Why USC is overrated

ThunderingHERD · 01-03-2006, 04:48 AM

http://www.slate.com/id/2133477/nav/tap1/

Quote:

Trojan Farce
Why USC is overrated.
By Jonathan Chait
Posted Friday, Dec. 30, 2005, at 11:06 AM ET

Remember those old Saturday Night Live sketches featuring Chicago Bears fans who go to comic extremes in their genuflection before their team and its coach? The "Super Fans" are so confident in their team that they quickly dispense with predictions ("Da Bears, 62 to 3") and focus instead on hypothetical matchups. What would happen if the Bears players were all 14 inches tall? What about if Coach Ditka had to play the New York Giants by himself? "I gotta say Ditka 17, Giants 14."

Something eerily similar to this is happening on ESPN this week. In the run-up to what promises to be a classic Rose Bowl game between Texas and USC, the network has glossed over the question of whether the Trojans are better than the Longhorns. Instead, they've taken it upon themselves to decide whether USC is the greatest team in the history of college football. In recent days, a SportsCenter feature has pitted this year's USC team against the great national champions of the last 50 years. So far, at least according to ESPN, the Trojans have dispensed with history's great football juggernauts with greater ease than they dispatched, say, the 2005 Fresno State Bulldogs.

For instance, the ESPN crew discussed a hypothetical game between USC and the 1997 Michigan Wolverines. That Michigan team had a spotty offense, but its defense was phenomenal, allowing less than nine points a game. The Wolverines had probably the best pass defense in college history, with 23 interceptions and just five touchdown passes allowed. It had Charles Woodson, who bucked history by winning the Heisman Trophy as a defensive player, along with three other future NFL cornerbacks. They held what was then the highest-scoring team in the history of the Pac 10 to 16 points.

What did ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit predict as the final score? 34-17, Trojans. ESPN's Mark May? USC, 49-14. Will the reader please note that mediocre defenses like Arizona State and Notre Dame held USC well below 49 points this year?

My favorite, though, was the matchup with the 1991 Washington Huskies. That team outscored its opponents by a staggering average margin of 42-9. Herbstreit's conclusion? "There's no way that that defense could stop SC." May: "It wouldn't even be close."

The ESPNers also entertained the thought of this year's Trojans facing off against great powers from a generation ago. May noted that the 1969 Texas Longhorns ("the size of the players ... forget it, they're gonna roll over them") and the 1955 Oklahoma Sooners ("Not even close, and I look at the size of the players … their starting center was 5-8, a sophomore, and 158 pounds") would both be overwhelmed by today's Trojans. Which is probably true, though one could use this method to prove that the 2005 Temple Owls were the greatest team of all time. Fielding H. Yost's 1901 Michigan team trampled opponents by a cumulative score of 550-0. But, hey, the forward pass wasn't legal then, and those guys didn't even wear helmets. The concussions alone would make this a huge Temple blowout.

What makes this orgy of genuflection so odd is that there's a team from the very recent past that could beat this year's USC Trojans—last year's USC Trojans. There's no one perfect statistical gauge, but the best measure of football dominance is probably a team's ratio of points scored to points allowed. If you score 200 points and allow 100, that's a ratio of 2.0. The 2005 Trojans have a ratio of 2.3, which is not terribly impressive for a national championship team. Last year's USC team had a ratio of 2.9. The 1997 Michigan team had a 3.1, and the 1991 Washington Huskies outscored their opponents 4.6 to 1—twice the ratio of this year's Trojans.

Nor is it clear that USC is better than this year's Texas Longhorns. Both teams have fantastic offenses. (USC averages 50 points a game, Texas 51.) But Texas' defense is very good (allowing 14.6 points a game), while USC's is barely above average (allowing 21.3.)

Why, then, is USC considered so clearly superior? As I wrote a few years ago, overrated teams tend to share certain factors. USC has two of them in spades. First, they're an offensive-oriented team with great skill-position talent. Teams with great offenses and shaky defenses tend to be overrated, while teams with great defenses and shaky offenses are usually underrated. Second, they're piggybacking off the reputation of a predecessor. The 2002 Miami Hurricanes were overrated because the 2001 Hurricanes were genuinely awesome. (So awesome, in fact, that the ESPN crew actually acknowledged that the 2001 'Canes would give USC a good game.) The 2005 version of USC is similarly basking in the reflected glow of its 2004 team.

While USC may be wildly overrated, they're still very, very good. They were not as dominant as Texas throughout the year, but their battered defense will return a lot of injured players in the Rose Bowl, they'll be playing in their hometown, and they have a coach who makes the most of bowl preparation. But maybe we should play the game before considering how much they would win by if the team consisted of a bunch of 14-inch-tall Pete Carrolls.

Honolulu_Blue · 01-03-2006, 06:30 AM

While this article is excellent simply for the third paragraph and USC may, in fact, be overrated, I think all of this talk of USC being one of the best college programs ever is due to the fact that they have had back-to-back undefeated seasons and are going to play for an unprecedented third national championship in a row. Based on those two facts, I can't really see how USC could be overrated.

I do agree though that ESPN's votes or comparisons between this team and other past nationa champions is stupid, but that sort of stuff typically is.

GrantDawg · 01-03-2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

What makes this orgy of genuflection so odd is that there's a team from the very recent past that could beat this year's USC Trojans—last year's USC Trojans. There's no one perfect statistical gauge, but the best measure of football dominance is probably a team's ratio of points scored to points allowed. If you score 200 points and allow 100, that's a ratio of 2.0. The 2005 Trojans have a ratio of 2.3, which is not terribly impressive for a national championship team. Last year's USC team had a ratio of 2.9. The 1997 Michigan team had a 3.1, and the 1991 Washington Huskies outscored their opponents 4.6 to 1—twice the ratio of this year's Trojans.

Actually, that is the best paragraph. This team is not as good as last years, and I don't care if they blow Texas out that would not change. It is still one of the two best, if not the best, team this year.

