Arena 2024-25 NCAA Football Discussion

I'd give it an 8 on the 12 point scale of awesomeness. It was a nice return, and he did a good job setting up his blocks.

 

No offense to Jackson, but his blockers are a huge factor in his returns (see: Thomas DeCoud, vs. UCLA 2006). Just another reason to rate Cal's special teams unit as one of the best.

In fact, there's almost too much competition for returnmen. Cal has an abundance of talent on returns. Jahvid the Jet, as Cal fans know him, could and should be everywhere, but Jackson has the punt returns covered nicely and there are a lot of other capable players on kickoffs. Lavelle Hawkins, Brandon Hampton, Justin Forsett, Robert Jordan, and more, have all been used this past year. Fortunately Berkeley fans got to see Best return a few with good results. There's certainly no worry about running out of options this year.

One player missing against Tenn was place-kicker Tom Schneider, who normally does kickoffs as well. He did an excellent job last year, so it was strange not seeing him on the field. He'll probably be gone for week 2 against Colorado St. Too bad, since there will be a LOT of kickoffs.

Speaking of kickers, I found U$C's tribute to former kicker Mario Danelo more emotional than Virginia Tech's for some reason. Maybe it was just because I like seeing penalties given to the Trojans...

[image=http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/eab858b5-993e-4c55-b49d-daecc7524b46.jpg]

 

Free Shoes University looks bad tonight. Can't move the ball, and just had some really poor tackling.

No problem to me, though. I was rooting for Clemson, since I can't stand FSU.

 

Its been ugly so far, thats for sure. Hopefully this will change soon...

 

No kick returner can succeed without good blocking. The same goes for running backs, quarterbacks, and pretty much any other position. It's no slight on Jackson to say that he has good blocking.

 

Tommy Bowden has apparently been replaced with Mike Shula for the 3rd Quarter for Clemson, else Tommy read and mastered Mike's "How to Blow a Lead with Style".

 

Yeah veeery tough conference with power house teams like Vanderbilt, Miss St., So. Carolina, Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Alabama. Georgia and Auburn will continue to disappear when it counts. Florida and LSU are very good teams. I give them credit. But since you say that Tenn. is not one of the top two teams in conference, doesn't that say that LSU has an easier road than USC's? LSU gets to play 7 cupcakes in conference. Georgia, Auburn, and Florida are the only threats in that conference. While CAL, Oregon, UCLA, and Arizona St. are legit threats, plus throw in Nebraska, and a rivalry game with Notre Dame. LSU's coach was way out of line.

It is funny how USC has crushed teams from EVERY other conference in the last couple of years, and their only regular season losses have come IN CONFERENCE!!! What does that say when the best team in college football (consistantly) the last couple of years has the toughest games in conference? Can you say underrated?

The Pac-10 will not get the respect it deserves because of where and when they play. USC's National titles, and their losses in Conference say more about the conference than the polls or so called experts ever will.

 

T-minus 5 seconds before Rohniss explodes.

Every team? Really? What about losing to Texas two years ago? They certainly didn't crush Vince Young as he proceeded to run all over USC.

 

Every team? Really? What about losing to Texas two years ago?

REGULAR SEASON!!! That was my point. Their regular season losses have come in conference.

Also, it took a superhuman effort to beat USC. USC shredded the much respected Texas "D" but could not overcome the best performance in college football in the last 10...20...30 years.

USC crushed Auburn (Twice), Ark.(twice), ND a number of times, Nebraska (twice), MICH, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas State, Colorado, and Virginia Tech to name a few. During that stretch, they lost to Oregon State, CAL, and I believe Oregon or Washington, I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

No, you definitely said every other conference.

Emphasised how you ended your sentence with an 'and' phrase meaning two seperate thoughts.


Just because it was a good performance, doesn't mean you can ignore it and say that USC 'crushes' every team they go up against. We're looking at facts, not blown out of proportion man-love for a football team.

 

Then post facts!

Who has beaten them besides Texas? Give me some teams in the last 3-4 years?

