I think Texas can beat USC.

Texas' defense is incredible. I like Leinart, but Young has more flexibility.

What do you think?

A conference not exactly renowned for offensive powerhouses.

But I'm not biased or anything.

;-)

There won't be enough left of the longhorns to bury.
Giving SC an extra month to heal up and practice for that big Texas ASS KICKING is scary

Tech showed what Pac 10 "football" is all about.

Orange Bowl

Holiday Bowl.

Or Fresno State, or Notre Dame. I think they'll be lucky to be playing Texas. USC should play TCU, to see which of them is for real. :-)

Seriously, though, Texas in previous years couldn't have beaten most of the PAC-10. This is really a different Texas. They've finally got good coaching to go along with Mack Brown's recruiting. I still don't know if they can beat Penn State or LSU (Since I think USC will lose to UCLA), but they are a different team this year. They may be a legitimate top ten now. Maybe even number one, but I'm still not sold on them.

Disclaimer: yeah, I went to Texas, but I went to several other colleges, too, and just never got into the whole college football thing. So it's like watching a distant cousin do well in a spelling bee. I'm biased, but not enough to really care.

But you also have to admit that the Pac-10 is a conference not exactly renowned for defensive powerhouses ;-)

n/t

Playing at home in the Rose Bowl. As an alum I can tell you that's the first priority football-wise upon setting foot on campus, winning the Rose Bowl. Beating UCLA is second and everything else, including and especially Notre Dame, is a distant third or later. So when you combine the Rose Bowl with a national championship opportunity I think 'SC will be extremely difficult to outscore for 60 minutes.

I'm not underestimating Texas in the slightest. I just like Pete Carroll's chances to devise a plan to stop Vince Young reasonably well, especially given an entire month. Plenty of ability on USC's defense, just a young group and tons of injuries. In fact, more yesterday especially at LB. I'm glad we have time to heal before playing Texas, assuming wins over Fresno State and UCLA.

Texas's defense gave up tons of points and yards last year to Michigan in the Rose Bowl. And off that team Texas lost a first round pick in LB Derrick Johnson.

Oklahoma, there had better damn well be an investigation as to why such preference in the rankings is given to Big 12 teams! There's sort of a resdiual effect working here--the Big 12 used to be the premier conference, but is no longer, but many of the voters still seem to think it is. That's how USC got screwed two years ago.

you cannot compare OU in '04 and Texas right now. They are two totally different teams that just happen to be in the same conference.

of the year, as was Oklahoma...there's a bias towards Big 12 schools is my point, and if another team had been undefeated at the end of the season, they would have been screwed like Auburn was last year.

Anyway, I guess I'm comparing the situation more than I'm comparing teams--we really need a playoff system because there's no way with this system can you declare--with any confidence--a national champ.

The teams are basically afraid to line up in a basic formation with the QB under center and run the ball. It was trending in that direction for years and only accelerated when Nebraska had the genius to hire Bill Callahan.

For some reason the media has not called the Big 12 on this. I work in a statistical office and we laugh at the Big 12's pantyhose approach every week. A full 7 of the 12 teams average less than 130 yards rushing. That's pathetic, since 130 yards is basically 75th in the country. So you've got 7 of the 12 teams in the depths, below Duke for example. Plus the Big 12 teams that do run well generally rely on the QB for much of that yardage. There is only one Big 12 RB over 1000 yards rushing and just one more above 800.

The SEC is second worst among the major conferences with 5 teams under 130 yards rushing average. That's why the offenses are down this year. Normally the SEC is very balanced. But at least those teams play defense. In the Big 12 you've got the remarkable combo of no running games and no defense, always a winning strategy.

The ACC and Pac 10 have 3 teams below 130, including FSU. The Seminoles have become worse and worse on the ground as Bobby Bowden has gotten older and lazier, relying on the pass too much. The Big East has 2 teams under 130 and the Big Ten only 1. That's indiana, which is just a tick under 130.

The number 130 is the one we've used for more than a decade as a measuring stick cutoff. Historically very rare for a team to succeed throughout the season below 130 for a rushing average. It's hardly an arbitrary figure applied to 2005 only.

It should be a real good game though.

Fresno had the weapons but was unsure of when to pull the trigger.

