So… that happened.
A few thoughts…
• First of all, congrats to Oregon State, its coaches, players and fans for a hard-earned, well-deserved win. Yeah, it obviously helped that USC turned the ball over a whole bunch of times, but the fact is, the Beavers earned this win, and they deserve to celebrate. I hope the folks up there are partying hard, well into the night. If there isn’t at least one couch set on fire tonight in Corvallis, it’s a travesty. :)
• Second, remember when I said the world was turned upside-down earlier Saturday, when Illinois and Indiana both had big halftime leads? Well, I didn’t know the half of it. You want a bizarro-world, upside-down sort of scenario? How about USC losing and Temple winning? The Trojans are on a one-game losing streak; the Owls are on a one-game winning streak. Think about that for a second.
• Speaking of streaks… this is precisely what I was talking about when I wrote after the Rose Bowl:
The streak had to end eventually, and…I’d rather have [it] end at the hands of an exceptionally good team like Texas  an equal  instead of some upstart.
Seriously, think about how much more painful this loss would be if it ended a 41-game winning streak. Having our quest to break the all-time record fall short because we lost to… Oregon State?! That would be unfathomable.
• It isn’t really surprising that USC lost to OSU this season. It’s just surprising that it’s this OSU. If we were going to lose to an OSU this season, you had to figure it’d be in Glendale, and Brutus would be on the sideline.
• Scott Wolf notes something interesting: remember how, before the schedule expanded to 12 games, each Pac-10 team would have one conference-mate that they didn’t play each year? Well, before the change was made, the team the Trojans weren’t supposed to play this year was… Oregon State. D’oh!
• On a sophomoric, double entendric note: does the Beavers beating the Trojans make next month’s basketball showdown between the Trojans and the Cocks even more crucial? ;)
• It’s hard to find a silver lining when you just lost to Oregon State, but here’s my best effort: after looking bloody awful for nearly three quarters, the offense looked very good — better than they have since the Arkansas and Nebraska games — in the final 20 minutes of the game, when they marched down the field for several long drives and mounted a 21-point comeback that brought them within one deflected pass of overtime. Admittedly, a less aggressive OSU defense probably had something to do with that, but it is undeniable that the Trojan offense finally started “clicking” during the late third quarter and the fourth quarter. If the Trojans can take that and build on it, they may yet salvage a Rose Bowl berth out of this season (in which case, they may yet play that other OSU, if Michigan wins on Nov. 18) and vindicate my currently rather silly-sounding Sept. 24 statement about how good they are. We’ll see.
• Stewart Mandel also sees a silver lining, looking ahead to not just the rest of this season, but next season:
[R]ight when it seemed USC was headed for an all-out meltdown, falling behind 33-10 with 4:51 left in the third quarter, John David Booty, Steve Smith and Co. went out and mounted a near-epic, Leinart-caliber comeback. Booty, after struggling much of the game, started hitting everything, Smith gave a performance for the ages (11 catches, 258 yards, two TDs) and the defense finally quieted Beavers QB Matt Moore. Ultimately, they fell two points short, but only after Booty (who threw for 405 yards and three TDs) drove them 80 yards in two minutes to score the potential game-tying touchdown with seven seconds left.
That, more than any of their wins over the past month, tell me the Trojans haven’t completely lost their swagger, and should serve as some solace to all those USC fans out there trying to cope with their first regular-season loss since September 2003. There will likely be at least one more loss before 2006 is over, but I’d be feeling a whole lot better about Booty’s chances of leading a potential title run in ’07. (Granted, I’d feel much better than that if Smith wasn’t graduating.)
• Yeah, speaking of Smith… man, he was awesome. Mandel mentioned the statistics — 11 passes for 258 yards and 2 touchdowns — and, holy cow, did you see a couple of those catches? Wow.
• Finally, a couple of questions for everybody:
1) Who should be ranked higher when the new polls come out: USC or Notre Dame?
2) Who will be ranked higher when the new polls come out: USC or Notre Dame?
Discuss. :)
Me, I’m not sure of the answer to either question. With regard to #1, the two teams look pretty similar to me on paper: both have suffered an awful loss (Notre Dame’s was awful because it was a humiliating blowout at home, USC’s was awful because of the caliber of the opponent), both have had a pair of victories where the team actually looked quite good (Penn State and Navy; Arkansas and Nebraska), and both have otherwise been unimpressive, playing down to the level of their competition and winning games by margins that were much closer than they should have been. So, which team would I rank higher? I dunno. Probably USC by a whisker, but admittedly that may be my bias talking.
As for question #2… I believe the Trojans will take a major hit in the polls, not just because they lost to Oregon State … Oregon Freakin’ State … but because the pollsters have a lot of pent-up anti-Trojan energy that they haven’t been able to release. The CW for a month has been that the Trojans’ unimpressive wins indicated that they were overrated, but because they were still undefeated, the pollsters didn’t want to punish them too badly. That energy will all get released now, and the Trojans will tumble. They’ll wind up ranked lower than at least four other one-loss teams (Texas, Auburn, Tennessee and Florida). I think they’ll be down somewhere in the Notre Dame/Cal/Arkansas range, which means somewhere between #9 and #12. My guess? #11, just barely behind ND and Cal but ahead of Arkansas.
What do y’all think?
October 29th, 2006 at 1:08:35 am
They play Cal in just a few weeks and I’d count that one as a loss also. Before that it’s Oregon. Several weeks ago I would have said Oregon was a shoo-in for a win in the Coliseum but now who knows?
