Friday, September 26, 2008

Friday 09/26 A.M. Quickie:
USC Lost! USC Lost! USC Lost!

Forgive my glee. But, come on: How can you NOT find last night's USC loss at Oregon State -- killing USC's BCS hopes in one glorious primetime weeknight meltdown -- to be utterly amazing?

I don't want to hear "USC" and "BCS" again this season -- unless you are commenting how USC ain't gonna be in the BCS [title game]. (Quite a 180 from "USC and Everyone Else" after the OSU game.)

Speaking of that, I end my SN column today with what I think could be one of my more thoughtful points -- because I've spent a lot of time over the last few weeks ripping both Southern Cal AND Ohio State.

Ohio State takes a lot of crap -- a LOT -- for losing in the big games to the best teams. Maybe that's fair criticism.

But USC loses in the small games to the mediocre teams -- they have done it for three years running (Oregon State last night, Stanford in 2007, UCLA in 2006 -- Oregon St in 2006, too.)

And, I would argue, USC's failure is FAR more humiliating and diminishing than Ohio State's. It's not even close, actually.

At least Ohio State has MAKES the title game before getting beat. USC can't even get that far, because they're choking on the chicken wings that make up their schedule. (Oregon St beating USC doesn't prove the Beavers/Pac-10 are good as much as it proves USC was not great.)

Truly: This has to be the end of USC's season, as far as consideration for the BCS title game goes. They didn't lose to a fellow power -- they lost to a 1-2 team that lost to Penn State by 30. That lost to Stanford.

I know there will be plenty of "Hey, at least they lost early in the season!" No. No. No. Even if the Big 12 or SEC champ finishes with 1 loss each, both will have a stronger BCS claim than USC. Others will, too, obviously depending on who their 1 loss was to.

But -- there I go -- presuming that an 11-1 USC is even relevant, is even deserving of being discussed at all, let alone as a contender. (Or presuming they'll go 11-1.) Here's the reality:

USC is a 2-1 team that is 0-1 in its conference, with one win over a terrible Virginia team that will likely lose to Duke tomorrow and a then-overrated Ohio State team that may be only the 3rd-best team in its own conference.

But if Ohio State was overrated, what does that make USC? Not just overrated.

Over.

At least for this season.

Complete SN column here.

UPDATE: I swear I didn't see Doc Saturday's late-night post about this very topic until just now. Great minds? Meh: He says it more eloquently. I am just content with an original thought.

-- D.S.

3 comments:

Matt said...

Let me translate:

Be prepared to listen to me claim a team with 2 losses in the SEC is more deserving to be in a BCS game than USC in 2 months. Actually, we should just make the SEC title game the championship game.

Regards,

Dan

DougOLis said...

I don't want to hear "USC" and "BCS" again this season -- unless you are commenting how USC ain't gonna be in the BCS.

Was the Pac-10 stripped of its BCS tie-in after last night?

sfprman said...

I said USC was overrated last week following one of your postings. Ditto for E. Carolina in the same posting. Therefore, when I say that Mizzou is the best team in the nation, there can be no doubt.