EDSBS » Archive » BEANO ON UCLA/USC: UCLA 42, USC 35.

November 30, 2005

BEANO ON UCLA/USC: UCLA 42, USC 35.

For those of you who don’t subscribe to ESPN Insider, Beano just called a 42-35 UCLA victory. We TOLD you he was mad.

Filed under: College football by Orson Swindle

[ 33 Replies ]

33 Responses to “BEANO ON UCLA/USC: UCLA 42, USC 35.”

1

Stranko Montana says:

It would be an upset, but it is not a crazy fringe pick. Picking Colorado of Texas would be (but so would picking Texas of Nebraska in 1996 have been)

November 30th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
2

Orson Swindle says:

But it would RUIN THE NARRATIVE, STRANKO!!!

November 30th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
3

rick says:

Other things being equal I’d agree with you, Stranko, that it’s not a totally crazy pick given the way both UCLA and SC have played this year. But the one thing that isn’t equal is USC’s absolute and total hatred of UCLA. Don’t underestimate the rancor that SC has toward ‘their little brother’ and the desire not hear in very close quarters over the next few decades how the Bruins ruined their chance at 3 in a row and ended their 3X game winning streak.

November 30th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
4

Heismanpundit says:

That’s just not true, Rick. As a USC alum, I can tell you first hand that USC has very little hatred of UCLA because they don’t respect them. USC respects and hates Notre Dame. UCLA is not worthy, in Trojan eyes, of such hate. UCLA hates USC and bases its whole existence on beating the Trojans. USC finds UCLA to be a nuisance because it is in the same city and, like all pests, must be exterminated. But they don’t hate them.

November 30th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
5

rick says:

HP, I’ve heard it expressed differently by other SC alums – along the lines of, ‘we hate those pests because we have no respect for them’ – but I’ll take your word for it. I’ve even heard SC alums compare their feeling toward UCLA to the common ND feeling toward Michigan. “We have no respect for them, that’s why we despise them so much.” Regardless, I’ll be very, very surprised to see SC lose this one.

November 30th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
6

rick says:

SC backup fullback on the Bruins/Trojans:

“We respect Notre Dame and at the end of the day it’s a pretty healthy rivalry. But all bets are off with these pansies,” Hancock said. “We don’t want to just beat them. We want to hurt them. We’re not going to call the dogs off in the third or fourth quarter. We want to send a message.”

http://www.sgvtribune.com/sports/ci_3263893

Here’s an SC alum trying to explain the rivalry to ND folks:

“For us, ND and UCLA are totally different animals

It’s not even close. There is a mutual respect thing between USC and ND. They’re the two most storied programs in the history of the sport. They’ve been playing each other for 80 years and yet, there’s absolutely no geographical reason why. It’s special and unique. There’s really no other rivalry like it in sports, college or pro.

UCLA is in our backyard. They’re right there. We work with them, we socialize with them, we have family members who went there etc. There’s a closeness that isn’t experienced with any other school. Their fans, while not nearly as bad as the Oregons and Cals of the world, do not share the same respect for the rivalry that USC and ND share. It’s more personal with UCLA.

I’ll try an analogy: You’re a good basketball player and the best player in the school wants to challenge you to a game of 1 on 1. If you win, its a huge accomplishment and you’ve gained the respect of your opponent. If you lose but play tough, you still have gained his respect. Regardless of the outcome, you only have to see this kid at school every once in a while. Later on, your annoying little brother challenges you to a game and you really want to shut him up. He’s good, but you really want to kick his ass cause you live with him and you’ll have to deal with his shit for God knows how long if he beats you.

This might be a completely retarded analogy but that is kind of the difference between ND and UCLA.”

November 30th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
7

bitterhorn says:

Ya-huh. How many Heisman’s did ol’ Beano say Ron Powlus was going to win, again? This drooling old fool just needs to be wheeled into a corner and left there until diaper-changing time.

Anyway, Reggie will bust too much deflaculation on the broons. Least he better, Horns want sc.

November 30th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
8

Nestor16 says:

Yes HP and the Trojan alums of course do not have any respect for UCLA. That is why they are posting away on UCLA blogs obsessing over what UCLA fans are writing about their mighty (alleged) gangbangers and rapists from South Central.

November 30th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
9

Kevin says:

I would love to see UCLA win.

December 1st, 2005 at 12:39 am
10

Underbruin says:

Couple things.