October 29th, 2006 at 1:22:10 am
It’s a tough call with so much similarity on paper. Things in ND’s favor: the recency of USC’s loss, the fact that ND’s loss (although it was a blow-out) came at the hands of a really great Michigan team, the fact that USC has repeatedly struggled against weaker opponents, and the fact that when they did get down big to a weaker opponent, they couldn’t pull off the comeback win (even though they cam mighty close). I think this tends to favor ND slightly ahead of USC with the knowledge that we’ll find out soon enough - either with USC (or ND) losing again or based on the outcome of their outright match-up.
Both teams have tons of talent and plenty in their favor. But USC lost today and they lost to a crappy team. ND lost last month to a fantastic team.
As for where I think they’ll be ranked? Probably just behind ND, like you’ve suggested. I think the voters will not hesitate to punish USC with the knowledge that they have big games coming up in which they can prove themselves.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:24:20 am
They could easily end up with 4 losses.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:31:34 am
Beaver, everything you say makes sense to me, except the suggestion that “the fact that USC has repeatedly struggled against weaker opponents” is a “thing in ND’s favor.” Hello… Michigan State? UCLA? Purdue? (in the game until the fourth quarter). Stanford? (in the game well into the second half, despite being one of the worst teams in college football). Both teams have “repeatedly struggled against weaker opponents.” Both have played down to the level of their competition.
And I understand that Michigan is great… but there’s no excuse for losing 47-21 at home, to anybody. Oregon State is mediocre, but at least it was a close game and at least it was on the road. I think the positives and negatives basically cancel each other out, and the two losses end up being roughly equal… except for the recency factor, which is a factor I’ve never been entirely comfortable with, but of course the reality is, it matters A LOT. It’s the biggest reason I think USC will probably be just behind Notre Dame. In fact, if you think about it, there’s no doubt that’s why… if USC had lost this game to Oregon State on September 16 and Notre Dame had lost 47-21 to Michigan yesterday, obviously USC would be ranked higher than the Irish in the new polls. Obviously. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’d be the right result. :)
Ed, they could, but I wouldn’t say “easily.” That would be truly shocking. Assuming you’re talking about the regular season, and unless you expect them to lose to Stanford or UCLA, it would require a Pete Carroll-coached Trojan team to lose three consecutive games at the Coliseum in November. I realize that some of the old magic is clearly gone, but that would be monumentally unbelievable. I think 2 losses is likely and 3 losses is realistically quite possible. 4 or more, I’d be stunned.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:34:09 am
Four losses is probably an overestimate. All of their opponents except for Stanford are possible losses, but based on what they showed in their near-comeback, they’ll pull a few of those games out.
If they lose to Oregon, they could actually face a home game in November as an underdog (to ND or Cal). THAT would be bizarre.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:37:43 am
Forget Oregon: if they lose to Cal, they’ll be an underdog in the ND game the following week. Bizarre, indeed.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:37:55 am
I wasn’t going to bring up your earlier comments about USC for a couple of days, but since you did man up and resurrect them…I suppose they seem foolish now (especially the part about your 98% certainty that the Trojans would beat ND), but USC’s regression does defy logic. I too expected them to kick it into gear as the season progressed. It is just as confusing as Notre Dame’s offensive struggles earlier, especially with nine returning starters. I won’t check out USC’s message boards, but I imagine a central theme over there is the loss of Norm Chow finally coming home to roost.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:44:08 am
Brendan,
I agree. I’ve never liked the recency argument either. Should Michigan/Ohio State be punished because that game is at the end of the year (for the excitement factor) and somebody HAS to lose that game? No. But it will have some bearing here, not that it should.
I wasn’t saying that ND HASN’T played down to its opponents. Just that USC had, and that helps. It shows that they aren’t the USC of old. I should have been more clear.
I’m not convinced that the Michigan blow-out is as bad as the OSU road loss. I don’t buy the argument that you shouldn’t ever get blown out by anyone at home. I think it’s an easier argument to say that if you’re a top-10 team you shouldn’t lose to OSU, ever.
Michigan is damn good. They played great that day, and ND got off to a horrible start. ND was down early and Michigan took advantage of every mistake in the game. I think a 26 point loss to a team like that on a day like that is better than a loss to OSU when you were down by 23 in the third quarter. Yes, they came back and made it close, but they never should have been that far back and they never should have lost. This is basically your bias against my bias and both teams have a legit argument here :)
This is just about as equal as you can get. It’s the type of situation where you don’t want to have to rank one team over the other, you just want them to go out on the field and decide for us. Luckily, we’ll get that.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:47:32 am
This is just about as equal as you can get. It’s the type of situation where you don’t want to have to rank one team over the other, you just want them to go out on the field and decide for us. Luckily, we’ll get that.
Agreed. :)
October 29th, 2006 at 2:18:51 am
The “recency” argument is actually an excellent one. Are you getting better or regressing? It ain’t where you start, it’s where you finish.
ND was regressing until Shark saved them. USC has been regressing. ND has a certifiably proven offense and a mediocre to poor defense (but a defense who plays lights-out in 2nd halves). USC has an unproven QB & RB (thus a mediocre offense)and a mediocre defense.
ND is objectively better tonight.
The four-loss scenario is not crazy. SC could easily lose to Cal and ND, and then face a band of Bruins psyched out of their gourds IN the Rose Bowl. As I recall, a motivated UCLA is not to be trifled with. There is your fourth loss. Not crazy.