USC's secondary has been exposed even more than before and you can bet some Bruins were checking that. A well rested, focused and healed UCLA will see and know where the soft spots are in that Troy defense. The extra week off for UCLA will help with that spotty run stop by getting rest for them legs before the track meet that is USC

As an 'SC alum I can tell you I was genuinely worried about Fresno St but the UCLA game doesn't scare me in the slightest.

Maybe that will look like an idiotic statement in a week but the Bruins are so soft in the offensive and defensive lines I don't see the matchup evolving like tonight's game.

Texas is a mich bigger problem. USC needs to get some defenders healthy and take full advantage of the month to prepare. Admittedly a big help that the title game is in the Rose Bowl this year.

how could you even think that. A lot of stats and everything else often get thrown out the window when this game get played to the point of being historical. UCLA will have nothing to lose and SC everything if your looking outside of the game. UCLA might be really soft on the D but if some more of them impossible things happen for UCLA watch out. I do feel something strange might happen there. I have also seen a lot of smaller guys kick big boy ass when they get motivated to.

Also you can kind of figure them Bulldogs would have never gave up for the entire game. Yet also you could of figured they wouldn't have comprehended how not to get too bothered when they were getting punched in the chops(insert cliche about bully's here). Understanding or experiencing diversity plus the propensity of coming back when down UCLA has done a lot of already (which might mean something or maybe not).

What I know for sure though that this is not that same exact UCLA team of last year and it only takes one more point to win. Bend and adapt is something that is often lost with a lot of overhead I would also like to add. If you can predict and prepare for it okay but if your caught flat footed you might start to look human and beatable. That secondary for SC looks mighty suspect and a couple good screens could have them on the ropes.

That's one of the factors I emphasize. Fresno State had never displayed any hint of vulnerability all year. Even in the loss at Oregon they led 17-0.

Meanwhile, look at UCLA. All the dramatic comebacks from big deficits are well documented plus they had some lesser escapes like life and death with Washington in the Rose Bowl. That was a late 4th quarter comeback vs. a terrible team.

My theory is if you display vulnerability like that multiple times there is a baseline reason for it and likely to show up again, especially in the biggest games. Finesse teams tend to be able to hide their flaws at home but on the road they are magnified. It is a home field edge in this series despite the geography.

Admittedly, USC has displayed vulnerability on defense. But only last night did that vulnerability translate into more than 34 points surrendered. I can't imagine UCLA holding USC to less than 35 points, perhaps even at halftime or shortly thereafter.

but you got to mount a defense (even if it might look hopeless), and next year could be different still.

A lot of them stars at USC will graduate or opt for the NFL

And just like the vacuum that brought them there, it could all disappear by next year

And a semi-legendary run of three titles. Next season USC will have a first year starter QB, probably no Reggie Bush and maybe still a vulnerable defense. UCLA is obviously getting better all the time under this coach.

I've seen strange things happen in this rivalry many times before. I tend to make absolute statements on these message boards, primarily because what the hell is at stake? If UCLA plays back to their first two or three efforts specifically the Oklahoma game they can make this a contest, but on current form it doesn't look likely.

in Football? I think USC gets the edge. I think Vince Young is the most talented offensive weapon on college this year, but I'd rather have an army than a sole gladiator. People don't see much of USC, they don't see how easily they destroy teams, there's no running up the score, they don't need to. They simply come in and beat the crap out of you, coldy and professionally. And they can be beaten, but not by a team as good as Texas. They could be beaten by the team they don't take seriously, the one they toy with, until they run out of time. Fresno State, this weekend, has a better chance than Texas in Pasadena.

Think, for a minute, what they have. The returning Heisman winner, a senior quarterback who has never lost a game. The number one draft pick (Reggie Bush) in the NFL, who would have gone top five and run for 1500 yards in the NFL. A defense that has never given up that many points, three pro-level wideouts, backups that would start at almost any other school at many skill positions. They have a cohesive, experienced offensive line, and linebackers who can shace Vince Young around. I think they'll be like last year's North Carolina hoops squad, so many people will leave and go pro that they'll be rebuilding all summer.

perhaps the most impressive thing about them is that they don't put up gaudy numbers. They honestly don't see the need to impress anyone.

oh, and it's basically a home game for USC.

barring injuries: USC by 20

Vince Young get a lot of well deserved attention, but Texas is far from a one man show -- they are strong in almost every position on both sides of the ball. Texas has playmakers to spare in the skill positions, and a very good offensive line providing a solid foundation. And on the defensive side of the ball, Texas looks better overall than USC.



