Reminder For Bill Splashme Re. Classless, Hypocrite Petey Whining About Harbaugh's 2 Pt Conversion
by Nestor on Nov 15, 2009 12:06 PM PST
51 comments
To no one's surprise Bill Splashme is crying over his beloved Petey and Trojies getting humiliated on their home coming (no link for this poodle):
Said Carroll: "I don't know what they were thinking with that."
Said Harbaugh: "I felt like our line was in a groove. . . . We went for it because we thought we could get it."
I then asked Harbaugh if he was concerned that such a move would tarnish the victory and send the wrong message, but he gave the identical nonsensical answer about his line being in a groove, totally avoiding the issue.
So, fine, I'll ask Harbaugh again.
This is what you teach? This is how Stanford wants you to coach? Aren't you both supposed to be better than that?
By the time USC gets another crack at Stanford next season, Harbaugh probably will be gone to someplace like Michigan, leaving the kids to feel the brunt of their coach's lack of class, and isn't college football grand?
Uh ... Billy ... lemme give you a little reminder. Do you remember the following sequences from fourth quarter of Southern Cal-UCLA game at Rose Bowl in 2002 when the result was already well decided:
U 2-11 H18 Start of 4th quarter, clock 15:00.
U 2-11 H18 Fargas, Justin rush for 8 yards to the UCLA10 (Page, Jarrad).
U 3-3 H10 Palmer, Carson pass incomplete to Williams, Mike.
U 4-3 H10 Killeen, Ryan field goal attempt from 27 GOOD, clock 14:43.[...]
=============================
USC TROJANS 45, UCLA BRUINS 7
=============================
ball on USC31.
--------------- 5 plays, 25 yards, TOP 02:16 ---------------
U 1-10 U31 USC TROJANS drive start at 12:27 (4th).
U 1-10 U31 Palmer, Carson pass complete to Williams, Mike for 12 yards to the USC43,
1ST DOWN USC (Emanuel Ii, Ben).
U 1-10 U43 McCullough, S. rush for 4 yards to the USC47 (;Reese, Marcus;Havner,
Spencer).
U 2-6 U47 Byrd, Sunny rush for 8 yards to the UCLA45, 1ST DOWN USC (;Emanuel
Ii, Ben;Reese, Marcus).
U 1-10 H45 Byrd, Sunny rush for 2 yards to the UCLA43 (Reese, Marcus).
U 2-8 H43 Byrd, Sunny rush for 1 yard to the UCLA42 (Phillips, Sean).
U 3-7 H42 Dennis, Hershel rush for 4 yards to the UCLA38.
U 4-3 H38 Dennis, Hershel rush for 38 yards to the UCLA0, 1ST DOWN USC,
TOUCHDOWN, clock 09:09.
Killeen, Ryan kick attempt good.
=============================
USC TROJANS 52, UCLA BRUINS 7
=============================[...]
U 1-10 U31 USC TROJANS drive start at 07:59 (4th).
U 1-10 U31 Dennis, Hershel rush for 1 yard to the USC32 (;Morgan, Steve;Phillips,
Sean).
U 2-9 U32 Dennis, Hershel rush for 4 yards to the USC36 (Brant, Kevin).
U 3-5 U36 Cassel, Matt pass complete to Dennis, Hershel for 15 yards to the UCLA49,
1ST DOWN USC (Morgan, Steve).
U 1-10 H49 Dennis, Hershel rush for 1 yard to the UCLA48 (Faoa, Asi).
U 2-9 H48 Dennis, Hershel rush for 1 yard to the UCLA47 (Phillips, Sean).
U 3-8 H47 Cassel, Matt pass complete to Dennis, Hershel for 2 yards to the UCLA45
(Walker, Wesley).
U 4-6 H45 PENALTY USC illegal procedure 5 yards to the 50 yardline.
U 4-11 U50 Cassel, Matt rush for 1 yard to the UCLA49 (Tautofi, David).
You see the passing attempts there Billy?
Read that chart closely again. That's right. Your beloved Pete Carroll had his backup QB pass throw two passes to rub UCLA's noses in it on its home turf, while up 52-7 late in the fourth quarter.
Now let me take you back to 2005 game when Petey's bunch was up 52-6 to start the fourth quarter against UCLA:
T 2-4 T22 Start of 4th quarter, clock 15:00.
T 2-4 T22 Bush, Reggie rush for no gain to the USC22 (Havner,Spencer).
