"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« The Resourceman returneth | Main | Week nine weekend thoughts »

Week nine Saturday live thread

Talk amongst yourselves...

  • Oklahoma/Nebraska
  • USC/WSU & Texas/Oklahoma State, and aftermath of VT/B.C.
  • Georgia/Florida, sans Shockley
  • Michigan/Northwestern
  • Whatever else is on your mind

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (36)


Oh I know. It's because USC plays in the weak Pac10.....
October 29, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterUSCDynasty
I will alugh violently if Texas loses to Ok State. They are down 28-9 right now.
October 29, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterStephen Kim
it's actually a bummer to see a team like UGA's season get ruined because of a QB injury.

How bout that Tennessee game tho? LOL... love that SEC, always good for a laugh.
October 29, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterPaxil
lol Paxil...the SEC has produced some of the worse games all season long...UF/UT...UT/bama...UGA/UF...I guess you could include UT/USC and UGA/USC as well.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered Commentercsc
I, for one, thought that UCLA-Stanford was the worst game I've seen this year. Sure there was an exciting ending, but it showed the worst of what Pac-10 football is. After seeing their 21-point lead cut to 7, Stanford proceeded to THROW THE BALL with under three minutes remaining TWICE!!!! Not only were these throws unsuccessful, but they also allowed UCLA to stop the clock and save their last two time outs. How big of a deal could that 50-60 seconds have been? You tell me. UCLA scored the tying touchdown with 46 seconds left. Maybe you think 6-3 is ugly football, but I think that being fucking retarded is pretty ugly too.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterCody
but the pac10 does present the opportunity to see the forward pass.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterPaxil
Yeah. Who did that Furd coach think he was playing? An SEC team? He would have gotten away with his stupidity.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterUSCDynasty
"The Pac-10 does present the opportunity to see the forward pass." That's true. I actually wasn't sure it was legal when I first saw the guy throw the ball all the way down the field. I was shocked, having only seen the ball in the air on the option pitch.

Seriously, doesn't it speak volumes that a Pac-10 team with a touchdown lead and a chance to run out the clock feels like it needs to score again? "Well, if we run the ball three times, make them burn their timeouts, and punt it to them with 1:30 left, that's way too much time for our defense to hold." Is that the thought process? It has to be. And that, my friend, is why the Pac-10 is perceived to not play defense. That, and the fact that people who started watching football 10 years ago want it to be like steroid-infused baseball: all scoring all the time. That's not football. That's offense. I wish someone would understand that there's a lot more to the game than that.

Oh and USCDynasty, all the more reason to run the ball, because a Pac-10 defense would scratch their heads and try to rush the QB anyway. Did you watch your Trojans against ASU? How could USC run all over a defense that KNEW exactly what was coming? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with them being an excellent running football team. I'm not saying that they aren't good at running the football, but any remotely quality defense could have stopped the Trojans from scoring again. Maybe they would have gotten some first downs and run out the clock, but it was pretty disgusting to watch them get paved so easily.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterCody

"I'm not saying that they aren't good at running the football, but any remotely quality defense could have stopped the Trojans from scoring again."

Yeah, right. Good luck stopping the Trojans any time, let alone when it's crunch time. Those guys are just too good to be stopped. I'm assuming your post was just a gross exageration and that you must not really believe that quoted portion.

"How could USC run all over a defense that KNEW exactly what was coming? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with them being an excellent running football team. "

Actually, I think it has a LOT to do with exactly that. LenDale White + Reggie Bush + Great OL + Constant threat of beating you deep with the pass = Excellent Running Team

Not one of your better posts in my opinion. USC is a quick strike offense, on the ground and through the air. I'm sure there were a dozen better examples than this one to prove your point, you should have tried to come up with one of them.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterGinn Fan
Cody, I just want address one point you brought up.

Seriously, doesn't it speak volumes that a Pac-10 team with a touchdown lead and a chance to run out the clock feels like it needs to score again?

Stanford got a 5 yard penalty on 1st down I believe it was (correct me if it was 2nd down, I was listening to it on the radio after the USC game). Ucla on the previous couple series' had absolutely stuffed the Stanford running game because they KNEW Stanford was gonna run. Stanford had no chance. The Stanford defense was DONE, and the coaches knew it, so they decided their best chance to win was to try and pick up a first down passing than run it into the line 3 times, they knew 15 yards was too much to try and pick up on the ground. Ucla's offense had already scored the previous 2 possessions in less than 2 minutes on each. Everyone in the world knew if ucla got the ball back, it would be TD ucla because as I said, stanford's defense was toast. So run 3 times and get stuffed, then give up a TD, or pass and fail and give up a TD, or pass and try to get a 1st down. The passing in this situation had the biggest upside. Stanford was definitely not trying to score again, they just needed the 1st down.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterPaxil
SEC is funny.
October 30, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterStephen Kim
My point about USC is that in that scenario, there was no threat of getting beat deep. SC had been in a battle, and were in position to hold on for the win. I don't care who you are playing, if you only have to play the run you should be able to keep them out of the end zone. Maybe they are a great running team that would have grinded out first downs, but letting them bust a big run on only the second play was pretty weak in my mind.

Paxil, what are you talking about? If my defense is done, and if my offense is struggling, then I want seconds off of the clock more than anything. As it was, UCLA would have not had enough time if they had been forced to burn their timeouts. I'll give you a break since you didn't see it, but the throws that Stanford attempted weren't going to get 15 yards, either. There is no excuse for not milking the clock right there, other than the fact that you play in a league where a one touchdown lead with less than 100 seconds left is not enough to win. Stanford losing that game is a disgrace.
October 31, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterCody

I would disagree with your statement that there was no threat of ASU getting beat deep in that situation. SC was up by what, 3 points? Unlike SEC offenses, SC has tremendous pass-run balance. Plus, their passing game is so high-percentage that there isn't nearly as much risk of the clock stopping as there would be for an SEC team. Completions move the clock just as well as running plays.