Not likely. But not crazy. I think you lose two, the second being Cal.
October 29th, 2006 at 2:23:44 am
I didn’t say it was “crazy.” Just shocking and stunning. Perhaps “monumentally unbelievable” was an overstatement, if you take “unbelievable” literally; I was using it more the way your average sports commentator uses it. Well, actually, a little more serious than that, since your average sports commentator seems to believe that “unbelievable” means “mildly surprising.” :) But I digress. The point is, I agree it’s not likely but not crazy. I think it’s very unlikely… but not crazy. :)
I’ll say this. If these Trojans can win out, it will be perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Pete Carroll’s career at USC thus far.
October 29th, 2006 at 2:38:46 am
Ed,
You hardly make a case that ND is “objectively” better.
Recent wins DON’T prove that you’ve gotten better. If you start your season with Michigan and end it with Army, a win over Army absolutely does not prove that you’ve gotten better.
The Ohio State/Michigan game is a perfect example of that fact that a recent win does not prove that you’ve gotten better and a recent win does not prove that you’re regressing. It might just mean that you’ve played great all year but you ran into the best team in the country in the last week of your season.
October 29th, 2006 at 2:58:03 am
First of all, I’m not sure “recency” is
a word…..at least it wasn’t one at Cal.
Second, I am confident that Cal can beat SC on 11/18, but would have preferred an undefeated SC. This loss may do for the Trojans what the Vols loss did for the Bears — it may well reignite their passion and make them play better as a result.
Third, as an Irish-Catholic it pains me to say this, but I think ND is overrated and doesn’t deserve top-ten status. I think they will NOT beat SC this year.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:08:27 am
Not sure why you’re trying to question the use of “recency.” Even if it wasn’t a word, it’s clear that everyone knows what idea is being referenced.
Luckily at ND “recency” is a word. Seems to be a word in the rest of the English-speaking world too.
Here’s the entry from the OED (that’s Oxford English Dictionary for those of you at Cal who don’t recognize the “validity” of “recency”):
“The state or quality of being recent.”
October 29th, 2006 at 10:39:25 am
I tend to agree with Brendan on this one. While the Irish have lost only once, it was an ugly loss. However, this loss was against an undefeated Michigan team who is sitting/will sit #2 in polls. While my dream for the season was for ND to be undefeated, losing only to the #2 team in the nation will keep this Irish fan, who’s watching the coaches still using mostly Willingham-recruited talent, satisfied (for now). That being said, they have also had their share of close calls, but they have pulled each of them out in the end. While pollsters may disagree and look to see style points, I’m still in the “close only counts in horseshoes and darts” boat. I’m also a believer in the recency effect. Yes, ND had a recent close call, but they have not had a recent loss.
USC has also had a close call or two, against a somewhat middle-of-the-road opponent (ASU) that they also came out on the winning side. Therefore, these are non-factors in trying to determine whether ND or USC should be ranked higher. I think the fact that USC’s loss was more recently than ND’s, to an unranked opponent, even though it was close, they will end up falling slightly below ND, probably only by 1 or a max of two spots.
October 29th, 2006 at 10:41:07 am
In the picture, that #6 is giving the Booty-meister one downright evil look. I think he’s going to whack him with his helmet!!!
October 29th, 2006 at 10:43:24 am
Ed, USC’s unproven QB had more than 400 yards of offensive output yesterday. Sure, he lost and that sucks, but I’m not sure that I would make an argument for mediocrity based on that performance. If anything, I think that the OSU game may serve as a benchmark in USC’s season, an ugly crucible that served to catalyze the offense. From the depths of a dark, hideous loss to a less-than-stellar opponent, I think the thunderous rumblings of true champions were sounding beneath the surface of this offense. I have more hope for the rest of the season now than I did before they lost.
I just hope they don’t come out next week and make me sound like a complete ass. ;)
October 29th, 2006 at 10:50:46 am
Personally, I would rather get spanked by a top 3 team at home than lose to any crap team on the road. There’s no shame in being beaten by a team that’s simply better than you are. There’s utter and complete humiliation in losing to the powder puff girls. ND fans all felt it in the first two-thirds of the MSU game.
As far as the season goes, right now, I think I would have to hold my nose and rank ND ahead of USC. I hate saying that. But until USC beats Cal, I think the Irish have us in the rankings. Unless of course, ND loses to North Carolina.
October 29th, 2006 at 11:43:26 am
Thanks, Becky. We all know how hard that was for you to say.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:41:40 pm
You can’t win with 20 minutes of offense in a 60 minute game. I’m not looking at the rest of the season too cheerily. If they play like yesterday again, I wouldn’t be surprised at a 1 and 5 remainder of the season for SC.
Also, what’s up with the defense? Pete’s not running that anymore? Is that why they aren’t making the changes like they used to at halftime?
October 29th, 2006 at 1:54:21 pm
It seems to me that everyone is overreacting. Sure, USC lost to a team that looked formidable, but USC showed stamina and came back from a big deficit. That could hardly be considered a loss–poetically speaking. I liked the IT interpretation that SC finally clicked in the 3rd and 4th of the game. I’m thinking USC will drop to #6; however, if USC performs with the same 3rd and 4th clicking caliber you could see them move back to #3 and possibly #2 in the rankings. The scenerios could play well to SC advantage if all other undefeated teams performances drop or if major offsets take place. Anything could happen and I would not dismiss the idea that USC’s loss might be the needed antidote to make this team click. That click might have awaken the sleeping giant. Till the fat lady has sung, I’m keeping my victory signs and kuddos for a great game lost with much dignity. Fight On!
