Saw on ESPN where USC's first string QB went down and was carted off during stretching exercises before practice today. I wonder if Mustain arranged a "accident"? If he gets thrown into the starting job and succeeds at USC, it will sort of make Arkansas, and Nutt, look a little foolish for benching him and encouraging a transfer. Of course, if I coached a team with McFadded and Jones in the backfield, I'd never try to throw the ball until they died on the field.
Mitch Mustain now starting for USC?
- Thread starter JohnBoy.sixpack
- Start date
Saw on ESPN where USC's first string QB went down and was carted off during stretching exercises before practice today. I wonder if Mustain arranged a "accident"? If he gets thrown into the starting job and succeeds at USC, it will sort of make Arkansas, and Nutt, look a little foolish for benching him and encouraging a transfer. Of course, if I coached a team with McFadded and Jones in the backfield, I'd never try to throw the ball until they died on the field.
The weird thing to me about Mustain going there is he doesn't seem like a prototypical WCO QB. I remember when he transferred there, USC was like, hey, whatever. (Must be nice) I guess he went there to try to get a ring.
McFadden was there. Seriously, Nutt's handling of the whole Mustain episode, from recruitment to transfer was one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. The Bay of Pigs was better orchestrated and executed. It gives me the willies when I think about it in the context of our current recruiting efforts. As I said here a couple of days ago, if Nutt is let go in the next five years, it will not be because of his inability to coach, but his apparent ineptitude in recruiting.
As to Mustain starting, the competition during spring was evidently very close. He knows the playbook pretty well and should not be a big drop off from Sanchez. He has actually started more Division One games than Sanchez, but most of us will treat it as a built in excuse if we stumble with the Buckeyes. Likewise, we plan to propagate it as the reason tOSU should not be considered for the NCG if they run the rest of their middle school schedule.</p>
As to Mustain starting, the competition during spring was evidently very close. He knows the playbook pretty well and should not be a big drop off from Sanchez. He has actually started more Division One games than Sanchez, but most of us will treat it as a built in excuse if we stumble with the Buckeyes. Likewise, we plan to propagate it as the reason tOSU should not be considered for the NCG if they run the rest of their middle school schedule.</p>
8Dog said:
</p>not if they had been playing against SEC defenses....QB play cost them against Stanford and nearly a couple others (yes I know Booty got injured...but who cares...thats part of it)..but in the end their talent won out at the other positions..
but that conference they play in aint what the SEC is defensively...I'll even back it up with some national rankings-
Top 50 defenses:
USC- #2
LSU- #3
Auburn- #6
Oregon St- #8
Georgia- #14
Vandy- #16
State- # 21
UCLA- #29
Ariz St- #30
Bammer- #31
Fla- #41
UPig- #46
8-4 SEC in the top 50....
Top 50 defenses:
USC- #2
LSU- #3
Auburn- #6
Oregon St- #8
Georgia- #14
Vandy- #16
State- # 21
UCLA- #29
Ariz St- #30
Bammer- #31
Fla- #41
UPig- #46
8-4 SEC in the top 50....
they would've had any problem scoring against any of those teams not named Georgia or Auburn? I mean, LSU's defense was more than sketchy but I'll even give you that one. You think State, Vandy, Bama, Ark, Fla would've really given Booty or Sanchez that much trouble?
Am I to believe that USC QBs were productive, in part, b/c they didn't have to play Vandy or State?
Did you see when John David Booty went to Fayetteville and shredded Ark in 06?
aGAIN, it doesn't matter who they play.
Am I to believe that USC QBs were productive, in part, b/c they didn't have to play Vandy or State?
Did you see when John David Booty went to Fayetteville and shredded Ark in 06?
aGAIN, it doesn't matter who they play.
numbers to back up your claim is that teams play the majority of their games within their own conferences. Check out College Football Data Warehouse, they have an interesting take on this in their Conference comparisons. (http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_conf_rankings.php?period=2000-2007).
From 2000-2007, the SEC has rated as the number one conference, while the Pac10 is a very close second. (SEC 941, PAC10 923, and the Big12 a hugely distant 860) If you look at the strength of schedule, however, the SEC rank fourth. In the past five years, we have won @Auburn, @VaTech, @Arkansas, @BYU, @Notre Dame, and @Nebraska.</p>
Here's another factoid for you. If we take those same fifty teams defensive stats that you reported and look at won loss record, you will find that the Top 50 defensive units posted and average W/L record of 6.5/6.5, while the Top 50 offensive units averaged an 8.4/4.6 W/L record. So, you can spout about defenses all you wish and repeat the sad Madden-like platitude that "Defenses win championships," but the fact is that they don't.</p>
In the long run, anybody from Ole Miss or State pitching stones at USC is wiener material.</p>
From 2000-2007, the SEC has rated as the number one conference, while the Pac10 is a very close second. (SEC 941, PAC10 923, and the Big12 a hugely distant 860) If you look at the strength of schedule, however, the SEC rank fourth. In the past five years, we have won @Auburn, @VaTech, @Arkansas, @BYU, @Notre Dame, and @Nebraska.</p>
Here's another factoid for you. If we take those same fifty teams defensive stats that you reported and look at won loss record, you will find that the Top 50 defensive units posted and average W/L record of 6.5/6.5, while the Top 50 offensive units averaged an 8.4/4.6 W/L record. So, you can spout about defenses all you wish and repeat the sad Madden-like platitude that "Defenses win championships," but the fact is that they don't.</p>
In the long run, anybody from Ole Miss or State pitching stones at USC is wiener material.</p>
I'm not pitching **** @ USC. They are one of the Top 3 football programs in the nation right now. I am moreso pissing on their conference. While the Pac-10 is a good conference, it is NOT what the SEC is defensively. Its just not. Thats not even debateable. Now, I'm not saying USC couldnt win in the SEC. I am saying they wouldnt enjoy playing in a defensively-dominated conference as much and post as many gaudy stats.
