Usc Vs Ucla [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

VTGreg

11-28-2005, 10:31 AM

I'd like to see UCLA win, but think USC has too much offense.

A month ago I thought UT could run with SC, but am not so certain now. Should be a good national title game (thought the same thing last year, though).

What has changed your thinking that UT could run with SC? I have not been all that impressed with SC. No disrespect to anyone, but the PAC 10 has never been known as a conference that puts much emphasis on defense. They have a great offense but haven't played a team all season that has athletes on the defensive side that can match up with their offense. UT has those types of athletes on defense. I think USC against any of the top 5 would be a very good game because the other 4 teams in the top 4 have the type of speed on defense that USC has on offense.

SC has had close games against ND, ASU and FSU. The common theme for all of their struggles are they were against teams that had potent offenses, something UCLA definitely has.

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 10:41 AM

baggio248

11-28-2005, 10:46 AM

This could lower their point total a bit.

Top-ranked USC may have only one half of its vaunted Thunder and Lightning backfield when it takes on No. 11 UCLA in its regular-season finale with a trip to the national championship game on the line for the Trojans.

Junior tailback LenDale White suffered an apparent shoulder injury during a Sunday practice, putting his status for Saturday's showdown with the Bruins in doubt.
According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, White was hit in the left shoulder while carrying the ball during a team drill early in practice. White then lay face down in pain for several minutes before needing assistance to walk to the trainer's area. Later, White was carted to the locker room.

"He has an old shoulder injury from way back," USC head coach Pete Carroll said. "They just want to make sure they know what's going on."

"They said it was a stinger, maybe a sprained shoulder," White said. "Other than that, it's not bad.

"They said to wait until (Monday) and if it hurts, I've got to get it checked out."

If White, who has rushed for 1,024 yards and a team-high 19 touchdowns, is unable to go, Reggie Bush will have to carry even more of the load. The Trojans already lost backup tailback Desmond Reed for the season with an injury and freshman Michael Coleman is out with a chronic hip injury.

Bush showed in the Trojans' last game that he's more than capable of carrying the team. Against Fresno State on Nov. 19, Bush carried the ball 23 times for 294 yards and two touchdowns and finished with a record-setting 513 yards of total offense.

"Obviously, it would just mean I would have to carry more of the load with the running game," Bush said. "But hopefully, everything will be all right with him and that won't be the case."

Thesifer

11-28-2005, 11:03 AM

Actually, UT is the one that had the ridiculously weak conference schedule this year. They had one semi-tough game against OSU, but this wasn't a particularly strong year for Ohio State. Texas beating Oklahoma would be impressive....unless you consider the fact that everyone else has this year. ;)

I think the most amazing thing about this season is that Penn State got to #3. I watched them in the Michigan game, and I wasn't that impressed. Va Tech would kill them head-to-head, and Va Tech lost to a better team, but somehow Penn State is #3.

Oklahoma wasn't really half bad for a team with a True Freshman Quarterback.. and they only lost to Ranked teams. If they can build up Rhett and get a bit better defense they would be good.

I think there are a few decent teams that Texas played, but they definately had an easier season then they could have. But I'm still planning on going for Texas against USC.

MikeD

11-28-2005, 11:03 AM

Actually, UT is the one that had the ridiculously weak conference schedule this year. They had one semi-tough game against OSU, but this wasn't a particularly strong year for Ohio State. Texas beating Oklahoma would be impressive....unless you consider the fact that everyone else has this year. ;)

:agree:, though I think a bit higher of Ohio State than IAHAD does.

I've seen both UT and USC play. While I do think USC's D is soft, I can see Carroll and company finding a way to at least partially neutralize Young given 3-4 weeks planning (see White, Peterson @ Oklahoma). Also, no one on the field can run with Reggie Bush for 4 quarters. He's the game breaker, the difference maker. If SC wins, it will be because of him.