T 3-4 T22 Leinart, Matt pass complete to Byrd, Dominique for 19 yards to the
USC41, 1ST DOWN USC (London,Justin;Velega,Byron).
T 1-10 T41 Bush, Reggie rush for 3 yards to the USC44 (McNeal,Eric).
T 2-7 T44 White, LenDale rush for 20 yards to the UCLA36, 1ST DOWN USC
(Velega,Byron).
T 1-10 B36 Leinart, Matt pass incomplete to Smith, Steve.
T 2-10 B36 White, LenDale rush for 23 yards to the UCLA13, 1ST DOWN USC
(Velega,Byron).
T 1-10 B13 Timeout USC Trojans, clock 12:21.
T 1-10 B13 White, LenDale rush for 5 yards to the UCLA8 (McNeal,Eric).
T 2-5 B08 Booty, J.D. pass incomplete to Byrd, Dominique.
T 3-5 B08 White, LenDale rush for 8 yards to the UCLA0, 1ST DOWN USC,
TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:28.
Danelo, Mario kick attempt good.
You see that Billy?
Petey again had his back up QB throwing to rub it in against his arch rival even when he was up by a score of 52-6. It was 52-6 and Petey had his backup QB throwing in fourth quarter.
Where was your concern for sportsmanship at that time? I don't remember reading anything about that in your paper the day after Billy.
We knew Petey's time was coming. What has been happening to Trojies this year is only the beginning. While I am enjoying their fall, I am also enjoying how bandwagoning losers like Plaschke are working so hard to rally around their beloved Trojans. It's predictable, pathetic and right now delightfully comical.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Not surprised
If I recall, they rationalized it as it was UCLA’s job to stop those plays. Typical of Billy Flip Flop to call out Harbaugh on that play when ol’ Petey has been doing it for years… and Harbaugh’s decision was only for 2 points, not the 6 that Petey wanted.
by UCLA4Life on Nov 15, 2009 12:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
They were going for it on 4th and 10 in 2005, too
Whining about the score is loserville.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 12:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
the runnig up the score is not what Pete was upset about because if you don’t want someone running up the score on you then stop them and they won’t. The thing that is horse shit is you going for 2 when you are up 48 to 21 but its cool Jim will get his next year @ Stanford or with ND
by Dodgermanramon on Nov 15, 2009 11:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Tomato Tom-ah-to
Pom Pom can cry me a river.
by Tydides on Nov 16, 2009 12:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what?
People every where including my beloved Bruins are talking about how this is the beginning of the end for USC. But they’ve been sliding into obscurity for years!
It began with the loss of Norm Chow, the one guy on that team who was widely recognized as a genius and had the resume to prove it.
It continued with the loss to Texas in the Rose Bowl. That was supposedly the greatest team that ever played the game if you listened to Splashme and the other sycophants at the WWL. Without Chow it was apparent to anybody paying attention that SC was vulnerable.
This was followed by a string of embarrassing losses to teams SC had no business losing to. The sycophants in the press would come to Cheaty’s defense pointing out how competitive the Pac 10 was, when anybody who has followed the Pac 10 could tell you how patently false that was.
Then came the 2007 loss to Oregon, which is critical in my mind, because this was the one game the cognoscenti called this game “Oregon’s game to lose.” SC failed to step to the plate, and the change of the guard had become official. HOWEVER, Dennis Dixon got hurt and South Central found a way to back door their way into the Rose Bowl, and the Talking Heads once again prostrated themselves before PC and pronounced him the second coming of John Wooden.
2008 provided only one loss under Mark Sanchez, and the deluded pointed to a return to golden times, but when Sanchez decided to leave early, nobody seemed to think this had anything to do with Cheaty’s inability to mold young talent into something better than they already were.
2009 and the chickens have come home to roost, and people are surprised! I don’t get it.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Nov 15, 2009 1:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Put UCLA in USC's place, and ask yourself if you'd make this claim at this point
I’m as anxious as anyone to see SC crumble. I really, really hate PC and the Stanford game was beautiful to behold. Also, I think they deserve to crumble.
BUT…if UCLA had won the Pac 10 7 years in a row, making 7 BCS bowls in a row, winning two championships (if their split doesn’t count, then neither does ours in 1954) and 6 of those bowls, and is now in danger of going 10-3 with a true freshman qb, AND people started dancing on our graves…wouldn’t you and everyone else here be furious?
