Jump to content

Tell me about the University of Southern California

Zavala

By Zavala
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ztejas said:

Please tell me kopp0e, on what fucking planet could the Sooners claim 17 titles. I mean Christ I get you're biased but don't go full retard here. 

And before you correct me, no Texas fan is claiming 9 national titles. 

I'm not saying either school isn't sticking with the current total of 4-UT & 7-OU respectively, but the NCAA actually recognizes a couple more for both schools...

Claimed nat'l titles 7 (1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000)
Unclaimed nat'l titles 10 (1915, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1980, 1986, 2003)

 

Quote
May 29, 2017 - Oklahoma Sooners football has a deep rooted history, with tradition, staggeringly ... The NCAA recognizes the Sooners for 17 titles, and when ...

 

Edited by kopp0e
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Underdog
Underdog

Wow, talk about having a great pair of hands.  

Sbbruin
Sbbruin

I for one think it's a travesty what these people are doing to Clay.  He deserves their respect, admiration, and most importantly, a contract extension.  Viva Clay Helton!

kegman
kegman

That answers one question. Mangino is the new coach.

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 49995

Posted
Posted (edited)

USC folks not happy with Helton's recruiting.....

"Stars matter.  And it’s simply a fact that USC did much worse landing the highly ranked recruits that everybody chases this year than USC has done in a long, long time.  That’s a problem, and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

But stars are not the only thing that matter.  Balance and recruiting for need also matter.  To the extent there is a valid criticism of USC’s recent highly ranked recruiting classes, it is that USC loaded up on skill position players, particularly wide receivers, but has failed to recruit commensurate talent in the trenches.  Sometimes it seems that USC is in the middle of an unwise experiment:

“So guys, I was thinking; if the son of an offensive line coach was determined to try and win championships without an offensive line, do you think he could do it?”

“You mean no line at all, coach?”

“No, we’ll recruit a couple every year and we won’t develop them, and we’ll try to win anyway.”

Traditionally, this is not the best approach if you wish to keep your job.  This is why my first reaction to this year’s USC signing class – that’s a very nice class … if you’re Utah – was probably inaccurate.  Because while the star average looks like a good Utah class, the failure to recruit the big guys that the program has been starving for, the guys that USC absolutely must have if it’s to compete for the Las Vegas Bowl, much less championships, is extremely disappointing.  Kyle Whittingham might take USC’s star rating this year.  But I suspect Kyle Whittingham would not take this group of linemen if his program badly needed linemen.  That Clay Helton is doing so – again! – is shocking. "

https://wearesc.com/arledge-one-mans-recruiting-opinion/

Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22142

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

The poor guy who backfills Kingsbury is going to be thought of as a loser bandaid no matter how good he does. 

Yeah, but they were damned with KK as well.  Or at least Helton was.  If he succeeds and the offense turns around, well, there's your new HC.  He fails and the offense sputters, and everyone is canned.

Whatever the case, let it burn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ztejas

ztejas 44226

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, satyanash said:

Those of us on the recruiting board are all too aware of this right now... SC is in utter shambles 😁

 

Good. Fuck em. They can go wander the desert and watch the playoffs from home. 

Anyone that thinks UT fans are "entitled" should meet some more SC fans. 

They get @Washington and @Notre Dame this season. Those could be epic ass-beatings. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5286

Posted
Posted

this will be the job opening that kicks things off in a big way next year

at this point I think they will try and go after another current PAC 12 coach it will depend on how well Cal does or maybe even leach (that would be a nice fail to watch drag out for years)

perhaps even make a try for the Utah coach

I don't think they can lure Harsin to their shit show and Tedford will not be a choice they will make so that is it for MWC coaches no Sunbelt, CUSA, or MAC coach makes the cut

I don't see any Big 12 coach that they would want wanting them (unless Campbell gets money whipped and decides to risk it all going west instead of east) and I am not sure any SEC SEC SEC coach they would want would want them (help us Eddie O you are our only hope)......Purdue or NW coach.....probably not and what ACC coach would they want

they might have to go the NFL retread route (almost certain to fail)

I think they get stuck going after the Cal or Utah coach after they struggle with NFL retreads and get denied because of finances and not wanting to take a career risk at what USC is right now with a couple of other coaches from college

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13626

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/4/2018 at 8:02 PM, Gaffords said:

1. 1914

I'm not big on schools claiming national titles in the pre-poll area (the Associated Press first named a national champion in 1936), but if the Longhorns wanted to claim one then this would be one they could rightfully claim. Illinois was awarded the national title that year by college football historian Parke H. Davis with a 7-0 record and the Illini claim 1914 as a national title season.

