<h2>The sanctions won’t hit USC this year ~ jbusc</h2>
<p>Not being able to play in a bowl game is a pretty big deal. So regardless of how they perform, they can’t go anywhere.</p>
<p>The Big East is wide open, WVU/Pitt/Cinci.</p>
<p>Pitt is favored, but they have a very real chance of opening up 1-2, then one gimmie game, then ND. Not a good way to start your season. Starting your conference play at 2-3 is tough to fight back from, but they definitly have some talent stuffed in their rented facilities.</p>
<p>WVU returns the most starters, has a very solid defense and one of the best running backs in the country. However they have an inexperienced QB. If Geno Smith (QB) turns out to be a solid player, WV could have a very strong team.</p>
<p>Either way, I will be down to Baton Rouge, LA in September for the LSU V. WVU game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mean, affect the team’s performance this season (unless you believe they’ll be disspirited)</p>
<p>Most USC jr/sr are thinking NFL draft, not bowl games, so except for the ones who left due to lack of playing time, no one transferred. It’s more or less the same starters that there would have been with no bowl ban.</p>
<p>^ Either way, crappy season for USC.</p>
<p>I mean, who wants to play, or watch a team play for nothing?</p>
<p>They will be irrelevant regardless of how well they play.</p>
<p>jbusc- USC is down to 70 players left on scholarship due to the NCAA’s ruling that their upperclassmen could transfer w/out sitting out. Kiffin has stated that they are not going to going full contact in any of their practices with the exception of 2 preseason team scrimmages. This will hurt them in games because you play better in games when you go full speed in practice.</p>
<p>With the scholarships reductions, bowl ban, transfers, coaching change, fights between players, AD change, lawsuit by the Titans, the investigation of both Kiffins and Ed Orgeron, and the suspension of Dillon Baxter, USC has gone through the most tumultuous season in their program’s history. To think that none of this will affect the team this season is pretty na</p>
<p>Depth will definitely be an issue and not having full contact practices will hurt, they’ll probably cause USC to lose a game or 2 extra. But the starters are all still there, they went through full contact all of spring, most of them are returning starters or played significant minutes last year. It’s not like they’re going to suddenly forget how to tackle.</p>
<p>But yes. If a team loses its motivation, then yes, the season will go south fast. Lane Kiffin is completely unproven as a head coach. We’ll see what happens.</p>
<p>wooo canadian football! go mcgill LOL</p>
<p>Who cares about USC this year?</p>
<p>They are comparable to a team playing in a non-BCS conference who can’t play for the national title and in this case, can’t even play in a bowl game.</p>
<p>Let’s pay attention to teams who can actually be relevant. They could go undefeated, it doesn’t matter - so who cares?</p>
<p>One of the biggest games of the entire year will be Boise State V. Virginia Tech, I believe it’s the first week.</p>
<p>If Boise State beats Virginia Tech, I think they will be playing for the national title this year. That is unless Alabama, Texas, Florida or Ohio State goes undefeated - which I don’t think will happen (We know Alabama or Florida will lose at least one in the SEC championship).</p>
<p>SOC, I don’t pay much attention to college football since the only team in my city is our cross-town basketball rivals…so I don’t know how Miami Oxford’s team is. I was simply asking for clarification since in Ohio, Miami is not automatically thought of as the one in Florida.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aside the game against Virginia Tech, Boise State plays no one who is any good at football for the rest of the season. I really don’t think that a team that beats one good team and 11 cupcakes deserves to play for the BCS national title when you have schools in the SEC that slug it out against top-15 opponents week-in and week-out. For that reason and others, I’ll be a huge “Hokie” fan when Virginia Tech and Boise State go head-to-head this season.</p>
<p>Dawgs are seriously underrated this year. Strong O-line and frankly our defense has nowhere to go but up in comparison to last season. QB Murray is far better than Cox. </p>
<p>If we can win against USC and Arkansas in weeks 2 & 3 and later in the season against UF we have a serious shot at the SEC championship; both Bama and UF should have a much tougher year rebuilding than we should.</p>
<p>(Wks. 2 & 3 are big ifs but fall within the realm of possibility. Week 1 prediction: UGA 38, UL-Lafayette 17 W)</p>
<h2>Aside the game against Virginia Tech, Boise State plays no one who is any good at football for the rest of the season. I really don’t think that a team that beats one good team and 11 cupcakes deserves to play for the BCS national title when you have schools in the SEC that slug it out against top-15 opponents week-in and week-out. For that reason and others, I’ll be a huge “Hokie” fan when Virginia Tech and Boise State go head-to-head this season. ~ Cuse0507</h2>
<p>Well, I wouldn’t call Oregon State a cupcake.</p>
<p>But overall I totally agree. But there are a few problems that go much deeper.</p>