Would you consider three straight Rose Bowl blowouts as “obscurity”? Would you find it laughable that the only real argument against us is that we haven’t gone completely undefeated?
I highly, highly doubt it.
The only standard by which to judge USC’s current season a failure is their own. They ARE the standard in the Pac 10. No team in this conference has ever dominated in this way, which is why there’s still no “changing of the guard” unless a dominant program takes their place. They’ll be back next year, favored to win the conference. There’s no competitive basis for us to dance on their non-graves.
Yet.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If their split doesn't count neither does ours?
There wasn’t a bcs championship game played and won by another team in 1954.
LSU won the bcs championship game. USC won a poll. And looking at the fact SC is ranked in the top 25 this week, despite getting creamed in two of their last three games, being ranked 40th in scoring defense and 61st in scoring offense (objective criteria), that will show you the value of how the poll voters evaluate USC.
That is just simply a ridiculous comparison.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 15, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The BCS championship game is not infallible
Lest you think Nebraska deserved to play in it in 2002 (?) over Oregon after losing their final game of the season 63-35, to a team Oregon annihilated in the Fiesta Bowl.
Polling has always figured heavily in determining a champion, whether you like it or not. It figures very heavily in the BCS. When there’s a split, as there often has been, it’s no different just because we now have a designated “championship” game that everybody hates.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To put it another way
The BCS is just a glorified poll. It’s not thorough or rational enough to negate controversy over the champion, as a full playoff system would. So a split is still a split, if you ask me.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A poll with the backing of USC, the Pac-10 and the relevant actors in D-1a (FBS) football
The BCS standings are not a particularly good way to decide a national champion, but it does have the official backing of (at least) the major conferences, and by implication, their constituent schools.
There may not be an ‘official’ FBS Championship as there is for other NCAA sports, or for football in the lower divisions, but the BCS regime is a step closer to sanctioned legitimacy than the old system of unaffiliated dueling polls.
by bruinhoo on Nov 15, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it's not infalliable
But the framework that all BCS schools agreed to abide by prior to the inception of the system was that the winner of the BCS championship game would be the champion. Whether you want to argue otherwise on a technicality is uninteresting to me. The spirit of the BCS is to get an undisputed national champion. SUC is a member of a BCS conference, and therefore, they agree to play by the BCS’ rules. Whether it’s the best system or not, or whether it is or isn’t objective enough, or how “fair” the system is is completely irrelevant. The facts are that SUC implicitly agreed to recognize the winner of the BCS as the de facto national champion but are trying to change the rules because they were awarded a paper championship after the fact. I only see one crystal football over at inheritance hall. That means one championship.
That’s the difference between this and our split championship: No such agreement existed before the BCS.
by Tydides on Nov 15, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If anyone in the world respected the BCS, aside from its own architects
Then the AP poll, one of its key factors, would not have defied its championship result. But they did. It’s not like some backwoods poller in Colorado declared USC a national champion and they’re trumpeting that. It was a dissent from the most significant entity in the system.
The mere fact that the AP diverged invalidates the BCS’ claim to an undisputed championship. If it were undisputed, there wouldn’t be such a significant dispute. (Nor would there be Congressional campaigns to invalidate the system.)
I just don’t think that if the AP rewarded UCLA a championship in this environment, we would humbly deny it.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Irrelevant
Doesn’t matter if they think they should have done a better job crafting the BCS.
Did the BCS conferences and therefore their members agree to abide by the BCS system to determine a national champion before the season began? Yes.
Did SUC win the BCS championship? Yes. Once.
Not interested in hypotheticals. They prove nothing. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. One title.
by Tydides on Nov 15, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bluebland I'm going to try and respond to your many good points.
Where we in the same boat, would I feel the same way? Yes, I think I would. Having endured the Lavin years beginning the year after we win the national championship, it is safe to say Bruin Nation did not delude itself and the cracks in the foundation were very apparent. The big difference is We do not suffer from the hubris the SC Empire does, and do not fall in narcisitic love with our press clippings.
Sure, they won the Pac 10 7 years in a row, but 3 of the 7 were shared championships. I am still mystified by the logic that allowed them to procede to the Rose Bowl each time. (until I thought the team who had less recently gone to the RB got the nod. now I have no idea how it’s decided) don’t forget that when Oregon beat USC in 2007 it was a decisive a defeat as this year even if the final score doesn’t show it. Had Dixon not been hurt, there would be no 7 year streak.
