[OutsiderFan]

Not to count chickens, but it sure looks likely USC will once again be controlled by Stanford in 2013.  Wittek looks awful, against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech.  Of course there are Cody Kessler and True Frosh Max Browne, but True Frosh QBs simply don't win championships. 

But of course the real reason USC is going downward is Lane Kiffin is the next Jeff Tedford, from the same Jim Sweeney coaching tree.  Not much reason to think USC will be that much better in 2013 than the 7-6 2012 team, so looking like another Stanford win in the Coliseum next year.

[OutsiderFan]

Not to count chickens, but it sure looks likely USC will once again be controlled by Stanford in 2013.  Wittek looks awful, against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech.  Of course there are Cody Kessler and True Frosh Max Browne, but True Frosh QBs simply don't win championships. 

But of course the real reason USC is going downward is Lane Kiffin is the next Jeff Tedford, from the same Jim Sweeney coaching tree.  Not much reason to think USC will be that much better in 2013 than the 7-6 2012 team, so looking like another Stanford win in the Coliseum next year.

[socalstanfan1]

Boy do I have mixed feelings as I think about this performance by USC. 

On the one hand, my first response was: "Couldn't happen to a more deserving program and coach."  I can't stand the arrogance of that entire program, the sense of entitlement that runs through so many of their comments; their belief that winning the Pac-12 is a birthright.  And watching and listening to Lame Kitten frankly makes me quite literally sick to my stomach. So part of me, a big part of me, loves this.

But, as much as I hate USC, I don't think it does the Pac-12 any good to have its most recognizable program (nationally) publicly throw up on itself.  Coming as it does near the end of what has been a disappointing bowl season for the Pac-12, I can almost hear the pundits already, proclaiming: well, I guess the Pac-12 isn't as good as we thought it was.  And, by extension: "Well, I guess Stanford won in a down year."  It doesn't take much to wind up the "nattering nabobs of negativity" (to quote a disgraced politician of the past), when it comes to running down Stanford's achievements in football.

Now, I think that is not fair.  Winning in Oregon, defeating USC when they were fully armed (with Barkley), defeating UCLA twice (though that win took a blow when UCLA was destroyed by Baylor), taking down Oregon State (which choked against Texas!), still count as excellent wins.  But I want to beat USC when it is good, not when it is a national joke.  I want to beat Oregon when it is running on all cylinders (as it was this year), not if Chip Kelly goes to the NFL and the Oregon program, perhaps, takes a step back.  I want the Pac-12 to be seen as a serious conference when we build a nerd dynasty. 

[socalstanfan1]

Boy do I have mixed feelings as I think about this performance by USC. 

On the one hand, my first response was: "Couldn't happen to a more deserving program and coach."  I can't stand the arrogance of that entire program, the sense of entitlement that runs through so many of their comments; their belief that winning the Pac-12 is a birthright.  And watching and listening to Lame Kitten frankly makes me quite literally sick to my stomach. So part of me, a big part of me, loves this.

But, as much as I hate USC, I don't think it does the Pac-12 any good to have its most recognizable program (nationally) publicly throw up on itself.  Coming as it does near the end of what has been a disappointing bowl season for the Pac-12, I can almost hear the pundits already, proclaiming: well, I guess the Pac-12 isn't as good as we thought it was.  And, by extension: "Well, I guess Stanford won in a down year."  It doesn't take much to wind up the "nattering nabobs of negativity" (to quote a disgraced politician of the past), when it comes to running down Stanford's achievements in football.

Now, I think that is not fair.  Winning in Oregon, defeating USC when they were fully armed (with Barkley), defeating UCLA twice (though that win took a blow when UCLA was destroyed by Baylor), taking down Oregon State (which choked against Texas!), still count as excellent wins.  But I want to beat USC when it is good, not when it is a national joke.  I want to beat Oregon when it is running on all cylinders (as it was this year), not if Chip Kelly goes to the NFL and the Oregon program, perhaps, takes a step back.  I want the Pac-12 to be seen as a serious conference when we build a nerd dynasty. 

[82 Card]

Coming as it does near the end of what has been a disappointing bowl season for the Pac-12, I can almost hear the pundits already, proclaiming: well, I guess the Pac-12 isn't as good as we thought it was.  And, by extension: "Well, I guess Stanford won in a down year."  It doesn't take much to wind up the "nattering nabobs of negativity" (to quote a disgraced politician of the past), when it comes to running down Stanford's achievements in football.

I share this concern. I really wanted the rest of the league to do well in the bowls. I can hear the cries of "over-rated". But right now, there's only one thing on my mind: Win the Rose Bowl. If Stanford takes care of business tomorrow and Oregon does as well, this bowl season will look OK for the league and great for Stanford. Go Stanford!

[82 Card]

Coming as it does near the end of what has been a disappointing bowl season for the Pac-12, I can almost hear the pundits already, proclaiming: well, I guess the Pac-12 isn't as good as we thought it was.  And, by extension: "Well, I guess Stanford won in a down year."  It doesn't take much to wind up the "nattering nabobs of negativity" (to quote a disgraced politician of the past), when it comes to running down Stanford's achievements in football.

