[stupac2]

Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. USC is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.

[stupac2]

Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. USC is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17538.msg203422#msg203422 date=1506772122]Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. U$C is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.
[/quote]

Probably nobody. That's why I'm predicting U$C even though they may be somewhere between "not much good"  and "good".

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17538.msg203422#msg203422 date=1506772122]Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. U$C is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.
[/quote]

Probably nobody. That's why I'm predicting U$C even though they may be somewhere between "not much good"  and "good".

[csfoster]

WSU definitely looked better than I expected.  :o

[csfoster]

WSU definitely looked better than I expected.  :o

[JohnR34231]

WSU definitely looked better than I expected.  :o

I think there is a tendency to think of Wazzu as a good passing team that can't do much else. Now not only can they pass, they can run the ball and play good defense.

P.S. You gotta love Leach's description of the crowd pandemonium after the game.
"It was like Woodstock. Except everyone had their clothes on".
(From some of the descriptions I've heard of the social life at Wazzu, I'm surprised that was true. :))

[JohnR34231]

WSU definitely looked better than I expected.  :o

I think there is a tendency to think of Wazzu as a good passing team that can't do much else. Now not only can they pass, they can run the ball and play good defense.

P.S. You gotta love Leach's description of the crowd pandemonium after the game.
"It was like Woodstock. Except everyone had their clothes on".
(From some of the descriptions I've heard of the social life at Wazzu, I'm surprised that was true. :))

[martyup]

The Bear on CGD just predicted that the winner of the Pac-12 will be . . .  drum roll . . .  STANFORD!!

[martyup]

The Bear on CGD just predicted that the winner of the Pac-12 will be . . .  drum roll . . .  STANFORD!!

[French Rage]

Cougs win, 30-27. Despite their record, I'm still not ready to think they're among the top four teams in the Pac. If they beat Oregon on the road, that would be a different story...and the Cougs would definitely deserve a return to the top 10 (first time since 2003). Unsure if they'll get in the top 10 based on this win alone.

U$C needs to get healthy. But Darnold also not looking great. Can someone challenge them in the South?

Top 10, yes.  But as discussed earlier, they haven't had to go on the road at all.  Now 5 of their last 7 are away, and one of the home games is us, so it's a bit of a tougher road going forward.  But they have done what they needed to thus far.

[French Rage]

Cougs win, 30-27. Despite their record, I'm still not ready to think they're among the top four teams in the Pac. If they beat Oregon on the road, that would be a different story...and the Cougs would definitely deserve a return to the top 10 (first time since 2003). Unsure if they'll get in the top 10 based on this win alone.

U$C needs to get healthy. But Darnold also not looking great. Can someone challenge them in the South?

Top 10, yes.  But as discussed earlier, they haven't had to go on the road at all.  Now 5 of their last 7 are away, and one of the home games is us, so it's a bit of a tougher road going forward.  But they have done what they needed to thus far.

[Phogge]

WSU has always been one of the most entertaining teams in the country. Horrible at times but likely to break your heart at others. Came in and beat Brodie in the fourth q by passing Stanford dizzy. The famous comeback in the 80's when Reuben Mayes went crazy in the fourth q. The upset over the Bunce Rose Bowlers with a final play FG. The Caleb Bowman game.

I'm glad there are guys like Leach. A coach with a personality. Rather have a couple of cocktails with him than any with Saban, Kelly or any other cookie cutter.

[Phogge]

WSU has always been one of the most entertaining teams in the country. Horrible at times but likely to break your heart at others. Came in and beat Brodie in the fourth q by passing Stanford dizzy. The famous comeback in the 80's when Reuben Mayes went crazy in the fourth q. The upset over the Bunce Rose Bowlers with a final play FG. The Caleb Bowman game.

I'm glad there are guys like Leach. A coach with a personality. Rather have a couple of cocktails with him than any with Saban, Kelly or any other cookie cutter.

[CowboyIndian]

The fact they rolled over Stanford says more about Stanford, and particularly its defense not being very good, than Southern ןɐɔ being special. 

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

[CowboyIndian]

The fact they rolled over Stanford says more about Stanford, and particularly its defense not being very good, than Southern ןɐɔ being special. 

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17538.msg203420#msg203420 date=1506768770]
The fact they rolled over Stanford says more about Stanford, and particularly its defense not being very good, than Southern ןɐɔ being special. 

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.
[/quote]

It's obvious - and not in retrospect - that the Stanford game was a hugely emotional, "biggest game on our schedule" type of game for USC.  It's near impossible for college football teams to play good opponents, especially on the road, and one on a short week no less, after a big emotional win, and continue at that level three weeks in a row.  After Stanford, USC had Texas, at Cal and at WSU.  That's just a ridiculously challenging schedule for a college football team to face. 

And the Pac-12 did it to Cal too, by making them play Ole Miss, USC, at Oregon, at Washington, and WSU, all in a row.  It will be hard for Cal to get up for Oregon tonight after they were all fired up for USC last week.