However, Army was awarded the title that season for a 9-0 record by four entities. West Point doesn't claim that title and neither does Texas as the Longhorns went 8-0 under head coach Dave Allerdice and were awarded a share of the title by the Billingsley Report.

The Longhorns allowed only three touchdowns that season and outscored their opponents by a total of 358-21 on the season. Perhaps only beating Haskell by a count of 23-7 failed to impress the pollsters.

Football in the underpopulated South was just not competitive back then. Sure we crushed everybody in 1914 but we did not play a single northern team. The 1913 team also crushed everybody except the last game, which was Notre Dame. Notre Dame won easily 30-7. And famously the otherwise dominant 6-2 1904 team got crushed by Chicago 68-0, still UT's worst defeat ever. 

Which is why I find A&M's claiming the 1919 championship such a joke. They played nobody outside of the state of Texas...and wait they didn't in 1927 either (well ok they did beat a pretty bad Sewanee team, so I guess that is their interstate competition). Imagine today not playing a single decent team, and only from a single state, and claiming you are the best. At least UCF beat Auburn. At least 1984 BYU beat somebody outside the state of Utah, including a nationally ranked Pitt team.

But why out of all of our teams from the old days that feasted on inferior regional competition does the 1914 team get picked and not 1893, 1895, 1900, 1918, 1920, or 1923? Let's just claim them all despite the fact nobody from that era would regard any of those clubs as anything but cute little regional teams.

Edit: Oh and the Billingsley Report actually picked Illinois as the champion. Texas only got selected when they used Margin of Victory as part of the methodology...which is stupid. Clearly Illinois beating the big powerhouses of their era shouldn't be the champs because Texas ran up a 70-0 win over Southwestern University. 

Edited by Valmy77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randolph Duke

Randolph Duke 4034

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Football in the underpopulated South was just not competitive back then. Sure we crushed everybody in 1914 but we did not play a single northern team. The 1913 team also crushed everybody except the last game, which was Notre Dame. Notre Dame won easily 30-7. And famously the otherwise dominant 6-2 1904 team got crushed by Chicago 68-0, still UT's worst defeat ever. 

Which is why I find A&M's claiming the 1919 championship such a joke. They played nobody outside of the state of Texas...and wait they didn't in 1927 either (well ok they did beat a pretty bad Sewanee team, so I guess that is their interstate competition). Imagine today not playing a single decent team, and only from a single state, and claiming you are the best. At least UCF beat Auburn. At least 1984 BYU beat somebody outside the state of Utah, including a nationally ranked Pitt team.

But why out of all of our teams from the old days that feasted on inferior regional competition does the 1914 team get picked and not 1893, 1895, 1900, 1918, 1920, or 1923? Let's just claim them all despite the fact nobody from that era would regard any of those clubs as anything but cute little regional teams.

Edit: Oh and the Billingsley Report actually picked Illinois as the champion. Texas only got selected when they used Margin of Victory as part of the methodology...which is stupid. Clearly Illinois beating the big powerhouses of their era shouldn't be the champs because Texas ran up a 70-0 win over Southwestern University. 

The problem with claiming pre-poll era titles is that football was not a national game until the mid-1930s. Eligibility rules were not uniform, playing rules were not uniform. The creation of the Southeastern Conference in 1933 was one of the last necessary pieces needed to begin to make the game played in one section of the country comparable to the game played in others. Remember that A&M claimed a national title in 1927, but they declined a challenge to play Tennessee in a bowl game because the SWC didn't allow post-season play in 1927. There were a lot of differences in the rules in various sections of the country that made comparing teams meaningless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13626

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Randolph Duke said:

The problem with claiming pre-poll era titles is that football was not a national game until the mid-1930s. Eligibility rules were not uniform, playing rules were not uniform. The creation of the Southeastern Conference in 1933 was one of the last necessary pieces needed to begin to make the game played in one section of the country comparable to the game played in others. Remember that A&M claimed a national title in 1927, but they declined a challenge to play Tennessee in a bowl game because the SWC didn't allow post-season play in 1927. There were a lot of differences in the rules in various sections of the country that made comparing teams meaningless.

