USC top 5???

[goingoneight]

:mad: Seriously, you would think when a team loses offensive linemen, a heisman winning quarterback, a heisman winning running back, a damn good back up power running back... they would have some trouble. NTM, their defense totally sucked in 2005, not at all the dominant force it was in 2004.

They have two options at QB. One of which may or may not be up to par because of back surgery, and the other who may not be out of jail. They lost a few good assistant coaches, and are supposedly breaking in a new DC. I guess that makes them on their way back to the top.

I get that they recruit well at the SUC, but so does a selective 10-14 other traditional powers who have a helluva lot better chance in 2006 than they do.

Jeez, you would think that the whole USC hard-on would have worn off by now. Only reason I post this is because I have seen fans and networks al concurring they are top 5, some believe they'll be as high as No. 2 next season... Yeah, after they play a better Arkansas team (the year's experience makes a difference, just as Bomar), after they play Oregon, after they play Notre Dame, after they play Nebbish (who will be decent to good as well)... I'm sure we'll see another undefeated jimmy hats seaosn, right? Gimme a break!

[sooner94]

FYI- The sexual assault charges against their back-up QB (Sanchez) have been dropped. The police could not find any evidence of assault.

I agree with you on their pre-season rating. I think expectations for USC next year are based on what they have done the past few years, and a lot of those players are gone.

[goingoneight]

yeah, I mean USC is a cool school, and while I visited, I was treated with the highest respect (which at times, I don't deserve, I know). But the media leaching on Pete's... well... you know, is a little ridiculous. I mean, FSU only lost to us by 11 points ands were in the exact same ballpark going into 2001, and no one threw any love their way. I think the media needs to look at USC as any other program and realize no matter how easy their schedule may seem, their are still some quality names on there and they have a lot a reloading to do...

[olevetonahill]

Mike Stoops Cats will kick their azz ;)

[85sooners]

screw sc:D

[AllAboutThe'O']

They'll lose at least three games this year and fall out of the top 10. I think ND gets them, and possibly Nebraska. And you heard it here first, I also agree with the previous post that Arizona gets them down in the desert.

[Snrfn4ever08]

They'll lose at least three games this year and fall out of the top 10. I think ND gets them, and possibly Nebraska. And you heard it here first, I also agree with the previous post that Arizona gets them down in the desert.
i also think arizona could get them. i think arizona could be a major sleeper next year, due to their new quarterback, tuitama. i've heard nothing but good things about him and most of the arizona fans seem to think he'll be their savior

[Jimminy Crimson]

Bull F'in shizz.

SC sucks.

Big ones.

[goingoneight]

Time for them to fall Miami-style!!! :D

[Snrfn4ever08]

Time for them to fall Miami-style!!! :D
it's a-comin'

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Sat 09/02/06 Arkansas Fayetteville, Ark. ESPN7:45 PM
Sat 09/16/06 Nebraska L.A. Coliseum ABC5:00 PM
Sat 09/23/06 Arizona Tucson, Ariz. ABC5:00 PM
Sat 09/30/06 Washington State Pullman, Wash. TBA
Sat 10/07/06 Washington L.A. Coliseum TBA
Sat 10/14/06 Arizona State L.A. Coliseum ABC5:00 PM
Sat 10/28/06 Oregon State Corvallis, Ore. TBA
Sat 11/04/06 Stanford Palo Alto, Calif. TBA
Sat 11/11/06 Oregon (Homecoming) L.A. Coliseum FSN7:15 PM
Sat 11/18/06 California L.A. Coliseum ABC5:00 PM
Sat 11/25/06 Notre Dame L.A. Coliseum ABC5:00 PM
Sat 12/02/06 UCLA Pasadena, Calif. ABC1:30 PM

I'll go with an ND win and an Oregoin win. usc will still be good, but nothing like the horse that they were before. JMHO.

[goingoneight]

why does everyone think Nebbish is gonna get beat by SC, either? I think, yeah, it's a possibility, but not likely. Nebraska came back on us and finished just as strong as us in 2005. Granted we have recruiting and coaching strengths Nebbish doesn't have, but they'll still be good enough to take down an inexperienced SC squad. I mean, come on... how much practice does Arkansas provide new RBs and new QBs along with some fresh OL men??? I would bet on SC losing four or more looking at that schedule, seeing as a lot of them scared their "best team ever" in 2005...

