Warrior]

Originally Posted by utk1976

Someone will probably take a run at me for saying this, but here goes... USC is the new Miami. They play in a weak, underpowered conference with no real competition other than Cal (who they almost lost to). Also, their non-conference opponents are typically weak. V. Tech was the exception last year - and Tech came very close to winning that game.

If USC had to play in the Big 12, Big 10, the new ACC, or the SEC, they wouldn't enjoy the same success. In those conferences you play a quality team almost every week, and injuries are more prevalent. USC only plays about 4 "big games" a year - and the rest are just cupcakes.

That's my $.02.

True, they're in a conference where only Cal and possibly Oregon or Washington can be good from time to time. They still SLAUGHTERED Oklahoma when it counted most. They're recruiting classes are almost too good to be true as well, they're finally doing what the other California schools couldn't do which is keep all the top California athletes in the state

[utk1976]

Originally Posted by Iron Warrior

True, they're in a conference where only Cal and possibly Oregon or Washington can be good from time to time. They still SLAUGHTERED Oklahoma when it counted most. They're recruiting classes are almost too good to be true as well, they're finally doing what the other California schools couldn't do which is keep all the top California athletes in the state

I agree completely that they destroyed OU. Recruiting has been and will be the cornerstone of USC's success. I don't think P. Carroll is some sort of coaching genius - he and his staff just recruit like crazy. Cali is talent-rich. I know that the Vols mine SoCal as much as possible (perhaps to their detriment -----> Casey Clausen). In the bowl game USC was soooo much faster than OU, and that's something that you can't coach.

But let me ask you this...would you be willing to trade USC's schedule for an SEC schedule? (or ACC, Big 10, etc.) I have the Vols' schedule right in front of me... It starts out like this...

1. Alabama- Birmingham: Easy
2. Florida: ?
3. LSU: ?
4. Ole Miss ?
5. Georgia ?

Other than UAB, there's not an easy win in there. Now for USC:

1. Hawaii
2. Arkansas
3. Oregon
4. Az. State
5. AZ

See my point?

[lvtrojan]

Originally Posted by utk1976

Someone will probably take a run at me for saying this, but here goes... USC is the new Miami. They play in a weak, underpowered conference with no real competition other than Cal (who they almost lost to). Also, their non-conference opponents are typically weak. V. Tech was the exception last year - and Tech came very close to winning that game.

If USC had to play in the Big 12, Big 10, the new ACC, or the SEC, they wouldn't enjoy the same success. In those conferences you play a quality team almost every week, and injuries are more prevalent. USC only plays about 4 "big games" a year - and the rest are just cupcakes.

That's my $.02.

I'm someone...

USC:

2002 - auburn, @ colorado, @ kansas st., ND
2003 - @ auburn, @ ND, BYU, Hawaii
2004 - @ VTech, @ BYU, colo st., ND

Last year Oklahoma played bowling green, houston, and oregon ALL at home. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, citadel (WTF!), and louisiana tech ALL at home. No freaking way can you say that SC plays a weak OOC, compared to the other BCS teams.

All conferences go through up and down years. Last year the Pac 10 was down. It will improve: new coaches all over the place.

And dont give that crap about "if SC played in this conference or that conference" , Oklahoma, Iowa, and Michigan all had plenty of time to rest before getting their asses stomped.

[utk1976]

Originally Posted by lvtrojan

I'm someone...

USC:

2002 - auburn, @ colorado, @ kansas st., ND
2003 - @ auburn, @ ND, BYU, Hawaii
2004 - @ VTech, @ BYU, colo st., ND

Last year Oklahoma played bowling green, houston, and oregon ALL at home. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, citadel (WTF!), and louisiana tech ALL at home. No freaking way can you say that SC plays a weak OOC, compared to the other BCS teams.

All conferences go through up and down years. Last year the Pac 10 was down. It will improve: new coaches all over the place.

And dont give that crap about "if SC played in this conference or that conference" , Oklahoma, Iowa, and Michigan all had plenty of time to rest before getting their asses stomped.

I'm not really sure that Hawaii and BYU are all that great, but okay. Also, I agree that conferences are up and down from year to year and that the P10 will get better. Plus it's tough to know how good an opponent will be when you finally play, since the games are scheduled a year or two in advance. In a roundabout way, you reveal a larger issue regarding non-conference games. Since strength of schedule was removed from the BCS calculation, there's no real motivation for teams to schedule big-time DI opponents as their non-con games. This is illustrated by your point that Auburn and OU also played weak non-con teams. Bro, if it were up to me a team would be penalized for scheduling LaTech or Citadel. Hell, why not just roll out the local high school team and play them.