I might have made a mistake in the way I stated my argument, but the fact remains that other than Texas, every non-conference game they have played in for the last 3-4 years they have won.

I am not a USC fan, just pointing out the lack of respect the PAC-10 gets. Personal insults do not make your argument better, just reflect your character.

 

Yeah, Alabama really shuts down when it matters:

12 National Championships (NCAA record)
52 Bowl Appearances (NCAA record)
29 Bowl Wins (NCAA record)
21 SEC championships (outright, SEC record)
5 SEC West championships (when we didn't win the SEC outright)

5-2 vs USC
4-1-1 in the Rose Bowl

Team Years Games Won Lost Tied .Pct
ALABAMA 73 512 337 155 20 .678
Tennessee 73 472 302 151 19 .660
Georgia 74 472 277 183 14 .599
LSU 73 469 262 193 22 .572
Florida 73 463 251 189 15 .568
Auburn 73 491 269 204 18 .566
Ole Miss 73 467 232 222 15 .511
Arkansas 15 120 57 61 2 .483
South Carolina 15 120 43 73 1 .372
Mississippi St. 73 477 153 312 12 .334
Kentucky 73 471 144 315 12 .318
Vanderbilt 72 479 112 349 18 .253

 

Let's avoid personal attacks, insults, or anything of that sort, guys.

 

When was the last time Alabama mattered?

I said Georgia and Auburn disappear.

South Carolina 15 120 43 73 1 .372
Mississippi St. 73 477 153 312 12 .334
Kentucky 73 471 144 315 12 .318
Vanderbilt 72 479 112 349 18 .253

Thank you. Like I said, seems like an easy road for LSU, since these teams still suck.

 

Yeah, great idea to base how good a team is now based on how the school performed in decades past... because that has so much bearing on current performance.

I'm pretty sure that Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina (the 6-8 teams in the SEC, in alphabetical order only) are better than the 6-8 teams in other conferences. And as I've said a few times before, that is what makes the SEC the best and toughest conference in college football.

 

I was merely pointing out that you're coming off as an overzealous USC fan, which I didn't think you were.

I'm sorry. I should've been more tactful about that. I have a girl-love for Texas A&M though, so I didn't think it was an insult. Rohniss has a man-love for Alabama. *shrug*

Anyways, I don't see how you can say that USC doesn't get respect. In 2003, 2004, and 2005 they went to National Championship games, won two and played a close game for the third. So obviously they're getting respect because they were voted into those games.

As far as non-conference teams in the last 4 years, going back to 2002, Kansas St was ranked #25 when they beat USC. Other than that their non-conference games have been against unranked teams. The ones against ranked teams for the most part weren't beatings. In 2005, they played #9 ND 34-31. Not a beating. #16 Fresno St. 50-42, also not a beating.

In 2004, they played unranked VTech, Colorado St, and Brigham Young. Who cares about crushing an unranked team? That doesn't earn respect. In that same year they beat an unranked ND 41-10, ok they can have a little respect for that I guess.. Then they faced #2 Oklahoma in the champ game and beat them soundly. They can have respect for that or are we not counting bowl games?

In 2003, they beat #6 Auburn soundly, unranked BYU, unranked Hawaii, unranked ND and then tackled #4 Michigan in the championship game and beat them soundly.

 

Yeah, great idea to base how good a team is now based on how the school performed in decades past... because that has so much bearing on current performance.

That was not the basis for my argument. I said that they still suck. I was re-posting what Rohniss used as a basis to show that Alabama is a good team.

I do not see you pointing out the flaw in that argument.

By his logic....UCLA (in BB) was better than Florida last year, even though they lost, since UCLA has more national titles.

 

When was the last time Alabama mattered?

I guess it was year before last when we went 11-2 beat a Texas Tech team that was supposed to crush us (had the #1 offense in the nation) after killing Florida (the same team that won the NC last year BTW).