Ksyrup · 01-03-2006, 07:11 AM

I really didn't care who won this game until all of this mass hysteria over how good USC is started, not to mention the "threepeat" BS. Now I hope they lose, and I'll gladly give Pete Carroll the Stoyanovich Choke Sign when it happens.

Of course, I'm not sure Texas has much of a shot. Then again, I didn't think West Virginia did, either. But being the avid Yankee hater I am, I've learned to hope against hope.

TroyF · 01-03-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I really didn't care who won this game until all of this mass hysteria over how good USC is started, not to mention the "threepeat" BS. Now I hope they lose, and I'll gladly give Pete Carroll the Stoyanovich Choke Sign when it happens.

Of course, I'm not sure Texas has much of a shot. Then again, I didn't think West Virginia did, either. But being the avid Yankee hater I am, I've learned to hope against hope.

I'm in the same boat. I'm so sick of everyone on USC's jocks I'm actually hoping Texas beats them.

I actually wanted them to win the game before this love fest started. Now I just hope they get pounded. I watched some of that garbage on ESPN. The one on Michigan had me laughing my ass off to. 49 pointsagainst that Michigan defense? Are you kidding me?

And the 2001 Canes were simply loaded.

Offense

Ken Dorsey
Clinton Portis
Willis Mcgahee
Najeh Davenport
Frank Gore
Jarret Payton
Andre Johnson
Daryl King
Jason Geathers
Roscoe Parrish
Jeremy Shockey
Kellen Winslow
Bryant Mckinnie
Joquin Gonzalez
Bret Romberg
Chris Meyers
Sherko Haji Rasouli

Defense

Vince Wilfork
Jerome Mcdougle
William Joseph
Matt Walters
Johnathan Vilma
DJ. Williams
Chris Carpenter (RIP)
Mike Rumph
Philip Buchanon
Ed Reed
Sean Taylor
Antrel Rolle
Kelly Jennings
James Lewis

Sorry SC, but that team was much more well rounded, had speed to burn and features 2 of the best college safeties of all time, speed at the DL and LB positions, a lock down CB and an offense that USC couldn't even hope to stop.

Forget a "game", USC would be lucky to stay within 14.

JeeberD · 01-03-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Of course, I'm not sure Texas has much of a shot.

Dude, the Horns are totally going to win...

Crapshoot · 01-03-2006, 08:30 AM

My rooting interest comes down to a team in California vs a team in Texas - easy choice. Go Trojans!

fjvieane · 01-03-2006, 08:42 AM

I have been a Trojan fan since I was 8 yo, now 27 years later I am still a fan.

I also hate the ESPN show that compares them to other years teams. But it is hard to deny that the Trojans have had a GREAT run.

Eaglesfan27 · 01-03-2006, 10:09 AM

It's my birthday Weds. I've been a fan since I went to USC for college. USC must win

TroyF · 01-03-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjvieane

I have been a Trojan fan since I was 8 yo, now 27 years later I am still a fan.

I also hate the ESPN show that compares them to other years teams. But it is hard to deny that the Trojans have had a GREAT run.

There isn't ANY doubt about this. None. They've had a great run, they've been a great team and somehow Pete Carroll learned to coach.

I'll even add in they have had an exceptional run for the 85 scholarship limit and what they've done has been as impressive if not more impressive than anything I've seen in college football over the last couple of decades.

Now if we leave it at that, we are ok.

But nope. People now have to compare them to the all time greats and make silly assumptions that they'd not only beat, but destroy some of those teams. (the Michigan one still causes me to laugh) Not only that, we get to hear about how if they played the Texans, they'd give em a game.

Umm. . . sure. Great team, great run, great results. . . but not the best of all time. Just another team having a great run. (if Texas could have figured out how to beat OK, they may have had a similar run in the last four years)

JW · 01-03-2006, 10:56 AM

USC has a great team, but this best ever nonsense is just what the media does. They can't help it, though ESPN, which creates its own version of history a lot (Remember Auburn, the best team in the SEC, repeated over and over again until, I suppose, yesterday?), as usual goes way over the top in such antics. A couple of years ago Oklahoma was being hyped as the best team ever by some sports commentators? Remember that?

Here is a link to a now funny story about how impossible it was going to be to beat Oklahoma in 2003.

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2...Beating_OU.htm

Link and excerpt:

Welcome to the indefensible position: Is it possible for any team to beat Oklahoma this year? Actually, the unfortunate answer for Sugar Bowl hopefuls might be a bouncy no. Last year at this time the argument was whether or not Miami was the greatest team of all-time as many tagged the mighty Canes as unbeatable. There were holes in that Hurricane team and as it turned out, it wasn't the best ever and even had some problems before the classic Fiesta Bowl loss to Ohio State. It's harder to find fault with the 2003 Sooners with talent to burn on defense, a high-octane passing attack, and a power running game when needed.

My own prediction, btw, is that Texas wins.

WSUCougar · 01-03-2006, 11:00 AM

While I agree that the media has gone way overboard, the fact that a BCS conference team has rattled off 34 straight wins (or whatever it is) invites such comparisons.

Honolulu_Blue · 01-03-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

While I agree that the media has gone way overboard, the fact that a BCS conference team has rattled off 34 straight wins (or whatever it is) invites such comparisons.

I agree.

JW · 01-03-2006, 11:13 AM

Nevertheless, I think all the comparisons will help Texas and possibly hurt USC. USC is in a great position to start believing what they are hearing and get overconfident. And they have enough holes on defense in paticular that if they start believing all this hype, they may find themselves looking like Georgia did in the first quarter against West Virginia. After all, USC has had a habit this year of starting slow. They might not want to do that against Texas.

And all this talk is great lockerroom material for Texas. Few things will fire up a team as much as the notion that they are getting absolutely no respect.