<p>1) This year, the Broncos are starting off with a very high ranking (3-5), which will allow them to move up to 1 or 2 once the teams ahead of them lose, which they probably will considering their schedules - at least 1 game for a couple of them. Typically they don’t start the season this high ranked, then battle up through the top 10/top 5, but are never able to get into 1 or 2. This year could be very different, if they run the table they will be 1 or 2 at the end of the season and will get put in the BCS Championship game. </p>
<p>2) Why not put them in the game? I understand the conference/competition argument, and until this summer and all the expansion nonsense took place, I agreed with you. However, you need to remember that they don’t have a real choice in which conference you play. You can’t just join a conference. If that were the case, Boise State would have joined the B10, B12, P10 years ago. You can only be invited, which is very difficult as we know - especially for a small market.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m rooting for the Bronco’s to win it all this year just to show the conferences how screwed up they’ve become and how they are ruining college football. If a few pieces would have fallen differently this summer lots of good programs and great schools could have perminently locked out of playing for a national championship, simply because they are in small markets.</p>
<p>The disparity between the money being made between conferences is way out of balance and I don’t like seeing groups of schools being able to out compete other schools simply because they belong to a large market, destroying tradition and other conferences along the way.</p>
<p>Anything that shows up the BCS, I’m for it.</p>
<p>I think Georgia is going to be pretty good this season, I have them winning the SEC east and getting a Sugar bowl bid.</p>
<p>Boise State should have a shot at the title, but only if there isn’t any other more deserving one-loss team. Because of the weak schedule they shouldn’t just automatically get in because there weren’t 2 undefeated BCS conference teams. A lot depends on who the other one loss teams are, the strength of their schedules, so on.</p>
<p>Expansion has been bad for the non-BCS conferences, but at least Utah won out in the end mostly because of performance on the field winning lots of games and BCS bowls rather than their TV market. Although the Pac-12 obviously expects to make a lot of money from the Salt Lake City market, much of that is going to go back to Utah (where their TV payout will probably go from about $1 million/year now to > $10 million/year in a few years). Instead there seems to be hope Utah will help the Pac-12’s competitive profile.</p>
<p>^ Sure, Utah won out, but look at what that is doing to the MWC.</p>
<p>Now that Utah jumped (and I don’t blame them, it’s the logical decision), the MWC is will never get their BCS AQ. Even with the addition of Boise State, they still can’t get to the appropriate levels. Boise State’s statistics don’t count for the MWC and Utah is jumping ship early enough that a portion of theirs won’t count either.</p>
<p>Now you have BYU postering to go independent, and the MWC responding by raiding the WAC (Why? Other than to ruin the conference so BYU can’t put their non-football sports in the WAC), and completely destorying a fairly decent conference - great!</p>
<p>Domino’s brother.</p>
<p>It’s such a dumb system. You have X conference paying out $13 million per year, and some conferences paying out $1.5 million per year, totally stupid. The TV deals ruined college football, along with the BCS.</p>
<p>Then of course, you have the whores like USC…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if TV revenue was distributed evenly across all of Division I-FBS teams (like it used to, before the NCAA lost its TV negotiation control) there would still be inequity. Schools like USC receive much of their revenue, maybe most, from ticket sales to home games. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow name-calling much…</p>
<p>All Division I-FBS teams get 85 scholarships and a certain number of coaches/GA’s. Sure, teams can spend more on facilities/weight rooms, but recruits obviously don’t consider that the highest priority (otherwise it’s Oregon vs Oklahoma State for the title every year)</p>
<p>Besides, the Pac-10 has a TV/bowl/tournament revenue sharing deal where even though USC typically gets the most money, USC only takes about 12% of the conference take-home and the other 88% is divided among the other 9 teams + conference expenses.</p>
<p>^^ I know how it works.</p>
<p>But when you have a team that is on the verge of being put on probation, then go out and hire the #1 whore in college football, Lane Kiffin - what does that say about your program?</p>
<p>Crap in, crap out …</p>
<p>Funny how they were quick to give back Reggie Bush’s Heisman Trophy, but haven’t gotten aroun to giving back their national title trophy.</p>
<p>Dirty system, dirty coaches.</p>
<p>Are you really putting Arizona ahead of ASU?</p>
<p>It’s a total draw who is going to end up where in the pac-10 (except, it seems, for washington state), it’s so wide open.</p>
<p>At the end of the season ASU could just as easily come in above of Arizona as below. I think people are picking Arizona because they played well last year, not counting the Holiday Bowl, and they have a talented returning QB whereas ASU has question marks there.</p>
<p>Even Washington State is going to be better than people think. No way are they going winless in the Pac-10 again this year.</p>
<p>I’d like to see Washinton win the PAC 10.</p>