1) As much as I love the Bruins, I’ll just say I wouldn’t put money down on UCLA winning this game. I think they CAN win, after all that’s what college football is all about. But let’s just say I won’t be emptying the ol’ bank account (my bills do that just fine on their own, thank you). I think Beano’s doing this because if he’s wrong, he can just say he was fooled by UCLA’s soft schedule and the fact that Fresno State got trashed by Nevada, while in the unlikely even that he’s correct he looks like a genius (reading what I have of his, my guess is he thinks any shot in the dark is better than none…).

2)UCLA and USC are very different – big brother/little brother is only an apt analogy in terms of reciprocity. While USC’s got the football tradition, UCLA’s got its basketball glories to fall back on, and each school feels clearly superior over the other in its respective sport (though I like to think that UCLA’s a bit more ahead in the roundball than USC is in the oblong – ‘least the Bruins have one national championship and the string of Rose Bowls in the 1980s, and USC only has a pair of Final Four appearances in the 1940 and 1954…).

But I remember reading a USC blogger’s post a couple years back, about UCLA’s success in the rivalry through the 1990s, when the Bruins won 8 straight games, the longest streak in the series. Even if USC wins this season it’ll only be 7 straight. That run changed the face of the rivalry a little bit. Take the ‘brother’ analogy – now say you play your little bro year after year, but then he suddenly has a growth spurt and catches you in height… then gets taller than you are and begins beating you every time you play. The game’s meaning changes… and then YOU shoot up a few inches more (or feet, with how USC’s played in the last half-decade). Though it feels to USC fans like the natural order has been restored, those games where you were shorter are recent enough to be remembered… And while you’re about as tall as you’re going to get, your brother seems like he might be starting to get another growth spurt of his own.

My father’s a USC alum, so I’m not just talking out of my ass here. We have a running bet, that whoever’s team loses that year has to call the other and perform the team fight song over the phone. God, I’m getting sick of Conquest…

December 1st, 2005 at 6:48 am
11

Ryno says:

Not unsurprising
Beno put USC 3rd in his preseason poll behind both Army and Navy

December 1st, 2005 at 10:09 am
12

bryan says:

i would absolutely love to see UCLA win. There is of course a ton of talent at USC, but I am so tired of hearing about a team who doesn’t play really anybody in their conference. Just ask USC if they want to play in the SEC and I think we all know the answer to that question. I just want the hype for a team with a barely challenging schedule to quit. I have no doubt in my mind that next year it will be over, but it would be sweet for it to happen this year as well

December 1st, 2005 at 10:49 am
13

Andy says:

Would someone smarter than me please challenge Rick’s assertion that usc is one of the two most storied programs in the history of the sport?

December 1st, 2005 at 11:30 am
14

Stranko Montana says:

I noted that as well. I guess he hasn’t followed Oklahoma at all or Alabama.

December 1st, 2005 at 12:05 pm
15

Rick says:

It wasn’t Rick’s assertion. It was the assertion of a USC alum trying to explain the SC-UCLA rivalry to ND folks. Between this thread and the Blog Poll one I would guess that reading comprehension is at an all time low. Rick would assert, however, that SC has won a shitload of Heisman’s and MNC’s over an extended 80 year period and would qualify for consideration.

December 1st, 2005 at 1:06 pm
16

Rick says:

Rick would further assert that the MNC’s that SC claims are pretty much all recognized by parties outside of SC unlike the 112 or so MNC’s that Alabama claims for itself.

December 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm
17

Y2K says:

Isn’t there another school that leads in All-Time NCAA wins being omitted here?

December 1st, 2005 at 1:28 pm
18

SouthBayBarney says:

Andy – maybe if SC went and “found” a few more NC’s in the 1910’s you’d have them in your top two! LOL!

HP – your analogy is comical. A team that in the last 30 years you’ve managed a 15-13-2 record (during which the Bruins ran off an 8-game string which is still the rivalry’s longest), and you refer to them as a “nuisance” who is not “worthy of your hate.”

Ahhhh….the arrogance of “Entitlement U.” – Classic!

Boy it’s gonna sting when it finally comes back down to earth, whenever that may be….

December 1st, 2005 at 1:57 pm
19

Rick says:

Isn�t there another school that leads in All-Time NCAA wins being omitted here?

Holy crap. When you have the combination of Heisman’s and NC’s to enter into a conversation with ND or SC, we can talk. When you’ve spent decades winning conference chapionships by beating one team and then getting your asses kicked in bowl games, decade in and decade out and canceled series with ND twice after crushing defeats, let’s not talk.