Up only 3, SC would have no problem throwing the ball. ASU couldn't afford to just sit on the run. And, even if they had, Reggie Bush and LenDale White have proven that they are ALWAYS a threat to take it to the house on ANY play, regardless of the defense.
October 31, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterGinn Fan

You make it seem like a foregone conclusion that the clock would have ran out on UCLA. It's hard to assume anything because UCLA would have called different plays in different situations. If you watched the game you would know that UCLA came close to a TD with like 2 mins left if it weren't for pass interference saving Stanford from giving up a TD.

Point is that most Pac-10 offenses are good enough score TDs with a min or less.

In the SEC, a team might need 5-10 mins of game clock to go 80 yards for a TD, but in the Pac-10 it's a different game.

Because of this, the idea of passing the ball to get first downs and run even more clock makes sense rather than running the ball 3 straight times and automatically punting with about 2 mins or so left on the clock.

In the Pac-10 teams are aggressive with the lead because they want to control their own fate instead of relying on the clock to win them the game.
October 31, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterStephen Kim

Your posts show that you really don't understand the sophisticated offenses that one encounters in the Pac 10. The best offenses in the Pac 10 are usually balanced---just as capable at running the ball as passing it. The running and passing games have a cumulative effect that is greater than the sum of their parts. For example, you can't stack the line in "obvious" run situations like third and short when the offense is willing and able to throw to get the first down---or more. Likewise, if you play the pass on third and long, backs like Reggie Bush, Marshawn Lynch and Maurice Drew-Jones will make you wish the forward pass were illegal because it's not fair to the defense.

Fans of other conferences keep contending that Pac 10 offenses only look good because the defenses are so bad. I wish someone would spell out for me the regular pattern of Pac 10 teams getting torched by non-conference foes that would support such a contention.
October 31, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterTorBear
Oregon State/Louisville not withstanding...
October 31, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterPaxil
Torbear, ask and you shall receive. Note that I am not a fan of other conferences, just a fan of accuracy.

It is difficult to quantify, but Pac 10 defenses seem to have poor performances in non-conference games to a greater degree than teams in other conferences.

For example, in last year's Holiday Bowl, Cal had a shot to show the nation they belonged in the Rose Bowl, and shot themselves in the face, giving up 520 passing yds to Texas Tech. Keep in mind that playing the balanced offenses in the Pac 10, they gave up an average of 222 yds/game passing last season, and the most any Pac-10 team gained against them passing was 328 yards.

Additionally, in the season opener last season, UCLA gave up 426 yards rushing to Oklahoma State. UCLA had a poor rush D last season, but no other team they played came within 100 yards of this number--and neither did Oklahoma State.

Boise gained 492 yards against a strong Oregon State D last season. No Pac-10 team came close to this number, and only Cal and USC managed as many as 400 yards. The Pac 10 as a whole averaged 322 ypg against the Oregon St D.

In 2003, SEC doormat Miss St (finished 2-10) scored 34 pts and gained 409 yds in the season opener against Oregon (finished 8-5). In SEC play, MSU averaged 12 ppg and 264 ypg that season.

In 1999, Pac 10 Champ Stanford gave up 25 ppg and 437 ypg in conference play (the fact that they won a conference championship with those numbers are enough of an embarrassment in and of itself); in their non-conference games against a 5-6 ND team, a 9-5 Texas team, and a 3-7 San Jose State team, they gave up averages of 50 ppg and 496 ypg.

I could go on (1998, Pac-10 champ UCLA's D playing like shit v. Miami, and also against Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl; 1992, Wheatley going for 235 yards on 15 carries), but I think my point is made.
November 1, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterSolon
Solon Yeah. I can do that too. Arkansas had a chance to show what SEC D is all about against USC. they gave up 70 points. 736 yards, 291 on the ground.
Iowa had a chance to show us what Smashmouth football is all about. They did against ASU last year to the tune of 7-44.

OK I need to go no further. The point is I can pick 5 select games with select teams and select this or that stat to make any conference look good or look rotton. You can claim you're only interested in accuracy all you want. But selecting out few select games from few select teams and portraying those as indicative is anything but accurate.

Cody: Are you aware that SC piled up 190 more yards on the ground against ASU than their average? It wasn't all ASU.

November 1, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterUSCDynasty
Sorry. Their average meaning ASU's average given up not our average.
November 1, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterUSCDynasty
USC Dynasty, I was answering Torbear's question. I don't know if he asked it straight or it was rhetorical, but I answered it regardless.

The difference is that I used examples of the first division teams from the Pac 10, and your (one) example is a joke of the SEC. In the case of Cal, Stanford and the UCLA/Washington examples I didn't expound upon, those were teams that were allegedly among the tops in the nation and the best in the conference (all but Cal was a conference champ, and Cal outplayed the conference champ in a loss on the road).

Is that retort all you have? I mean, Arkansas? They are 0-4 in the conference and rooted firmly to the bottom of the standings. Do you think your example proves a point about SEC defenses? Yeah, their D is really tearing up the conference, being ranked 11th out of 12 teams. I'm sure they are who everyone is talking about when they are talking about how good the defenses are in the SEC.

Also, you might not have noticed it, but USC is averaging 617 ypg in the Pac 10, and 577 ypg in non-conference games--and it's a pretty modest slate of non-conference games outside ND. Just another example of those dominant Pac-10 defenses stepping it up.
November 1, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterSolon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.