They put up gaudy enough numbers -- as they should. When a good team is faced with a much weaker opponent that is what tends to happen.

and Texas does have some weapons, Their line is better, their defensive backfield is better, their wideouts are better, their running back is better, and their qb throws a better ball. oh, and they aren't coached by Mack Brown.

I guess that was meant as sarcasm but the only position where USC has any real edge is at running back, where it is granted that USC has an exceptional tandem. Not sure where you got the idea that USC has a better defensive backfield when Texas gives up 60 passing yds fewer per game.

that's why. Season stats are meaningless when you get to include the likes of Baylor.

Texas Tech had to have been one of the best passing teams in the Big XII, if not also the NCAA. And Texas killed them.

Tech played one good team all year, Texas. I'm not trying to knock Texas here, they've done what they can, it's just their bad luck that the year they have a great team, their conference is on a down year.

is averaging a 35-40 point winning margin in every game they've played in the Big XII.

The Big XII isn't the best, but Texas truly is that good.

USC is that great, however.

:)

Not really knocking USC here, but they've struggled against every top 20 team they've played. They won a miracle game against Notre Dame, and barely beat Fresno State and Arizona State.

I'm not saying they wouldn't beat the rest of the top five if they played them, only that any of those teams could beat them. Each of those teams can play at the same level as USC.

Again, not taking anything away from USC. They have earned their top spot, and they have won all of the close games they've played. But they are beatable. Next week's UCLA game should be interesting. Personally, I want to see them lose and Penn State move into the championship game, just to see Paterno get his last shot at a title.

Having said all that, I think college football rankings are just stupid. These teams don't play enough common opponents to pick who the best is, and even with some dumbass playoff system the teams would still play the majority of their schedule against patsies who don't have a chance against them. Half the teams in the SEC usually play a tougher schedule than any Big Twelve team, so a team with three or four losses wouldn't make the playoffs and would still have won more legitimate challenges than the winners of several other divisions. These rankings and the goofiness about a college playoff system just distract colleges from their (supposed) real job. Texas has practically shut their academic programs down over the last decade to focus on getting where they are. All because of Bullshit rankings that mean less than comic book geek essays on who would win a fight between Superman and Spiderman. Just my HO.

any of the other top ten teams...they're pretty much at the same level.

One big thing against USC this year is that they aren't as hungry as they have been. Last year they really were..in order to prove they really were screwed the year before.

And you're right--rankings aren't accurtae, and never will be unless every team has the same schedule. It's like comparing apples and oranges. And the process is cyclic in the sense that some years some conferences are very good, and then they decline, and then go back up. The rankings are behind the times because they start with rewarding teams and conferences as to how they've done in the past.

Do you blitz Matt Leinart and leave the receivers in 1-1 coverage? Do you focus on stopping Reggie Bush instead, and then give Leinart all day to pick apart your secondary.

Nossir. USC will be focused and put a whupping on 'em.

And UCLA beating USC? Ha! UCLA gave up 51 to Arizona.

around.
Billy Pittman averages over 23 yds. per catch,Limas Sweed over 17,and TE David Harris over 13.

Ramonce Taylor averages over 8 yds. per carry,Jamal Charles over 7,Henry Melton over 5,and Selvin Young averages about 4.4 per carry.

Taylor and Charles are also capable receivers out of the backfield,with Taylor averaging 11 yards per catch and Charles averaging 12 yards per catch.

And as for Vince Young himself;well,him you've heard about so I won't bore you with his stats.

Whoever wins this game will have earned the National Championship. No cakewalk for either side.

But they don't have Reggie Bush.

offensive play. Texas's shared running game seems to be quite effective as well.Through ten games they have 100 more rushing yards than USC has through eleven.

If containing Leinart is going to be a problem for Texas how much of a headache will Young present for USC?

This will be decided on January 4th. USC should handle UCLA without much trouble and UT should beat A&M and then Colorado in the Big XII Championship game.The two indisputedly best teams in the country playing for the Championship in the Rose Bowl. Should be a classic.

And it also looks to me like the Trojans are starting to feel some stress each week just from the streak.

Of course, I thought OK would give them a game last year, and....

"The Longhorns are the only team in the country averaging more than 50 points per game, "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10194980/

Hook 'em.