October 29th, 2006 at 3:06:38 pm
But USC lost today and they lost to a crappy team
Oh right, cause if they are from the Pac-10 they MUST be a crappy team. Well I cry bullshit on that one. Sure i think of the two USC is the better team, but its not like OSU is a bottom feeder. Heck if you throw out Arizona and Stanford, i’d say that any team in the Pac-10 could beat any other team in the Pac-10, and not just that oh sure, a team always has a chance to win, but that there is that much parity in the league. BUt back to OSU being a crappy team.
Lets see, they are 5-3 now. Their losses are two big ones to 8-0 Boise State (currently ranked 15) and 7-1 Cal (currently ranked 12). They had a very close loss to Washington State (6-3, with losses to Auburn, Cal, and USC). The blew out their weaker opponents early on, won a close game against Washington in Seattle, and now beat a USC team that while not as good as they were last year, are still only a one loss team. I’m sorry but i fail to see how you can count that as a “crappy” team. They may not be a BCS level team, but they are certainly a quality team and while a USC loss is dissapointing, its certainly not some kind of monumental upset either. Crappy? The only crappy thing is your view of the beavers.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:31:06 pm
They may not be a BCS level team, but they are certainly a quality team and while a USC loss is dissapointing, its certainly not some kind of monumental upset either.
David, get real. Oregon State may not be “crappy,” but they are surely “mediocre” by any objective standard. Those losses to Boise State and Cal were both massive blowouts, by like four touchdowns, and the Cal loss was AT HOME. There is nothing in their prior resume that suggests they should have been able to beat USC, let alone take a 33-10 lead on the Trojans. Nothing.
It is rank hypocrisy for us Trojan fans to try and defend the Oregon State loss as a symptom of Pac-10 parity while criticizing SEC homers who say the same thing about their conference schedule (trying to discount conference losses because “IT’S A WAR!!!”) or Notre Dame homers who claim that playing like shit against UCLA and Michigan State (and then winning on a last-second comeback) is somehow defensible for a team that claims to be really good.
I’m sorry, David, but you sound like a total USC/Pac-10 homer in this comment. Certainly, it’s fair to use the Oregon State game as an example of Pac-10 parity if someone suggests that the Pac-10 sucks as a conference. But to use Pac-10 parity as a way of arguing that this loss was “certainly not some kind of monumental upset” and that Oregon State, while they “may not be a BCS level team” (MAY not?!?), is nevertheless a “quality team”? That’s pathetically lame. It makes you sound like a consummate sore loser to try and deny the monumental come-down that this loss clearly represented.
We sucked. We lost. That’s all we should be saying right now. Oh, we can look ahead, and say there’s hope for the team, blah blah blah. That’s all fine. But to try and discount the significance of the loss itself? There is no such thing as a defensible loss to a 5-3 Oregon State team when you’re USC and you have BCS/national title ambitions. Honestly.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:54:16 pm
IT or BL,
OSU played an impecable game but if you look at the stats USC controlled the field. Sure, we lost but that doesn’t mean we suck. And while OSU had not displayed its power in previous games that they have lost, who is to say that they have not reached a higher level. I don’t know what the OSU schedule looks like for the upcoming weekends, but Beaver victories sure smell like to me as victories for SC. Besides, SC will be ahead of ND in the rankings dropping to #9 or possibly #6. Whatever! OSU capitalized on some USC weaknesses but we’re not done, yet. And we didn’t suck–we showed the spirit the embellishes the SC credo to Fight On! Remember Tommy Trojan? That guy standing tall and flexing every muscle of his body; that impossibility in human biology. SC displayed courage and was a play short to tie up the game. We came back from a big deficit. We suck? You’re talking about UCLA I presume.
October 29th, 2006 at 4:36:58 pm
I’m sorry, David, but you sound like a total USC/Pac-10 homer in this comment.
And i’m sorry Brendan, but in your comment you sound like an idiot.
First, you didn’t get to see OSU play any of their previous games, i got to watch one in person. And while Washington isn’t back up to its usual strenght yet, i did get to see that OSU is a solid team.
Second, the difference between criticims of the SEC claims and what i’m doing should be blatantly obvious. Unlike them i’m not arguing that USC should be given a pass for losing. The Pac-10 is a tough, very even conference this year. But that doesn’t mean i’m going to whine like Tubberville and claim that its IMPOSSIBLE for a team to win out in the Pac-10.
Third, gee thanks for throwing that homer argument at me when you got so upset for Patrick for using it against you. Way to be a complete jack ass and jump to some ridiculous conclusions. I stand by my conetntion that the Pac-10 is a very even conference this year, and that USC losing while unexpected isn’t some monumental surprise either. Anyone who has watched the Trojans the past few weeks have known they aren’t playing at the same level they were last season. I think they are still one of the better teams in the conference, but better teams lose games too, otherwise we would just play the games out on paper. Upsets happen, but this isn’t Stanford beating USC, its OSU a solid, middle of the pac-10 team, beating a team that is hairs breadth from being a four loss team. Do you not realize that USC could have allready lost, 1, 2 or even 3 games, this season? I believe that USC is a great team for NOT losing those games, not going down when the going got tough, but i also realize they aren’t the supermen they were the past two seasons, maybe you don’t.
Yes its a let down, yes it sucks, yes its significant, but its not some sort of huge cosmic collapse. And defending OSU from being called a crappy team, well if that makes me a Pac-10 homer, i guess your definition is pretty damn broad.