Here is someone else who feels the same way.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ie?date=051221

If I was a Texas coach, I would make sure my team saw every daily iteration of ESPN.com's competition pitting the 2005 USC team against the best college football teams of the ESPN Era.

Never mind that this USC team might not be the best team THIS year, let alone able to beat 2004's version (whose defense was vastly superior to this one).

It's always dangerous to play this game before the season ends. Remember how everyone thought the 2003 Oklahoma team was among the best ever? Right up until they lost the Big 12 title game, then got thumped by LSU in the national title game.

Huckleberry · 01-03-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

While I agree that the media has gone way overboard, the fact that a BCS conference team has rattled off 34 straight wins (or whatever it is) invites such comparisons.

Not really. It invites comparisons to greatest multi-year runs. It doesn't invite comparisons of this year's team to the greatest single season teams of all time. But it's what the media does, as someone else said above.

gstelmack · 01-03-2006, 11:22 AM

I'm not going to punish USC because ESPN is filled with idiots...

Galaxy · 01-03-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm in the same boat. I'm so sick of everyone on USC's jocks I'm actually hoping Texas beats them.

I actually wanted them to win the game before this love fest started. Now I just hope they get pounded. I watched some of that garbage on ESPN. The one on Michigan had me laughing my ass off to. 49 pointsagainst that Michigan defense? Are you kidding me?

And the 2001 Canes were simply loaded.

Offense

Ken Dorsey
Clinton Portis
Willis Mcgahee
Najeh Davenport
Frank Gore
Jarret Payton
Andre Johnson
Daryl King
Jason Geathers
Roscoe Parrish
Jeremy Shockey
Kellen Winslow
Bryant Mckinnie
Joquin Gonzalez
Bret Romberg
Chris Meyers
Sherko Haji Rasouli

Defense

Vince Wilfork
Jerome Mcdougle
William Joseph
Matt Walters
Johnathan Vilma
DJ. Williams
Chris Carpenter (RIP)
Mike Rumph
Philip Buchanon
Ed Reed
Sean Taylor
Antrel Rolle
Kelly Jennings
James Lewis

Sorry SC, but that team was much more well rounded, had speed to burn and features 2 of the best college safeties of all time, speed at the DL and LB positions, a lock down CB and an offense that USC couldn't even hope to stop.

Forget a "game", USC would be lucky to stay within 14.

Sick lineup, but I can't remember, is this the year they lost to Ohio State in the title game?

OldGiants · 01-03-2006, 11:30 AM

All these historical comparisons assume today's training methods, coaching techniques and offensive/defensive schemes would be used in the game. If old time teams had access to today's training methods, their players would have been 300+ pounds, too.

Why must today's be used? Let's use the old conditions, no matter how horrible.

How about 2005 USC versus 1950 Tennesse in Knoxville using 1950 training methods, with USC having to run a single wing offense, 'Oklahoma' 5-3-3 defense, and not being allowed to use any of its black players? Then who would win?

Cross-era comparisons are pointless and, when done by ESPN, insulting to the old time players and fans.

digamma · 01-03-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Sick lineup, but I can't remember, is this the year they lost to Ohio State in the title game?

No it's the year they called off the horses against Nebraska sometime around the 14 minute mark of the first quarter. They were the best team in the country that year by a wide, wide margin.

VPI97 · 01-03-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma

They were the best team in the country that year by a wide, wide margin.

Yep...that team was just unstoppable. They had all that talent, but I think the most important piece was Dorsey...he was the glue that kept everyone on the same page.

at Penn State :: 33-7 win
Rutgers :: 61-0 win
at Pittsburgh :: 43-21 win
Troy State :: 38-7 win
at Florida State :: 49-27 win
West Virginia :: 45-3 win
Temple :: 38-0 win
at Boston College :: 18-7 win
Syracuse :: 59-0 win
Washington :: 65-7 win
at Virginia Tech :: 26-24 win
Nebraska :: 37-14 win

GreenMonster · 01-03-2006, 12:59 PM

There is no way in hell 2005 USC beats 95 Nebraska. 400 yards rushing, 52.4 points, and a D that only gave up 13.6 points. Nebraska rolled through a 12 game season that included match ups against three top ten teams (#8 Kansas State, #7 Colorado, and #2 Florida). Nebraska won each of those games by an average score of 52-23. In fact, the closest any opponent got to Nebraska all season was 14 points (Washington State). Total Domination of any team that stepped in their way.

WSUCougar · 01-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

In fact, the closest any opponent got to Nebraska all season was 14 points (Washington State).

BOO-YA!!!

MizzouRah · 01-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

While I agree that the media has gone way overboard, the fact that a BCS conference team has rattled off 34 straight wins (or whatever it is) invites such comparisons.

I agree as well. Were they overrated last year when they spanked Oklahoma 55-19 for the Championship?

bselig · 01-03-2006, 01:27 PM

I'm really suprised that USC is favored by 8+ over Texas, even for a semi-home game. It's almost enough to make me place my first-ever bet on a game.

bhlloy · 01-03-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm not going to punish USC because ESPN is filled with idiots...

Very well said. It's good to be a great game, why root against one team just because ESPN are a bunch of sensationalist morons?

I agree with the article for the most part. Sure this years Trojans are overrated. Can't argue too much about the winning record. Definitely not better than that 2001 Miami team though. That lineup is absolutely sick. I never saw any of the other teams play so I'll reserve judgement.

I think Texas has to be very careful with the "USC defense is barely above average" talk though. A lot of those points against came early in the year when we were down to walkons being one injury away from taking the field at linebacker, corner and safety. It's a completely different defense now with something like 5 starters back fully healthy, and a lot of young 5 star recruits just starting to play at that level. The key move was moving Josh Pinkard to corner, he's been pretty lockdown whereas John Walker got burned 4 or 5 times in the 3 games he started.

USC has been pretty stingy since ND, including holding a very dangerous big play UCLA team to one meaningful touchdown. Fresno State was worrying, but I think the players just thought they had that one won and didn't need to turn up.

