USC overwhelming #1 in AP Poll

[WVUFAN]

Link

I'm not completely sold on USC. I don't think Booty's as good a QB as people seem to think he is.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Link

I'm not completely sold on USC. I don't think Booty's as good a QB as people seem to think he is.

Did you know he put up better numbers than Leinart did in his first year as a starter?

[Eaglesfan27]

I don't think he's as good as say Carson Palmer, but he is going to be good enough considering USC has what should be it's best defense in decades as well as a ton of offensive weapons around him.

[sterlingice]

Aw, Kansas isn't even on "also receiving votes". Oh wait, that's because we suck

SI

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Did you know he put up better numbers than Leinart did in his first year as a starter?

No, I didn't know that. I might be wrong about him.

I saw a few USC games, and he didn't have the presence in the pocket that Leinart or Palmer did. It may be due to his age, but he made a number of bad mistakes. Luckily for his the rest of the team is so talented.

[k0ruptr]

ahh #23 feels nice.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

ahh #23 feels nice.

Yeah, like you really need a big pick me up, living in Hawaii and all

SI

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

No, I didn't know that. I might be wrong about him.

I saw a few USC games, and he didn't have the presence in the pocket that Leinart or Palmer did. It may be due to his age, but he made a number of bad mistakes. Luckily for his the rest of the team is so talented.

Actually, I agree with you. I never thought he ever looked as good as Leinart or Palmer (senior season Palmer, that is), but they kept throwing that out here in the local radio shows, and sure enough it's true.

Now, Leinart had some pretty good receivers himself, so it's not like he did it on his own, but I am thinking Booty leaned on his receivers more than Leinart did. He won't have Jarrett or Smith to save his butt anymore. His receivers are much worse (in current game experience) now than Leinart's, and pardons to Joe McKnight, but there is no Reggie Bush on this squad either, just another group of experienced but always injured/talented but inexperienced runners on this team. Losing Moody will hurt, too.

But, then, I think USC will win more with rolling out its front seven than its offense, anyway.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I don't think he's as good as say Carson Palmer, but he is going to be good enough considering USC has what should be it's best defense in decades as well as a ton of offensive weapons around him.

Eaglesfan, curious, but do you buy the secondary is great arguments I have been hearing all preseason? There's no doubt USC has talent there (they have talent everywhere), but it seems like everyone has been going gaga over that secondary, and I see the same guys that were ripped by scouts and commentators last year in this secondary this year. There's no doubt in my mind your front seven is just awesome, but everyone seems ready to anoint your back four, and I just don't get it.

They're solid. That's about it. Their secondary isn't even as good as UCLA's, much less the best in the nation.

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

ahh #23 feels nice.

and ahead of Boise.

[k0ruptr]

BTW , when was the last time 2 wac teams were in the preseason top 25 ?

has it ever happened ? lol

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Aw, Kansas isn't even on "also receiving votes". Oh wait, that's because we suck

SI

You're no Duke.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, I agree with you. I never thought he ever looked as good as Leinart or Palmer (senior season Palmer, that is), but they kept throwing that out here in the local radio shows, and sure enough it's true.

This is really based off very, very little actual evidence (basically the HS AA game) but I think Sanchez is a better quarterback than Booty and will be a great pro QB one day.

Also, because ND is not ranked, we will spring an upset or two early and immediately vault into an overrated Top 10 spot, pissing off the Hawaii, Boise St, TCU etc. fans to no end.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You're no Duke.This is really based off very, very little actual evidence (basically the HS AA game) but I think Sanchez is a better quarterback than Booty and will be a great pro QB one day.

Also, because ND is not ranked, we will spring an upset or two early and immediately vault into an overrated Top 10 spot, pissing off the Hawaii, Boise St, TCU etc. fans to no end.

Will your sudden decline from the Top 10 then start after your visit to the Rose Bowl in October? I hope so--we really owe you for last year.

[ISiddiqui]

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day when Rutgers was ranked in a pre-season Top 25 (I knew it'd happen, but I'm not sure I'm prepared enough for it).

[st.cronin]

I'm surprised at the lack of respect for Booty. I was tremendously impressed by him last year, and I think he's going to be fantastic.

[SnDvls]

agree on U$C...if their WRs fail them or someone doesn't step up they will have to be carried by their D, which is probally one of the best in the country this year.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Will your sudden decline from the Top 10 then start after your visit to the Rose Bowl in October? I hope so--we really owe you for last year.