As Lou Holtz said, you can get a college team emotionally "up" to play their best at most three times per season.  Stanford-USC is emotional for both teams.  Cal and WSU aren't for USC, but they are for Cal and WSU. As far as Stanford goes, their big emotional games this year are going to be at WSU and Washington, the games they can be expected to play their best inspired football, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17538.msg203420#msg203420 date=1506768770]
The fact they rolled over Stanford says more about Stanford, and particularly its defense not being very good, than Southern ןɐɔ being special. 

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.
[/quote]

It's obvious - and not in retrospect - that the Stanford game was a hugely emotional, "biggest game on our schedule" type of game for USC.  It's near impossible for college football teams to play good opponents, especially on the road, and one on a short week no less, after a big emotional win, and continue at that level three weeks in a row.  After Stanford, USC had Texas, at Cal and at WSU.  That's just a ridiculously challenging schedule for a college football team to face. 

And the Pac-12 did it to Cal too, by making them play Ole Miss, USC, at Oregon, at Washington, and WSU, all in a row.  It will be hard for Cal to get up for Oregon tonight after they were all fired up for USC last week.

As Lou Holtz said, you can get a college team emotionally "up" to play their best at most three times per season.  Stanford-USC is emotional for both teams.  Cal and WSU aren't for USC, but they are for Cal and WSU. As far as Stanford goes, their big emotional games this year are going to be at WSU and Washington, the games they can be expected to play their best inspired football, IMO.

[Goose]

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

I quite agree. For U$C, this years Stanford game was almost as much of a pyrrhic victory as ours over UCLA was last year. Granted, U$C played much better against us than we did against UCLA, but in both cases the teams were not the same after the victory. Nagging injuries suffered in the victory built up to bring the teams down in both cases. It was probably five games before Stanford recovered last year, and more damage was done during those games. I expect U$C to be similarly affected. The Utah game could be brutal for them.

[Goose]

Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

I quite agree. For U$C, this years Stanford game was almost as much of a pyrrhic victory as ours over UCLA was last year. Granted, U$C played much better against us than we did against UCLA, but in both cases the teams were not the same after the victory. Nagging injuries suffered in the victory built up to bring the teams down in both cases. It was probably five games before Stanford recovered last year, and more damage was done during those games. I expect U$C to be similarly affected. The Utah game could be brutal for them.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17538.msg203434#msg203434 date=1506779736]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17538.msg203422#msg203422 date=1506772122]Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. U$C is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.
[/quote]

Probably nobody. That's why I'm predicting U$C even though they may be somewhere between "not much good"  and "good".
[/quote]

Schedule favors USC.  They don't play Washington and they only have two more road conference games (at ASU, at Colorado).  They could even lose one of those games and still probably win the South at 7-2.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17538.msg203434#msg203434 date=1506779736]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17538.msg203422#msg203422 date=1506772122]Yeah, as we found out in 2015, the Cougs can be awfully tough in the Palouse even when you are a very good team. If I had to bet I'd still say U$C vs Washington for the CC.

Well who else is going to come out of the south? As far as I can tell UCLA, ASU, and Arizona have no chance, and Utah and Colorado both have real problems. U$C is the most complete team. They'll probably lose at least one more conference game and still win the south.
[/quote]

Probably nobody. That's why I'm predicting U$C even though they may be somewhere between "not much good"  and "good".
[/quote]

Schedule favors USC.  They don't play Washington and they only have two more road conference games (at ASU, at Colorado).  They could even lose one of those games and still probably win the South at 7-2.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17538.msg203461#msg203461 date=1506791685]
Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

I quite agree. For U$C, this years Stanford game was almost as much of a pyrrhic victory as ours over UCLA was last year. Granted, U$C played much better against us than we did against UCLA, but in both cases the teams were not the same after the victory. Nagging injuries suffered in the victory built up to bring the teams down in both cases. It was probably five games before Stanford recovered last year, and more damage was done during those games. I expect U$C to be similarly affected. The Utah game could be brutal for them.
[/quote]

Your post seems to have entailed mind reading what I was going to note. Both on U$C somehow giving us by far their best game of the year and in the comparison to our win over UCLA last year - complete with noting that the key similarity was what it cost us rather than how well we played.

I gues $C was down three OL vs WSU, apparently their three most serious.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-...story.html
I was a bit unnerved to read:

Lobendahn did not make the trip. He practiced this week but was diagnosed with a skin infection in his lower body

So, by mid-WSU game they were out both tackles and the RG, with two frosh playing.
The article tries to note that the rub blocking was okay, but of course the game ended on a strip-sack.

I think there is a tendency to think of Wazzu as a good passing team that can't do much else. Now not only can they pass, they can run the ball and play good defense.

It will be interesting to see how true that is going forward.

