Same thing you would if an SEC team beat a PAC-10 team let's just say 45-3, then USC struggled to beat that same cellar dweller, you know, like limping into the half only up 3-0.:wave: Margin of victory like that is completely irrellevant. Just pointing out that Cal didn't 'destruy" Tennessee. They beat them, yes. Convincingly enough to say it wasn't a fluke, yes. Destroy, don't think so.
Those "this team beat that team by more so they must be better than that team that beat this team by less" arguments don't hold water. It's a different game on a different Saturday with different matchups, injuries and luck. Is UCLA, Arizona State, TCU, Oregon State, Washington or Washington State better than USC? Because Stanford lost to all of those teams and yet managed to beat USC.
How many times have I read that this team or that team "really needs to make a statement"? And I seriously doubt you'd say the same thing cause every victory USC has had over an SEC team in the last few years (4-0 BTW) is always downplayed for one reason or another. I understand why, just think it's nothing more than football talk.
I completely agree and while I may have done a lousy job, my post was an effort to highlight that exact point.
I don't think anybody can argue that after this season. All anybody wants to do at this point is hold par. Just win.
Because in the voters eyes, winning big "this week" against a good opponent is important. Winning by a larger margin of victory over team X than what team Y did, is pretty useless in determining who would win a game between the two teams. Because there's no fun in telling a rival, oh your team is great, your obviously better than us and would beat us on a neutral field. It's much more fun to try to poke holes in their strenghts and rub that in their faces. :thumb:
