<p>
[quote]
Arizona was averaging 40 points per game before USC's defense totally shut them down (if Sanchez hadn't cough up the football, all they would have had was that one field goal)...and if the last 2 years have been any indication, one loss isn't that significant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, nobody said USC is a bad team and I wasn't really thinking about USC's defense. But USC has been far from being the top-2 teams so far. Your team couldn't move the ball against the unranked Arizona (had less yards than Stanford/Cal did) while during the very same weekend, Florida, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas did much better offensively against opponents that were as good or better than Arizona. Sanchez simply can't match Bradford, McCoy, Tibow and quite a few others at this point.</p>
<p>Fair enough. But my point was never that USC is a top-2 team and should definitely be in the title game. </p>
<p>All I was trying to argue was that a USC-Ohio State rematch was bad, and incidentally I mentioned that "USC in the championship game" would be a valid alternative outcome (given that it's still possible, however unlikely). I'm sorry that I mentioned that now, given that it's spurned this whole debate on that tangent.</p>
<p>I'll rephrase my point again, this way. It would be bad if USC plays Ohio State in the Rose Bowl as a rematch (especially given that they play again in the 2009 regular season). </p>
<p>For example, suppose Texas and Penn State meet in the title game:</p>
<p>title: Big-12 champ vs. Big-10 champ
Orange Bowl: ACC champ vs. BCS buster (most likely)
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. BCS at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big-12 at-large vs. BCS at-large
Rose Bowl: Pac-10 champ vs. BCS at-large</p>
<p>Tradition dictates that the Rose Bowl picks Big-10 #2 at-large (that would be Ohio State) and the Sugar/Fiesta bowls will divvy up the SEC at-large and Big East champ. However, wouldn't it be great if the Rose Bowl picked the SEC at-large, allowing USC to play the #2 SEC team (probably Georgia or Florida) and Ohio State to play the Big-12 #2 (Oklahoma, TX Tech, OK State, etc)?</p>
<p>I'd think those matchups would be far more compelling then the second game in a 3 game series.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC does NOT deserve to be in the National Championship game! Why can't USC fans understand that? They aren't THAT good!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
But my point was never that USC is a top-2 team and should definitely be in the title game.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>jbusc, on paper USC's stats actually do definitely look like a top 2 team, and I think they are certainly capable of taking on and even winning against the top teams in the SEC, Big 12 and Big 10. I think the trouble with the Trojans is that they don't capitalize the way they should. The potential's there to go undefeated but it's like they don't take certain games seriously. Since 2006, the Trojans have been kept from a National Title berth by five games in which the margin of loss was a COMBINED 20 points (I'm counting Oregon State '08 here). No one actually thinks the 2006 UCLA team or the 2007 Stanford team were better teams than USC. It's just that USC didn't think so either, and so they sleepwalked through those games and it backfired.</p>
<p>I know a lot of football fans give USC a lot of grief for being "over-hyped" and playing in a conference that's in a down year. But if USC actually won the games it was supposed to win, and went to the NCG, it wouldn't matter. The way their offense struggled against Arizona on Saturday, I would hope they are on their toes for the Bruins and the Bears.</p>
<p>In a totally unrelated aside......... I am soooo rooting for Texas Tech this Saturday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tradition dictates that the Rose Bowl picks Big-10 #2 at-large (that would be Ohio State)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With the addition of the NCG, Rose Bowl officials are more likely to stick with the Big Ten/Pac-10 tradition.</p>
<p>The NCG was introduced in 2007. For 2007 and 2008, tOSU went to the NCG, while the Rose Bowl chose the Big Ten runner-up (Michigan and Illinois), eschewing other eligible teams.</p>
<p>Does anyone else believe the Big 12 is terribly overrated? With no defense and no big non-conference wins, it seems as if whoever represents the Big 12 in the title game (if it happens) is going to lose, and possibly lose badly. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Texas, Oklahoma, or lord help me Texas Tech winning the national championship without a lick of defense. Whoever comes out on top of the SEC isn't just going to have the defense to hold the spread offense, they'll have the athletes to light up the scoreboard as well. The only team that I can see that stops the SEC from another national championship is USC-they have the swagger, athleticism, and the defense to do it. It's too bad they can't take every game seriously, or they would have had twice the championships they have right now. For those who think Penn State can run the table and win the national championship, please convince me why. I don't like their strength of schedule at all and the game versus Ohio State? Come on.</p>
<p>I don't think Penn State has a chance, either. They are undefeated, but only because of their schedule. The only way I think they could possibly win is if Texas Tech somehow beats Texas and gets in the title game.</p>
<p>I used to think the SEC had the best defenses (overall, top-to-bottom) but after the last few weeks of seeing SEC defenses mowed down, I don't really believe that anymore. Perhaps they're still better overall defensively than any other conference, but the difference is not that significant.</p>