VTGreg, did you see USC play VaTech last year at FedEx? Seeing Bush in person...that speed is phenomal. Tech has some horses who can run, but we looked stuck in place on his two TD's that night.

I hope Texas wins. I'm tired of SC. I also hope that VT gets Notre Dame. I've been wanting them for years now (though PSU wouldn't be a bad consolation prize).

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 11:19 AM

Yeah, I think Bush kills against Texas. It'll be tougher for him with White out, but he'll probably wind up with 200+ yards and a couple TDs.

Showtime

11-28-2005, 01:06 PM

I am more worried about Ucla than about Texas. I was hoping Ucla would be undefeated going into this game. Now they have nothing to lose and with the rivalry and White being questionable... It will most likely be a shootout and I will most likely be nervous til it ends.

The Pac 10/SC has given top tier preseason schools a chance and none have come as close as Ucla, ND, and Cal has to beating SC over the last few years. Bowl games have all been blowouts. I think the days of Pac 10 being soft is about 4 years over. Oregon would also be in the Nat'l Hunt if they didnt play SC (#1) and Ucla only had one really bad game so far (lots of close ones/weak schedule).

The standings seem right for the most part. 33 wins = 1st place until someone knocks off SC. Texas is undefeated and has to be ranked 2nd for now. Who should currently be in 3rd? VT got humbled by Miami and Penn State lost a close one with Michigan State. If VT had won, it would be impossible to pick the 2nd/3rd place team imo, but either way, SC would still be #1. Also, LSU lost one close game to a then highly ranked Tennessee team. Maybe they should be in 3rd.

Interesting aritcle about USC and statistics.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/sioncampus/11/28/alist.1128/index.html

VTGreg

11-28-2005, 01:46 PM

:agree:, though I think a bit higher of Ohio State than IAHAD does.

I've seen both UT and USC play. While I do think USC's D is soft, I can see Carroll and company finding a way to at least partially neutralize Young given 3-4 weeks planning (see White, Peterson @ Oklahoma). Also, no one on the field can run with Reggie Bush for 4 quarters. He's the game breaker, the difference maker. If SC wins, it will be because of him.

VTGreg, did you see USC play VaTech last year at FedEx? Seeing Bush in person...that speed is phenomal. Tech has some horses who can run, but we looked stuck in place on his two TD's that night.

I hope Texas wins. I'm tired of SC. I also hope that VT gets Notre Dame. I've been wanting them for years now (though PSU wouldn't be a bad consolation prize).

Bush was kept in check until Adibi went out of the game. Adibi had the speed to stay with Bush and as a result VT stayed in the game. On his 2nd TD, Bush got matched up with Blake Warren and it was no contest.

UT has much more speed on D than anyone that SC has played all season. I don't think that UT is better than SC, I just don't believe that SC is untouchable considering they have looked very beatable at times this year.

I do agree that SC should be #1 until they are beaten and the voters will make sure that happens.

As far as Showtime's comments about Oregon being a possible NC contender if they hadn't played SC, Oregon is a very good team, but they have one quality win and that was at home against Fresno St. There is a reason why they are behind a bunch of 2 loss teams in the BCS. UCLA struggled against bad Pac 10 teams and it finally burned them. There is a difference between playing a bad game and losing to a 2-7 team 52-14. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if they push SC this weekend.

I also agree that OSU is a bit better than IAHAD stated. 2 losses by a combined 10 points to teams that are both in top 5.

I really wish VT would have beaten Miami so we could have seen how close things got between #2 and #3 in the BCS, but they got whipped because they weren't prepared mentally. After seeing their performance in that game, I don't doubt that they would have lost somewhere else on the schedule if they had beaten Miami.