Because, if you’ll actually READ what i wrote you’ll notice that i never once tried to claim that USC deserves to be given a pass for this game, i never said, well yeah they lost, but they should still be ranked high cause its against a really tough team. I think they should drop for this one, i think they deserve to drop, and i’m not going to try and claim that they not suffer for this loss. But i’m also not going to see it as the catastrophic failure you seem to want to. But i guess that makes me a “homer”. Whatever.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:34:57 pm
David, I’m sorry it upsets you that I said you a “sound like a…homer” (notice I didn’t say that you ARE a homer, necessarily, but that you “sound like” one in the specific comment in question), but re-reading your comment, I continue to believe that you do, in fact, sound like a homer. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Your comment is so freakin’ illogical from start to finish. Let’s consider what you’re rebutting: But USC lost today and they lost to a crappy team. ND lost last month to a fantastic team. Are you seriously questioning that, in comparison to Michigan, Oregon State isn’t comparitively “crappy”? I’m sorry, but that is the definition of homerism: trying to minimize the difference between Notre Dame losing to MICHIGAN and the Trojans losing to OREGON STATE. Completely ridiculous.
You begin with “cause if they are from the Pac-10 they MUST be a crappy team” — a total straw-man argument. Do you honestly think people would be saying the same things is USC had lost to Cal or Oregon? If so, you’re delusional. People are saying USC lost to a crappy team because they lost to Oregon State, not because they lost to a Pac-10 team. And again, CONTEXT: Beaver was contrasting the Oregon State loss to the Michigan loss. That doesn’t suggest an anti-Pac-10 bias, it suggests common sense.
You then say “Well I cry bullshit on that one.” — great, you cry bullshit on an argument that NO ONE MADE (that Oregon State sucks just because they’re in the Pac-10). Well, I call bullshit on your straw-man argument.
“Sure i think of the two USC is the better team” — you THINK?!?
“but its not like OSU is a bottom feeder” — well, they did lose by four touchdowns at home to Cal. Maybe not a “bottom feeder,” but certainly not a good team, either, based on any objective measure.
“Heck if you throw out Arizona and Stanford, i’d say that any team in the Pac-10 could beat any other team in the Pac-10, and not just that oh sure, a team always has a chance to win, but that there is that much parity in the league.” — Fair enough, but is it relevant? Again, look at what you were rebutting. Beaver was contrasting Michigan and Oregon State and, in that context, calling OSU “crappy.” Is the “parity” in the Pac-10 is so extreme as to weaken that argument at all? C’mon. Oh, and by the way, I notice you didn’t mention that Oregon State almost beat Arizona by 7.
“Lets see, they are 5-3 now. Their losses are two big ones to 8-0 Boise State (currently ranked 15) and 7-1 Cal (currently ranked 12).” — Funny how you fail to mention the scores of those games: 42-14 and 41-13. They were both TWENTY-EIGHT POINT LOSSES. Again… it is pretty much the very definition of blind homerism to ignore obviously relevant facts that are inconsistent with your viewpoint. Why, I ask you, did you not mention the scores of those games, if not to obfuscate the truth and make Oregon State look less “crappy” than the objective record suggests?
“They had a very close loss to Washington State (6-3, with losses to Auburn, Cal, and USC).” — I’ve got no beef with you here; Wazzu is a good team.
“The blew out their weaker opponents early on” — yeah, because there’s no way a “crappy” team (in comparison to Michigan) could blow out Eastern Washington or Idaho.
“won a close game against Washington in Seattle” — again, no beef with this… well, except that here, you mention where the game was played (Seattle), because it helps your argument, whereas when you were talking about the losses to Cal and Wazzu, you didn’t mention where the game was played (Corvallis), bceause that would have hurt your argument.
“and now beat a USC team that while not as good as they were last year, are still only a one loss team. I’m sorry but i fail to see how you can count that as a ‘crappy’ team.” — Um, didn’t YOU YOURSELF just argue with Beaver that a central reason USC lost is because of their uncharacteristic turnovers? Yet now you’re using the win over USC to glorify Oregon State. From what you were saying yesterday, I would conclude that even a “crappy” team (in comparison to Michigan) could beat USC if they constantly turn the ball over. But, like the final scores of the Boise and Cal games, you’re simply ignoring that inconvenient fact because it doesn’t fit your current argument. Again, that’s homerism. Besides: you can’t use Oregon State’s win over USC as evidence that USC’s loss to Oregon State isn’t that bad. That’s a circular argument. You have to use Oregon State’s resume before the USC game… and as I’ve already noted, that resume, while not horrible, is certainly not impressive.
“They may not be a BCS level team” — again: MAY not?!?
“but they are certainly a quality team” — because “quality” teams lose at home by 28 points all the time!! As I said, there was nothing objectively on Oregon State’s resume before yesterday’s game to suggest that they were good enough to beat USC. The only thing suggesting they’re a “quality team” (as opposed to a somewhat decent mediocre team) is the win over USC. And again, that’s circular logic, since it’s the significance of that very game that we’re debating here.
“and while a USC loss is dissapointing, its certainly not some kind of monumental upset either.” — This is one of the most patently ridiculous things you’ve ever said. Ever. Oregon State beating USC, “not some kind of monumental upset”??? That’s borderline delusional.