Also, I think that there's too much of a penalty for losing on the road against good teams. Two years ago my Vols lost at Auburn after being a TD favorite. That was an Auburn team that Jesus and ten of his buddies couldn't beat that day.

I'm not sure I follow re: OU, Iowa, and Michigan having time to rest but still losing. My point was that USC had a luxury last year that most teams didn't in that they could build a 1st half lead and then let the scrubs play. Also, there was no need to come with full-on, do-or-die, balls-to-the-walls intensity every week. In contrast, the Big10 for example is a meat-grinder every single week with no let-up.

[lvtrojan]

Originally Posted by utk1976

I'm not really sure that Hawaii and BYU are all that great, but okay. Also, I agree that conferences are up and down from year to year and that the P10 will get better. Plus it's tough to know how good an opponent will be when you finally play, since the games are scheduled a year or two in advance. In a roundabout way, you reveal a larger issue regarding non-conference games. Since strength of schedule was removed from the BCS calculation, there's no real motivation for teams to schedule big-time DI opponents as their non-con games. This is illustrated by your point that Auburn and OU also played weak non-con teams. Bro, if it were up to me a team would be penalized for scheduling LaTech or Citadel. Hell, why not just roll out the local high school team and play them.

Also, I think that there's too much of a penalty for losing on the road against good teams. Two years ago my Vols lost at Auburn after being a TD favorite. That was an Auburn team that Jesus and ten of his buddies couldn't beat that day.

I'm not sure I follow re: OU, Iowa, and Michigan having time to rest but still losing. My point was that USC had a luxury last year that most teams didn't in that they could build a 1st half lead and then let the scrubs play. Also, there was no need to come with full-on, do-or-die, balls-to-the-walls intensity every week. In contrast, the Big10 for example is a meat-grinder every single week with no let-up.

We pretty much agree then.

I still think their is some motivation to schedule decent teams in that the AP and ESPN polls are major BCS factors, and you will earn points/votes for beating better teams.

The other point i was trying to make is that SC has beaten the best of the Big 10 and Big 12, when they should have been reasonably at full strength and not beaten up from conference play, thats all.

[BOHICA]

Originally Posted by Iron Warrior

Cal Bears right here. Hopefully they can get over USC this year.

Texas Tech right here... they gotta get over us too!!

[BOHICA]

Originally Posted by lvtrojan

I'm someone...

USC:

2002 - auburn, @ colorado, @ kansas st., ND
2003 - @ auburn, @ ND, BYU, Hawaii
2004 - @ VTech, @ BYU, colo st., ND

Last year Oklahoma played bowling green, houston, and oregon ALL at home. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, citadel (WTF!), and louisiana tech ALL at home. No freaking way can you say that SC plays a weak OOC, compared to the other BCS teams.

All conferences go through up and down years. Last year the Pac 10 was down. It will improve: new coaches all over the place.

And dont give that crap about "if SC played in this conference or that conference" , Oklahoma, Iowa, and Michigan all had plenty of time to rest before getting their asses stomped.

Not saying that OU and Michigan would have beaten USC, especially since OU seemed really weak in normal games that werent big in their books. But if USC was in a conference with better competition, to where its a dogfight every game to get a winner, then things might be different at the end of the season.

[ryansm]

California has great talent, and as long as USC gets those players then they will dominate. I do believe though that Texas, and Florida are more "fertile" when it comes to talent. All of the Florida teams demonstrate this, and every team in the big 12 has mainly Texas athletes on their rosters.

The pac-10 has been weak, but it is one of the dominate conferences, just look at their past. Although I don't agree with the lack of a conference championship game, which would have been nice if Cal played USC again. Things may have been different.

[Iron Warrior]

BTW, look for the PAC-10 to remain weak besides Cal and USC because they aren't gonna let the California kids go to Oregon, Washington, Washington St, Arizona St, or Oregon St anymore.

[jaymode]

this probably should be in a different thread, but I for one would rather have a playoff system like DI-AA and others have rather than the bowl game championship crap.

[Iron Warrior]

Originally Posted by jaymode

this probably should be in a different thread, but I for one would rather have a playoff system like DI-AA and others have rather than the bowl game championship crap.

Everyone would agree with you except the fat cats that run the NCAA. I'd say the top 8 teams play in a playoff, the next controversy would be how do we decide who advances to the play-offs