Also, the thread was about Mustain and Sanchez. They arent what their previous QB's were. QB has gone from being their best position to not even close. And that is really all I was saying. Booty and Sanchez didnt come close to living up to the hype, and I dont expect Mustain to set any records either.
Also, the thread was about Mustain and Sanchez. They arent what their previous QB's were. QB has gone from being their best position to not even close. And that is really all I was saying. Booty and Sanchez didnt come close to living up to the hype, and I dont expect Mustain to set any records either.
Did you even read my post? I tried to use fifth and sixth grade words so that you would have a small chance at following the argument. I only mentioned USC in passing.
Paragraph one was about the difficulties in using numbers to support an argument, when those numbers are gathered in a larger context. No mention of USC or the SEC here.
Paragraph two indicates that according to CFBDW's "overall" rating, the SEC is the top conference (ostensible agreement with your post), but goes on to point out that SEC and PAC10 conferences are very close relative to the other conferences. It goes on to show that with regard to schedule strength, the SEC is fourth. There is a passing reference to USC's OOC road wins over the past few years. Includes a couple of SEC schools.
Paragraph three does not mention ANY conference, rather it is a direct frontal attack on your notion that defenses are the most important elements. Using the NCAA database for 2007 (which was what you initially cited) I simply showed that the top 50 defenses combined had an average record in the .500 range, while the top 50 offenses combined had an average record of .646.
I did add a little jab at the end that indicated that USC haters were weiners, but hey, I've got to get a jab in somewhere.
Final word for you. Next time, run your stats by someone who actually understand descriptive statistics before you post them.
Paragraph one was about the difficulties in using numbers to support an argument, when those numbers are gathered in a larger context. No mention of USC or the SEC here.
Paragraph two indicates that according to CFBDW's "overall" rating, the SEC is the top conference (ostensible agreement with your post), but goes on to point out that SEC and PAC10 conferences are very close relative to the other conferences. It goes on to show that with regard to schedule strength, the SEC is fourth. There is a passing reference to USC's OOC road wins over the past few years. Includes a couple of SEC schools.
Paragraph three does not mention ANY conference, rather it is a direct frontal attack on your notion that defenses are the most important elements. Using the NCAA database for 2007 (which was what you initially cited) I simply showed that the top 50 defenses combined had an average record in the .500 range, while the top 50 offenses combined had an average record of .646.
I did add a little jab at the end that indicated that USC haters were weiners, but hey, I've got to get a jab in somewhere.
Final word for you. Next time, run your stats by someone who actually understand descriptive statistics before you post them.
and whether defense is more important that offense. And then make an argument that we are easy.
I see.......
I see.......
but the SEC offenses aren't as sophisticated when it comes to the passing game as Pac-10 offenses are so it's probably somewhere close to a push. SC could score 30 on anybody in the SEC without breaking a sweat with the possible exceptions of Georgia and maybe LSU... and on a good day they could score that much on either of those 2 teams too. They play SEC style offense except they do it with better players. They use their short to intermediate passing game but the power running game is their bread and butter.
dawg boy. My first post in this thread had to do mostly with my concern that Nutt %%#%!+ up the Mustain recruitment and would likely piss in bed with Ole Miss's recruitment as well. (h<a title="ttp://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55686/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html">ttp://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55686/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html</a>)
Then this brain surgeon (http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55728/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html) posted a message that used the NCAA's statistics to show "conference they play in aint what the SEC is defensively."
My response (http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55747/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html) was, in effect, pointing out to him that if one used statistics, they should be in proper context. The only time I mentioned conferences at all was to establish that context... pointing out that the SEC was #1 overall, but #4 in strength of schedule. I also explained that his assertion that the tough SEC defenses would be a problem for USC was suspect when using the whole database that he had referenced in the first place.
Talk to your buddies who post on NAFOOM. I will never start a statistical argument, but I refuse to allow the moronic use of statistics to go unchallenged.
The statement "<span class="post-title">Geeze, you guys are easy to point of it not being any fun" was directed at Coach34's off the wall reaction. Come on, I barely even understood what this meant...
</span>
Then this brain surgeon (http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55728/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html) posted a message that used the NCAA's statistics to show "conference they play in aint what the SEC is defensively."
My response (http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/sreply/55747/t/Mitch-Mustain-now-starting-for-USC-.html) was, in effect, pointing out to him that if one used statistics, they should be in proper context. The only time I mentioned conferences at all was to establish that context... pointing out that the SEC was #1 overall, but #4 in strength of schedule. I also explained that his assertion that the tough SEC defenses would be a problem for USC was suspect when using the whole database that he had referenced in the first place.
Talk to your buddies who post on NAFOOM. I will never start a statistical argument, but I refuse to allow the moronic use of statistics to go unchallenged.
The statement "<span class="post-title">Geeze, you guys are easy to point of it not being any fun" was directed at Coach34's off the wall reaction. Come on, I barely even understood what this meant...
</span>
My point would have been better served if I had said, "<span class="post-title">Geeze, Coach, you are easy to point of it not being any fun</span>." My apologies for tarring everyone with the brush meant for one person.
Get unlimited access today.