“Crappy? The only crappy thing is your view of the beavers.” — Again, you’re ignoring the context of Beaver’s comment. He was participating in a discussion that we were having about ND’s Michigan loss vs. USC’s Oregon State loss, and he said, But USC lost today and they lost to a crappy team. ND lost last month to a fantastic team. He DID NOT SAY that Oregon State is a “bottom feeder” or that every team in the Pac-10 sucks or anything like that. He just called Oregon State “crappy” in the context of comparing them to Michigan. Yet you jump down his throat as if he’d just said they’re worse than Buffalo or something. At the very least, you’re certainly not giving Beaver the benefit of the doubt in interpreting his comments. Of course, you were arguing with him yesterday, and once you start arguing with anyone, you pretty much never give them the benefit of the doubt (see, e.g., thebeef), so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
David, I’m sure you THINK you’re being fair, balanced, and logical. But you are so being bloody biased and blindly homerish that it’s embarrassing to me as a Pac-10 fan and a Trojan. That’s why I reacted the way I did. Your homerism is making me look bad as a USC and Pac-10 fan. It’s the same reason why, back when I was a Democrat (lo those many months ago :), I tended to react more harshly to comments by Howard Dean than by his Republican equivalent… because I felt he made ME look bad. Same thing here. If I let your comments go unrebutted, people might think all USC and Pac-10 fans are so myopic as to think that Oregon State isn’t “crappy” in comparison to Michigan. You might SAY that you’re “not arguing that USC should be given a pass for losing,” but you’re certainly trying to downplay the difference between the quality of the opposition in the Trojans’ loss to Oregon State and Notre Dame’s loss to Michigan, which is ALL that Beaver was addressing when he called OSU “crappy.”
October 29th, 2006 at 9:16:15 pm
My friend’s grandfather, a lifelong USC fan, succumbed to cancer apparently moments after the end of the game. sad.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:22:29 pm
The only crappy thing is your view of the beavers.
This is funny because earlier you were calling me a sore winner for being an OSU fan.
David, you honestly sound like a cranky whiner and a total Pac-10 homer. I think Brendan sufficiently covers that argument above.
You’re right. OSU is not a “bottom feeder.” I was probably a tad flippant when I called them “crappy.” Your reaction is obviously just a reaction to the years of people calling the Pac-10 weak. OSU is mediocre.
They didn’t win this game because of Pac-10 parity. That’s a joke. OSU got destroyed by Boise St. and Cal. BLOWN UP. Who did they beat? E. Washington? Idaho? Sure, they’ve got some legit wins, but if you think they’re better than mediocre, you’re crazy.
It’s this same kind of logic that makes you think that Ty Willingham is a “world class” coach. Let me guess, Washington is 4-5 because of Pac-10 parity.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:51:31 am
Washington’s 4-5 because they have shit for upperclassman talent. And their only playmaker (Stanback) is out. Even a “world class coach” can’t win many games without sufficient talent…but he is keeping them close.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:22:15 am
Bottom line Brendan is that I only made two points in my argument
1) OSU is not a crappy team
2) The Pac-10 is a very balanced conference this year
Thats IT.
Here are arguments that you apparently think i made, but if you’ll actually rea my comments you’ll see that i didn’t make.
1) OSU winning at USC is somehow comparable to Michigan beating Notre Dame
2) A one loss USC team is OBVIOUSLY more deserving than a no-loss team like West Virginia for the nation championship
3) The pack did being balanced means that they are a GREAT conference and obviously better than the other conferences. Guess what you can have a lot of mediocre teams and theyd all be pretty balanced relative to each other too!
See, you drew those comments out of thin air, and then decided that i must be an idiot or something because of them. Well thats your problem, not mine. But hey, if instead of merely disagreeing with someone you instead want to accuse them of saying things they never did and then insult them because of it, be my guest, it reflects more poorly on you than me.
So if you want to rebutt my comments fine, go ahead. But atleast do me the courtesy of rebutting things i actually said, not things you imagined i said, and rebut them with logic, not personal attacks.
So go ahead, rebut and explain how OSU deserves to be called a crappy team, and how the Pac-10 is not a fairly balanced conference this season. Anything else is simply you being an ass.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:36:27 am
David:
1) You take things WAY too personally. We’re talking about football, for heaven’s sake. Nothing I’ve said here is more personally offensive than some of the things you’ve said to me about my opinions re: Lieberman and Lamont, when you’ve accused me of being totally illogical etc.
2) I repeat, I didn’t say that you are a homer (or anything else derogatory), I merely said that your comments are homerish. That’s not a “personal attack,” that’s attacking your words. You seek to emphasize that distinction all the time, so it’s disappointing that you can’t recognize it when someone else makes the same distinction.
3) I don’t believe I even mentioned West Virginia, nor did I say anything about whether the Pac-10 is better than other conferences. So, um, if you’re going to criticize me for “drawing comments out of thin air” and “accusing you of things you never said,” you might want to consider taking your own advice.
4) Does it ever occur to you to step back, take a deep breath, and wonder whether the person criticizing you might actually have a valid point? Because here’s the thing. If the person arguing what I’m arguing were, say, thebeef, or Patrick, or some other Domer, I would sort of understand your defensiveness. But you’re arguing against ME, a fellow Trojan, someone who is predisposed to agree with you because we’re both fans of the same team. Does it ever occur to you to think, hey, if even my natural allies are disagreeing with me, maybe I’m doing something wrong? Because I know, personally, I do think that way. For example, if I went on an anti-Lamont rant, and Andrew said, “Whoa, Brendan, Lamont’s not that bad,” that would really make me stop and think. Or if I harshly criticized Bush, and you or Dane said, “Hey, c’mon now, Bush sucks, but that’s going a little overboard”… I’d definitely think long and hard about that. Maybe I’d still conclude that I was right, but not without really stopping and giving some serious thought the possibility that I might, just maybe, be wrong. Point being, when your natural allies disagree with you, it’s usually a good idea to really stop and wonder why, and whether maybe they might have some valid points. I’m not claiming to be infallible here or anything like that, but at the same time, I have absolutely no conceivable ulterior motive for seeing USC homerism where none exists, so I’m just wondering if you ever stop and think about the possible significance of it.
