Oregon State???

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:41 am

I think Stanfurd may get their first win next week.

Cal at Corvallis(Oregon State) ... Cal 41 Beavers 13.

Here we come spoiled kids!

We're on our way to LA!

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:45 am

Okay, just for posting pics of those urine unis again...

...you know what to do, Indy. Ban him again.

:-)

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:51 am

Van wrote:Okay, just for posting pics of those urine unis again...

...you know what to do, Indy. Ban him again.

:-)

Van, how in the fuck did the Beaver's take you to the shedd?

Seriously, look out for the Indians.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:40 am

Four turnovers to none, a shitload of points off of those turnovers and also a punt return for a td...

USC actually beat Oregon St up and down the field in terms of the usual barometer statistics but they dug themselves too big of a hole with all the huge mistakes. USC's offense simply isn't explosive enough to perpetually overcome four turnovers and a special teams gaffe for a td, especially not when their own defense isn't forcing any turnovers to help even things up a bit.

Too many short fields for Oregon St's offense and no short fields for USC's.

If they play like that anymore this season they'll only beat Stanford and maybe UCLA. They have to start winning the turnover battles again.

Dude, don't look now but if you're not careful you may actually win the Pac 10 and go to the Rose Bowl for the first time in your entire lifetime. If you don't get it done this year, wooo, I dunno but you may in fact be the Chicago Cubs of CF...

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:19 am

see, its one thing to lose, but they lost to an un-ranked squad.
and, you think you still have a shot at a title?
see, national title teams dont lose to un-ranked teams.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:25 pm

I don't think we ought to still have a shot at the national title. We're simply not good enough. We never should've had the preseason ranking we had and we were never a true Top 5 team at any point during this season. All the USC fans on this board have been consistent in saying this from Day One.

Nonetheless, due to the watered down nature of this CF season I think we do still have a shot at the national title game, simply because the possibility still exists (thanks to our S.O.S. and especially the four teams we play to close out our season) that if everything lines up just right a path could still open up for us. We'd need a lot of things to go very right before it could line up in our favor but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Thing is, in the coming weeks I doubt we'll hold up our end of the bargain so it's likely to soon be a moot point anyway.

No, with USC moving aside to clear the path for everybody else I'm just waiting now for the awesome clusterfuck that's going to ensue at season's end when an undefeated Big East team is leapfrogged by a one loss team from a real conference and all hell breaks lose again regarding the stupid BCS system. For that matter, even disregarding the Big East winner it's going to be funnier than fuck watching CF implode over the debate between one loss teams...

Look at all the one loss teams we may be staring at here in trying to decide this debate:

-Michigan
-Ohio State
-USC
-Texas
-ND
-Cal
-Florida
-Auburn
-Arkansas
-Tennessee
-Wisconsin
-Boston College

Sure, they can't all end up with one loss since some of 'em still have to play each other. It's still very possible though that six of those teams could end up with only one loss, and that's in addition to a potentially undefeated and thoroughly untested Big East winner, a team practically nobody would want to see in the title game.

This could get downright biblical.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:37 pm

Van wrote:USC actually beat Oregon St up and down the field in terms of the usual barometer statistics

Van...did you actually see the game?

Sure, USC was able to put up some pretty gaudy stats late in the game...but OSU absolutely DOMINATED every aspect of that game for about 3 quarters.

DOMINATED.

Not sure which game you were watching. Take away those "gimmes" that OSU was giving up down the stretch(in typical Beav style...some things never change), and that game was just as ugly on the stat sheet for USC as it was on the field.

The Beavers' penchant for Couging it was the only reason that the stat sheet doesn't read like a script from a comedy.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:45 pm

USC actually beat Oregon St up and down the field in terms of the usual barometer statistics

Well the most usual statistic is the one on the scoreboard and you lost that one. Who gives a shit how many yards a team has? Who gives a shit about time of possession? Who gives a crap about all your traditional statistice. Scoreboard doesn't lie and it's the only one that counts. You lost, and I LOVE IT.................

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:55 am

Dins, the only areas where Oregon St dominated in either half were the two killers: turnover differential and points off turnovers.

Also, they had a long punt return for a TD.

That's it. Besides the final score (doh!) USC led Oregon St at the half in total yardage, passing yardage, YPR and YPP. They led in those areas at the final gun too...

First Downs: USC-23 OSU-16
Rushing: USC-7 OSU-4
Passing: USC-17 OSU-13
Penalty: USC-1 OSU-0
Total Net Yards: USC-492 OSU-351
Total offensive plays: USC-66 OSU-67
Average gain plays: USC-7.5 OSU-5.2
Net Yards Rushing: USC-86 OSU-89
Average gain per Rush: USC-3.2 OSU-2.5
Net Yards Passing: USC-406 OSU-262
Average yards per pass: USC-10.4 OSU-8.2
Punts: Number-Yards 4-151 3-116
Turnover: USC-4 OSU-0

Just look at those numbers. It's obvious what happened there. The key stat is that last one.

