USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Marcus, Palo Atlo, Ca — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:07:11 GMT

Why balme USC for the Pac-10 not being premeire, also the Pac-10 might not be as bad some think the did go 5-0 in bowl games last year. Besides I don't think any body in the other conferences waht to really play USC. They look beatable until you play them. Ask the other conferences aren't lining up to play them it a reason they are so good.

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

John Provine, Tucson, AZ — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:58:25 GMT

Only the media finds it necessary to knock success. If USC (or some other school) wasn't dominating the PAC-10, they'd be complaining how the conference was "mediocre" or "boring".

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Kirk, Tuscaloosa, AL — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:08:16 GMT

Can you guys please read the article before you bad mouth? he's not bad mouthing USC. He's saying their dominance of the PAC-10 is hurting the PAC-10 conference.

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Jon Weerts — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:54:27 GMT

If the PAC-10 would enforce rules fairly and penalize schools who have lost control of there athletic programs. i.e. Reggie Bush receiving gifts from agents. And if the BCS would ever accept a 10-2 11-1 Pac-10 team like they have for the other conferences then things would be at least fair. But BCS is not intended to be fair.

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

MJ — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:11:20 GMT

"the ACC and Big East can make solid claims of superiority over the Pac-10 . . . even the Mountain West has a case." This guy revealed his bias (and ignorance) about the Pac-10 consistently throughout this past year. He only exposes himself further with this article. So a few teams in the top 3 of the Mountain West beat a few teams in the bottom half of the Pac-10, and this = "superiority"? Only to someone who isn't paying attention. Also, the Pac-10 has been conspicuously and controversially screwed out of having two teams go to BCS games in the last 5 years. Are those teams and their players to blame for the politics that led to those snubs? 5-0 vs. other conferences in bowl games this year isn't bad. Also, the only reason Oregon didn't play for the NATIONAL TITLE in 2007/08 (and the only reason that USC backed into the league title that year after getting beat by Oregon) was a fluke injury to Oregon's clear-Heisman-frontrunner QB Dennis Dixon. Oregon beating a top-5 USC team in 07/08 (on Oregon's way to the #2 ranking itself and a certain title-game berth barring the Dixon injury) wasn't USC losing to a "contender". Huh? It appears the author's dislike of the Pac-10 outweighs either his objectivity or his knowledge of college football.

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Gilligan — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:16:03 GMT

I think it would be worse if USC lost its BCS and/or nonconference games but the fact that they dominate against anybody is hard to blame them for the Pac 10 woes. The other Pac 10 teams need to win their nonconference games, think about it, is USC to blame for the Pac 10 getting destroyed by the MWC? Win the non-conference games and the rest of the country will take notice.
The Pac 10 should have had the guts to change USC's Rose Bowl opponent from a few years ago from Illinois to another respectable BCS conference (I know Georgia would have been a dream situation).

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

robert r, seattle, wash — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:59:14 GMT

This article had the potential to be a thoughtful examination of one of the current challenges to the Pac 10 and ended up being a slam piece....there has always been enough talent in California to serve as the back bone of a strong conference...the west coast more than holds its own when factoring all NCAA sports...and has proven to send quality football teams as well...SC's dominance has had an impact, but comments like those about Washington and Stanford's potential to become strong show author's true colors...bias

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Scott,Auburn,Wa — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:54:40 GMT

Since USC does not have to be held accountable to Pac 10 or NCAA rules its easy to understand how their program can be so dominate.If Washington did what SC has done with Bush and Mayo they would have on a bowl ban for ten years . Maybe the new commis will have the balls to make the Pac 10 a level and fair league again.WHY HAS NOTHING BEEN DONE ABOUT THE BUSH AND MAYO INCIDENTS?Maybe the press is in on this cover up!

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Jim Fairfax — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:40:05 GMT

I have eaten lunch at USC. A friend's father built most of the buildings in the 70's at USC and I have always loved the USC Trojans. That said, USC is in one of the worst areas in Los Angeles, UCLA is in one of the best, CAL is in an ok area and Stanford is like CAL and UCLA a great academic school.

Coach Pete Carroll is a great coach, probably in the top 10 coaches in recent history. USC took a chance. Pete hadn't done great in the Pro's but as soon as he got to USC it was clear he was magic.

My hats off to USC even though I hope Notre Dame beats them for the next 10 years in a row.

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Steve — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:04:58 GMT

Doesn't make sense. The PAC 10 was the top conference in the latest BCS Scam of Bowls. So, who left who in the dust? when you win 100% of your games can you be considered weak? Looks to me that all other conferences are looking up at the PAC 10. USC being dominant is a bad thing? If that were true, then explain LSU's dominance and how that has adversely effected the SEC? This whole topic is amusing

USC's dominance a problem for Pac-10

Bill K — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:55:05 GMT

I love the guy badmouthing the area around USC. The area around USC has improved a great deal over the last 10-15 years as evidenced by some of the new construction in the immediate area (Galen Center most known). Incidentally, I know a girl who went to our church who was mugged @Cal Berkeley by street thugs, so don't tell me that there aren't issues elsewhere. Guess you also missed that USC has caught up, and in some areas, passed UCLA & Cal in Student Admissions. USC is hardly some poor school in the Ghetto as you imply.

Now as for the football, this Author obviously hasn't looked closely enough at the Pac 10 makeup. The Pac 10 teams have been royally screwed out of several BCS Bowls in the past 5-10 years, and overall have done better than the ACC. Did I miss something or didn't Alabama get smoked by Utah in the Sugar Bowl? The only reason USC didn't play for the Title last year is because people assumed that Oregon State sucked like Stanford the year before when SC lost to them. Turned out the Beavers were very good. They won their 6th Bowl this decade. Of course this ill informed clown missed that one. Is the Pac 10 the greatest? No, they stupidly put themselves in a disadvantage in a system that clearly favors the Big 12 & SEC by playing a true round robin, and setting up very rigorous games outside the league. It is why a Oregon St plays a Utah and Penn St last year, while an SEC team like Kentucky plays Norfolk State.

The SEC people aren't exactly lining up to play USC, and why do you think that is? They've been embarassed 4 times by Pete Carroll's teams.