The Trojans real achilles heel is a horrible, horrible special teams unit across the board. But then they did very nicely against the dangerous Bruins and Mo Drew, so maybe that has turned the corner as well.

It's going to be too close to call. I think it comes down to whether the Trojan LB's can keep Vince Young in check, and whether we can keep the running game down to a reasonable amount. Texas is going to run on us for sure I feel. I certainly would never put money on a USC +8 line.

WSUCougar · 01-03-2006, 02:13 PM

I think USC is better suited to rallying from behind then Texas is. The Trojans have made a living out of flipping the switch on later in the game, but can Texas do that?

And personally I wouldn't bet any significant cash on this game, either way.

Karlifornia · 01-03-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Very well said. It's good to be a great game, why root against one team just because ESPN are a bunch of sensationalist morons?

Duh. It's because USC controls the media.

When a team wins 34 straight, they're going to get some hype.

cartman · 01-03-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I think USC is better suited to rallying from behind then Texas is. The Trojans have made a living out of flipping the switch on later in the game, but can Texas do that?

And personally I wouldn't bet any significant cash on this game, either way.

Well, during VY's stint, he's been behind at halftime only 8 times, but has led the Longhorns to 5 4th Quarter comebacks. So they do have a recent history of being able to step it up at the end of games.

GrantDawg · 01-03-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter

Duh. It's because USC controls the media.

When a team wins 34 straight, they're going to get some hype.

I feel ya, dog. Welcome to the average Falcon's fans life. Because the media over-hypes Vick (which they definitely do) then you have to deal with the haters. It is ESPN that is being stupid, not USC.

I still think Texas is going to win.

GrantDawg · 01-03-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, during VY's stint, he's been behind at halftime only 8 times, but has led the Longhorns to 5 4th Quarter comebacks. So they do have a recent history of being able to step it up at the end of games.

I would say it is harder for them, though. For Texas to come back, Young has to be on. For USC to come back, they need Bush or White or Leinhart, anyone one of those three to be on. Texas shouldn't play a comeback role in this game if they hope to win. I'd say anymore than two touchdowns down and they are done. I'd spot USC three and still give them a shot (though as I said earlier, I think Texas is going to win).

In a real shoot-out (no one ever more than 7 points out), I'll give Texas the edge.

Galaxy · 01-03-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma

No it's the year they called off the horses against Nebraska sometime around the 14 minute mark of the first quarter. They were the best team in the country that year by a wide, wide margin.

Thanks, I wasn't sure. 2001 Miami just dominated, and had loads of talent. I think this years USC/Texas teams are great, but I don't think they are top 5 among the best. I personally think both teams are alittle overrated, but clearly the best of this year's college season.

Airhog · 01-03-2006, 05:16 PM

Personally, I dislike both teams. I hope a huge asteroid hits the stadium before kickoff.

Thats being said, by default I have to root for texas since they are a big12 school. although if texas wins, im not sure if I can put up with the texas fans on this board till the next red river shootout

WVUFAN · 01-03-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

...and are going to play for an unprecedented third national championship in a row. Based on those two facts, I can't really see how USC could be overrated.

They're not going for their third straight national championship. They're going for their second straight. LSU won the BCS and hense the national championship in 2003, not USC.

GrantDawg · 01-03-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

They're not going for their third straight national championship. They're going for their second straight. LSU won the BCS and hense the national championship in 2003, not USC.

Third AP national championship (still the grand-daddy of all titles).

cartman · 01-03-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

They're not going for their third straight national championship. They're going for their second straight. LSU won the BCS and hense the national championship in 2003, not USC.

except that the BCS is not the recognized championship. There is no NCAA acknowledged Div. 1A football national champion. They are not going for a 3rd straight BCS title, but they are trying for a 3rd straight AP national championship designation.

Honolulu_Blue · 01-03-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

They're not going for their third straight national championship. They're going for their second straight. LSU won the BCS and hense the national championship in 2003, not USC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Third AP national championship (still the grand-daddy of all titles).

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman

except that the BCS is not the recognized championship. There is no NCAA acknowledged Div. 1A football national champion. They are not going for a 3rd straight BCS title, but they are trying for a 3rd straight AP national championship designation.

What they said.

WVUFAN · 01-03-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman

except that the BCS is not the recognized championship. There is no NCAA acknowledged Div. 1A football national champion. They are not going for a 3rd straight BCS title, but they are trying for a 3rd straight AP national championship designation.

The entire purpose of the BCS is to as closely as possible determine and match up the #1 and #2 teams in the nation and determine the national championship. Now while many people may not agree, including the AP, the BCS should and does determine the national champions. That was LSU in 2003, not USC.

GrantDawg · 01-03-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The entire purpose of the BCS is to as closely as possible determine and match up the #1 and #2 teams in the nation and determine the national championship. Now while many people may not agree, including the AP, the BCS should and does determine the national champions. That was LSU in 2003, not USC.

Until the NCAA recognizes a champion, an AP championship is equal to a BCS championship. They are all mythical.

dawgfan · 01-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The entire purpose of the BCS is to as closely as possible determine and match up the #1 and #2 teams in the nation and determine the national championship. Now while many people may not agree, including the AP, the BCS should and does determine the national champions. That was LSU in 2003, not USC.

There is no official national championship in NCAA Div-1 Football. In fact, if you go to the official NCAA sports website, you'll note that they list not just BCS title winners but other major poll winners - both LSU and USC are listed as "national champions" for 2003: http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

It's too bad all the LSU fans/USC haters can't seem to come to grips with this...

WVUFAN · 01-03-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

There is no official national championship in NCAA Div-1 Football. In fact, if you go to the official NCAA sports website, you'll note that they list not just BCS title winners but other major poll winners - both LSU and USC are listed as "national champions" for 2003: http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

It's too bad all the LSU fans/USC haters can't seem to come to grips with this...