WSU couldn't run at all vs Boise, Oregon State and Nevada (137 yds total in those three games, 1.78 yds/carry).
They were better vs $C, why that was tbd.
Defense does look decent, but of course their lineup before last night was Montana St, Boise, Oregon St, Nevada.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17538.msg203461#msg203461 date=1506791685]
Our defense has issues certainly, but if you watched the $C game you saw them playing almost perfect offense....especially Darnold, with pinpoint passes in the perfect location to pretty-well-covered receivers. They haven't been able to reprise that performance since, plus their injury list is long and deep.

I quite agree. For U$C, this years Stanford game was almost as much of a pyrrhic victory as ours over UCLA was last year. Granted, U$C played much better against us than we did against UCLA, but in both cases the teams were not the same after the victory. Nagging injuries suffered in the victory built up to bring the teams down in both cases. It was probably five games before Stanford recovered last year, and more damage was done during those games. I expect U$C to be similarly affected. The Utah game could be brutal for them.
[/quote]

Your post seems to have entailed mind reading what I was going to note. Both on U$C somehow giving us by far their best game of the year and in the comparison to our win over UCLA last year - complete with noting that the key similarity was what it cost us rather than how well we played.

I gues $C was down three OL vs WSU, apparently their three most serious.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-...story.html
I was a bit unnerved to read:

Lobendahn did not make the trip. He practiced this week but was diagnosed with a skin infection in his lower body

So, by mid-WSU game they were out both tackles and the RG, with two frosh playing.
The article tries to note that the rub blocking was okay, but of course the game ended on a strip-sack.

I think there is a tendency to think of Wazzu as a good passing team that can't do much else. Now not only can they pass, they can run the ball and play good defense.

It will be interesting to see how true that is going forward.

WSU couldn't run at all vs Boise, Oregon State and Nevada (137 yds total in those three games, 1.78 yds/carry).
They were better vs $C, why that was tbd.
Defense does look decent, but of course their lineup before last night was Montana St, Boise, Oregon St, Nevada.

[JJJ]

UCLA vs Colorado has started. Watching for a bit.
0-0 with 7mins to go 1Q.
Mora/Rosen went for it on 4th and short after a 6-minute drive and didn't make it.
Announcers also said Jamabo runs "too upright" and exposes his midsection to possible injury (I only note that because of the NFL thread and Ty).
Oh, and UCLA defensive player w/ nasty helmet-first hit on WR. Now under review...

late add: UCLA's Darnay Holmes(?) ejected for targeting, Colorado QB throws TD, leads UCLA 7-0

[JJJ]

UCLA vs Colorado has started. Watching for a bit.
0-0 with 7mins to go 1Q.
Mora/Rosen went for it on 4th and short after a 6-minute drive and didn't make it.
Announcers also said Jamabo runs "too upright" and exposes his midsection to possible injury (I only note that because of the NFL thread and Ty).
Oh, and UCLA defensive player w/ nasty helmet-first hit on WR. Now under review...

late add: UCLA's Darnay Holmes(?) ejected for targeting, Colorado QB throws TD, leads UCLA 7-0

[81alum]

I'm glad there are guys like Leach. A coach with a personality. Rather have a couple of cocktails with him than any with Saban, Kelly or any other cookie cutter.

He does have a strong personality.  Unfortunately it does not come along with strong character. 

[81alum]

I'm glad there are guys like Leach. A coach with a personality. Rather have a couple of cocktails with him than any with Saban, Kelly or any other cookie cutter.

He does have a strong personality.  Unfortunately it does not come along with strong character. 

[martyup]

Oregon just had a player ejected for targeting.  And, their starting QB got hurt and is walking to the locker room.  Looks like a shoulder.

[martyup]

Oregon just had a player ejected for targeting.  And, their starting QB got hurt and is walking to the locker room.  Looks like a shoulder.

[martyup]

Oregon has a player with hair so long and bushy that you cannot even read his back number.  Ridiculous.

[martyup]

Oregon has a player with hair so long and bushy that you cannot even read his back number.  Ridiculous.

[BostonCard]

At halftime UCLA is up 14-10 on Colorado and Oregon is up 17-7 on Cal.

BC

[BostonCard]

At halftime UCLA is up 14-10 on Colorado and Oregon is up 17-7 on Cal.

BC

[martyup]

I think we can run on Cal.  ;D

[martyup]

I think we can run on Cal.  ;D

[vataha]

"Oregon has a player with hair so long and bushy that you cannot even read his back number.  Ridiculous."

Umm...We've got two such lads on our team.

[vataha]

"Oregon has a player with hair so long and bushy that you cannot even read his back number.  Ridiculous."

Umm...We've got two such lads on our team.

[washingtonismoney]

Rosen just threw a pick ... ESPN cued up the angle from behind Rosen and, woof, it looks bad. The safety was breaking on Rosen's throw for days.

[washingtonismoney]

Rosen just threw a pick ... ESPN cued up the angle from behind Rosen and, woof, it looks bad. The safety was breaking on Rosen's throw for days.