December 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
20

Tom Mac says:

“Just ask USC if they want to play in the SEC and I think we all know the answer to that question” ~ I do remember USC rolling an Arkansas team earlier this year that almost beat the probable SEC champ last week, LSU. I hate USC but it’s as if the SEC is full of great teams, traditionally yes, this year not even close. USC might, repeat, might, lose 1 game this year if they played the SEC schedule. You can’t say LSU is better than USC this year and they lost at home to f*cking Tenn. Where would the losses come from?? Admit it, this is a down year for the SEC, not even close to prior years…it happens in cycles. There are only a handful of solid teams in the country, and outside of LSU and possibly Georgia (with Shockley), none of them come from the deep south.

December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
21

Woogy says:

SEC guys are so clannish. What ever on earth you base your assertions of fabled greatness in your conference is beyond not only me, but anyone who knows how to track down stat sheets. PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repreatedly role SEC teams head to head. The only teams SEC members beat on a regular basis are other SEC members and Div II schools. (and a crap Oklahoma team that didn’t belong anywhere near a title gam).

The ACC has stolen your thunder- your days of moaning are only beginning. And boy do you guys ever moan a lot!

December 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pm
22

Ray F. says:

On Rick’s assertion that USC is one of the two most storied programs in the history of the sport, take a look at the Collage Football Data Warehouse all time team rankings
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php Based on their methodolgy USC is no. 3 behind ND and Alabama.

December 1st, 2005 at 4:59 pm
23

tommy says:

Suspect to me. Oklahoma should be higher, I freely admit despite my homerism they have been more consistent than SC. And considering Ivy league schools except for SOS purposes kind of taints the enterprise.

December 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
24

Stranko Montana says:

Rick… by pointing out Alabama and Oklahoma I didn’t intend to suggest that USC wouldn’t be in the conversation of all time programs, because they would. As would Michigan… but not in the top two because they just don’t have enough championships.

December 1st, 2005 at 6:26 pm
25

Plowhand says:

“SEC guys are so clannish. What ever on earth you base your assertions of fabled greatness in your conference is beyond not only me, but anyone who knows how to track down stat sheets. PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repreatedly role SEC teams head to head. The only teams SEC members beat on a regular basis are other SEC members and Div II schools.”

Woogy… logic dictates that your entire post is absurd, and you should be kill-boxed in the beanbag for writing it. The SEC’s greatness can be be based on stats and facts. Hater.

Per the College Football Data Warehouse ranking of the top 25 all time teams, the PAC-10 has one school ranked. The Big East has one school ranked. Your mighty ACC has two schools ranked. The Big 12 has four schools ranked. The Big 10 has five schools ranked in the top 25. And the SEC has seven(7) schools from it’s conference ranked. Based on their method of rankings, which is more than anything you have seemed to base your post on, it can be determined that the SEC has had more traditional success than any other conference.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php

Now, asserting that the PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repeatedly handle the SEC is also horseshit. Looking at the 7 SEC teams who make up the preceding ranking and their records against aforementioned conference opponents (and for good measure the ‘thunder stealing’ ACC), the all time records break down like this:

SEC team – PAC 10 – Big 10 – Big 12 – ACC

Alabama: 13-5 13-9 12-15 75-33

Tennessee: 13-10 9-4 9-8 100-60

LSU: 10-3 6-4 52-40 29-28

Georgia: 8-4 7-2 12-7 148-91

Auburn: 4-3 6-2 9-15 118-74

Florida: 6-4 7-4 5-6 105-93

Arkansas: 4-4 1-4 161-151 1-7

SEC: 58-33 49-29 260-242 576-386

943-690 or .732% (FYI – That’s good!)

Since you are an ACC lackey you can recant by explaining to me just what exactly is going on with Frank Beamer’s wattle neck. Seriously.

December 1st, 2005 at 8:04 pm
26

Underbruin says:

While I believe the SEC has had success against other conferences, your statistics, too, are flawed Plowhand. There are 12 teams in the SEC, not 7 – you’re taking the conference head-to-head stats of the top half of the SEC, against the entirety of all the other major conferences. That’s awfully disingenuous, because without going through year-by-year and seeing who each of those wins and losses were to means much less.

An example: UCLA is 11-12-3 against the whole of the SEC, and out of those 26 games 25 were played against your top 7 teams there (they went 1-0 vs. Vandy, so they’re 10-12-3 against the rest of the ). Oregon State, a perennial doormat except for a handful of years in the 90s, though, is 0-11-1 against the SEC as a whole (with all of those games except a pair of losses coming against teams in your top 7 list as well). Your numbers are significantly inflated because you’re looking at how the SEC’s best teams do against both the best AND the worst of everybody else.