Probably before then - it's a pretty brutal opening 8 games for a young team like us, all 4 easy games are at the end of the year. Anything better than a 5-3 start and I'd be ecstatic, and we'd probably make it back to a BCS game. Of course, Mark May has said we'll start 1-7, so I shouldn't get my hopes up

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Eaglesfan, curious, but do you buy the secondary is great arguments I have been hearing all preseason? There's no doubt USC has talent there (they have talent everywhere), but it seems like everyone has been going gaga over that secondary, and I see the same guys that were ripped by scouts and commentators last year in this secondary this year. There's no doubt in my mind your front seven is just awesome, but everyone seems ready to anoint your back four, and I just don't get it.

They're solid. That's about it. Their secondary isn't even as good as UCLA's, much less the best in the nation.

I couldn't disagree more. Last year, they had raw talent in the secondary but were very inexperienced. The year of experience is going to do wonders as will getting Pinkard back. The secondary is going to be much better than UCLA's and among the best in the nation. Not to mention, the greatness of the front 7 is going to create a lot of opportunities for the secondary.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I couldn't disagree more. Last year, they had raw talent in the secondary but were very inexperienced. The year of experience is going to do wonders as will getting Pinkard back. The secondary is going to be much better than UCLA's and among the best in the nation. Not to mention, the greatness of the front 7 is going to create a lot of opportunities for the secondary.

I dunno, UCLA has something like 85 starts in their secondary and all four starters are seniors I believe

I think USC's success depends a lot on whether or not Booty gets a deeper voice

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I dunno, UCLA has something like 85 starts in their secondary and all four starters are seniors I believe

I think USC's success depends a lot on whether or not Booty gets a deeper voice

UCLA's pass defense was 74th in the nation last year. You would know better than I, but I don't believe they were are getting any key contributors back this year. USC's pass defense was better statistically and they will be getting Pinkard back. Also, they had more younger players contributing last year who are more likely to progress this year than UCLA's secondary players.

Edit: My bad, I'm looking at old stats from a few years ago. Looking for last year's team stats now.

2nd Edit: UCLA's pass defense was actually 83rd last year, worse than I thought. What makes you think they are better than USC again?

[dime]

Brady and Belicheck are going to be PISSED when they see this...where's New England? They get absolutely no respect from the media. None.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

UCLA's pass defense was 74th in the nation last year. You would know better than I, but I don't believe they were are getting any key contributors back this year. USC's pass defense was better statistically and they will be getting Pinkard back. Also, they had more younger players contributing last year who are more likely to progress this year than UCLA's secondary players.

Edit: My bad, I'm looking at old stats from a few years ago. Looking for last year's team stats now.

2nd Edit: UCLA's pass defense was actually 83rd last year, worse than I thought. What makes you think they are better than USC again?

What makes you think they won't improve?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

What makes you think they won't improve?

They may but there is nothing there to make me think that they will be better than USC's secondary or that they have more talent which is the point I was contending.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

They may but there is nothing there to make me think that they will be better than USC's secondary or that they have more talent which is the point I was contending.

The UCLA vs USC thing threw this off on a tangent I didn't intend. Point is, lots of people saying this is the best secondary in the nation. I think that's crazy. They're not that good, and Pac-10 offenses will expose them if they can stay away from your front seven long enough.

The same rankings that saw you pick out UCLA at 87. Funny how you failed to mention USC at a rather mucho mediocre #64 on those same rankings.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The UCLA vs USC thing threw this off on a tangent I didn't intend. Point is, lots of people saying this is the best secondary in the nation. I think that's crazy. They're not that good, and Pac-10 offenses will expose them if they can stay away from your front seven long enough.

The same rankings that saw you pick out UCLA at 87. Funny how you failed to mention USC at a rather mucho mediocre #64 on those same rankings.

I never said this was the best secondary in the nation. I said this was the among the best defenses in the nation. Yes, last year we were 64th against the pass, but that wasn't relevant to the UCLA argument that you foolishly made. I think when one factors in how good the front 7 is going to be and the improvement that is inevitable in a young secondary, USC's defense will stand very well in the rankings at the end of the year and I'm really looking forward to seeing them kick UCLA's ass by 50.

[Chief Rum]

Hmmm...but it was relevant to my original point about people going gaga over your secondary, which you foolishly ignored in leaping onto my UCLA argument.

I also haven't argued that USC won't have one of the best defenses in the land--they will. It's just not going to be the secondary that carries that defense, and those corners will be very happy your front seven doesn't allow many passers the chance to abuse them.

As for your wish to see USC beating UCLA by 50, go get a calendar. This isn't 2003 or even 2005. You know this squad is no pushover. You found out the hard way last year.

