I think a healthy Sefo, running more up tempo, and a few more 50/50 plays going our way definitely wins that game. The problem is, if USC doesn't turn the ball over 4 times, that game is a blowout.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Other games weekend of 10/27-10/29
- Thread starter MtnBuff
- Start date
The bright side of this is that we are starting to see a re-emergence of the historical pecking order. USC, CU, and UW have historically been the best teams in this conference.
I would love to see CU and USC battling for the South every year. That's where we want this conference to be.
I would love to see CU and USC battling for the South every year. That's where we want this conference to be.
somebody
Well-Known Member
First, I'd love to play SC in Boulder with a healthy Sefo. I'm confident it would be quite a different game.
As for this quoted post, I'm sure you mean "best teams in their historical conferences," because CU has sucked an egg in the Pac until this year.
I was struggling with the wording on that. Historically, CU, UW and USC have been the best teams out of the group of teams that now comprise the PAC 12. They're the only three with a national championship.
I don't think SC is going to look nearly as good against UW's defense as they are against Cal's piss-poor defense.
That's not to say that they won't move the ball, but imo, as dominant as they looked last night, you have to figure in how terrible Cal's defense is.
Washington is extremely tough in Seattle no matter what, and this year they are also a very good team, especially in the trenches. It's not going to be as easy for Darnold as it was last night. And then you have the propensity to turn the ball over. It's a real problem for them. It's one thing to say that this defense or that defense forced turnovers against them, but they turn the ball over multiple times a game. That's not going to work in Seattle.
I'm not going to go so far as to say that there's no way that SC can win the game, that would be silly, but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. If I had to guess right now, without any additional injuries to either team, I'd say that UW would win a one score game, with one or more SC turnovers being important factors.
That's not to say that they won't move the ball, but imo, as dominant as they looked last night, you have to figure in how terrible Cal's defense is.
Washington is extremely tough in Seattle no matter what, and this year they are also a very good team, especially in the trenches. It's not going to be as easy for Darnold as it was last night. And then you have the propensity to turn the ball over. It's a real problem for them. It's one thing to say that this defense or that defense forced turnovers against them, but they turn the ball over multiple times a game. That's not going to work in Seattle.
I'm not going to go so far as to say that there's no way that SC can win the game, that would be silly, but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. If I had to guess right now, without any additional injuries to either team, I'd say that UW would win a one score game, with one or more SC turnovers being important factors.
does UW have much of a home-field advantage (reference other thread and Seattle being a pro-Sports town). quick perusal of wiki looks like one sell out in last 4 years?
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
UCLA has a title the 1954 coaches poll and a Heisman winner. But they've historically underachieved.
The immortal Gary Beban
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
USC's been playing as well as anyone in the conference since that loss to Utah and Darnold being named the starter. If they can limit the turnovers, they have a shot at UW, no doubt. And UW's schedule is suspect. We'll find out more about UW tomorrow. I still think UW beats USC but they do have a decent chance.
somebody
Well-Known Member
The Pac-12 studio talking heads opined that CU's db's were almost as good as Washington's. No matter which side you take on that, they'll be a lot tougher than anyone (but CU) that USC has faced since Alabama. Of course, if you can blatantly push the defender away in the end zone to get clear or mug the WR as the ball gets there as we saw last night, your chances go up.
somebody
Well-Known Member
So based on CU home sellouts, we don't play better at home either?
Yeah. Tough place to play. Football and hoops. Loud fans.
Yes and the stadium is very loud even if it isn't full. I don't doubt that it will be full when they play USC.
The USC-UW game should be a great battle. Not necessarily predicting a USC win, but I do very much want to watch that game to see what happens.
Tough in Seattle? You should see those ****ers in Eugene!
?? UCLA, Cal (Berkley), and Stanford all have national championships.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Certainly. Wining the Division is always the goal to get a conference championship. My point with Watson is he can cause the problems Dungey did -- only more so.
In football? When?
I think Utah and CU present more matchup problems than USC does.
Both teams actually take care of the football and take the ball away. USC does neither particularly well. Both CU and Utah get to the QB a lot more too.
I think USC looks pretty good, but I guess I am not buying the hype in this thread that they suddenly look great.
Last edited:
| California | 4 | 1920, 1921, 1922, 1937 |
| Stanford | 1 | 1926 |
Leather helmet championships count?
I think Sacky meant in an era when any of us other than DBT were alive.
The issue is which schools are looked at as places that have shown they can win a NC in the modern era.
The service academies and multiple Ivys have national championships as well as do a number of schools that don't even play football anymore but in the PAC the schools that have been NC caliber when it matters are SC, UDub, and CU.
Guarantee, if CU won one of those, we'd count it. And over half of Michigan's were before 1936.
Not really. You don't hear much about our Final Four legacy in hoops.
I was joking...I had no idea Cal and Stanford had NC's, thanks for the info.
I spit my coffee laughing when I read this.
every other message board I participate in, what I read is that fans are no longer recognizing national championships prior to two years ago, which, honestly, feels like a far less arbitrary cutoff than "before 50 states". no disrespect to the Buffs 1990 season.
fwiw, I severely discount anything prior to racial integration of a sport.