Ranking USC's schedule #2 gutsiest was bull feces! There are many schools that play a much tougher schedule than USC. What a croc of crap!
My supposition is based on the fact we won the :crystal: . This gives the Tigers gravitas....Aubarn did not win the :crystal: although they made rings as if they did. If one day Aubarn would win the :crystal: then they too would have gravitas and be able to wear their rings during daylight hours. :hihi:
what? i have no idea what you are trying to say. I was stating that sometimes winning them all does not 'take care of itself'. Not sure what that has to do with you guys winning the BCS?
I'm just growing incredibly sick of this whole attitude that the media has. When they talk college football 2005, they're all basically saying, 'Who will go undefeated this year to gain the privelege of playing USC?'
There was a Pac-10 sport guru on the SEC message board saying last year the PAC-10 was the best conference in America, this SI writer must be him or read that guys website. I shot him down in flames, btw for those that do know the Pac-10 had a 6-9 record vs out of conference teams with winning records.
It was just an attempt at humor regarding your team not making the mnc game despite winning all of its games (although we're not happy with that one on the plains last year) and the much debated, discussed and deliberated decision to make "people"s championship" rings (or whatever they're called) worn by the 'Barners, as opposed to the legitimate rings worn by the LSU Tigers. You see, most objective people would consider LSU more of a heavyweight in college football having won the MNC a couple of years ago, as opposed to an Awbarn team which defeated ULL and the Citadel. Hopefully this clears up any confusiuon you may have regarding my previous obtuse post.
spare me. being favored by double digits or even 20+ for each OOC explains it all. no amount of buttering that cupcake will help.