This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
...when we're good by DakotaDomer
The 2003 USC "championship" team included wins over final poll #6 Michigan (Rose Bowl), final poll #9 Washington State and a loss to unranked Cal.
There were no other ranked teams on their 12-1 schedule. Their regular season only included 1 team that ended up ranked. OOC they played Auburn and us, both on the road....neither game was competitive (23-0 & 45-14)
USC does schedule well because they know they have to as a Pac-10/12 team and they have the historic rivalry with us. But when we suck, their schedule is dog-shit. So I think your post should say "Hate them or not, USC tries to play a tough schedule."