I wouldn't bet against USC getting the win this year, with all that talent and at the Coliseum, too, but if you think you're putting up 50 on that defense, much less 50 more than what you score, you're smoking something.

[MrIllini]

I'm looking forward to whatever PAC-10 fraud is thrown into the BCS games getting their asses whooped again.

*shurg*

[mrsimperless]

These forum squabbles are what always keeps me coming back for more. My unbiased vote based solely on the arguments here presented is for Chief Rum.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Hmmm...but it was relevant to my original point about people going gaga over your secondary, which you foolishly ignored in leaping onto my UCLA argument.

I also haven't argued that USC won't have one of the best defenses in the land--they will. It's just not going to be the secondary that carries that defense, and those corners will be very happy your front seven doesn't allow many passers the chance to abuse them.

As for your wish to see USC beating UCLA by 50, go get a calendar. This isn't 2003 or even 2005. You know this squad is no pushover. You found out the hard way last year.

I wouldn't bet against USC getting the win this year, with all that talent and at the Coliseum, too, but if you think you're putting up 50 on that defense, much less 50 more than what you score, you're smoking something.

I'll still take our secondary over just about any teams. Taylor Mays was very good last year. He'll be much better as a sophomore after having a year of experience to go with his considerable talent. Ellison will remain very steady at S. Pinkard is a very good player and he'll be back this year. Marshall Jones was a decorated high school player. Will Harris is going to be better. I'll take our group of safeties over just about anyone's. Terrell Thomas was coming off knee surgery last year and he still had a very good year. He is going to be a lockdown corner this year. One of the candidates will emerge on the other side and I'll stand by my statement.

As far as putting up 50 against UCLA, you are smoking something if you don't think this team is going to come out with a vengance after last year's embarassment. They'll put up 50 and while I might have been a bit caught up in the moment when I said they would win by 50, I seriously would bet on USC right now beating UCLA by at least 30.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

I'm looking forward to whatever PAC-10 fraud is thrown into the BCS games getting their asses whooped again.

*shurg*

How'd the Big-11 do last year in BCS games?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I never said this was the best secondary in the nation. I said this was the among the best defenses in the nation. Yes, last year we were 64th against the pass, but that wasn't relevant to the UCLA argument that you foolishly made. I think when one factors in how good the front 7 is going to be and the improvement that is inevitable in a young secondary, USC's defense will stand very well in the rankings at the end of the year and I'm really looking forward to seeing them kick UCLA's ass by 50.

Again, is Booty's voice suddenly going to get deeper to make a serious title run?

I'll take your bet though, 50 points is a lot to give any team, much less one whose defense is as good as UCLA's

[k0ruptr]

I'll say there is no way that USC puts up 50 on UCLA.

[MrIllini]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

How'd the Big-11 do last year in BCS games?

Well, it depends, are we only counting bowl games that matter, or are we counting the Tampax Stuff it up as far as you can Bowls that the Pac-10 lost in?

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm surprised at the lack of respect for Booty.

I respect Booty. Particularly shapely Booty. I'm a Booty man.

[path12]

Pac 10 is second best conference in the nation this year. Mark it down. Six very strong teams. Unfortunately, Washington has to play them all, so they will not be one of them.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

Well, it depends, are we only counting bowl games that matter, or are we counting the Tampax Stuff it up as far as you can Bowls that the Pac-10 lost in?

I didn't know "BCS games" was subject to interpretation.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by MrIllini

Well, it depends, are we only counting bowl games that matter, or are we counting the Tampax Stuff it up as far as you can Bowls that the Pac-10 lost in?

You were bitching about the PAC-10 getting into BCS games they didn't deserve, I merely asked how the Big-11 did in said BCS games. If you didn't like the parameters I guess you probably shouldn't have defined them then.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/previe...ark&id=2980407

Past national champs among most overrated

Which is the most overrated team in college football? Notre Dame? Michigan? Ohio State?

More than ever before, a school's position in the preseason rankings has a bearing on its chances of playing for the national championship at the end of the season. So even the preseason polls, which come out weeks before a game is even played, figure heavily in determining which teams will be ranked Nos. 1 and 2 in early December.

Evidence A: Since 1991, college football's national championship has come from outside the top 10 of the preseason Associated Press top 25 poll only four times -- Michigan was 14th in 1997, Oklahoma was 19th in 2000, Ohio State was 13th in 2002 and LSU was 14th in 2003.