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 03:29 PM

The standings seem right for the most part. 33 wins = 1st place until someone knocks off SC. Texas is undefeated and has to be ranked 2nd for now. Who should currently be in 3rd? VT got humbled by Miami and Penn State lost a close one with Michigan State. If VT had won, it would be impossible to pick the 2nd/3rd place team imo, but either way, SC would still be #1. Also, LSU lost one close game to a then highly ranked Tennessee team. Maybe they should be in 3rd.
Agreed on SC in 1st...hard to argue with it. And even though I don't think Texas is the 2nd best team in the country, they can be ranked there since they haven't lost yet. Even though I'm a Canes fan, I'd have to say VT is probably #3, because they could easily beat PSU or LSU (of course, I think they'd beat Texas, too).

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 03:31 PM

I also agree that OSU is a bit better than IAHAD stated. 2 losses by a combined 10 points to teams that are both in top 5.
Well, I may not be the most unbiased judge, because I have a bitter hatred of Ohio State ever since that Game That Never Happened a few years ago. Still, I watched Ohio State in both those games, and they have a nice defense, but their offense didn't impress me.

MikeD

11-28-2005, 03:50 PM

...because I have a bitter hatred of Ohio State ever since that Game That Never Happened a few years ago.

So did the entire team make it to the locker room before the ref threw the flag? Or just the bench guys? I mean, Coker was nearly done with his postgame press conference before that little yellow hanky hit the turf.

I'll never show any love for the 'Canes, but that was one of the biggest rob-jobs I've ever seen.

kgsilvas

11-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Looks like thread hijacking! :eek: This is "USC vs UCLA", not college football in general.

Back to the thread: I personally hope that UCLA can step up and win, but am prepared for the worst.

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 04:05 PM

So did the entire team make it to the locker room before the ref threw the flag? Or just the bench guys? I mean, Coker was nearly done with his postgame press conference before that little yellow hanky hit the turf.
There's an extremely painful photo that you can probably find online somewhere of the Canes storming the field to celebrate. I remember jumping out of my chair, grabbing my fiance and throwing her over my shoulder...and then her saying "What's the flag for?" Ouch. I'm gonna go drink away my pain now.

Looks like thread hijacking! This is "USC vs UCLA", not college football in general.
Yeah yeah....USC. There. :P

Sirrich3

11-28-2005, 05:46 PM

My heart is with the Bruins!!!

I will be there live and in person!

Depends what teams show up to play for the entire game...

ialsohaveadream

11-28-2005, 07:09 PM

Depends what teams show up to play for the entire game...
My guess: USC and UCLA.

bachviet

11-28-2005, 07:48 PM

I don't want to jinx them but I still vote for UCLA. An USC loss will throw the BCS into a chaos again. :D

VTGreg

11-29-2005, 05:21 AM

Well, I may not be the most unbiased judge, because I have a bitter hatred of Ohio State ever since that Game That Never Happened a few years ago. Still, I watched Ohio State in both those games, and they have a nice defense, but their offense didn't impress me.

I agree that their offense isn't anything to write home about. They are very similar to Penn St., exceptional defense, adequate offense.

I still remember watching that game and beginning to celebrate, only to realize about 5 min later that they had thrown a flag. OSU had to have been the most fortunate national champ in a long time. They barely escaped and had many bounces go their way that year.

baggio248

11-29-2005, 07:50 AM

I don't want to jinx them but I still vote for UCLA. An USC loss will throw the BCS into a chaos again. :D

Even if they loose to UCLA, will they still drop to #3?? I doubt it. This UT/USC matchup has been builtup all season.

VTGreg

11-29-2005, 08:47 AM

It would be close with PSU. It would all depend on what the pollsters did to USC, which would depend on how badly they lost. The computers don't rate UCLA very highly so it would definitely hurt their computer ranking.

I don't understand how the BCS would be thrown into chaos if USC lost. The only way that the BCS doesn't work is the situation that occured last year where there are 3 undefeated teams from major conferences. Any other situation and the BCS works. You may not agree with the one loss team that it selects but the bottom line is that whichever one loss team is selected is debateable and someone will be unhappy with the team that is selected.