USC’s one undisputed championship came in 2004. If you recall, USC needed the help of the SPTRs and the colusion of the Pac 10 to cheat us out of 2 SC fumbles (one of which provided us a clear line to the endzone) and the game which would have denied SC the National Championship game and their single BCS crystal ball.
My point is this, the SC golden era has been built largely on smoke and mirrors. Which can be amazing nonetheless. I remember stating “they look like an NFL team” when they smoked Oklahoma. But, the fact remains an illusion is be definition illusory.
what happened yesterday was the pulling of the curtains and revealing that PC is in fact this short little unimpressive man with nice voice effects and smoke machines. One of the talking heads on the WWL said it best, “when somebody comes out and smashes the neighborhood bully in the mouth, everybody else is just that little less impressed.” Last night’s game and this season in general will have long reaching effects. It will effect recruiting long term. (as will his Mark Sanchez tirade)
they will continue to field good competitive teams. But the mystique is gone. Much like Notre Dame’s luck of the Irish, they will have to earn their wins the hard way.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Nov 15, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All real points, but all basically beside the point
You can look at any great run and point to lucky breaks and so forth. How many of our wins in 98 came in the very last second against some very bad teams, thanks to Cade? Does that make that season a sham?
During their run, SC absolutely dominated every major bowl game they played except Texas, which they blew in the last seconds. That’s what earned them their mystique. Sure some of their games were close in the reg. season but on the flip side so were all their losses.
And does losing to a lousy Arizona team last year by 30 deflate our basketball run? There’s really no connection.
I’ve never liked Carroll’s coaching. But so far his overall management of the program has been incredible in result. The mystique will be gone when he has at least one mediocre recruiting class and consecutive mediocre seasons. Right now, no program in our conference is even close. (I love Oregon’s offense, but Nick Allioti apparently has naked pictures of somebody up there.) Every other supposed competitor in the Pac 10 has collapsed in their big year.
We will see about us. I just think it’s way too early.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You killed your own point
If polling “figures very heavily in the BCS”, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the BCS stands as the true championship until a better method is found. The polls already had their say. They are part of the BCS. How can they have their input there and still decide something outside of a system that they are already heavily a part of?
And, I hate to sound like a broken record, but while they have been dominant, with their recruiting level, they should be a hell of a lot better. If there was a “recruiter of the year” trophy, or of the decade, or ever, Pete wins that hands down. But my question remains, what has he done with that? Really, what has he done?
And as Silverlake stated, its ridiculous to bring in the ‘54 team, because there was no system in place at that time. Just like in many other instances including the final straw (Michigan & Nebraska) that brought forth the BCS. Is it perfect, nope. But really, what system is? Playoffs aren’t either, unless you desire a system where teams can sleep through the regular season racking up losses, peak at the right time, and make a run. If that were the case, hell, our Bruins might still be in the championship picture!
And while I do think its a little premature to call this season the fall of the Trojan empire, I think that we are all hoping that this season will wake up the recruits and media outlets and hip them to the fact that USC has underachieved for years. Question (I would like to know the answer if anyone has it handy), how many of Pete’s recruits (not kids that he inherited) have been extremely successful in the NFL? You would think that the powerhouse across town would be churning out pro-bowlers.
by westwood78 on Nov 16, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, they are in danger of going 7-6
there is no reason to believe they can’t lose their last two games to UCLA and Arizona and their bowl game.
Using 10-3 as a worst case scenario is as wrong as equating our 1954 national championship with their fictitious 2003 championship.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 15, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a worst case scenario
But a very possible one, which is why it’s premature to declare them dead. Let’s beat them first, then talk.
by bluebland on Nov 15, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously though
How many posts are you going to put up about how awesome Pete Carroll and SUC is?
This is the second thread I have seen where you come to the defense of how great they are and how much you are in awe of what they accomplished.
What is the point of posting that on a UCLA fan board?
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 15, 2009 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't going to comment on this, but since this tangent has taken a life of its own...
I’m actually with bluebland on this one. Trust me, I loved, loved, LOVED watching the Stanford game Saturday. I was running around high-fiving everyone around me and thoroughly enjoyed watching Taylor Mays’ looks of frustration as he was a half step late to almost every play. It was a long time coming, and I hope to see it again and again. All of that being said, I think all of this grave dancing on the Carroll era is a bit premature. Personally, I think it’s still up in the air whether the Trojans are going the way of the Miami/Nebraska “dynasties” or if this is just a ‘Florida in 2007’ hiccup.