[AzianSooner]

I bring out my Trojan Fighting Spirit every night on bed.

[badger]

usc=anagram for suc.

usc it trebek. usc it long, usc it hard... [/celeb jeopardy]

[SoonerJLB]

Even though SC lost a lot of star players to the NFL and such...they will still be the team to beat in the Pac-10. If they win out in their first OCC games and conference games and beat ND...they will be ranked highly. SC needs several RBs to step up and their defense to develop to do that. No reason to think they can't with their talented team and coaches. They should be in the mix with OU.

[Dances with Possums]

I have never understood the whole "well, Team X lost player X and three DB's and several OL to the league so they will suck" school of thought.

Case in point: Last year at this time many Sooners were saying "Texas lost Derek Johnson and Cedric Benson. No way will they be better." Yet, we were. We say the same things when you guys lose players. It's an easy "peg" to hang your thinking on. But history is replete with so many teams that lost some key player/players/units and went on to win the whole thing the next year.

Look at Tennessee. Lose it with Peyton Manning, win it with Tee Martin.

[AzianSooner]

Texass su.ck too. I bring out Texxasss fight out every night too.

[BASSooner]

I have never understood the whole "well, Team X lost player X and three DB's and several OL to the league so they will suck" school of thought.

Case in point: Last year at this time many Sooners were saying "Texas lost Derek Johnson and Cedric Benson. No way will they be better." Yet, we were. We say the same things when you guys lose players. It's an easy "peg" to hang your thinking on. But history is replete with so many teams that lost some key player/players/units and went on to win the whole thing the next year.

Look at Tennessee. Lose it with Peyton Manning, win it with Tee Martin.
yeah because you lost only 2 people. Even though you guys had lost 2 players, yall didn't lose the team. This year is a different story.

[Dances with Possums]

Even though you guys had lost 2 players, yall didn't lose the team.



Not according to you guys last year at this time, which was my point. Last year at this time, according to this very BBS. Here is just one multipage thread among roughly 917 that I could choose:


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41395

[sooner94]

Shockingly, the UT fans have missed the point of this thread.

The point of this thread was that USC lost their entire starting backfield, which included 2 Heisman's (maybe UT fans aren't as familiar as OU fans are with that award and the type of player that wins one) and a great power RB. IMO, one of the better backfields you will ever see in college. No matter how well you recruit, that is tough to replace.

And its not like they are returning a loaded D. And they have had close calls in the last 2 seasons.

The point is, USC should drop off a little this season.

[RedstickSooner]

I get that they recruit well at the SUC, but so does a selective 10-14 other traditional powers who have a helluva lot better chance in 2006 than they do.



Nope.

There aren't 10-14 other teams who recruit as well as USC. For the past 5 or 6 years, Crybaby McHuggles has consistently landed best-in-nation recruiting classes every year.

If they have another off year this season, that'll finally start to drop off, same as it did for the Cocaines -- but 'til then, they get a top five ranking on talent alone.

They also have a very favorable schedule. They play 9 pac-10 teams (which is a travesty -- expanding the regular-season shouldn't be taken as an opportunity for one more assinine, mastubatory in-conference matchup -- it should've been a chance for every team to expand their out-of-conference slate with an opponent they rarely play) 2 ****-poor teams, and Note Lame.

What's more, their away games are:

Arkansas
Arizona
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA

Out of those, Oregon and UCLA are the only halfway decent fores -- and you certainly can't say that either team has more talent than USC. So, the only thing you can say is that they're dangerous games if USC under-performs and UCLA or Oregon over-performs.

When you've got more talent on the roster than anyone on your regular schedule, and have only lost a couple games in the past three years, you're probably a shoe-in for the top five.

Being a corrupt program with no institutional control, they shouldn't be ranked -- nor eligible for post-season play -- but the NCAA only seems interested in punishing certain teams. And USC isn't one of 'em.