I think the biggest problem the BCS has is the polls. Everyone puts way too much credence in the polls when they are inherently biased and create a conflict of interest. In addition, the rankings largely depend on preseason rankings and when a team loses instead of who, where and how a team plays/loses. Look at last year where UT pulled ahead of Cal in the final BCS poll to receive the automatic at-large. The change was due to a few writers in Texas that had votes in the AP changing their votes.

Everyone cries bloody murder when the computer polls don't line up with human polls but that is what makes the BCS a good system. It doesn't completely depend on polls which are very emotional. How can a 2 loss ND team that lost to Michigan St be ranked higher than Oregon? It just drives me insane when people say the BCS has failed in 4 out of the 7 years it has been in place and that the BCS gets lucky when there aren't 3 undefeated teams in a given season. In fact, the BCS just got unlucky last year when you consider the probability that 3 teams from major conferences would go undefeated in a given year. I'll get off my soap-box now.

Prisoner 24601

11-29-2005, 12:10 PM

I voted for UCLA even though I think $C will win

Meatwad

11-29-2005, 01:02 PM

I'm pulling for UCLA, but USC will win. I want to see the BCS system come crashing down...and I wouldn't mind seeing Penn State be the beneficiary of this. Go Big TEN!!

VTGreg

11-29-2005, 01:34 PM

I'm pulling for UCLA, but USC will win. I want to see the BCS system come crashing down...and I wouldn't mind seeing Penn State be the beneficiary of this. Go Big TEN!!

How exactly will the BCS come crashing down if UCLA wins?

MikeD

11-29-2005, 01:42 PM

How exactly will the BCS come crashing down if UCLA wins?

:agree:

USC and UT are virtual locks for the Championship game, unless one of them stumbles big time this week. Don't count on it.

I'm not a huge BCS hater, but an 8 team playoff is a better scenario. The example of Auburn last year is a good case study on why we need such a setup...

bachviet

11-29-2005, 07:56 PM

Bunch of 1-loss teams and which team is going to play in the Rose Bowl?

VTGreg

11-30-2005, 05:27 AM

Bunch of 1-loss teams and which team is going to play in the Rose Bowl?

How again will this result in the BCS coming crashing down? This is the exact type of scenario that the BCS is meant to handle.

I understand the 8 team playoff arguments but you still have the problem deciding which 8 get included. If the current top 8 were taken from the BCS then a 2 loss Auburn that is playing about as well as anyone in the nation gets left out and a 1 loss WVU that only lost to VT gets left out. Not to mention the logistics of having an 8 team playoff. It is a bit silly to change things for the situation that occurred last year (3 major unbeatens) when that has happened once in the last 15+ years.

ialsohaveadream

11-30-2005, 06:46 AM

I understand the 8 team playoff arguments but you still have the problem deciding which 8 get included.
The NCAA already has a solution for that problem: a selection committee, which is exactly what they do for the basketball tourney. ;)

If the current top 8 were taken from the BCS then a 2 loss Auburn that is playing about as well as anyone in the nation gets left out and a 1 loss WVU that only lost to VT gets left out. Not to mention the logistics of having an 8 team playoff. It is a bit silly to change things for the situation that occurred last year (3 major unbeatens) when that has happened once in the last 15+ years.
Selection committees don't blindly follow polls. The logistics aren't that hard to manage: cap every team's regular season at 10 games. If that means ending conference championship games, so what? There's four major bowls- each year one gets screwed and has to host one of the first-round games (along with 3 mid-major bowl sites).

MikeD

11-30-2005, 07:36 AM

I'm surprised that a playoff format hasn't caught on from a financial perspective. The windfall that the additional 7 games would bring would certainly be huge. And let's not kid ourselves, the NCAA is all about the bling bling...

VTGreg

11-30-2005, 08:31 AM

The selection committee works for the NCAA because they are responsible for picking and seeding 64 teams (they pick 31 at-large teams). Every year teams are disappointed when they don't make the field but rarely if ever is a bubble team capable of winning the national championship. That can't be said for the NCAA. This year there are a few top tier teams but teams 5-12 are all about equal.