5) In any event, I stand by every word I’ve said. You’re just ranting and raving at this point, but the clear import of your original comment remains patently homerish. Beaver called Oregon State “crappy” in the context of talking about the difference between USC losing to them and ND losing to Michigan, a team he called “great.” You ignored this context and totally blew up at Beaver for using the word “crappy,” going off about how there is so much parity in the Pac-10 and Oregon State isn’t “crappy,” they’re a “quality” team… all without throwing in any caveats to offset the appearance of homerishness. In the process, you loaded your argument with every piece of pro-OSU evidence you could think of, while completely leaving out all the damning anti-OSU evidence. You also used vast understatement whenever referring to obvious facts that go against your position (e.g., “i think of the two USC is the better team,” “[OSU] may not be a BCS level team”) and made the patently preposterous assertion that the Beavers beating the Trojans is “not some kind of monumental upset.” And when all of these things are pointed out to you, you fly off the handle about how I’m “attacking” you and how I’m putting words in your mouth… and in the process, you attack me and put words in my mouth. Lame.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:46:32 am
P.S. Dude. I just realized your response is a whole new level of absurd.
You say, “do me the courtesy of rebutting things i actually said.” Why is that absurd? Because I literally went through your comment LINE BY LINE and responded to EVERY WORD that you said!
You, on the other hand, don’t actually quote anything I said, nor do you respond to any of my substantive criticisms of your own words. You ignore all that, and just huff and puff.
“Rebut…with logic”? I gave you a logical, point-by-point rebuttal. You come back at me with emotional bluster, totally lacking in substance or detail or analysis.
You’re projecting. The things you criticize me for, are things you are doing.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:58:14 am
P.P.S. One more try at logic.
Beaver said: “Both teams have tons of talent and plenty in their favor. But USC lost today and they lost to a crappy team. ND lost last month to a fantastic team.”
You said: “Oh right, cause if they are from the Pac-10 they MUST be a crappy team. Well I cry bullshit on that one.”
Please tell me — logically — where on Earth you got the idea that Beaver was saying that “if they are from the Pac-10 they MUST be a crappy team”? He certainly didn’t say it in his comment. He made no reference to the Beavers’ conference affiliation, in fact. He just called them “crappy,” without explaining his reasoning. Now, since you’re so passionate about not putting words in people’s mouths, surely you must have had some logical basis for concluding that anti-Pac-10 bias was Beaver’s motivation, even though he didn’t say so. It couldn’t be that you “drew those comments out of thin air.” So, tell me! What was your basis for that conclusion?
Perhaps you believed that the only reason anyone could possibly believe that Oregon State is “crappy” is because they’re in the Pac-10? If so, that’s funny, because when a team is 4-3 overall and 2-2 in conference (OSU’s record coming into the USC game), and when they have two 28-point losses to Top 15 teams, one of them at home, and they’ve got no marquee wins, and only a 7-point win over Arizona, my personal inclination would be to say that they’re somewhere in between “mediocre” and “crappy.” Exactly where they fall on that continuum is something that reasonable people can disagree over, but certainly, it seems at least POSSIBLE for someone to conclude that Oregon State is “crappy” without believing that the whole Pac-10 sucks. Especially when the person calling them “crappy” is doing so in the context of comparing USC’s loss to them with Notre Dame’s loss to a “great” Michigan team.
I’m not saying that the objective, non-anti-Pac-10-bias-based evidence against Oregon State is so overwhelming that a person MUST conclude that they’re “crappy”; certainly not. But surely you have to acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for a person to look at that evidence, and conclude — without being a Pac-10-hater — that they’re “crappy,” especially in comparison to Michigan.
So, I ask again, from what did you draw the conclusion that Beaver believed that “if they are from the Pac-10 they MUST be a crappy team” … something he never said?
October 30th, 2006 at 2:25:07 am
Brendan, you’re last comment(s) were right on. David needs to calm down and breathe. I know his Trojans and his Huskies lost yesterday, but enraged ranting and absurd comments were getting embarrassing.
And he still hasn’t answered if he thinks that Ty is still a “world class” coach, and if he does, why that is the case. I guess I don’t understand his definition of “world class.”
October 30th, 2006 at 5:24:27 pm
Yes, i’m such an irrational homer. Me and Stewart Mandel, whose observations where the exact same as mine.
I will repeat ONCE AGAIN, that i didn’t mention Notre Dame or Michigan. I didn’t say anything about that. You did. You went through and rebutted arguments I NEVER MADE.
Your “rebuttals” weren’t to what i was saying,they were to what you THOUGHT i was saying.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:25:12 pm
And he still hasn’t answered if he thinks that Ty is still a “world class� coach, and if he does, why that is the case. I guess I don’t understand his definition of “world class.�
Nothing to respond to Beaver, because i never said that. You did. But I guess it fits with this thread, seeing as Brendan is trying to attribute arguments to me that i never EVER made.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:43:54 pm
Wrong again, David (but who’s surprised, really?).