Well you can compare the few times intersectional games were played. SWC teams just were not competitive in any of those games until the 1930s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randolph Duke

Randolph Duke 4034

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Well you can compare the few times intersectional games were played. SWC teams just were not competitive in any of those games until the 1930s.

I haven't researched exactly why, but once the 1930s hit, the SWC was incredible. SMU 1935, TCU in 1935 and 1938, aggy in 1939. The Horns first were ranked #1 during the season in 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sushihorn

sushihorn 3249

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Randolph Duke said:

The problem with claiming pre-poll era titles is that football was not a national game until the mid-1930s. Eligibility rules were not uniform, playing rules were not uniform. The creation of the Southeastern Conference in 1933 was one of the last necessary pieces needed to begin to make the game played in one section of the country comparable to the game played in others. Remember that A&M claimed a national title in 1927, but they declined a challenge to play Tennessee in a bowl game because the SWC didn't allow post-season play in 1927. There were a lot of differences in the rules in various sections of the country that made comparing teams meaningless.

The forward pass became legal after the turn of the 20th century but was rarely used on the Southwest until the late 1920s.  Ray Morrison of SMU is widely credited as introducing the forward pass to our region of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22142

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ztejas said:

Good. Fuck em. They can go wander the desert and watch the playoffs from home. 

Anyone that thinks UT fans are "entitled" should meet some more SC fans. 

They get @Washington and @Notre Dame this season. Those could be epic ass-beatings. 

So much truth.  You would think they invented the sport of football and we are playing only because they graciously allow it.  They are the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 44226

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sbbruin said:

So much truth.  You would think they invented the sport of football and we are playing only because they graciously allow it.  They are the worst.

I got to watch the USC game with 2 of them. One of whom is a raucous shit talker (he lit candles and cried during Kobe's last basketball game. And no that isn't a joke he actually did). 

He went home midway through the 3rd quarter. I followed soon after to let my other friend wallow in peace. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90641

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can we revoke the P12's P5 status while we're at it? They are absolute shit across the board in both major revenue sports. I mean I'm dumbfounded at how terrible the basketball is in that conference this season. 

Which is really weird when you consider how huge the NBA is out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goodman

Goodman 3282

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

this will be the job opening that kicks things off in a big way next year

at this point I think they will try and go after another current PAC 12 coach it will depend on how well Cal does or maybe even leach (that would be a nice fail to watch drag out for years)

perhaps even make a try for the Utah coach

I don't think they can lure Harsin to their shit show and Tedford will not be a choice they will make so that is it for MWC coaches no Sunbelt, CUSA, or MAC coach makes the cut

I don't see any Big 12 coach that they would want wanting them (unless Campbell gets money whipped and decides to risk it all going west instead of east) and I am not sure any SEC SEC SEC coach they would want would want them (help us Eddie O you are our only hope)......Purdue or NW coach.....probably not and what ACC coach would they want

they might have to go the NFL retread route (almost certain to fail)

I think they get stuck going after the Cal or Utah coach after they struggle with NFL retreads and get denied because of finances and not wanting to take a career risk at what USC is right now with a couple of other coaches from college

UrbanLiar.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11775

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

So much truth.  You would think they invented the sport of football and we are playing only because they graciously allow it.  They are the worst.

Yeah, it's funny because I haven't met one that really even understands the game.

There are a lot of fan bases I dislike, but they at least know the game.

One guy I know from the LA area, before the '05 Championship kept saying they were going to destroy us because, "Reggie Bush this, Reggie Bush that, Reggie Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush".

I started talking about some of their other players like White, Jarrett, Leinart, Rucker and all I got back was, "Oh yeah, they're real good".  When I started asking him what he liked about their game it became clear that Leinart was the only guy he even remotely knew who he was.  He thought White played defense.  Bunch of his surfer buddies were exactly the same.

I know they're not all like that, but it sure seems they have more of these types than any other fanbase I've ever come across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
Posted (edited)
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 1:19 PM, Machinator said:

Salt is a way of life.

 

I'm actually a little impressed that a recruit with that much hype doesn't really hype his numerous awards on his profile right away.  Plus the team award. 

Edited by UTDD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...