If you limit teams to 10 games, not only are you making the selection process more controversial but you also would lose rivalry games that would need to be dropped becuase of the schedule limit. The conference championship games couldn't be removed without restructing all the power conferences that now have championship games.

I don't think the 7 bowl format mentioned would work either. The teams that advanced in the playoff format would end up losing even more money (most football programs operate in the red already) due to moving their teams an additional one or two weeks in the season. The players also lose out on the bowl experience, which when asked means a great deal to them.

With regards to making more money off of the playoff system than the current bowls, I don't buy it. The individual bowl games would lose sponsors in lieu of sponsors for the entire playoff system and the TV ratings wouldn't be any higher than they are for the BCS bowls. The schools and conferences would then lose money. The bowl payouts are structured the way they are because it is a one game deal and the sponsors can afford to pay that out.

MikeD

11-30-2005, 09:24 AM

With regards to making more money off of the playoff system than the current bowls, I don't buy it. The individual bowl games would lose sponsors in lieu of sponsors for the entire playoff system and the TV ratings wouldn't be any higher than they are for the BCS bowls. The schools and conferences would then lose money.

I disagree with you here. You keep the lower tier bowls, just take the top 8 teams and have the playoffs. You wouldn't lose sponsorship; you'd gain it. You're talking 3 more games; with the PR hype machine in full swing, people would definitely be watching and sponsors would be pouring money into it.

I don't watch all the bowl games on Jan 1, for the sole reason that there are too many at one time. With the games spaced out in the playoff scenario, you'd have more viewers and therefore more $$$ from sponsors.

The bowl payouts are structured the way they are because it is a one game deal and the sponsors can afford to pay that out.

The sponsors can afford to pay whatever the network charges. Look at the rates paid during the Super Bowl for proof.

Playoff = more money. Again, I'm surprised the schools aren't going for it...

VTGreg

11-30-2005, 09:46 AM

I disagree with you here. You keep the lower tier bowls, just take the top 8 teams and have the playoffs. You wouldn't lose sponsorship; you'd gain it. You're talking 3 more games; with the PR hype machine in full swing, people would definitely be watching and sponsors would be pouring money into it.

I don't watch all the bowl games on Jan 1, for the sole reason that there are too many at one time. With the games spaced out in the playoff scenario, you'd have more viewers and therefore more $$$ from sponsors.

The sponsors can afford to pay whatever the network charges. Look at the rates paid during the Super Bowl for proof.

Playoff = more money. Again, I'm surprised the schools aren't going for it...

I'm not talking about all the bowls on Jan 1. I'm talking about the BCS bowls, which would be replaced by a playoff. The viewership of these games versus the viewership for the playoffs would remain about the same. If you don't replace the bowl games with the playoff and, in essence, add 3 more bowl games then you may have marginal improvement because you aren't adding 3 more top tier bowls, you are adding three lower tier bowls.

As far as sponsorship is concerned, each bowl currently has its own sponsors and one name sponsor. This name sponsor would no longer exist for each of the playoff games. No sponsor is going to pay the same ungodly amount of money to have the Nokia First round playoff game. There will be sponsorship but much of the hoopla will die down around these playoff games. The sponsors always have big events in the cities prior to the major bowl games, which stimulates awareness of their products. These would cease to exist because there would be less travel to the first and second round playoff games.

Bottom line, if they stood to make so much more money, a playoff would already be in place. The schools and conferences would not make as much money from a playoff system and as a result it will not come to be.

ialsohaveadream

11-30-2005, 10:09 AM

I'm not talking about all the bowls on Jan 1. I'm talking about the BCS bowls, which would be replaced by a playoff. The viewership of these games versus the viewership for the playoffs would remain about the same.
Yes, kinda like how the viewership of crucial end-of-season NFL games is "about the same" as the first round of NFL playoffs, right?