I'm not a LSU fan, nor a USC hater (guess what my favorite team is), but I feel LSU isn't given their just due for their national championship run in 2003, which is why I pointed this out.

dawgfan · 01-03-2006, 06:58 PM

As to the whole USC-hype issue, there are legit reasons for the team to be getting a lot of press - their 34-consecutive victories is tied for 6th best all-time, and if they win the Rose Bowl they'll have tallied an unprecedented 3 consecutive AP National Championships and move into a tie for the 5th longest ever win streak with a real shot at extending it to the 3rd or 2nd longest next year.

That said, this year's team, while amazing on offense and somewhat underrated on defense, is not the caliber of last year's version, and the ridiculous hypothetical all-time tourney conducted by ESPN vastly over rates this team. For Kirk Herbstreit and Mark May to say of a matchup of the 1991 Washington team with the 2005 USC team that "There's no way that that defense could stop SC" and "It wouldn't even be close" proves that they are either complete morons or complete whores to the ESPN propoganda machine (or perhaps both).

Now, if they were using last year's USC team in this hypothetical tourney, that would be different - they belong in a discussion of the best college teams of all-time. This year's team is very good, but not at that all-time elite level.

dawgfan · 01-03-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm not a LSU fan, nor a USC hater (guess what my favorite team is), but I feel LSU isn't given their just due for their national championship run in 2003, which is why I pointed this out.

Sure they are - they were co-national champions in 2003. The difference is that USC followed up that season by winning it outright last year and has a chance to do so again this year, while LSU fell back just a touch.

It's just like if Washington hadn't blown a late-season game in 1990 against UCLA they likely would've been national champs that year and been rated higher all year in 1991 and perhaps wouldn't have shared that '91 title with Miami. They didn't, so the casual college football fan doesn't remember just how good those Washington teams were from 1990-92. That doesn't change the fact they were co-national champions in '91 (nothing to be ashamed of), just like LSU will always be co-national champions in '03 (nothing to be ashamed of).

If you want to be picky about things, you could say that the media should clarify their statements about the USC run to say they're shooting for their 3rd straight AP National Championship, but that's a pretty minor quibble IMO.

WSUCougar · 01-03-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

so the casual college football fan doesn't remember just how good those Washington teams were from 1990-92

Oh, but I do.

Huckleberry · 01-03-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

They didn't, so the casual college football fan doesn't remember just how good those Washington teams were from 1990-92.

Unfortunately, many of the media personalities covering college football know no more than the casual college football fan.

Klinglerware · 01-05-2006, 11:06 AM

According to ESPN methodology, I guess this now means that Texas is so good that they can beat '91 Washington, '95 Michigan, '97 Miami, & '04 USC playing all four teams at the same time with Vince Young blindfolded...

Wolfpack · 01-05-2006, 01:34 PM

"Dat's true, but what if it was Vince Young blindfolded and he was only 18 inches tall?"

"Ooh. Mini-Young versus the Trojans, Huskies, Wolverines, and Hurricanes? That'd be a tough matchup for Texas. Still..."

"Da Horns!"

Desnudo · 01-05-2006, 01:38 PM

Interesting article that supports the original one. Although maybe not so much that USC was overrated going in, as that Texas was underrated.

URL: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...e.php?Page=636
Texas is better than BushLeinartWhite
Cold Hard Football Facts for January 4, 2006
Big-game analysis often turns into a recital of the big names of the day. And in this realm of analysis, the three-headed USC monster of BushLeinartWhite has become the obvious favorite on the big boards of Vegas and in the court of public opinion. But in tonight's Rose Bowl, Texas is the better team and will win the national championship. How do we know? Easy. We looked beyond the Hollywood Golden Boy headlines and did a great big belly flop into the pool of pigskin knowledge called the Cold, Hard Football Facts.
There are two kinds of football analysis. There is the kind in which an alleged “pundit” tosses out a couple of names as if their opponents are supposed to melt at their mere mention. “Hey, you better watch out. The Banana Slugs have speedster Joey Jim Bob Jones and all-world linebacker D’Shiqua 'Boom Boom' Washington!”

Then there is the type of analysis you get here: analysis built upon the bedrock foundation of Cold, Hard Football Facts.

It’s the first kind of analysis that makes us cough our breakfast beer out our nose every time we hear it because it’s not really giving you anything you couldn’t get from your 4-year-old niece who walks around in her little Donovan McNabb/Tom Brady/Peyton Manning jersey. It’s analysis that naturally reminds us of someone like old friend Petey Prisco. True story: We heard Prisco on sports radio WEEI out of Boston once during the 2003 NFL postseason. He predicted Tennessee would beat New England in the divisional playoffs because – and we shit you not here – “the Titans have more stars.”

The Titans lost, despite Prisco's thorough breakdown of the game.

We were pissed when we heard poor Petey that day. One, because we couldn’t believe this factless moron had a forum to spout this nonsensical bullshit. And two, our beer went spilling from our nostrils all over our shirt as we drove to work. (This was back when we had jobs.) If you want to pinpoint the origins of this little experiment called the Cold, Hard Football Facts, it was that very morning. We simply could not take the hackery any longer.

All of which brings us around to the Next Big Game of the Century, tonight’s Rose Bowl showdown between Texas and USC. We’re literally bouncing off the soggy walls of the cardboard box Cold, Hard Football Facts world headquarters in anticipation of this game.

But you might have noticed that much of the analysis centers around a few names. USC vs. Texas has essentially become a battle of BushLeinartWhite vs. Young.

And in the analysis of names, the three-headed USC monster has become the obvious favorite on the big boards of Vegas and in the court of public opinion. The Trojans are a 7-point favorite and numerous “pundits” have come right out and predicted a USC cakewalk.

It won’t happen.

Texas is the better team and will win tonight. How do we know? Easy. We looked beyond the Hollywood Golden Boy headlines and did a great big belly flop into the pool of pigskin knowledge called the Cold, Hard Football Facts.

