This morning, my roommate and I watched SportsCenter. Lou Holtz and Mark May both had the audacity to claim that USC is the second-best college football team in the nation (Ohio State being the first). While Mark May gave Auburn credit as the third-best team, Lou Holtz didn't even seem to have Auburn in his top five. He was very critical of their offensive production against LSU. ESPN always touts LSU as having one of the best defenses in the country, and rightfully so. The Tigers have held nearly all of their opponents in recent years to low scores (see the 2006 Peach Bowl). This in mind, how can they fault Auburn for only putting up 180-something yards against LSU?
In additon, they touted USC's schedule as something difficult. Cal was dominated by Tennessee, who lost to Florida by one point. If Auburn beats Florida and USC beats Cal, which team has more proved their dominance? Also, one of the sportscasters made the claim that USC would play more ranked teams by the end of the year. In that time, Auburn will have played LSU, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama away. USC will have played Cal, Arizona State, and Notre Dame at home. I'll give them Notre Dame, but that still doesn't compare to our lineup. Sure, their nonconference schedule is tougher than ours, but is there really that much of a difference between playing Arkansas and Nebraska and Washington State and Tulane? Is there much of a difference between Arizona and Buffalo? Not enough of one to rank USC above Auburn.
Speaking of Buffalo, I'm predicting a 117-0 victory for the Tigers over the Bulls. I'm sporting my sombrero to the game, due to the ridiculous nature of our scheduling such an opponent. Tune in Sunday to see if Laura watched any of the Notre Dame vs. Michigan State game and to read more griping about USC's place of privilege with the voters.
Posts
