OT: USC vs Randon Pac10 team

Submitted by LongLiveBo on September 19th, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Are we about to see another terrible USC Pac10 loss?

Comments

CheckOutMyRod

September 19th, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^

Dont get me wrong,they are a good team but they are nothing like they have been in the past. They are very young this season. Need proof?? look at their game against osu,any of the past usc teams would have beat them 3 td's.

poguemahone

September 19th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

Barkley did not play, and the USC rushing attack that Ohio State held to 118 yards on 40 carries went off for 250 on just 33 against Washington. Meanwhile, SC held UW to 53 yards on 33 carries. It's not like USC is suddenly bad, but their quarterback is. I mean, Corp is just awful. He was the difference in this game.

So what does it mean for OSU? That OSU is merely very good, which is exactly what most rational people were thinking heading into the season.

formerlyanonymous

September 19th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^

U Dub wasn't as bad as their record showed last year. They lost a couple VERY close games to some really good teams last year in the closing moments. They also played the toughest schedule in the nation. Jake Locker is a good quarterback. There's no shame in a young USC team losing at Seattle.

MichiganExile

September 19th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^

No there is no shame in losing to UW. Playing in Seattle is not as easy as you may think. UW is vastly improved this year. SC is extremely underexperienced at key positions especially quarterback. Both the head coach and defensive coordinator at UW this time last year were working the sideline at SC. SC was clearly having trouble with the field turf as well. Throw in a rabid fan base drooling for a long awaited victory over a top opponent and you have all the ingredients for an upset. I also think the Pac-10 is pretty stacked this year throughout.

It also goes to show just how difficult it is to go undefeated and especially within your own conference.

Snowden

September 19th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^

UW's celebration siren makes our complaints about RAWK seem minor by comparison. That, combined with the "Woof" chants, combined with the coach getting all jump-around-y with his players on the sideline midgame, all make for a hellish maw of a homefield advantage.

I dig it.

formerlyanonymous

September 19th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^

I wouldn't be surprised if they lose multiple games on top of this one. USC is not it's dominating team of the last few years. I got heat for saying there's no shame in losing to UW just because they are a #3 team. I don't think anyone who's watched them play every game this season thinks they are anything close to what they've been. They just started the year ranked high, looked meh against the other team ranked high while not being overwhelming.

I've watched several teams look better than USC when it comes to the complete package this season, including Washington.

Blue Durham

September 19th, 2009 at 7:34 PM ^

They have had such incredible recruiting classes, it is hard to believe that they aren't dominant.

FA, why do you think they are "down" as compared to previous years? Is is a matter of team chemistry? Are they lacking at a critical position, is it motivation, stale coaching (for the lack of a better term), or something else?

formerlyanonymous

September 19th, 2009 at 7:44 PM ^

I think it's the inexperience at QB. Barkley has looked okay, neither great nor bad this season. They don't have much depth behind him, which showed today. They can run the ball on anyone, and their defense is still in the top quarter, but I don't think they have the trigger man in the passing game that's made them so well rounded as in the past.

Having that inexperience at QB can affect their team rhythm. Their game against OSU was a pretty good indicator of this. They never really had a consistent passing rhythm against OSU and had to rely on the run game to carry them through that. Any USC team from the last 4-5 years would have blown out OSU. Instead, we saw two evenly matched teams (well above average teams) that just aren't clicking on all cylinders.

Just my e-pinion.

Blue Durham

September 19th, 2009 at 7:55 PM ^

Unfortunately, what you said will be easily resolved with a few games or so. By the end of the season (read: bowls), their QB will have a full year's experience, and will be meshing much better with his supporting cast of all-stars. I suspected it was the QB; I was just hoping is was something much worse.

And in that case, I hope that Michigan isn't matched up with them in a bowl.

formerlyanonymous

September 19th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^

I don't necessarily disagree, but Barkley is still a first year starter, and hasn't shown to be as great as his predecessors. While, like you say, this could change by the end of the season, it's not what is happening right now. Also, with him being hit in the shoulder, it could have lingering affects. If he misses any more playing time, that helps limit his experiences, prolonging the fix.

I don't want to see Michigan matched up with them either. We're not yet at their level. Our defense is still too thin, and USC's OL would probably control our D-Line all game. We just don't have the size or depth there. Add McKnight vs Obi Ezeh's play lately, I just don't think we match up well with the top teams yet.

MichiganExile

September 19th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^

Don't forget they lost both coordinators and a lot of experience on defense. The secondary is pretty amazing but the loss of most of the front seven on defense is a bigger deal than people think. They have not been getting the pressure that they have in the past. USC is just too inexperienced in some important areas and the Pac-10 is catching up.

Tedford has always been just a few parts away from competing on the national stage, and I am not gonna lie I think Neuheisel is gonna do some serious work at UCLA.

stankoniaks

September 19th, 2009 at 7:34 PM ^

Went to UW for ugrad. This win is huge for the program. Sark is doing a tremendous job there. I'm really on cloud 9 here (coupled with a Michigan win today).

7 out of USC's last 8 losses have been agains Pac 10 teams. Yet they continually match up well against nonconference foes. I think it really shows is that the Pac 10 is vastly underated. I think they were undefeated in bowl games last year.

Conference strength is cyclical. Seems as though the Pac 10 is on the rise (judging on their Nonconference games this year). Perhaps the Big 10 is as well, depending on how we do this year.

MichiganExile

September 19th, 2009 at 10:29 PM ^

Congrats to you and yours my fellow Pac-10 alum. I wish the outcome would have been different today, but I have to admit I am happy to see UW look good again. It may be a little early but I think a UW resurrection is necessary for the Pac-10 to get the respect it deserves.

You are correct Pac-10 was undefeated in bowls last year and I thought it would be very predictive of this season to come.

wolverinepride

September 19th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

I think we know now why Carroll threw such a fit when sanchez left. He obviously did not think he had much at the qb position.

Lockler is a great qb, and not to mention sarksesian is changin the culture at Udub.

And do we really have any place to bash USC's loss to them being ranked what they were?

RagingBean

September 19th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^

I really don't see the Trojans leaving Berkeley with a W with the team looking like this. Neither Barkley nor Corp can take the team on their shoulders if need be, and they are too young or banged up at other spots to make up for it.

I wouldn't even be stunned if USC didn't win the PAC-10 this year, really. If Cal gets by them they would be the odds-on favorite to run to one of the games in Pasadena.

stankoniaks

September 20th, 2009 at 1:00 AM ^

Watching the game, a familiar face kept popping up and making plays. Yes, Nick Perry. He looked like a beast, and a heck of a pass rusher. I kept repeatedly shouting at my TV that he should have gone to Michigan.