But wait: USC has the best ground game in the country, one led by Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush and LenDale White, who is second in the nation in scoring with 23 touchdowns.

Yes, it’s true that USC has quite a remarkable ground game. But Texas is No. 3 in the country, averaging 273.8 rushing yards per game. USC is No. 4, with 264.3 YPG.

Surely, though, with 2004 Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart at quarterback, USC is the better passing team?

Not exactly. USC certainly passes more often and for more yards, but Texas quarterback Vince Young leads the nation in passing efficiency with a 168.6 rating. Leinart is merely No. 7, with a passer efficiency rating of 158.3. (College football uses a different rating system than the NFL, one that creates inflated numbers compared with the pro rating.)

Young has passed for 26 touchdowns on 285 attempts (1 TD per 11.0 attempts). Leinart has passed for 27 touchdowns on 391 attempts (1 TD per 14.5 attempts).

Yeah, but USC can score on anybody!

Sure, they can. But so can the Longhorns. In fact, Texas is No. 1 in the country, averaging 50.9 PPG. USC is No. 2 with 50.0 PPG.

Hey, but what about that coach Pete Carroll? He’s a defensive genius.

Yes, Carroll has turned out some stellar defenses during his years at USC. But the 2005 edition of the Trojans defense is not among them. USC ranks just 39th in the nation in total defense (344.6 YPG), behind such notable defensive powerhouses as Rutgers, Marshall, Troy and Connecticut. USC is also just 27th in the nation in scoring defense, surrendering 21.3 PPG. And now USC is up against an offense far more productive than any it has faced all year.

Texas, meanwhile, is far more dominant on the defensive side of the ball. The Longhorns are No. 4 in the nation in scoring defense (14.6 PPG) and No. 6 in total defense (280.3 YPG). And get this: Texas allows opponents a ridiculous 4.7 yards per passing attempt, far and away the best in the nation (Miami is No. 2, allowing 5.2 yards per attempt). For its part, USC allows opponents 6.6 yards per passing attempt and tonight finds itself up against the best passer in the nation.

Texas has faced and beaten two teams with defenses better than USC’s. Early this season, they walked into the home of Fiesta Bowl champion Ohio State, a team that ranks in the top 10 in both total and scoring defense, and walked out with a 25-22 victory. Texas also hung 45 points on an Oklahoma team that boasts one of the nation’s top 20 defenses.

USC has yet to face a defense that’s anywhere near as good as the Texas defense.

We’ve seen this story time and again. Team A has the high-powered offense that garners all the headlines. Team B has the suffocating defense that routinely gets overlooked because it’s just not the same sexy story.

Team A is the darling of the “pundits” and gambling America. Team B wins the game.

And in this case, Texas has more than just a superior defense. It has an offense that's at least as good as USC's.

Defense wins championships. And only one team tonight has a championship defense.

***
Here's how Texas and USC rank in most major offensive and defensive categories:

Category Texas (Rank) USC (Rank)
Scoring offense 50.9 (1) 50.0 (2)
Total offense 508.4 (3) 580.3 (1)
Rush offense 273.8 (3) 264.3 (4)
Pass offense 234.7 (42) 316.0 (5)
Scoring defense 14.6 (4) 21.3 (27)
Total defense 280.3 (6) 344.6 (39)
Rush defense 124.4 (30) 117.3 (24)
Pass defense 155.9 (4) 227.3 (73)

01-03-2006, 07:11 AM	#4
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	I really didn't care who won this game until all of this mass hysteria over how good USC is started, not to mention the "threepeat" BS. Now I hope they lose, and I'll gladly give Pete Carroll the Stoyanovich Choke Sign when it happens. Of course, I'm not sure Texas has much of a shot. Then again, I didn't think West Virginia did, either. But being the avid Yankee hater I am, I've learned to hope against hope. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

01-03-2006, 10:09 AM	#9
Eaglesfan27 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New Jersey	It's my birthday Weds. I've been a fan since I went to USC for college. USC must win __________________ Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.) GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers. GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen.

01-03-2006, 11:00 AM	#12
WSUCougar Rider Of Rohan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep	While I agree that the media has gone way overboard, the fact that a BCS conference team has rattled off 34 straight wins (or whatever it is) invites such comparisons. __________________ It's not the years...it's the mileage.

01-03-2006, 11:22 AM	#16
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	I'm not going to punish USC because ESPN is filled with idiots... __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

01-03-2006, 11:30 AM	#18
OldGiants College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Location, Location, Location	All these historical comparisons assume today's training methods, coaching techniques and offensive/defensive schemes would be used in the game. If old time teams had access to today's training methods, their players would have been 300+ pounds, too. Why must today's be used? Let's use the old conditions, no matter how horrible. How about 2005 USC versus 1950 Tennesse in Knoxville using 1950 training methods, with USC having to run a single wing offense, 'Oklahoma' 5-3-3 defense, and not being allowed to use any of its black players? Then who would win? Cross-era comparisons are pointless and, when done by ESPN, insulting to the old time players and fans. __________________ "The case of Great Britain is the most astonishing in this matter of inequality of rights in world soccer championships. The way they explained it to me as a child, God is one but He's three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I could never understand it. And I still don't understand why Great Britain is one but she's four....while [others] continue to be no more than one despite the diverse nationalities that make them up." Eduardo Galeano, SOCCER IN SUN AND SHADOW

01-03-2006, 06:30 AM	#2
Honolulu_Blue Hockey Boy Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Royal Oak, MI	While this article is excellent simply for the third paragraph and USC may, in fact, be overrated, I think all of this talk of USC being one of the best college programs ever is due to the fact that they have had back-to-back undefeated seasons and are going to play for an unprecedented third national championship in a row. Based on those two facts, I can't really see how USC could be overrated. I do agree though that ESPN's votes or comparisons between this team and other past nationa champions is stupid, but that sort of stuff typically is. __________________ *Steve Yzerman*: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons).