I share this concern. I really wanted the rest of the league to do well in the bowls. I can hear the cries of "over-rated". But right now, there's only one thing on my mind: Win the Rose Bowl. If Stanford takes care of business tomorrow and Oregon does as well, this bowl season will look OK for the league and great for Stanford. Go Stanford!

[OutsiderFan]

Just win the Rose Bowl and NOBODY will question Stanford's credentials. 

[OutsiderFan]

Just win the Rose Bowl and NOBODY will question Stanford's credentials. 

[fullmetal]

Well, those who question Wisconsin's cred will still question Stanford.  I hate to say it, but it might take Oregon crushing K-State to indirectly lift Stanford in the average ($EC) voter's eyes.

[fullmetal]

Well, those who question Wisconsin's cred will still question Stanford.  I hate to say it, but it might take Oregon crushing K-State to indirectly lift Stanford in the average ($EC) voter's eyes.

[jayasena]

Now, I think that is not fair.  Winning in Oregon, defeating Under Stanford Control when they were fully armed (with Barkley), defeating UCLA twice (though that win took a blow when UCLA was destroyed by Baylor), taking down Oregon State (which choked against Texas!), still count as excellent wins.  But I want to beat Under Stanford Control when it is good, not when it is a national joke.  I want to beat Oregon when it is running on all cylinders (as it was this year), not if Chip Kelly goes to the NFL and the Oregon program, perhaps, takes a step back. I want the Pac-12 to be seen as a serious conference when we build a nerd dynasty.

We did beat USC when they were good -- even when Carroll was still there. And we are 2-2 against Oregon during their current peak. Personally, there's nothing I'd like better (in a football sense) than to see Kelly leave for the NFL and Oregon take a step back and for USC to not become the single point of national attention in the Pac (in reality or perception) again.

In other words, I'll take championships in a perceived-to-be-weak Pac-12 over most other outcomes. The reality is, the Pac will always be a tough conference, whether it's regarded as such or not (e.g. almost all of USC's losses during Carroll's run of success was to Pac-10 teams and they dominated almost all OOC teams they played, including a number of upper-tier SEC teams). And the perception of the conference won't matter much once the playoff system kicks in.

[jayasena]

Now, I think that is not fair.  Winning in Oregon, defeating Under Stanford Control when they were fully armed (with Barkley), defeating UCLA twice (though that win took a blow when UCLA was destroyed by Baylor), taking down Oregon State (which choked against Texas!), still count as excellent wins.  But I want to beat Under Stanford Control when it is good, not when it is a national joke.  I want to beat Oregon when it is running on all cylinders (as it was this year), not if Chip Kelly goes to the NFL and the Oregon program, perhaps, takes a step back. I want the Pac-12 to be seen as a serious conference when we build a nerd dynasty.

We did beat USC when they were good -- even when Carroll was still there. And we are 2-2 against Oregon during their current peak. Personally, there's nothing I'd like better (in a football sense) than to see Kelly leave for the NFL and Oregon take a step back and for USC to not become the single point of national attention in the Pac (in reality or perception) again.

In other words, I'll take championships in a perceived-to-be-weak Pac-12 over most other outcomes. The reality is, the Pac will always be a tough conference, whether it's regarded as such or not (e.g. almost all of USC's losses during Carroll's run of success was to Pac-10 teams and they dominated almost all OOC teams they played, including a number of upper-tier SEC teams). And the perception of the conference won't matter much once the playoff system kicks in.

[george]

In other words, I'll take championships in a perceived-to-be-weak Pac-12 over most other outcomes. The reality is, the Pac will always be a tough conference, whether it's regarded as such or not (e.g. almost all of USC's losses during Carroll's run of success was to Pac-10 teams and they dominated almost all OOC teams they played, including a number of upper-tier SEC teams). And the perception of the conference won't matter much once the playoff system kicks in.

If only 4 teams make it into a playoff, and as ridiculous as it is -- the SEC is going to get two of them, we're going to still have to care about the perception of the conference.

[george]

In other words, I'll take championships in a perceived-to-be-weak Pac-12 over most other outcomes. The reality is, the Pac will always be a tough conference, whether it's regarded as such or not (e.g. almost all of USC's losses during Carroll's run of success was to Pac-10 teams and they dominated almost all OOC teams they played, including a number of upper-tier SEC teams). And the perception of the conference won't matter much once the playoff system kicks in.

If only 4 teams make it into a playoff, and as ridiculous as it is -- the SEC is going to get two of them, we're going to still have to care about the perception of the conference.

[fullmetal]

Even with a playoff, you'll still need a BCS-like ranking system to determine who gets into the playoffs.  I think george is right that SEC bias might be magnified a bit there.  Maybe there should be a rule that only conference champions should be in the playoffs.

[fullmetal]

Even with a playoff, you'll still need a BCS-like ranking system to determine who gets into the playoffs.  I think george is right that SEC bias might be magnified a bit there.  Maybe there should be a rule that only conference champions should be in the playoffs.