Evidence B: During the last 20 seasons, 13 teams have lost a game and still managed to finish the regular season ranked in the top two in the BCS standings or either poll of record. But only one of those teams -- LSU in 2003 -- was ranked lower than eighth in the preseason poll.

So if your favorite team is beginning the 2007 season outside the top 10 in the AP or ESPN/USA Today coaches' polls, you'd better hope for an undefeated season. Otherwise, your team has a very small chance of winning the national championship.

With that in mind, ESPN.com examined which teams were the most overrated and underrated over the last 10 college football seasons.

The formula was simple: We took a team's preseason ranking in the AP Top 25 poll and compared it to where that team finished the season. For example, if State U. was ranked No. 6 in the preseason poll and finished 11th, the team lost five points. Conversely, if State Tech was ranked 13th in the preseason and finished second, it gained 11 points.

Any team that started or finished the season unranked was given a ranking of No. 26. For example, if State U. started the season ranked No. 7 and finished unranked, it lost 19 points, and vice versa.

Only teams that were ranked in at least three of the 10 preseason polls or final polls from 1997-2006 were included in the list of overrated and underrated teams. All teams included in at least one poll were included in conference standings.

The results of the survey are probably surprising to even the most die-hard college football fans:

• Florida State, which dominated college football during much of the 1990s, has been the sport's most overrated team during the last 10 seasons. In seven of the 10 seasons, the Seminoles finished with a lower ranking than they started with. FSU's biggest drop came during the 2002 season, when it started No. 3 and finished No. 21. Last season, the Seminoles were ranked No. 11 in the preseason and finished unranked in the AP poll for the first time in two decades.

• Washington State, which has won only 15 games the last three seasons combined, was still the most underrated team during the 10-year stretch. The Cougars were ranked in four preseason AP polls since 1997 and finished significantly higher three times. The Cougars climbed from the ranks of the unranked to the final top 10 three times: No. 9 in 1997, No. 10 in 2001 and No. 9 in 2003.

• Eight teams that won or shared national championships during the previous 10 seasons also were among college football's most overrated teams since 1997. Along with Florida State (1999 national champion), Tennessee (1998), Miami (2001), Ohio State (2002), Nebraska (1997), Florida (2006), Michigan (1997) and Texas (2005) finished in the top 10 of most overrated teams.

• Notre Dame, which long ago earned the reputation of being overhyped, wasn't among the top 10 overrated teams during the last 10 years. In fact, the aforementioned national champions, as well as 2003 co-champion LSU, were more overrated than the Fighting Irish in that time span. Although Notre Dame has failed to live up to lofty preseason rankings five times in the last 10 years, it also rose from unranked to ranked three times, finishing No. 15 in 2000, No. 17 in 2002 and No. 9 in 2005.

• Boise State, which finished undefeated and beat Oklahoma 43-42 in overtime in the Fiesta Bowl last season, was the second-most underrated team of the last 10 years. The Broncos were ranked in the preseason only once (18th in 2005), but finished the season ranked four times, including No. 5 last season. TCU also was among the top 10 most underrated teams.

• The Pac-10 was by far the most underrated conference the last 10 years, thanks to yeoman's work from Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State. The Ducks improved their ranking significantly four straight seasons from 1998-2001, and the Beavers went from unranked to No. 4 at the end of the 2000 season. The Big East and Big Ten also finished on the positive side in aggregate score.

• Despite producing two of the last four BCS national champions, the SEC is still underrated when it comes to the preseason AP poll. Seven of the nine SEC teams included in the survey scored in the black. In fact, SEC teams improved their ranking 49 percent of the time. Arkansas and Auburn were the most underrated teams; Tennessee and Florida were the most overrated. The Volunteers were ranked in each of the previous 10 preseason AP polls, but improved their ranking only three times by season's end.

• Big 12 teams were the most overrated during the last 10 years. Only three teams included in the survey -- Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech -- improved their overall ranking. Nebraska, Texas and Texas A&M were the league's most overrated teams.

Certainly, the preseason AP poll has proved to be far from prophetic, which is good news for teams ranked outside the top 25 at the beginning of the 2007 season. Since 1997, only 60 percent of the teams ranked in the preseason top 25 were still ranked at the end of the season. And nearly half (49 percent) of the teams in the top 10 fell out by season's end.

And here's the real reason for hope for those teams not among the top 25 today: In every season since 1997, at least two teams that started the season unranked finished among the top 10.