01-03-2006, 08:30 AM	#7
Crapshoot Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Dec 2003	My rooting interest comes down to a team in California vs a team in Texas - easy choice. Go Trojans!

01-03-2006, 08:42 AM	#8
fjvieane Mascot Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California	I have been a Trojan fan since I was 8 yo, now 27 years later I am still a fan. I also hate the ESPN show that compares them to other years teams. But it is hard to deny that the Trojans have had a GREAT run.

01-03-2006, 10:56 AM	#11
JW College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Monroe, LA, USA	USC has a great team, but this best ever nonsense is just what the media does. They can't help it, though ESPN, which creates its own version of history a lot (Remember Auburn, the best team in the SEC, repeated over and over again until, I suppose, yesterday?), as usual goes way over the top in such antics. A couple of years ago Oklahoma was being hyped as the best team ever by some sports commentators? Remember that? Here is a link to a now funny story about how impossible it was going to be to beat Oklahoma in 2003. http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2...Beating_OU.htm Link and excerpt: Welcome to the indefensible position: Is it possible for any team to beat Oklahoma this year? Actually, the unfortunate answer for Sugar Bowl hopefuls might be a bouncy no. Last year at this time the argument was whether or not Miami was the greatest team of all-time as many tagged the mighty Canes as unbeatable. There were holes in that Hurricane team and as it turned out, it wasn't the best ever and even had some problems before the classic Fiesta Bowl loss to Ohio State. It's harder to find fault with the 2003 Sooners with talent to burn on defense, a high-octane passing attack, and a power running game when needed. My own prediction, btw, is that Texas wins.

01-03-2006, 11:13 AM	#14
JW College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Monroe, LA, USA	Nevertheless, I think all the comparisons will help Texas and possibly hurt USC. USC is in a great position to start believing what they are hearing and get overconfident. And they have enough holes on defense in paticular that if they start believing all this hype, they may find themselves looking like Georgia did in the first quarter against West Virginia. After all, USC has had a habit this year of starting slow. They might not want to do that against Texas. And all this talk is great lockerroom material for Texas. Few things will fire up a team as much as the notion that they are getting absolutely no respect. Here is someone else who feels the same way. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ie?date=051221 If I was a Texas coach, I would make sure my team saw every daily iteration of ESPN.com's competition pitting the 2005 USC team against the best college football teams of the ESPN Era. Never mind that this USC team might not be the best team THIS year, let alone able to beat 2004's version (whose defense was vastly superior to this one). It's always dangerous to play this game before the season ends. Remember how everyone thought the 2003 Oklahoma team was among the best ever? Right up until they lost the Big 12 title game, then got thumped by LSU in the national title game.

01-03-2006, 12:59 PM	#21
GreenMonster High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2005	There is no way in hell 2005 USC beats 95 Nebraska. 400 yards rushing, 52.4 points, and a D that only gave up 13.6 points. Nebraska rolled through a 12 game season that included match ups against three top ten teams (#8 Kansas State, #7 Colorado, and #2 Florida). Nebraska won each of those games by an average score of 52-23. In fact, the closest any opponent got to Nebraska all season was 14 points (Washington State). Total Domination of any team that stepped in their way.

01-03-2006, 01:27 PM	#24
bselig n00b Join Date: May 2005	I'm really suprised that USC is favored by 8+ over Texas, even for a semi-home game. It's almost enough to make me place my first-ever bet on a game.

01-03-2006, 02:13 PM	#26
WSUCougar Rider Of Rohan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep	I think USC is better suited to rallying from behind then Texas is. The Trojans have made a living out of flipping the switch on later in the game, but can Texas do that? And personally I wouldn't bet any significant cash on this game, either way. __________________ It's not the years...it's the mileage.

01-03-2006, 05:16 PM	#32
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	Personally, I dislike both teams. I hope a huge asteroid hits the stadium before kickoff. Thats being said, by default I have to root for texas since they are a big12 school. although if texas wins, im not sure if I can put up with the texas fans on this board till the next red river shootout __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

01-03-2006, 06:58 PM	#41
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	As to the whole USC-hype issue, there are legit reasons for the team to be getting a lot of press - their 34-consecutive victories is tied for 6th best all-time, and if they win the Rose Bowl they'll have tallied an unprecedented 3 consecutive AP National Championships and move into a tie for the 5th longest ever win streak with a real shot at extending it to the 3rd or 2nd longest next year. That said, this year's team, while amazing on offense and somewhat underrated on defense, is not the caliber of last year's version, and the ridiculous hypothetical all-time tourney conducted by ESPN vastly over rates this team. For Kirk Herbstreit and Mark May to say of a matchup of the 1991 Washington team with the 2005 USC team that "There's no way that that defense could stop SC" and "It wouldn't even be close" proves that they are either complete morons or complete whores to the ESPN propoganda machine (or perhaps both). Now, if they were using last year's USC team in this hypothetical tourney, that would be different - they belong in a discussion of the best college teams of all-time. This year's team is very good, but not at that all-time elite level.

01-05-2006, 11:06 AM	#45
Klinglerware College Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: The DMV	According to ESPN methodology, I guess this now means that Texas is so good that they can beat '91 Washington, '95 Michigan, '97 Miami, & '04 USC playing all four teams at the same time with Vince Young blindfolded...

01-05-2006, 01:34 PM	#46
Wolfpack Pro Rookie Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC	"Dat's true, but what if it was Vince Young blindfolded and he was only 18 inches tall?" "Ooh. Mini-Young versus the Trojans, Huskies, Wolverines, and Hurricanes? That'd be a tough matchup for Texas. Still..." "Da Horns!"

