As I was watching the game I wanted Kiffin to go for two after every touchdown….I was hoping for 60+ points and a couple of more..at least one..touchdowns for Barkley. For the rest of eternity, every time some Bruin brags about being the Southern Champ, I’ll be able to talk about this game.
If Barkley could play in the post season this year he’d have a shot at the Heisman. If he comes back next year, he will immediately be the front runner, and USC would have a shot at the national championship. If Barkley goes pro (and really who could blame him?) USC enters the wilderness for four or five years.
USC enters the wilderness for 5 years? Where did that come from? Max Wittek can step into Barkley’s cleats next season, seamlessly. Barkley’s success is because USC allowed the least sacks in the conference, and they have the 2 best WR’s in college football (who are both underclassmen), and Monte Kiffin’s defense. USC contends for a national championship next year with or without Barkley.
Hey UCLA finished ahead of Utah, which should come as a surprise to David K and the rest of the hacks that thought Utah deserved national consideration in their annual path of destruction over CFB super powers like Wyoming and BYU and Pitt and the rest of the MWC. But no surprise to me. It’s what I said would happen all along. Utah will NEVER play in a BCS game aGAIN.
USC is losing 10 scholarships a year over the next five years. If you know anything at all, you know that that is going to hurt. The team is also capped at no more than 75 scholarships a year. If Barkley leaves, we get what is for all intents and purposes a rookie quarterback next year.
USC may well contend for a national championship year. If Barkley stays I think it is probable. It’s 2013 and beyond that I am worried about.
There’s evidence to contradict the moon landing was faked? Really? A videotape? Well damn critical thinking then.
Let me refresh your memory. The last 5 years on this very blog you’ve been riding Utah’s jock saying that they (along with Boise/TCU/loser highly ranked AQ schools) are treated unfairly by the BCS and deserve their shot at the top games because they are undefeated and would compete with anyone else.
Of course, I, the voice of reason, said that any of those jabronie unbeatable teams from non-AQ conferences were not actually THAT good and could not hold up playing in a real BCS conference every week. This first season in the Pac-12 for Utah proved that they can’t hang with the medium sized boys. This is the same Utah team that was ranked #8 in November last year (after beating nobody) and you praised them as a quality team. Well, they stink, just like I said.
Utah, and Boise St., and TCU will NEVER play in a BCS bowl again (after joining a BCS conference). Now we can hear about how great and unfair it is not to have undefeated Wyoming in a BCS bowl, because the best non-AQ teams are now bottom-feeders in BCS conferences.
Oh and you picked Oregon and Stanford to finish at the top of the Pac-12 North? Your’e a goddamn genius. I don’t think anyone else in football saw that one coming. Next thing you’ll say say is that you had a hunch about Andrew Luck.
In 2008-09, Utah went undefeated, beat mighty, formerly #1-ranked Alabama of the warlike SEC in the Sugar Bowl, and finished ranked #2 in the country.
The year before that, 2007-08, Kansas went 12-1, losing a close game to Missouri in a de facto Big 12 North title game that prevented the Jayhawks from having a Big 12 and national title shot, but won the Orange Bowl over heavily favored Virginia Tech, 24-21, and finished ranked #7 in the country.
By your logic re: Utah, the accomplishments of that 2007-08 Kansas team (which, as it happened, played a pretty weak schedule) are completely invalidated by the fact that, in 2010-11 and especially 2011-12, Kansas has been godawful. So that means, again according to your logic, that we were wrong to regard 2007-08 Kansas highly, because they’ve proven now that they suck.
Obviously, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
The 2008-09 Utah team was an elite squad, and proved it on the field. The 2011-12 Utah team was a bad team, and proved it on the field. That is not shocking. This is college football we’re talking about. Three years is an eternity. That team was way, way better than this one. This team’s failures don’t prove your point at all.
Nobody claimed that 2011-12 Utah was going to be an elite team. Sure, some thought they might contend for a title in the “down” Pac-12 South (which, actually, they did, ridiculously enough), but that was only because the division was so bad. It’s not like this team was preseason ranked in the Top 10 or something. Sure, we didn’t realize they’d be quite as bad as they are. Then again, we didn’t realize Arizona, ASU, UCLA, etc. would be quite as bad as they are…. the entire Pac-12 South is a giant cesspool of suck this season, but you want to single out Utah because you have an axe to grind against the mid-majors. That’s fine, but it has no bearing on reality, nor does it say something about anyone’s perceptions except your own.
If Utah goes a decade without a good team, then sure, we can talk about whether they might have been overrated in the past. But one bad season in the Pac-12, though it’s unhelpful to perceptions, says nothing about the reality of mid-major strength, because nobody thought this team was going to be particularly good. It’s not like this was 2011-12 Boise State, led by senior Kellen Moore and with elite players all over the field, joining the Pac-12 and going 7-5. THAT would prove something. (It also wouldn’t have happened.) This proves nothing.
A little late to the comments, but one thing to point out:
“Of course, I, the voice of reason, said that any of those jabronie unbeatable teams from non-AQ conferences were not actually THAT good and could not hold up playing in a real BCS conference every week. “
To the best of my recollection, Brendan has declared two different of his commenters Voice of Reason. Sandy is not one of them.