Also, on a selfish note, I’d like to see this storyline avoided for a few weeks so that UCLA’s victory over SC in a few weeks will be seen as a cause of the demise of Carroll’s regime and not merely a beneficiary of it.
by insomniacslounge on Nov 15, 2009 11:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
UCLA with a victory over USC ? Good luck with that one
by Dodgermanramon on Nov 15, 2009 11:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
good luck to you too, manram
by insomniacslounge on Nov 15, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't understand, silverlake
I realize that hypocrisy is a privilege of fandom, and I don’t want to sound like I’m on some kind of crusade against it. I just don’t want us to sound like complete idiots, because it makes us seem arrogant without any basis to be. And it makes us sound much worse than the “gap-closing” bullshit on the basketball end that we’ve been pretty justifiably haughty about.
Personally, I’m not nearly as impressed with the PC era as I am with other college dynasties. In fact, I’ve always been skeptical about CRN’s open intention to emulate Carroll’s program-building philosophy. (What do you think about that?) The whole NFL farm-system thing is far less impressive to me than ingenious, distinct coaching.
I’ve never been in “awe” of Pete Carroll, because there is nothing particularly “awesome” to me about great recruiting. The consistency and intensity of preparation is something to be admired, and something our program has lacked for a long time (one of the first things CRN wanted to change.) But it’s not unique. Still, his achievement speaks for itself, and can only really be invalidated by an NCAA clampdown that declares it rotten.
I just cringe when seeing Bruin fans sound like arrogant Trojan fans. I also hate seeing Bruin fans care more about every SC loss than any UCLA victory (unless they’re the same). I think it’s one of the reasons we’ve had such an underachieving program for 30 years.
by bluebland on Nov 16, 2009 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the cheating, bluebland
just$c* has always cheated. Look up Clarence Reece on the ‘net, and read his first hand account of it going back to the days of McKay. Read about Marv Goux’s institutionally blessed sales of players’ tickets and distribution of the cash from those sales. We all know about bu$h and the recent stuff. I have personal accounts going back to my high school days (yeah, yeah – was there actually high school that far back) of the “$100 handshakes” from the trOJan Bench to players. It is institutional cheating that has been going on as long as there have been bricks on Janss Steps. That’s the gripe. When the arrogance of the typical trOJie is added in, of course ever Bruin likes to see a trOJies lose games.
When Dick Lane was announcing wrestling from the Olympic and Freddie Blassie was doing his thing, everyone loved to see Blassie lose because the sense of justice inside everyone loves to see cheaters get some actual justice. When a guy passes you on the freeway going 100 mph, and then you see him a few minutes later pulled over to the side of the road and getting a ticket don’t you feel a sense of cosmic leveling of the scales?
Lots of teams have had the same level of success as the trOJies over the past decade or so. I suppose you can find an Auburn grad who can make a case that Alabama cheats more than just$c, or a Seminole who will point out all the cheating at Florida. I doubt that anyone can muster the evidence of institutionalized chearing that exists in connection with just$c. When cheaters get put in their place, the world cheers because it is better for it. That’s why we rooted for Charles Bronson in those horrid “Death Wish” movies.
by Fox 71 on Nov 16, 2009 4:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Celebrating Trojan losses
I also don’t want to see Bruin fans coming here and lecturing others about how they shouldn’t be celebrating Trojan losses.
by Nestor on Nov 16, 2009 4:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I never could understand how a Bruin could not celebrate a trOJie loss
Yeah, I know that there were times when we needed a loss by a team playing just$c* for us to get to a bowl or something like that, but there are not many better things than a nice trOJan loss. Kittens playing, warm cinnamon rolls, a baby laughing and maybe a few more things, but not many.
by Fox 71 on Nov 16, 2009 5:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Never said that!
I explicitly said that I celebrated the Stanford game and felt really good about it. It was beautiful to behold.
I was complaining about Bruins who are generally more obsessed with USC than with UCLA, and there are a lot. They’re the type of people who thought beating SC was enough to keep any mediocre coach’s job. The fact that they care about only one game a year is one reason mediocrity has been permissible in our program for so long.
by bluebland on Nov 16, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
all you have to say then is quit focusing on them
instead you defend them and talk about how awesome they are. That’s a totally differnt thing.
You seem obsessed with getting everyone to buy into your belief that SUC football and Pete Carroll are great.