01-05-2006, 01:38 PM	#47
Desnudo Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Here and There	Interesting article that supports the original one. Although maybe not so much that USC was overrated going in, as that Texas was underrated. URL: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...e.php?Page=636 Texas is better than BushLeinartWhite Cold Hard Football Facts for January 4, 2006 Big-game analysis often turns into a recital of the big names of the day. And in this realm of analysis, the three-headed USC monster of BushLeinartWhite has become the obvious favorite on the big boards of Vegas and in the court of public opinion. But in tonight's Rose Bowl, Texas is the better team and will win the national championship. How do we know? Easy. We looked beyond the Hollywood Golden Boy headlines and did a great big belly flop into the pool of pigskin knowledge called the Cold, Hard Football Facts. There are two kinds of football analysis. There is the kind in which an alleged “pundit” tosses out a couple of names as if their opponents are supposed to melt at their mere mention. “Hey, you better watch out. The Banana Slugs have speedster Joey Jim Bob Jones and all-world linebacker D’Shiqua 'Boom Boom' Washington!” Then there is the type of analysis you get here: analysis built upon the bedrock foundation of Cold, Hard Football Facts. It’s the first kind of analysis that makes us cough our breakfast beer out our nose every time we hear it because it’s not really giving you anything you couldn’t get from your 4-year-old niece who walks around in her little Donovan McNabb/Tom Brady/Peyton Manning jersey. It’s analysis that naturally reminds us of someone like old friend Petey Prisco. True story: We heard Prisco on sports radio WEEI out of Boston once during the 2003 NFL postseason. He predicted Tennessee would beat New England in the divisional playoffs because – and we shit you not here – “the Titans have more stars.” The Titans lost, despite Prisco's thorough breakdown of the game. We were pissed when we heard poor Petey that day. One, because we couldn’t believe this factless moron had a forum to spout this nonsensical bullshit. And two, our beer went spilling from our nostrils all over our shirt as we drove to work. (This was back when we had jobs.) If you want to pinpoint the origins of this little experiment called the Cold, Hard Football Facts, it was that very morning. We simply could not take the hackery any longer. All of which brings us around to the Next Big Game of the Century, tonight’s Rose Bowl showdown between Texas and USC. We’re literally bouncing off the soggy walls of the cardboard box Cold, Hard Football Facts world headquarters in anticipation of this game. But you might have noticed that much of the analysis centers around a few names. USC vs. Texas has essentially become a battle of BushLeinartWhite vs. Young. And in the analysis of names, the three-headed USC monster has become the obvious favorite on the big boards of Vegas and in the court of public opinion. The Trojans are a 7-point favorite and numerous “pundits” have come right out and predicted a USC cakewalk. It won’t happen. Texas is the better team and will win tonight. How do we know? Easy. We looked beyond the Hollywood Golden Boy headlines and did a great big belly flop into the pool of pigskin knowledge called the Cold, Hard Football Facts. But wait: USC has the best ground game in the country, one led by Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush and LenDale White, who is second in the nation in scoring with 23 touchdowns. Yes, it’s true that USC has quite a remarkable ground game. But Texas is No. 3 in the country, averaging 273.8 rushing yards per game. USC is No. 4, with 264.3 YPG. Surely, though, with 2004 Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart at quarterback, USC is the better passing team? Not exactly. USC certainly passes more often and for more yards, but Texas quarterback Vince Young leads the nation in passing efficiency with a 168.6 rating. Leinart is merely No. 7, with a passer efficiency rating of 158.3. (College football uses a different rating system than the NFL, one that creates inflated numbers compared with the pro rating.) Young has passed for 26 touchdowns on 285 attempts (1 TD per 11.0 attempts). Leinart has passed for 27 touchdowns on 391 attempts (1 TD per 14.5 attempts). Yeah, but USC can score on anybody! Sure, they can. But so can the Longhorns. In fact, Texas is No. 1 in the country, averaging 50.9 PPG. USC is No. 2 with 50.0 PPG. Hey, but what about that coach Pete Carroll? He’s a defensive genius. Yes, Carroll has turned out some stellar defenses during his years at USC. But the 2005 edition of the Trojans defense is not among them. USC ranks just 39th in the nation in total defense (344.6 YPG), behind such notable defensive powerhouses as Rutgers, Marshall, Troy and Connecticut. USC is also just 27th in the nation in scoring defense, surrendering 21.3 PPG. And now USC is up against an offense far more productive than any it has faced all year. Texas, meanwhile, is far more dominant on the defensive side of the ball. The Longhorns are No. 4 in the nation in scoring defense (14.6 PPG) and No. 6 in total defense (280.3 YPG). And get this: Texas allows opponents a ridiculous 4.7 yards per passing attempt, far and away the best in the nation (Miami is No. 2, allowing 5.2 yards per attempt). For its part, USC allows opponents 6.6 yards per passing attempt and tonight finds itself up against the best passer in the nation. Texas has faced and beaten two teams with defenses better than USC’s. Early this season, they walked into the home of Fiesta Bowl champion Ohio State, a team that ranks in the top 10 in both total and scoring defense, and walked out with a 25-22 victory. Texas also hung 45 points on an Oklahoma team that boasts one of the nation’s top 20 defenses. USC has yet to face a defense that’s anywhere near as good as the Texas defense. We’ve seen this story time and again. Team A has the high-powered offense that garners all the headlines. Team B has the suffocating defense that routinely gets overlooked because it’s just not the same sexy story. Team A is the darling of the “pundits” and gambling America. Team B wins the game. And in this case, Texas has more than just a superior defense. It has an offense that's at least as good as USC's. Defense wins championships. And only one team tonight has a championship defense. *** Here's how Texas and USC rank in most major offensive and defensive categories: Category Texas (Rank) USC (Rank) Scoring offense 50.9 (1) 50.0 (2) Total offense 508.4 (3) 580.3 (1) Rush offense 273.8 (3) 264.3 (4) Pass offense 234.7 (42) 316.0 (5) Scoring defense 14.6 (4) 21.3 (27) Total defense 280.3 (6) 344.6 (39) Rush defense 124.4 (30) 117.3 (24) Pass defense 155.9 (4) 227.3 (73)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)