Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
If I remember, I think it was 3-3 before the quarter I referenced. My TV worked well enough for me to see that.
Which brings us back to one REALLY bad quarter of football that wins the game for USC. Playing bad football to a 3-3 tie at halftime is not getting routed by any stretch of the imagination. If USC was the wonderteam that everyone paints them as now, they would have blown the game open in the first half.
Which brings us right back to one REALLY bad quarter of football.
|
Actually it was 2 bad quarters with one being REALLY bad. You didn't even comment on the 'maized' over remark.
As someone who watches a lot of college football, is not a fan of either team, had no money bet on the game, my opinion was that USC was a better team, more athletic, faster, and as physical as Michigan. I also think Carrol made the better adjustments and it did seem like a usc crowd but I think that if they played this game 100 times USC wins at least 75. One thing that made Michigan seem beter than they really were this year was turnover ratio. Coming into the game they had only committed 10 turnovers all year while getting 25 takeaways. Turnovers are usually more luck than skill. Meaning if you drop a football on the ground in the middle of the field 10 times in theory each team would get the ball 5 times. Not making turnovers is a sign of a good team but Michigans #'s were unreal.
Everyone forgets that Michigan was really close to losing to Ball State. Real close. and Ball State is awful. Ucla or Oregon State would be 25pt favs over BS.