Preseason poll accuracy
ESPN.com examined which teams were the most overrated and underrated over the last 10 college football seasons by taking a team's preseason ranking in the AP Top 25 poll and compared it to where that team finished the season. Here are the highlights:

Most overrated teams in last 10 years:
1. Florida State (-63)
2. Tennessee (-58)
3. Washington (-42)
4. Miami (-35)
T5. Ohio State (-34)
T5. Nebraska (-34)
7. Florida (-33 1/2)
8. Michigan (-25)
9. Texas (-24)
10. Clemson (-22)

Most underrated teams in last 10 years:
1. Washington St. (+51)
2. Boise State (+48)
3. Oregon (+32 1/2)
4. Arkansas (+26)
5. Wisconsin (+23)
6. Louisville (+20)
7. TCU (+18)
T8. Boston College (+17)
T8. Iowa (+17)
T8. Maryland (+17)

BCS Conferences:
1. Pac-10 (+60 1/2)
2. Big East (+9)
3. Big 10 (+3)
4. SEC (-12 1/2)
5. Big 12 (-78 1/2)
6. ACC (-102)

Fun little story over at ESPN. Not particularly deep as ultimately everything is based on the polls but a fun read nonetheless. Surprisingly, Notre Dame is not on the list of most overrated using this metric because while they have dropped in 5 seasons, they have also come from unranked to do well in 3 seasons.

SI

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

How'd the Big-11 do last year in BCS games?

Before you bash the Big Ten take a look at 1 thing. The Big Ten put two teams in BCS Games. Therefore when you look at their record that has to be taken into affect somewhat. Because when the match-ups are determined, for example, the Capital One Bowl matches up #2 Big10 vs #2SEC, that will bump the big ten down to #3.

USC beat the piss out of Michigan, I won't make any excuses for that one nor will I make any excuses for Florida embarassing Ohio State.

Penn State beat Tennessee and Wisconsin beat Arkansas. Pretty even matchups considering that both conferences had two BCS teams. Texas had a tough time with an Iowa team that had no business being on the field with the Longhorns. The Longhorns were BCS bowl bound until a little slip up at the end of the year.

Purdue got smacked and Minnesota imploded after having a huge lead. Yes the Big Ten looked back I'll lay that blame solely on Michigan and Ohio State for shitting the bed in the big game(s).

As far as the Pac 10 goes this year I think it is USC's to lose. But I really like UCLA, if they can get the same intensity as they had against USC this year by their defense they can and will be deadly. They have two QB's with starting experience and that is important. If I were to predict the Pac 10 I would say it will go...

1 USC, 2 UCLA, 3 Cal, 4 Oregon

Until Cal wins a big game I will always see them as an overrated team. Yes they have Longshore and Jackson coming back on offense and even an experienced RB in Forsett but I think they will have trouble stopping team defensively.

[MrBug708]

I wasn't really discrediting the Big-11, I was just using his standards about the BCS games. UCLA should have shut down Florida State in their bowl game but I think they were still too cocky after beating USC. I don't disagree with pretty much anything you said, I was just laughing at the asinine comments made by MrIllini when he obviously doesn't know much about college sports.

As for UCLA, their situation starts and finishes with how good the QB position can perform

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I couldn't disagree more. Last year, they had raw talent in the secondary but were very inexperienced. The year of experience is going to do wonders as will getting Pinkard back. The secondary is going to be much better than UCLA's and among the best in the nation. Not to mention, the greatness of the front 7 is going to create a lot of opportunities for the secondary.

Interesting article in the Times today about UCLA's secondary.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...adlines-sports

[Eaglesfan27]

Allow me to quote the most salient excerpt from that article:

"While UCLA's is not considered the Pacific 10 Conference's best secondary -- like almost everything else, USC tops that rating -- it is a talented unit that meets the Bruins' needs."

That is what I was saying.

[Toddzilla]

Hrmph - VPI is ranked pretty high, and that concerns me a great deal. The Hokies seem to play much better as underdogs when nothing big is expected of them (e.g. their first year in the ACC) and when the expectations are high, they usually disappoint. The Hokies are also the consensus pick for the ACC championship and BCS bid, so I'm nervous about this year to say the least.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Allow me to quote the most salient excerpt from that article:

"While UCLA's is not considered the Pacific 10 Conference's best secondary -- like almost everything else, USC tops that rating -- it is a talented unit that meets the Bruins' needs."

That is what I was saying.

Actually this is what you said

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

. The secondary is going to be much better than UCLA's

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Actually this is what you said

The quoted excerpt doesn't counterdict that. Also, I did qualify that I think the front 7 is going to be part of their much better performance. That front 7 is going to be incredible and is going to create opportunities for the secondary.