<p>The Big-12 definitely has the best offenses in the nation, but that's not saying a whole lot, because 1) Big-12 defenses are downright bad, and 2) offenses in every other conference are not very good either (besides West Virginia and Tulsa, it's hard to think of any non-Big-12 offenses that are really solid and clicking right now)</p>
<p>I would definitely like to see Colt McCoy face a defense like USC's (#1 scoring defense at 8.1 ppg, #1 overall defense, #2 passing defense, #1 passing efficiency defense) and see if he can keep his absurd video-game statistics up.</p>
<p>I consider McCoy a Heisman front runner (29 of 32 versus Missouri? Are you serious?), but I agree, I don't see him putting up those kind of numbers versus a team like USC. Once teams get a pass rush on McCoy, his effectiveness drops-much like the rest of the quarterbacks in the Big 12, except perhaps Graham Harrell. SEC defenses have been lacking lately, but the fact that Georgia and Florida can put up numbers like that versus a solid LSU defense lead me to believe that whoever has to play the SEC in the title game is going to be in trouble. But a USC vs. SEC championship is something we all want to see, no? The best conference in the past half decade going up against perhaps the best team in the past half decade? I may be coming off a little biased towards USC, but it just seems a shame that they fail to get their act together every single year.</p>
<p>Big 12 looks good to me and I am saying this as a Pac-10 fan. I live in LA and USC fans seem to overrate their own a lot. It's obvious that Sanchez is less mobile and accurate (even when not under much pressure) than Bradford/McCoy. That said, I am rooting for Texas Tech this weekend!</p>
<p>I agree- I live in LA and I find myself being a little biased at times. And don't get me wrong, McCoy and Bradford are great quarterbacks, better decision makers than Sanchez. But when I look at every other position on the field, I just don't see where the Big 12 (namely OU and Texas) can stack up with USC, with the exception of Iglesias and Shipley, and the big DE at Texas. Perhaps it is out of bias. I agree that the Pac-10 isn't a very good conference this year, in fact it might have been overrated for the past several years. But to put it on paper, I just feel like USC is the best team in the nation-regardless of ranking. I'll take the heat though-if any USC fanboys wanna help me out I'd appreciate it!</p>
<p>^a mediocre quarterback can negate just about any advantage you have in other positions, if there's any. i want USC to do well and it's been annoying to watch Sanchez.</p>
<p>Sanchez is not extraordinarily mobile, but he's relatively fast and has done well the few times he's had to scramble or run upfield to block.</p>
<p>His problem hasn't really been that he's less mobile or accurate (I would gauge him as far more mobile than Matt Leinart and almost as accurate, thanks to his very strong arm), the major problem is that he's thrown into coverage and under pressure way more times than necessary. I think he attempted more big pass plays (~ 15+ yards) in the Arizona game than JD Booty attempted all last season - part of that is play-calling, but also its him trying to get big yards on 1st/2nd down instead of getting the short pass for the 1st down or setting up manageable 3rd downs. If he attempted more short 5-yard screen passes his completion percentage would go way up.</p>
<p>Otherwise his statistics are excellent: 129 of 202 (63.9%) for 1717 yds 20 TD - 7 INT, which while not exactly Heisman-worthy or Big-12-video-game-like are not bad at all.</p>
<p>i agree. i didn't word it well. i was actually thinking about him throwing into coverage too often and not making sound decision. that's when it's annoying to watch.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while not exactly Heisman-worthy or Big-12-video-game-like are not bad at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^we are talking about whether USC is title-game worthy though; so the bar is higher.</p>
<p>Sanchez will be a very good QB. I compare him to Carson Palmer, mobile with a big arm. These kinds of QB's can become overconfident and greedy, which is what everyone saw against UofA. He is currently the favorite for Pac-10 offensive POY, which isn't too shabby.</p>
<p>I think that if USC plays it's best game, like you saw against tOSU, no one beats them. The problem with USC is it doesn't always play it's best game. However, you can count on them to play the best in the biggest games.</p>
<p>USC's offense will be significantly better next year. Basically all but one of the very-young line, most of USC's running backs, tight ends, and the increasingly go-to receiver Damian Williams, all return. Also, nearly all of Sanchez's weaknesses can be attributed in part to inexperience.</p>
<p>Only problem is the defense graduates a boatload of senior stars...</p>
<p>Also, I don't think you need super-power or Heisman-worthy performances on offense to win national championships. The last two champions Florida & LSU had solid offenses, but were hardly extraordinary offensive firepowers (the fact that Tebow won the Heisman the year after is irrelevant)</p>
<p>On the other hand, it's clear that defense is extremely important - most recent national champions 2004 (USC), 2006(FL), 2007(LSU) all had very powerful, stifling defenses that simply shut down their opponents' offenses.</p>
<p>I really hope Texas Tech can pull the upset off as well. College football fans can't deny the the Big 12 is the most fun to watch. As for USC, I believe Mark Sanchez is a little inexperienced-he tends to try to make the big play instead of the right play. But I totally agree that defense wins championships-and the Big 12 doesn't have any of it! I think another SEC national championship is in the making, and someone's going to have to stop the streak sometime-maybe SC or Ohio State in 2009?</p>