So, for now, we have to put up with the continued media lovefest for Crybaby McHuggles 'n his bath house condoms. With a little luck, they'll finally experience the sort of quarterback struggles that every other team goes through when breaking in a rookie QB -- but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

[sooneron]

I think they can lose as many as three games. This is due to so many close calls the past couple of years. The ball won't bounce their way forever. You have to figure that the people ranking them have little respect (deservedly) for the pac 10. Down the stretch, they get three of their toughest opps at home - For whatever that's worth, since their "fanbase" just got distracted by some shiny object elsewhere.

[RedstickSooner]

Okay, about the rankings -- they haven't been #1 *every* year, but they have been at the top a lot more consistently than anyone else. Starting with 2002, it goes (oh, and, first column after team name is total number of signings, then 5 star signings, then 4 star, then 3 star, then average rank, and Rivals stupid "points" system total):

13 Southern Cal 22 0 15 5 3.50 1,947
3 Southern Cal 28 2 10 14 3.43 2,327
1 Southern Cal 20 8 7 3 4.05 2,908
1 Southern Cal 20 4 11 5 3.95 2,631
1 Southern Cal 25 5 14 6 3.96 3,018

Compare that to us for the same stretch:

7 Oklahoma 24 3 13 8 3.79 2,244
4 Oklahoma 24 0 16 6 3.58 2,121
8 Oklahoma 18 3 8 6 3.72 2,055
3 Oklahoma 27 2 14 10 3.63 2,441
9 Oklahoma 28 1 13 14 3.54 2,180

Or to Florida, another strong recruiter:

2 Florida 27 4 17 5 3.89 2,901
15 Florida 18 0 8 9 3.39 1,467
7 Florida 23 1 11 10 3.52 2,065
15 Florida 18 0 8 9 3.39 1,467
2 Florida 27 4 17 5 3.89 2,901

How 'bout Florida State:

4 Florida State 23 6 14 2 4.09 2,415
21 Florida State 19 1 8 10 3.53 1,617
3 Florida State 27 1 16 8 3.59 2,377
2 Florida State 22 3 13 5 3.82 2,582
3 Florida State 31 2 18 10 3.68 2,703

Or the Cocaines:

8 Miami-FL 24 2 15 6 3.75 2,228
5 Miami-FL 24 3 10 10 3.63 2,067
4 Miami-FL 28 3 10 9 3.36 2,329
7 Miami-FL 17 2 11 3 3.82 1,976
14 Miami-FL 22 0 11 8 3.36 1,785

Uhm... Ohio State?

5 Ohio State 26 3 14 8 3.65 2,342
Not Ranked in 2003
9 Ohio State 25 1 9 10 3.24 1,913
12 Ohio State 18 1 9 6 3.50 1,654
12 Ohio State 20 2 8 10 3.60 2,000

Tejas:

1 Texas 28 6 15 5 3.89 2,792
15 Texas 18 1 11 6 3.72 1,677
10 Texas 20 1 9 9 3.50 1,864
20 Texas 15 0 9 6 3.60 1,409
5 Texas 25 2 11 12 3.60 2,283

Now, yeah, I dig that recruiting is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overrated. However, it does play a part -- and when you've got a team that is consistently pulling in the best talent in the country, you've got to expect they're going to be a fairly good.

Simply put, nobody has recruited like the Crybaby. Apparently, talented athletes like a coach who can pitch a hissy fit when losing to a sucky Cal Bears team keeps him out of the Big Dance, not to mention a progam that doesn't mind some sports agent hooking your moms 'n dads up with a swank pad while you're in college.

Since 2002, USC has pulled in 19 five star recruits. Say what you want about recruiting -- the five star players usually end up being pretty good. During that same time, we've gotten nine. Tejas has gotten 10. Free Shoes University has gotten 13. The cocaines have 10. Florida has 9, and Ohio State has 7.

They're loaded, and we look silly if we dont' acknowledge that fact. We may question their methods (since the NCAA apparently isn't going to), but the results aren't in doubt. They've got the sort of incredible talent even a washed-out NFL failure like Crybaby can't entirely negate.

[goingoneight]

Nope.

There aren't 10-14 other teams who recruit as well as USC. For the past 5 or 6 years, Crybaby McHuggles has consistently landed best-in-nation recruiting classes every year.