If your point is we shouldn’t focus so much on SUC, that’s all you have to say. Leave it at that. But that’s not what you said. You are upset that people on here don’t give the SUC program and Pete Carroll the props and love you do.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Nov 16, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In that case
Let other Bruins celebrate the Trojan schadenfreude and leave it at that. If you want to stick and defend Trojan excellence this is not the place for it. Pretty simple.
by Nestor on Nov 16, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You got me, guys
I guess really hating Pete Carroll means I think he’s awesome and great and love him so much. Noting his conference record clearly amounts to some kind of religious belief in the magic of Pete Carroll. Good thing I didn’t mention that I have a tattoo of his chin on my lower right cheek. (Whoops.)
The scary thing is that I didn’t realize all of this until now. I thought it was, you know, natural.
Whatever. If you think there’s no connection between the diminishment of the RESULTS of the last 7 years and the simultaneous glorification of our sham 10-2 season, we just have to disagree.
by bluebland on Nov 16, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care much for our 10-2 season
I have written about that enough here on BN. That’s a different point.
However, I don’t want to hear how great Chetey Petey is and how “successful” he has been running his morally corrupt football program. If you want to talk up Petey’s morally corrupt programs, then take that BS somewhere else. End of story. Thanks.
by Nestor on Nov 16, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What we're missing here
Is that i don’t think it’s a different point, not different to the point I was making. That point had nothing to do with hatred or schadenfreude (all very valid sports values). But the point was lost in the mere acceptance in the facts of the last decade, and it was a point about intellectual honesty.
by bluebland on Nov 16, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not much to miss here
You turned a thread that was all about enjoying a Trojan loss into a lecture to other Bruins about how we have to properly appreciate the Trojan accomplishments (based on unprecedented level of (alleged) cheating and fraud) from this past decade. Let it go because you are looking more pathetic as you dig in.
by Nestor on Nov 16, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forget them. Let them cry.
Sure, let us turn our heads and smirk as we enjoy the plume of smoke we see off in the distance, across town. But let us also remain focused on the task at hand. Our boys are hard at work rebuilding our own program.
There are some great Bruins that will be playing their final games in Blue and Gold and they deserve to be celebrated. They’ve shown tremendous heart and dedication through some dark times.
by Westwood is the best wood on Nov 15, 2009 4:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Devil's Advocate
Im not sure I understand this post.
I get that going for 2 points when your team is dominating is a little uncouth, considering that you don’t need the points and it reinforces that you’re pushing your opponent around.
But when the score is that big, lots of teams take out their starters in the fourth quarter to keep them from getting hurt and such. It’s an unnecessary risk.
And to be fair, at Washington State (I believe someone just made a post about this), we took out Reggie Carter. By the same standard, wouldn’t that be “rubbing it in” Wazzu’s face? Saying to them, “You’re no longer worth our starting defense?”
by thisismitchell on Nov 16, 2009 8:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
There are analogies
In baseball, if a base-stealer steals a base in the 8th inning with a six run lead, it’s taken as a severe violation of an unwritten rule that you don’t do that, and you’ll be plunked for sure the next day. But if a home run hitter hits one out in the same situation it’s OK.
So do you ask your third string guys who want to show why they should get more playing time to take a knee with 5 minutes to go and a 20 point lead? I remember years ago when Coach Donahue put Charlie “Choo-Choo” Schumann, an 8th or 9th string running back in against Cal. He was sent up the middle from our own 10 yard line and ran untouched 90 yards for a touchdown. Should he have run out of bounds to stop the carnage? I also remember Coach Donahue taking a knee a couple of times inside the 5 yard line to run out the clock and not increase a blow out win.
It’s different going for two, of course, but not much different. If you want to run an experiment, or try to see what your guys can to, or just be be Petie-esque, why not do it? You have to be ready to take the high inside fastball the next time you play them, but I think Harbaugh things he has the muscle to take whatever the trOJies can dish out. It’s sort of like going into your all-out passing attack with a jillion point lead. Oh, wait, that wasn’t Harbaugh, that was Cheatie Petie. Well, Cheatie, when you bring in all those thugs, you can’t very well afford to drop the soap.
by Fox 71 on Nov 16, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Choo-Choo Schulman
Fox, I think you’ve got him pegged in a little later era than he actualy played. He was a back-up fullback for Pepper Rodgers in 72-74 (the Wishbone years.)
