Stanford, USC, UCLA don't take any prop 48 players.
As for academics and athletics. The top 3 programs in this order:
Stanford
UCLA,
USC
USC is actually a very good school, their grad schools reflect it. The undergraduate program would be rated higher, but USC has a lot of students who are at the school either because their parents went their or their family has donated a sizeable amount of money.
The University of Miami is a solid school, but not the same academic institution as USC.
Florida is a solid school, but outside of Florida it is not respected as one the top 10 public schools, regardless of what US News says.
Top public schools bases on perception would probably be imo:
Cal
Michigan
UCLA
Texas
Penn State
UNC
UVA
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
As for academics and athletics. The top 3 programs in this order:
Stanford
UCLA,
USC
USC is actually a very good school, their grad schools reflect it. The undergraduate program would be rated higher, but USC has a lot of students who are at the school either because their parents went their or their family has donated a sizeable amount of money.
The University of Miami is a solid school, but not the same academic institution as USC.
Florida is a solid school, but outside of Florida it is not respected as one the top 10 public schools, regardless of what US News says.
Top public schools bases on perception would probably be imo:
Cal
Michigan
UCLA
Texas
Penn State
UNC
UVA
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
a lot of people were bud.
Whos to blame you think? Bozo, Sarky, the players, or all the above?
I think most of the blame HAS to be blamed on Pete for he happens to be face of the school and motivating last time I checked happens to be one of his priorities.
GL this week Box, keep it rolling
P.S. Those USC safeties are pretty darn big aren't they haha
the typical opinion is to put it on the shoulders of the head coach. if your team isnt ready to play a 1-2 team, and you are considered the best in the country with 5* recruits everywhere, it is popular to say head coach is to blame.
at the same time, mcknight fumbling, sanchez not moving the ball until the 2nd half, defense getting shredded and missing tackles. i think you can only coach a guy not to fumble so much, or tackle so much, or make the throws so much, etc.
i think everyone is to blame.
usc didnt match their intensity, maybe not prepared mentally = carroll's fault.
fumbling, missing tackles, etc = players fault
bottom line - usc year in and year out is not as good as we think they are.
you can blame rivalries, road games, coaching, whatever you want to blame...bottom line great teams find a way to get it done, and USC cant get it done. they are not a great team.
Box, what it means is that they are more human than you think they are. Everyone has their days and you can find all kinds of reasons why and it always boils down to who is doing or not doing something. The best you can say about anyone is that "they usually," "they often," " they almost always," beyond that it's about being perfect and that's just not realistic. But when they are on, which is often, they are as good as they appear to be.
whor usually love your stuff but the florida schools are bad at this too.
You ever heard of a kid named Willie Williams? LB recruit a few years back from South Florida. Kid had NINE arrests before his senior year and was still heavily recruited by UF, FSU, and UM. He goes on his recruiting trip to UF and picks up two more arrests for sexually assaulting a woman and spraying a fire extinguisher in a hotel employee's face. Needless to say he is still recruited and eventually commits to UM.
i never said they were robots or unbeatable. i would just expect a GOOD team to beat them. i dont have a problem with great programs losing to a good team. like a ranked Cal team, Ohio State, or a UCLA w/ neuheisel in a cross-town rivalry type of game.
you cant get beat up by oregon state. you just cant. it's one thing to have some flukey plays and lose, but USC got flat-out beat - there was no mistake about it. you cant lose to stanford. you just cant. those games have to be wins - no matter what the score. this OSU team lost to stanford and got their doors blown off by penn state - they were not playing good football. you have to find a way to win the game. if USC comes out of OSU with a 28-27 victory, a lot of haters would say "hahahahahah", but i think those close wins are the mark of a great team, that find a way to get a win at any cost. usc doesnt do that.
I understand the point you are trying to make Box, but the logic doesn't fit with Oregon State. The team you saw beat USC was not the team that began the year and got whupped in Happy Valley and lost to Stanford. Oregon St., unfortunately for them, have a reputation for being slow starters year after year. It's been that way for a while. However man for man they are bigger and faster (Quizz excepted) than last year's team that went 10-4. You weren't around here last summer when I was talking about this team. Riley, Langsdorf and Banker are 3 coaches known for coaching up their players and what you saw them do to USC was a credit to them. Furthermore, the Beavers are nearly invincible at home. PSU may have just as easily gone down if that game was played @ Reser and later on in the season than it was. They've even beaten USC the last 2 times they've played there. Remember too that Or.St. is the team that sent (#2) Cal into a tailspin last season when they upset them in Berkeley. Over the last 2 years they've won more games than any other team in the conference except USC and both years they've been ranked. Shame on PC and the Trojans for taking them lightly. Just be careful not to make the same mistake they did. Other than that I agree with every point.
I'm not trying to slight Oregon State, but they are an inconsistent football team. And of course, it is a credit to them and their coaches for having them ready to play. But if it was truly USC and 119 dwarfs as you said many times, you just cant lose that football game.
Before I bet OSU, I said USC was not unbeatable. But I was thinking more along the lines of having a top 15 ranked team beat them.
I think losses like that happen. Sometimes you dont bring your A game vs. a very good team and you lose.
But OSU, Stanford, and OSU can not happen. Regardless of home records, regardless of anything. There is no excuse for a "USC and 119 dwarfs team" to lose to anyone not in the top 15. It shows lack of coaching, lack of mental toughness, etc. I also think they got outplayed.
And I am aware that fluke games happen, and strange referee calls like that Oregon/Oklahoma game, or fluke long TD runs, or a rare breakdown in coverage, but USC got whooped pretty good out there - and to me there is no excuse for that if that team is truly the best team in the country - which they are clearly not.
Does that mean I'm going to fade USC now? No.
Before I bet OSU, I said USC was not unbeatable. But I was thinking more along the lines of having a top 15 ranked team beat them.
I think losses like that happen. Sometimes you dont bring your A game vs. a very good team and you lose.
But OSU, Stanford, and OSU can not happen. Regardless of home records, regardless of anything. There is no excuse for a "USC and 119 dwarfs team" to lose to anyone not in the top 15. It shows lack of coaching, lack of mental toughness, etc. I also think they got outplayed.
And I am aware that fluke games happen, and strange referee calls like that Oregon/Oklahoma game, or fluke long TD runs, or a rare breakdown in coverage, but USC got whooped pretty good out there - and to me there is no excuse for that if that team is truly the best team in the country - which they are clearly not.
Does that mean I'm going to fade USC now? No.
I feel like my brain has been torn in half based on the evidence I've seen GoSooners. In the first place, USC hands a real bad loss to Ohio St., making that renowned defense look like Swiss cheese. But then a make shift DL comprised of 7 first year starters shuts them out for a 1/2 and makes them look like, well it makes them look like they have 4 new starters on their OL. Maybe if that wasn't the case the outcome would have been different. It's just very hard to extract much consistency from a lot of what's been happening in a lot of places this year. You know, that "falling into a trap" feeling. It ain't always like it appears to be.
Box, I'd also be careful about fading Oregon St. This is the earliest in the year that I've seen this kind of play from them. Normally, most years when they hit their stride, they may lose one game all season afterwards. They are pretty consistent but they don't seem to play that way in September.