But you know what, we still own the record books after a decade of mediocrity (due to poor coaching and the most severe NCAA sanctions ever handed down, barring SMU). But its the dawn of a new era now. What are you gonna say when we claim #13 (in 2009 most likely)? Why is it that everyone in the SEC desperately wants to beat Alabama, even when we're not really that good? Why is it Alabama moves more merchandise than any other school in the SEC? Why is it we are having to build a massive expansion (108,000+) to our stadium after a 6-7 year after building yet another expansion not 3 years ago? Why is it every time Alabama does anything its all over ESPN, SI, and every other media outlet? Why is it that we afford to make our current coach the highest paid in the nation? How is it that we are #9 in recruiting (Rivals.com) with the #1 WR in the country leaning our way (Julio Jones)?

No, we clearly are irrelevant and backwards. No one cares.

Thank you. Like I said, seems like an easy road for LSU, since these teams still suck.

Yeah, Kentucky sucks... you know with Andre Woodson and all... and the most hyped offense in the SEC.

Vandy? Vanderbilt is better than ever...

SCAR? Spurrier, and he has just now got all his players in, and should be much improved.

I'll give you Mississippi State, and Old Miss (coached by a USC product BTW).

 

Alabama has not been a serious title contender in years, and you know it.

1. You do know it is 2007 don't you? Unless you can see the future, you don't know what will happen in 2009. We are in the here and now, and Alabama is nothing.

2. Everyone in the SEC wants to beat Alabama for the same reason every team wants to beat Notre Dame. They were a good program, who were perenial national title contenders. But not now.

3. Merchandise, Stadiums, Television coverage, and rivals.com have nothing to do with on feild performance.

Kentucky, So Car., and Vandy will not be in the BCS mix, and you also know this.

 

Good first weekend of college football.
lol @ ND
Negative 8 Rushing Yards FTL!

 

Since only teams in the BCS mix matter, and every other team is so clearly pitiful, why don't we scrap college football as we know it and only let a handful of teams play? I mean, no team that isn't in the running for the BCS could ever compare to a team that is, so what do they matter? If they're not in the mix for the BCS, they're obviously horrible teams that are a shame to their schools and the country in general...

[/sarcasm]

Thats pretty much what your argument sounds like when you keep completely dismissing solid teams that are better than teams of similar status in other conferences. Keep in mind that if you want to dismiss LSU's schedule because of a few teams, some quite solid, you have to dismiss at least as much of SoCal's schedule for playing the dregs of the Pac-10.

I, for one, have never claimed that the best of the SEC could dominate the best of the rest (though I think those teams are on the same level as the others)... but the lower levels of the SEC are much more talented than those elsewhere.

 

I make no excuses for the "dregs" of the PAC-10. That is why I listed CAL, Oregon, UCLA, and Arizona State, and a tough non-confernce schedule for USC.

The thing that got me riled up, is when LSU's coach basically said USC had an easier road to a title game. A lot of people dismiss the PAC-10 as weak, yet the best team consistently the past 3-4 seasons has had the toughest regular season games IN CONFERENCE.

Good seasons and good teams matter. But, having a mediocre to bad win/loss record in a good conference does not make you a good team.

My BCS comment was more of me saying that you have to be at least a threat to the number one team in your conference, or have a shot at a major bowl game. LSU and USC are the most commonly talked about teams to go to the BCS title game. USC has just as many threats to their road as LSU.

I should not have said BCS mix(I admit that is too high of a standard), I guess what I am trying to say is that the PAC-10 has just as many teams that are in the mix every year to go to a BCS or major bowl game as the SEC.

 

Nice win last night, however I am concerned with the lack of closing out an opponent. That stung us last year and needs to be fixed.

 

It's about time the Pac-10 wasn't spat upon. I cannot wait until a USC-LSU matchup for the National Championship. For one, the Pac-10 will finally get some respect, and two, Cal will go to the Rose Bowl and proceed to knock the crap out of Wisconsin or Ohio St.

I am so sick and tired with all this prejudice against the West. I really am. Those SEC snobs need to shut up.

 

yeah, USC destroyed Arkansas the past two years, And last year Arkansas won the SEC west.