South Carolina

2014, They were close to 10-2, but they may have been closer to 4-8. Anywhere in between wouldnt shock.

quote:

---

2014, They were close to 10-2, but they may have been closer to 4-8. Anywhere in between wouldnt shock.

---

People keep saying this, but I never understand why, and no one ever tries to explain their position.

I can say that the Florida game meets this position: USC won in overtime. They were trailing by a touchdown with less than a minute left in regulation, and was about to be pinned deep in their territory against a Gator defense that was very stout, but block the punt and then recover it at the UF 34. But again, a USC FG wouldn't have won the game, USC was outside of the UF redzone, and the Gator defense had shut USC's offense down all 2nd half. But USC made the plays and 1st downs it needed to, and Davis recovers his own fumble in the EZ to tie the game. And went on to win the game in OT. Yeah, that was a very improbable win, so I can agree on that one.

But it was the ONLY win for USC last season where they came from behind late in the game to pull out the victory.

East Carolina: ECU once led 13-10 in the 2nd qtr. but was out-scored 23-10 the rest of the way, and pulled to within 7 in the 4th qtr., but never got a chance to do anything else due to a 10:33-long drive by USC to close out the game and go back up by 10 pts with a FG...

Georgia: only lead in the game UGA had was 10-7 in the 1st qtr. UGA stayed close throughout the game but could never take the lead and couldn't stop USC from scoring. UGA scores a meaningless TD to pull within 3 in the 4th, and twice get turnover gifts from USC in the way of a fumble and INT both deep in USC territory but can only come away from those with just 3 pts. UGA also missed a FG elsewhere in the game, so that wasn't luck on USC's part, that was just poor execution on UGA's. The last missed FG would only have tied NOT won the game, and USC ran out the clock. Missed opportunity on UGA's part but NOT a lucky win on USC's....they just played better than UGA when they needed to.

Vanderbilt: as with UGA, Vandy led the game 14-10 early in the game, then was out-scored 38-20 the rest of the way. Pulled within a TD late in the 4th qtr., then two quick USC scores thanks to a KO fumble lost by Vandy put the game out of reach. Vandy scores a late TD to pull within 14 pts at the end...

Furman: 41-10 win over an FCS opponent that was never in doubt...

Florida: see above...

South Alabama: 37-10 win over a mid-major that was never in doubt...

Miami: USC outscored them 17-6 in the 1st half, and held a 10-pt. lead late in the game. Miami scores a TD with 2 minutes left in the game to pull within 3 and USC ran out the clock...

So in summary: USC had losses to Missouri (led 20-7 halfway thru 4th qtr.), Kentucky (led 38-24 halfway thru 4th), and Tennessee (led 35-21 3/4ths thru 4th) where USC lost substantial leads late in the games, and the other teams came from behind to win.

Against Auburn, both offenses traded touchdown after touchdown throughout the game, until Auburn at last took a 42-35 lead and then Thompson threw 2 INTs in an attempt to respond. It really was the 1st INT that killed USC's chance to stay with Auburn. But I don't say that Auburn is "lucky" to win that game because USC wasn't ultimately able to either stop Auburn from scoring or keep scoring with them. That was Auburn rising to the occasion, and USC faltering. That's how ALL football teams win and lose. Just like USC rising to the win and UGA faltering...

So yes USC could have been 10-3 with a little good luck - and even had a fair shot at being 11-2 for a 4th consecutive year - and they ALSO could have been 6-7 with a little bad luck. I have no idea where 4-8 comes from, unless someone has to fabricate history revisions to turn secured wins into losses.

But then why not just say USC could've been 15-0 or 0-12, then? Then that would put USC in the same company with 120+ other FBS programs in 2014...

quote:

---

Are you saying the uk, ut, and miZZOU games weren't very close to wins? Uga and uf games were the opposite of that. All of those games went down to he final minutes.

---

I don't know what you're even trying to say....are you just saying that Team A that beat team B could just as easily have lost to team B because the games could have played out differently, then anyone can say that about any team A that beats team B by 100 pts - that team A could have lost to team B if it was team B that scored 100 pts, and not team A.

But that's nonsense. One says a team that won could have just as easily lost due to......what? The fabric of time shifting and what was turns out to be what wasn't? Nonsense. No, you say team A that won could have just as easily lost because TEAM A WAS LUCKY TO HAVE WON. That the team that won did so by lucky bounces of the ball, or was trailing late in games and then suddenly scored a bunch of points at the end to come from behind and ultimately win.

I already stated that in the case of the Florida game, that's what happened for USC: they trailed late, got an improbable blocked punt and recovery, drive against a defense that stumped them most of the game and scored the tying score to force overtime, and then won in OT.

That was luck for USC. THAT'S the scenario where one says, "USC won but they also could have lost that game just as easily"....

But the other wins weren't like that: USC held substantial leads, and fought off rally attempts by opponents and won in the end. The opponents didn't take the lead at the end, but neither did USC to win the games. They didn't required fluke, lucky turnovers or bounces of the ball or questionable official calls to pull out victories from defeat, in any of the other wins.

So minus those scenarios, for the other USC wins the only way someone can say that USC could have lost those games just as easily, is like saying that ANY FOOTBALL TEAM that won games last season, could also have lost them just as easily. That the passing of time as we all know it could have just passed in a different way. And again, saying THAT is nonsense.

Yes, UK, UT, and Mizzou games WERE close to wins. Asking me that question after all that I posted above makes you out to be not very smart, nor very good at reading. I already said that USC was in position to win those games with substantial multi-score leads late in the 4th quarters of each game, only to see those opponents come from behind and beat us.

The OT loss to UT is just like the OT win for USC over UF, but in the opposite fashion: It was a loss that could have been a win just as easily, while the UF win could have been a loss just as easily. I already stated all this above, and broke down each game.

But the UF win was the ONLY one that can be claimed in this fashion. The other wins were all won out-right, and fair and square.

By your argument, UGA could have just as easily lost to Clemson, Tennesee, Arkansas, and Louisville, which means they could have just as easily been 6-7 last year as much as 10-3. Because like your argument with USC, those teams never took the lead late in games with UGA , and UGA mostly held substantial leads over them late in games, but those opponents scored points and "got close" to UGA in the 2nd half. It's nonsense....