Yes Sandy, there is a great deal of evidence, from video footage of the event to telemetry, to the sattelite images gahrie links to above, to the simplest fact of all: A faked moon landing would have required the Soviets to go along with the conspiracy because they had the know how to expose it AT THE TIME. You would have us believe in the greatest cover up of all time, one in which our largest enemy who would stop at nothing to have beaten us in the space race to go along with it. Meanwhile you don’t have a single shred of evidence to contradict the moon landing. You. Are. An. IDIOT.
The rest of your arguments are shitastic too, which is frankly not surprisng. Yes I’ve been a fan of succesful teams like Boise State and Utah and believe they have not gotten the chances they deserved, but that doesn’t mean I thought they would be eternaly good and never have down years any more than I think Oregon or USC wiould never have down years. THAT would be idiotic. But no one expected Utah to compete for the national title this year, I picked them to finish SECOND in the Pac-12 South and they very nearly did. Shocking I know. And I don’t claim to be any genius prognosticator picking Stanford and Oregon for the top spots in the North either. Just pointing out my predictions are quite in line with realitya nd what other people picked too. You seem to be the only one who thinks any of us were claiming eternal greatness for Utah.
Basically you are making bullshit up, claiming its wrong, and then accusing me of believing it when I never did and the evidence doesn’t support it. Huh, making up bullshit conspiracy theories with imaginary facts while ignoring the real ones? Just like your moon landing stuff when you think about it.
Face it Sandy, you aren’t the voice of reason around here, you are the village idiot.
If, in 1969, we sent 3 guys in a tin can 250,000 miles through space to land on the moon, and then they were able to re-launch themselves from the moon 250,000 miles BACK to the planet and then reach the speed necessary to not burn up in the earth’s atmosphere and return safely, then surely 40 years later, not only America, but many other nations would be traveling through space with ease. Instead NOT ONE country (including America) has had an astronaut travel beyond the earth’s orbit. There’s no instance in the history of Earth that an incredible technological advancement was made (perhaps the greatest achievement of all mankind) and it resulted in a dead-end. This is so obvious, I wonder how intelligent people are so easily fooled. Even you guys.
Thanks for the NASA link, gahrie. I hope you got your opinion about Casey Anthony’s innocence from Jose Baez’ website. Get the point?
As for Utah’s team in 2007 or anytime before this season, they faced no competition and their greatest achievements were shocking people in the BCS bowls they won. They weren’t great teams, and if they played a real schedule and faced real injuries (like they did this season), they would have NEVER reached the BCS, let alone won the games they were in. And last year I said that Utah will NEVER play in a BCS game again, and I stand by that.
David K. predicted Utah to win the Pac-12 South (finishing behind USC). Okay, Utah finished 4th in the worst division in the BCS . What’s the significance of that, other than more proof David K. doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Thanks for pointing that out though.
Boise St. and Utah didn’t get what you think they deserve, because they played a shitastic schedule and beat nobody to ultimately prove nothing. That’s why Boise St. is playing ASU this week, instead of Stanford at the Fiesta Bowl. Play a real schedule and then you will get what you deserve.
Yes, how come no one else has put a man on the moon, what with massive inflow of money, resources and glitz that would surely result from such an endeavor, not to mention all those bragging rights that come along with being the second to land on the moon and beating out a non-existent competitor in a non-existent space race … and let’s not forget that the scientific angle — there is so much left to learn from putting astronauts on the moon in a bubble playing Bridge that we could never learn from all those unmanned probes that other countries have been putting on the moon since the 1960s …
Manned space travel? Shucks, who cares about that?
A military base on the moon? Yeah what advantage would that play? Especially for a military that spends trillions every year blowing shit up for no reason at all.
China is planning to land the first man on the moon in 2020. There’s a reason nobody landed on the moon since the 70s, because it can’t be done. It may not happen when the Chinese expect it to, because it’s not easy. But if it were done in 1969, there would be space missions going today that extend at least more than a couple miles outside of earth’s orbit. Yet, nobody is doing them. A manned pass by the moon would be childs play, since they do it unmanned regularly. Afterall, with the technology of the 1960’s, which is basically going naked, they were able to pull it off.
Really?!?! With the technology of 2012, it should be simple to reproduce accomplishments of 1969. Is there ANYTHING that can’t be done that was done in the 1980s (forget 1969)? Have more or less people climbed Mt. Everest? Have more or less people orbitted the earth? Satellite technology? Our televisions run a different form of broadcast that is fiber optics/light instead of a radio tower. It’s a joke that anyone believes that we, humans, landed on the moon in 1969 and now spend decades trying to “go back”. When China lands there in 2020 (if they can), don’t expect them to be so narrow-minded as Americans and the bullcrap excuse that there isn’t anything to be gained by being there, because the world will live under a Red Moon, forever after that day.
Please register with The Living Room Times, or log in using your Facebook, Google, OpenID, Twitter, AOL or Yahoo account, or your existing Living Room Times account.
About the Authors
Brendan Loy is a 31-year-old attorney, erstwhile journalist, and veteran blogger in Denver, CO. He formerly blogged as the "Irish Trojan." Brendan's wife, Rebecca Loy, also 30, is a stay-at-home mom in Denver. Brendan and Becky have three daughters, whose blog nicknames are "Loyette," "Loyacita" and "Loyabelle." More info here. Several others blog here in The Guest Room.
The Living Room Times is named after Brendan's old school newspaper, circa 1993-1999. All viewpoints are welcome and vigorous debate is encouraged, but to combat spam and trolling, you must be registered to comment. You can read the "blog rules" here. View alternate mastheads here.