On Oct. 6, in the second comment to the post entitled “Reflections on Ty, UW and ND” you said the following:
“Notre Dame did in fact make the right decision, it gave us a world class coach. We really appreciate it.”
See for yourself here:
http://www.brendanloy.com/wp/?comments_popup=4207489
Granted, it was in an old post, but I never suggested that you said it in this post. I was just asking you to make an assessment, in light of UW’s recent failures on the football field.
Do you want to think again about whether or not there is something to respond to? Do you want to think again about whether or not I’m attributing to you things that you never EVER said?
Finally, do you want to explain how a 4-5 coach, a man who has gone 17-26 in the past 3 1/3 seasons, is a “world class” coach (your quote, not mine)?
October 30th, 2006 at 8:13:04 pm
Well, Beaver, i assumd you meant in this thread, but ok, i’ll respond.
He took at a team that went 1-10 two years ago, a team that was demoralized and had shown no sense of fight whatsoever and in two years has them within spitting distance fo being a 7-2 team. Yes its frustrating that we are 4-5 right now, but you do realize that three of those losses have been shockingly close, the last two in overtime, against some very solid teams (Cal and USC for example. Not to mention that for the last two games we have played our second and now THIRD string quarterbacks and still come within an inch of winning. Beyond that he has brought a sense of integrity back to this school, an intergrity that was decimated by Rick Neuheisal and Barbra Hedges.
You point to his record but you fail to mention that the teams he was given after leaving Stanford weren’t in the best of shape. He is turning things around here at Washington and we are making great progress. We aren’t there yet, but unlike some schools we understand that these things can take time. SO yes, i stand by what i said. Tyrone Willingham is a disciplined coach, who is getting players here at Washington to believe they can win again and doing so with integrity.
October 30th, 2006 at 8:30:30 pm
Brendan, i had a nice long post responding to a lot of the various little comments you had made along the way, but i had to go to a meeting and when i came back i realized that diverging from the main argument was pointless, so i’m going to call you on the biggest flaw in your whole series of comments and ask you, point blank, to respond to the arguments I actually made, and not the ones you inferred, or just plain made up from what i said.
My argument, as i have pointed out over and over, was two fold.
1) OSU is NOT a crappy team.
2) The Pac-10 is a very balanced conference this year.
Looking at number 1 for a second. I did not say or imply or insinuate or in anyway try and argue that OSU was an amazing team, a national championship caliber team, a top 10 team. I said they were a solid team, maybe the worst you could say is they are a mediocre team in the larger scheme of things, but still they aren’t so low on the scale that they deserve to be called crappy. I also never said, although you insinuated that I did, that because OSU is not a crappy team, that makes USC’s loss in anyway comparable to Notre Dames to Michigan. I didn’t touch that argument with a ten-foot pole, but because you felt like it, you decided that thats what i must have meant by calling into question ONE word in Beavers argument. And that is absolutely and completely unfair and one of the reasons why i think your argument is so full of holes. I’m not saying your argument is necessarilly wrong when directed at what you were arguing against. The problem is i never came close to making the arguments you are rebutting in the first place.
Looking now at number 2, we have the same situation, where you took what i said, and without any surrounding context whatsoever basically put words in my mouth. My argument was simple and straightforward. The Pac-10 is a very balanced conference this year, and that while USC is a very talented team, its not inconcievable that some of the less talented teams like OSU or Washington or Washington State didn’t have a believable chance of winning. THATS ALL I SAID. I never used the Pac-10’s relatively small differential this season to argue that USC’s loss should be somehow overlooked. I never used the argument to try and pull an SEC style “our conference is a war so don’t treat our losses to each other so harshly and we are better than a one loss Big East team” argument either, although thats exactly what you accused me of doing. All i said, as i have tried to get you to admit over and over, is that the Pac-10 is a relatively balanced conference this year. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now i’ll take the first step here towards resolving this. IF i had made the arguments you are accusing me of making, i would agree that they don’t hold up, i would agree that they show an unfair pro-Pac-10 bias, and are an example of homerish behavior. I would agree that your rebutals do indeed make a lot of sense.
But see, here’s the thing. I never made those arguments. Never.
So if you want to accuse me of being a Pac-10 homer, if you want to think of me as an embarrasment to USC and to the Pac-10, well go right ahead, i can’t stop you. But if you are going to do that i’d atleast ask you to do me the courtesy of making that argument based on what i actually said, and not things that you imagined me saying. Base your criticism on the following two points (the only two points i made):
1) OSU is not a crappy team
2) The Pac-10 is a balanced conference this year
Now i have no objections to people disagreeing with those statements. But i don’t think they are so far removed from the realm of resonable as to deserve the harsh treatment you gave me, or the unfair way that you tried to put words in my mouth. Please, do me the courtesy of basing your rebutal of my arguments on the arguments i actually put forth. And if you still feel that makes me a wholy unreasonable person, an embarrsment to the Pac-10 and USC and a “homer”, then you might wan’t to fire an e-mail to Stewart Mandel over at Sports Illustrated for saying the exact same thing.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:35:28 pm
David, why do you always continue to drag out arguments you’ve clearly been outclassed in? Take it like a man. You got pwnt.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:46:39 pm
David, why do you always continue to drag out arguments you’ve clearly been outclassed in? Take it like a man. You got pwnt.
MIght hold true if i had actually made the arguments i was accused of making, but oh, wait, i didn’t. Get a clue, and a name.