Well, since everyone else has offered an opinion about the Rose Bowl game tomorrow, I'm happy to add my thoughts to the mix.
I am not one of those who thinks this will be a close game, I'm revising a little since an earlier disucssion with a collegue, but I am looking for a final score as follows:
USC Trojans 48 +/- 7
Texas Longhorns 19 +/- 7
The score at half time will be something like USC 31 Texas 10 with the Texas touchdown probably coming just before halftime.
Here is a little of my reasoning.
While Texas is an impressive team and going undefeated in 1A is not easy, Texas' schedule was not full of top 25 teams, in fact they only played three teams ranked in the top 25 at game time and only one of those, Ohio State, remained in the top 10, and Ohio State (who should have beaten Texas) is a good but not a powerful team (Sorry, Dr. Mayhue). All Ohio State proved in the Fiesta Bowl is that Notre Dame has to recruit some defensive players. Texas' schedule was also sprinkled with LaFayette, Rice, Baylor, along with a host of unimpressive Big 12 teams. Texas is terribly weak against the pass and has never even come close to having to defend the kind of offense USC can put on the field. If Vince Young is off or only has an average game Texas has no other "go to" guy to carry them.
USC on the other hand had to play six ranked teams and two huge rivalry games (Notre Dame and UCLA), along with every team they played gunning to stop the unbeaten streak (and there is a lot to that). They played two weak non-conference games (Hawaii and Arkansas in their first two games and then played nothing but PAC 10 (who will win the conference Bowl Championship if USC wins, going 4-1 in the bowl games) games, except for Notre Dame and the highly ranked Fresno State team. The defense got both healthy and better at the right time. UCLA was ranked 11th when they played (and probably would have been undefeated and ranked 3rd had it not been for their strange lapse against Arizona). UCLA had one of the top offenses in the country and USC held them to essentially nothing. USC has two Heisman winners. Leinart, Bush or White is capable of winning the game by themselves. When USC lines up lines up Bush and White together along with two 1,000 yard receivers and one of the top tight ends in 1A, there is just too many options, essentially Texas cannot afford to blitz and they cannot afford to double-team very often. Add to that perhaps the top offensive line in 1A and Texas is in serious trouble.
On the defensive side, Texas will have to face a much healthier and improving USC defense. I think the big thing here will be that Vince Young will have to face linebackers who are just as fast as he is. The USC defense may not be as physically dominating as they were last year, but they are a lot faster and they still can hit hard.
Of no particular consequence in terms of eternal values, but I enjoy speculating. I could be wrong, but hey, if you're going to have a blog you better take a chance once in a while.
Posted by Narnia3 at January 3, 2006 9:22 PM | TrackBackI think this game proved two things: a, if a team knows how to tackle, Reggie Bush is not as great as his hype; b, the Pac-10 is over rated.
After growing up in a part of the counrty where you watch nothing but Big-10, Big-12 and SEC, I must say that these divisions understand "defense" a lot better than the Pac-10. I wager that if USC played in the Big-10, Big-12, or SEC, that their run would never have happened.
In fact, after reviewing the teams in the Pac-10, it would serve the country and college football best if the Pac-10 were removed from the "big" conference status and placed among the WAC or Mountain West conference. The Pac-10 is a joke. At best some of them are high school teams. Defe...what? Not in the Pac-10, maybe they like the WAC style of play. Do we remember that the number 2 team in their division lost to an unranked team (though OU deserves to be ranked). We can't always go by who is ranked and not ranked, Fresno State lost to unranked Tulsa.
USC should dominate like this every year in the PAC-10, though in the next 3 years Arizona is going to stomp them. Who does USC compete against to recruit players? In a land rich with athletes, there is no competition. So in essence they have to win 2 big games a year (Notre Dame and their bowl game).
It is almost as if the Pac-10 is designed to do nothing but get USC to the title game. Maybe now that Southern Cal's pride has been burst, they will reevaluate their conference and ask, when are we going to require there to be competition?
Posted by: jason at January 5, 2006 9:15 AMWell, like I said if you have a blog you have to take a chance. Vince Young played a great game and USC as a team didn't. A missed 4th and 1 in the first quarter, Bush's silly attempt to lateral, and an interception in the end zone mean USC probably let 17-21 points get away. Even with all of that, if they make 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter they win the game.
Oh well, that's why they play the game. Now back to Kings Hockey and watching the Dodgers rebuild for 2006.
Posted by: Dennis at January 7, 2006 10:43 AM