As far as sponsorship is concerned, each bowl currently has its own sponsors and one name sponsor. This name sponsor would no longer exist for each of the playoff games. No sponsor is going to pay the same ungodly amount of money to have the Nokia First round playoff game. There will be sponsorship but much of the hoopla will die down around these playoff games. The sponsors always have big events in the cities prior to the major bowl games, which stimulates awareness of their products. These would cease to exist because there would be less travel to the first and second round playoff games.
Why would the name sponsor no longer exist? Somehow they continue to exist even though the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the national championship every year. And do you honestly think first and second round playoff games wouldn't sell out?

Bottom line, if they stood to make so much more money, a playoff would already be in place. The schools and conferences would not make as much money from a playoff system and as a result it will not come to be.
This is a good point. Like MikeD said, the NCAA is all about the money, so if this were a better scenario from a money standpoint, you'd imagine they'd do it.

Every year teams are disappointed when they don't make the field but rarely if ever is a bubble team capable of winning the national championship. That can't be said for the NCAA. This year there are a few top tier teams but teams 5-12 are all about equal.
Trust me, WVU isn't winning the championship this year. They could gripe all they wanted to. Same with Fresno. They can go to the "NIT" bowls. :)

VTGreg

12-01-2005, 05:08 AM

Yes, kinda like how the viewership of crucial end-of-season NFL games is "about the same" as the first round of NFL playoffs, right?

Not really sure how this point is valid. I'm not saying that the playoffs would receive the same viewership that the last weekend of the college regular season does. I'm saying that the playoffs would receive the same viewership that the major bowls do now. Do the BCS bowls receive the same share that the conference championship games do? No, they receive a higher share because they are the BCS bowls and offer intriguing matchups. The viewership that you would be adding would be the 3 additional bottom tier bowls, which attract very little TV viewership. In addition, you would be removing the TV viewership from all of the games that would be removed to accomodate a 10 game schedule.

Why would the name sponsor no longer exist? Somehow they continue to exist even though the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the national championship every year. And do you honestly think first and second round playoff games wouldn't sell out?

The name sponsor would no longer exist because each game wouldn't bring in as much money and wouldn't offer as much fanfare. Because there will be games involving these teams for three consecutive weeks, people that travel to the games will not be at the sites as long. For the BCS games, many people spend New Year's in the city and then are there for another few days before the game is played. That brings in a lot of revenue for the city and allows the sponsor to have events to promote their products. These would disappear if there were a playoff because people would show up Friday evening before the Saturday game and leave on Sunday. As a result, it isn't worth as much money to the sponsors. In addition, with the BCS bowls, they are typically the only bowls played after Jan 1 and have the spotlight to themselves. For at least the first week of the playoffs, games would have to overlap.

Trust me, WVU isn't winning the championship this year. They could gripe all they wanted to. Same with Fresno. They can go to the "NIT" bowls. :)

I wasn't saying that WVU would win the championship, just that teams from 5-12 are all pretty even. I do think that a team like Auburn could win the championship this year and they would be left out if the top 8 teams in the BCS were selected.

kgsilvas

12-01-2005, 05:56 AM

FOR ALL YOU UCLA FANS - Thursday December 01

It's time to get ready for the biggest rivalry in the southland.... UCLA vs. USC Football! UCLA will be hosting their Beat SC Parade, Bonfire & Rally, this Thursday from 7-9pm in Westwood. Come root for the Blue & Gold at UCLA.

Parade begins on Gayley Ave. (Between LeConte & Strathmore) in Westwood GO BRUINS!!!

MikeD

12-01-2005, 06:20 AM

I do think that a team like Auburn could win the championship this year and they would be left out if the top 8 teams in the BCS were selected.

VT, I was able to see where you coming from up until this point. No way Auburn could run with any of the big dogs this year...last year maybe, but not this year. ;)

VTGreg

12-01-2005, 07:26 AM

VT, I was able to see where you coming from up until this point. No way Auburn could run with any of the big dogs this year...last year maybe, but not this year. ;)

Fair enough, that's your opinion. They lost against GT in their first game and lost to LSU in OT by a FG after their kicker missed 5 FG's.

Meatwad

12-01-2005, 02:40 PM

I missed all the fun in the BCS/playoff format discussion. You guys are too active for me. VTGreg - you made some good arguments, and focused on the right issue...$$$. And that is the sole reason the NCAA (or more preceisely the Big 5 conferences) will not allow this to get to a playoff. They stand to lose too much money.

Sirrich3

12-01-2005, 07:48 PM

I think this thread went off the topic and is now a VT!

kgsilvas

12-03-2005, 05:31 PM

Back to USC vs UCLA... OMG!

USC 66 - UCLA 19.

kimchicowboy

12-03-2005, 05:58 PM

i want to get wasted

Sirrich3

12-03-2005, 06:31 PM

I am back from the game, and what a blowout!

speedracer120

12-03-2005, 07:04 PM

That game was ugggggggllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyy.

But I guess we all figured it would turn out that way.

Thesifer

12-03-2005, 07:38 PM

not all.. some people actually thought UCLA would win .. Kind of like people thinking that Virginia Tech was going to beat Florida State :P

speedracer120

12-03-2005, 08:12 PM

Kind of like people thinking that Virginia Tech was going to beat Florida State :P

Hahahahaha.
VT is looking really anemic right now. VA Tech is looking more like Baaa Tech.

brainsmile

12-03-2005, 08:12 PM

silly rabbit...

zippyjuan

12-03-2005, 08:33 PM

At least they didn't look as bad as my Colorado did! That was pathetic! 70-3 and 42-3 by halftime! USC Texas is looking like a good matchup.

Sirrich3

12-03-2005, 09:28 PM

Hahahahaha.
VT is looking really anemic right now. VA Tech is looking more like Baaa Tech.

Looks like a Peach Bowl date with LSU on December 30th...

brainsmile

12-03-2005, 10:00 PM

Who goes to the Holiday Bowl? I want to know who to sell my tickets to :P

bachviet

12-03-2005, 11:27 PM

I thought UCLA was going to put up a good fight and covered the spread but I was so wrong! :disa: UCLA offsense couldn't do anything agains the defense that gave up 42 points to Fresno State.

VT was even worse by losing to an unranked team, which lost 3 (or 4) in the row.

Showtime

12-04-2005, 12:48 AM

Now that was fun. Even Ucla fans were chanting "Reggie Reggie" after the 1st quarter. I was waiting for a bruin run that never came.
Leinart played poorly but came through and made some really memorable plays (shuffle pass and reception with the white juke move).
Now for the title game...

ShawnLee

12-04-2005, 01:01 AM

At least they didn't look as bad as my Colorado did! That was pathetic! 70-3 and 42-3 by halftime! USC Texas is looking like a good matchup.See, there's that, but Colorado (no offense) isn't the twelfth ranked team in the country (neither is UCLA any longer, I'm sure). We expected Colorado to lose pretty badly to Texas, but we didn't see this much of a blowout with UCLA. I mean, the last I checked the spread was 22, and so I think a 47 point loss is more embarrassing on those lines than a 67 point loss.

TofuNinja

12-04-2005, 01:22 AM

Wow and to think, My Bulldogs put up more of a fight than UCLA......But man after losing to USC Fresno St might have peaked..... oh well

Thesifer

12-04-2005, 02:22 AM

See, there's that, but Colorado (no offense) isn't the twelfth ranked team in the country (neither is UCLA any longer, I'm sure). We expected Colorado to lose pretty badly to Texas, but we didn't see this much of a blowout with UCLA. I mean, the last I checked the spread was 22, and so I think a 47 point loss is more embarrassing on those lines than a 67 point loss.

I don't think either were "More embarassing" really. It just depends on which team you like that would be the most embarassing (or are part of) Personally, I hope Texas walks on USC. But being an Oklahoma fan and after what happened with them last year, I'm trying not to get too worked up over it :)