His big play that I heard about was when he returned an on-side kickoff attempt 48 yards for the final TD in a 65-20 rout of Oregon.
by bru79 on Nov 16, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, I butchered his name. Where’s that “edit” button?
by bru79 on Nov 16, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could be right about the era, but I remember the run vividly.
He went straight up the middle. No one laid a hand on him. He didn’t veer one inch from a perfectly straight course. There was no faking or juking or anything like that. Just a pure 90 yard dash that took about a minute and a half, or so it seemed.
We all liked Choo-Choo Schumann.
by Fox 71 on Nov 16, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure you are right; we’re undoubtedly thinking of different plays in different games. As you say, the run you’re talking about was against UCB, while the one I’m thinking of was against Oregon.
by bru79 on Nov 17, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Suc losing
There is, in my estimation, never a wrong time to revel in the misfortune of the overhyped,
smuggly entitled idiots who seem to think it there birthright to win. What I saw Saturday made me laugh out loud, the gutless trojie defense quitting, the annointed golden boy quarterback just trying to get back to the frat house so his buddies could tell him how great he is, the stupid white donkey looking for the trailer…it was all good. Lets hope the old men in charge of the “investigation” have enough viagra left to stick it to south central, but in the meantime I’m still laughing…fight on!!!
by bruingolf on Nov 16, 2009 11:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
what Harbaugh did was unsportsmanlike. How often do you get to practice plays in a game situation against a ….um quality* opponent? I don’t see an issue.
Saying that good sportsmanship requires you run the ball every play and only kick pats instead of going for 2 at the end of the game doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Why not get your team quality reps to help prepare for next week?
I’m not saying you should be throwing a hail marry with 20 seconds left, when simply downing it will end it, but I don’t think we should ask any team to run, run, run every play for a quarter and a half simply because it is a total blowout.
by captainqtp on Nov 16, 2009 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry to bring it back up but...
I just need to know bluebland. Just my own curiosity. All of your agruements are well thought out, but you never seemed to answer what was posed to you by mexi. What about that fumble by Bush that was picked up by Havner and on its way back to the house? That wasn’t a bad break for the Bruins and good luck for the Trojans. That was cheating, plain and simple. Without that, the Trojans lose that game, and no BCS. Did Pete meet the refs in the tunnel before the game to arrange a stategy? No. But its the desire to keep the powerhouse untarnished that made that ref blow that whistle prematurely. Explain that one please.
While you are at it, explain the other point too. How do you account for the fact that all of the major conferences entered into the BCS willingly. Spent the whole season chasing the BCS game. The entire season. Entire. I’m sure they even had the game circled on their calendar. But its not until they DONT make it into the game that, all of a sudden, its not a valid championship. Really? I didn’t see Pete or any other Trojans invalidating its worth when they actually won the trophy (although, after Mexi bringing up some painful memories, I think we should lodge a complaint with the NCAA!). So, please, just for me, explain those for me. Not an attack on you, just wondering how those points sit with you.
by westwood78 on Nov 16, 2009 11:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to continue here, but to answer your question
I was at that horrifying game, and was absolutely furious for months because of those two fumble calls. It’s not the first time we’ve been f—ked against SC. But … shitty officiating is part of the game, especially in the Pac 10. Usually it favors the powerhouse. I just don’t think it’s THAT relevant to an overall evaluation of a long-term run, or to the question of systemic cheating, which might very well be proven once and for all. (Nor do I notice a systemic benefit from officiating of the kind previous SC teams have enjoyed.)
Regarding the BCS thing, all I’m saying is that if WE received an AP championship, I don’t think we’d reject it, which is why I can’t get furious about SC feeling good about it. Also, just because the conferences agreed to the BCS does not mean the individual teams or coaches condoned it, so it isn’t necessarily hypocritical. If we felt stifled by the idiocies of our conference, we’d have every right to complain. So equating team with conference is not necessarily fair.
Listen, the only reason I even posted here was because of my concern about our own karma going into a game when we can earn the right to dance.
by bluebland on Nov 17, 2009 3:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can respect that.
I will say though, complaining is never respected after the fact. If you don’t believe in something, let it be known ahead of time. And if you don’t believe in the BCS one year, don’t celebrate having won the very trophy that you don’t believe in the next year.
And yes, I would definitely celebrate the AP because of all that we have gone through, but in my heart of hearts, It wouldn’t sit well with me that we didn’t win the BCS and that the real trophy isn’t on our campus.
by westwood78 on Nov 17, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
