ESPN and USC...

[HawkeyeShane]

I just watched SportsCenter this morning and they featured USC and their important games coming up this season...someone should probably tell them that no one gives a crap and they could've saved themselves some time! If you want to include them in the "Important games" lists of the other teams in the Pac-10, fine...but they have no important games until 2012...

 

[CAARHawk]

USC is the only National draw from the Pac 10/12.

 

[cuinknk]

USC is the only National draw from the Pac 10/12.

This is true. While the games they play may have no meaning, they will draw bigger TV ratings than any other Pac 10 team this season, and next. People do give a crap.

 

[Igothawked]

This is true. While the games they play may have no meaning, they will draw bigger TV ratings than any other Pac 10 team this season, and next. People do give a crap.

This is true and this is what drives me nuts about USC. It's almost like the probation is giving them even more TV time. I feel that part of the probation should have been no National TV appearances for these 2 years. That would have made it interesting.

 

[cuinknk]

This is true and this is what drives me nuts about USC. It's almost like the probation is giving them even more TV time. I feel that part of the probation should have been no National TV appearances for these 2 years. That would have made it interesting.

The only reason I disagree with banning TV appearances is how it impacts other teams and their fans. I wouldn't be too happy if an Iowa vs. Michigan game wasn't on TV because Michigan was being penalized.

 

[latrans]

This is true. While the games they play may have no meaning, they will draw bigger TV ratings than any other Pac 10 team this season, and next. People do give a crap.

I think that you might be surprised how peoples interest level will be affected by the fact that USC will not factor into the NC picture, or the bowl picture for that matter. They will have to relevance for the next 2 years and irrelevant = uninteresting. IMHO

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

I think that you might be surprised how peoples interest level will be affected by the fact that USC will not factor into the NC picture, or the bowl picture for that matter. They will have to relevance for the next 2 years and irrelevant = uninteresting. IMHO

I disagree. A lot of people are going to want to see USC and Lane Kiffin fail. There's a lot of college football fans who don't like USC and most of them would love to see USC fall on their face.

 

[HawkfaninWA]

Washington or Arizona is going to reap the benefits of this for the next two years. And ESPN will be quick to drop USC and move on to Washington as Locker has a lot of hype going into his senior season.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

This is true. While the games they play may have no meaning, they will draw bigger TV ratings than any other Pac 10 team this season, and next. People do give a crap.

The point of the post was that no one gives a crap which games are "important games" for USC this season and next...because they have none. Like I said, include them in the "Important games" list of teams that can actually win something this season, but they themselves, play no important games pertaining to their post season/national title aspirations...so why would ANYONE, excluding their L.A. fanbase, care?

 

[brett108]

I just watched SportsCenter this morning and they featured USC and their important games coming up this season...someone should probably tell them that no one gives a crap and they could've saved themselves some time! If you want to include them in the "Important games" lists of the other teams in the Pac-10, fine...but they have no important games until 2012...

Because winning a trinket in a bowl game says "Congratulations, you came up with the better game plan and beat one other team to earn the XYZ sponsored Bowl Trophy". The bowl system is a sham, and as much as I am indifferent to USC, the fact they are still pulling in the recruits shows what a 2 year ban means in college football. Not much.

 

[tm3308]

Because winning a trinket in a bowl game says "Congratulations, you came up with the better game plan and beat one other team to earn the XYZ sponsored Bowl Trophy". The bowl system is a sham, and as much as I am indifferent to USC, the fact they are still pulling in the recruits shows what a 2 year ban means in college football. Not much.

It doesn't mean much to a program like USC, who regularly treated the Rose Bowl like a consolation prize that they had to settle for under Carroll. To a program, like, say, California, a 2 year ban would have a much bigger impact.

 

[cuinknk]

I think that you might be surprised how peoples interest level will be affected by the fact that USC will not factor into the NC picture, or the bowl picture for that matter. They will have to relevance for the next 2 years and irrelevant = uninteresting. IMHO

Notre Dame hasn't factored into the NC picture, or even major bowl picture since the 2006 season, and they are still followed/talked about because they are hated. I don't see USC being any different.