Sorry, pal, but no, no matter how you want to spin it that was no "domination" by Oregon St. Not even close. That was one team getting a lot of easy points off of unforced turnovers and another team having to constantly overcome their own huge miscues while otherwise controlling the play.

They held Oregon St's rushing game to a paltry 2.5 YPC and they beat or were at least equal to OSU in every meaningful statistical category.

That was a two point win, thanks to points off of unforced turnovers and a punt return. It was also a failed two point conversion which would've sent the game into O.T. and, considering the steamroller momentum they had going, a nearly certain USC win.

Doesn't matter. Oregon St won. They didn't dominate and they didn't need to dominate. They only needed to score one more point than USC and that's what they accomplished, with one to spare.

Shit happened. The team that deserved to win the game won the game. Ballgame.

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:07 am

hey m2ool

you see that jim hanifan will be getting his jersey retired by cal? class guy, who knew how to run an offensive line. nothing beat drunken jim hanifan rants while he coached the cardinals.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:17 am

adel, I've heard a lot of NFL types say Hanifan might be the best OL coach ever. There are people at there, seriously good people, who absolutely worship that guy's ability as a line coach...

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:39 pm

First Downs: USC-23 OSU-16
Rushing: USC-7 OSU-4
Passing: USC-17 OSU-13
Penalty: USC-1 OSU-0
Total Net Yards: USC-492 OSU-351
Total offensive plays: USC-66 OSU-67
Average gain plays: USC-7.5 OSU-5.2
Net Yards Rushing: USC-86 OSU-89
Average gain per Rush: USC-3.2 OSU-2.5
Net Yards Passing: USC-406 OSU-262
Average yards per pass: USC-10.4 OSU-8.2
Punts: Number-Yards 4-151 3-116
Turnover: USC-4 OSU-0

Just look at those numbers. It's obvious what happened there. The key stat is that last one.

Yeah... they put up those numbers and still fucking lost. Hemlich anyone ??

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:24 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^

no but according to mTOOL circa the last couple years when they lost to SC (2004,2005)...Kal actually won those games because they dominated SC in most statistical categories...that is where we got Kal will lose 4 games en route to winning the National Title smack...

just sayin...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:25 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Van...did you actually see the game?

Hehehehe....Vannie is arguing about a game he didn't even watch...

And he wonders why he gets crap in here.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:29 pm

Is there a Pac 10 team that doesn't sport a urine uni? Holy Bladder Blunder, Batman.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:33 pm

Oregon State wears unis that are the color of a really bad processed food company.

While there may be urine in Reser's products, the colors don't resemble human urine.

And with UDub...the uni doesn't look like urine, but the player wearing it sure does....probably because he drinks it for breakfast.

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:08 pm

Dinsdale wrote:a really bad processed food company.

Hey man, our frozen burritos and tubs of potato salad have been a favorite of trailer-park kitchenettes thoughout the Northwest for many years.

Sincerely,

Reser Fine Foods

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:20 pm

Dude, I lived but a few blocks from Resers HQ for many, many years(even before Nike moved in across the street). The factory store may not have had good food, but it did have cheap food.

I've consumed a few of those $3, 55 gallon drums of potato salad in my day...no Hot Mamas, though.

And the Baja line of salsas isn't that bad(as far as cheap Reser's crap goes).

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:45 pm

Dins, I never said I didn't watch the game.

You ask a question and then answer it in the definitive yourself...almost as if you think you know.

Hmmmm...

For the record though, I watched the live "GameCast" on the internet at work. Definitely missed some plays here and there but I managed as much as I could, you know, in between "running upstairs to check with my manager who's hopefully in a good mood!" and all...

:-)

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:02 pm

Van wrote: You ask a question and then answer it in the definitive yourself...almost as if you think you know.

Yeah, I answered it that way because I did "know."

It's pretty obvious.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:11 pm

I followed nearly every play, Dins, and I've given you the black and white proof of what occured on the field so the only thing that's obvious is that you don't know the definition of the word "dominate".

Beating somebody 44-10 is dominating them...

Holding somebody down offensively and controlling the ball yourself is dominating them...

Winning by two points after getting dominated yourself in terms of much of the play on the field isn't dominating them.

That was a fairly even game. A team can win without being dominant, and that's exactly what happened. Oregon St looked pretty good and they ended up getting the win. USC shot themselves in the foot, left and right. They couldn't quite overcome their mistakes and though they also looked pretty good during their comeback they fell short and ended up suffering a loss.

Long and short of it.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:38 pm

Winning by two points after getting dominated yourself in terms of much of the play on the field isn't dominating them.

Maybe not matrix domination like your used too, but at the end of the game, the Beavers still won there chicken little.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:25 pm

Never said Oregon St didn't win, or that they didn't deserve to win, did I, Mr Reading Is Fundamental?

Nope. I merely said (and proved) that Oregon St didn't "dominate" USC. They won, yes, in a close game.

That is all.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:26 pm

Look, you both sucked balls, Oregon St just sucked a little less ballage.

Move on.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:36 pm

There ya' go. Bam.