December 2nd, 2005 at 1:20 am
27

Underbruin says:

I went back and did a bit of math like your stats, only corrected a bit for accuracy: let’s see how the SEC’s top 7 fare against the Pac-10’s top 6 in those same rankings (Southern Cal, Washington, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon):

Alabama: 12-5-1
Tennessee: 8-9-3
LSU: 4-3-0
UGA: 5-4-0
Auburn: 1-2-0
Florida: 6-4-1
Arkansas: 2-4-1
Total: 38-31-6

In other words, still better (which I have said before, that the SEC is indeed one of the country’s best conferences), but not by NEARLY the same margin. 20 of the SEC’s top 7’s victories against the Pac-10 came against the Pac’s worst 4 teams, and only 2 of their losses did. This is unsurprising, but proves my point: your statistics were flawed..

December 2nd, 2005 at 1:32 am
28

Plowhand says:

Duly noted. But I clearly stated that I was pulling stats from only those 7 teams that fell into the all time Top 25 ranking. Thanks for double checking. But what you should consider diingenuous is the sensless assertion from the tools like Woogy, who just because they want something to be, they believe it is so. These statistics, both yours and mine dictate otherwise. The original conclusion CANNOT be debated, which I commend you for acknowleging: The Southeastern Conference, while hated by many for it’s success, historically has been dominant over all the other conferences.

December 2nd, 2005 at 11:03 am
29

Azher says:

Of course you can debate it. That’s what we’re doing. Who are you to say what CANNOT be debated, especially when you trot unbelievably skewed stats to make your argument, as if the second-division teams in the SEC don’t exist? Have another donut, you’re not quite arrogant enough.

If you want to come up with some balanced and comprehensive statistics, be our guest.

December 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
30

Plowhand says:

Yawn.

December 2nd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
31

RowdyRoddyPiper says:

Conference dominance can always be debated. O’Doyle Rules!! O’Doyle Rules!! O’Doyle Rules!! It’s not always going to be a fruitful debate but whatever.

If we go to the numbers and at this point, taking them for what they are, conference by conference in their current formations (ie. not adjusting pre 1993 PSU from the big 10, ignoring the fact that the big 12 was not in existance for much of history, turning a blind eye to the dust bowl style flight of good teams from the big east, etc.) and analyzing BCS conferences only, it becomes very difficult to say that any one conference dominates all others. To-Wit:

Big 10 SEC Pac-10 ACC Big-East Big 12
Big 10 XXX .511 .518 .637 .679 .599
SEC .489 XXX .608 .541 .623 .506
Pac-10 .482 .392 XXX .537 .506 .437
ACC .363 .459 .463 XXX .580 .522
Big-East .321 .377 .494 .420 XXX .500
Big 12 .401 .494 .563 .478 .500 XXX

I think it does become readily apparent that not all BCS conferences are created equal, and some people should be concerned…very concerned that the BCS won’t renew the automatic bid (agian Pitt fans, I’m looking at you). The SEC and Big Ten, historically are be better against other conferences than the others. The Big 10 has a slight edge in heads up, but it’s really too close to draw much of a conclusion.

Just to clarify, these are based on the records of the teams that make up the conference as of TODAY. I don’t really have the inclination to go out and sort this out by historical alignments and I’m not sure that this approach makes things any less valid. This also includes all teams from the conference, not just the best teams in a particular conference. It should be evident that the best teams in a particular conference should post winning records against all of their opponents, conference or non.

December 2nd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
32

RowdyRoddyPiper says:

Okay, table formatting not quite working, one more try:

|||||||Big 10|SEC|Pac-10|ACC |Big-East| Big 12
Big 10| XXX |.511| .518|.637 | .679 |||.599
SEC||||.489 |XXX | .608|.541 | .623 |||.506
Pac-10|.482 |.392| XXX |.537 | .506 |||.437
ACC |||.363 |.459| .463| XXX | .580 |||.522
Big-Es|.321 |.377| .494|.420 | XXX |||.500
Big 12|.401 |.494| .563|.478 |.500 ||||XXX

December 2nd, 2005 at 3:43 pm
33

Nate says:

Anybody bother to tell Beano that Gary Beban isn’t playing tomorrow?

December 3rd, 2005 at 4:58 am