If they have another off year this season, that'll finally start to drop off, same as it did for the Cocaines -- but 'til then, they get a top five ranking on talent alone.

They also have a very favorable schedule. They play 9 pac-10 teams (which is a travesty -- expanding the regular-season shouldn't be taken as an opportunity for one more assinine, mastubatory in-conference matchup -- it should've been a chance for every team to expand their out-of-conference slate with an opponent they rarely play) 2 ****-poor teams, and Note Lame.

What's more, their away games are:

Arkansas
Arizona
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA

Out of those, Oregon and UCLA are the only halfway decent fores -- and you certainly can't say that either team has more talent than USC. So, the only thing you can say is that they're dangerous games if USC under-performs and UCLA or Oregon over-performs.

When you've got more talent on the roster than anyone on your regular schedule, and have only lost a couple games in the past three years, you're probably a shoe-in for the top five.

Being a corrupt program with no institutional control, they shouldn't be ranked -- nor eligible for post-season play -- but the NCAA only seems interested in punishing certain teams. And USC isn't one of 'em.

So, for now, we have to put up with the continued media lovefest for Crybaby McHuggles 'n his bath house condoms. With a little luck, they'll finally experience the sort of quarterback struggles that every other team goes through when breaking in a rookie QB -- but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

I'm sorry, I left out a few words to clarify. I meant that their are 10-14 other traditonal powers who stand a better chance at a glorious finish in 2006 than the SUC. Not recruiting. My bad...

[goingoneight]

I hope when Petey takes a new job they hire some John Blake-ish jackass to fall off the radar completely. Like... the "pre-pete!" :D

[Quack 10]

With all due respect, quit bagging on the Pac-10. For every Stanford (which is always talented if not deep) and UW the Pac-10 has, The Big XII has two nondescript and typically crummy programs.

I hate SC as much as anybody, but they consistently play tough schedules. They're OOC line up is NU, Arky and ND. Do you see UAB or MTSU on SC's schedule, or frickin' Portland State for that matter? The lousiest team they ever play is Hawaii, unless you count the Huskies, but aren't we all playing them?

As far as USC being top 5, God I hope not; but like y'all, and a few other elites, they're capable of reloading in a hurry.

[goingoneight]

With all due respect, quit bagging on the Pac-10. For every Stanford (which is always talented if not deep) and UW the Pac-10 has, The Big XII has two nondescript and typically crummy programs.

I hate SC as much as anybody, but they consistently play tough schedules. They're OOC line up is NU, Arky and ND. Do you see UAB or MTSU on SC's schedule, or frickin' Portland State for that matter? The lousiest team they ever play is Hawaii, unless you count the Huskies, but aren't we all playing them?

As far as USC being top 5, God I hope not; but like y'all, and a few other elites, they're capable of reloading in a hurry.

You're not talking about football, are you???
Nope, Nope and Nope... only a few names deserve any props in the PAC 10, and as of recent years, UCLA just came OUt of the closet and started playing some football in 2005, and Oregon is agreeably going places under Belotti. But you're talking about a conference with four TX teams, two Oklahoma teams (though Baylor and OSU aren't generally good, southern football owns), Nebraska, Colorado, and in recent years K-State and Iowa State have recorded good seasons (for them). You cannot say that the BIG 12 has two for 1 in crummy programs. First of all, the math obviously doesn't add up, and some of the winningest teams of all time are housed in OUr conference. When a few years pass and nobody cares about OUr fallout in the OB 2005, tell me which conference plays better football. If that is what you are referring to... :rolleyes:

[MojoRisen]

Bull F'in shizz.

SC sucks.

Big ones.


Death penalty looming-

[Vegas Vic]

Top 5 might be a stretch for USC, but I wouldn't rule it out.

While it's true that they lost a tremendous amount of talent last year, the players that will be stepping up this year were highly rated recruits. USC has not had the same kind of debacle that OU suffered through, with virtually an entire recruiting class either quitting, transferring or flunking out. USC has built up good depth with their recruiting, and they have had a high retention rate, so they will not be forced to start a lot of true freshmen like OU did last year.