2007-09-02 17:31:56 · 9 answers · asked by Smitty 2 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Tune up game for the Trojans. Booty's also dealing with a young receiver corps. I wouldn't fret too much about USC, who now has a week off before Nebraska, while the Huskers have a big trap game at Wake Forest.
2007-09-02 17:59:40 · answer #1 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You watched the game but you didnt see what was happening. "Wow that was bad"??? Wow that was smart. Pete Carroll did everything right. Do you think scoring on the first 3 possessions was a fluke? It clearly was not. SC called off the dogs early. Thats why the 2nd team defense started the 2nd qtr (not 2nd half, 2nd qtr).
There are two main reasons why the dogs were called off early. Most people outside of USC dont know.
#1: USC didnt attempt to run up the score out of respect. The reason why USC and Idaho played in the first place was because of USC's Coach Holt. He was the head coach of Idaho when this game was created. He is a strong believer of 'to be the best you have to play the best'. Since Holt recruited and trained most of those guys, USC wasn't in the business of embarrising them.
#2: The MAIN reason why USC didn't run it up was because they go to the Red Sea their next game, Nebraska. SC has nothing to prove to Idaho. SC knew they can win easily. So when they were up comfortably (21-0) they toned it down, a lot. Ran nothing but plays you run to kill a clock. Dive after dive, swing passes and little 5 yrd outs. Doing this gave Nebraska absolutly nothing to prep for. That was the game plan going into the game and they stuck to it 100%.
Was it boring? The 2nd half was big time.
Was it smart? Very!
Next we should be good.
2007-09-03 02:53:51 · answer #2 · answered by vae4usc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was 21-3 at halftime and 38-3 in the 4th calm down. If someone wins by 50 its running it up. If they win by 4 TD's its not impressive. Doesn't make much sense. USC will be there at the end. I'm sure Michigan would have taken a 38-10 win.
2007-09-03 08:59:55 · answer #3 · answered by kyle123kfs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey USC #1 your right about your assessment of USC not trying to run up the score on the Vandals, it could have been worse for the Vandals, but USC hold alot of the game plan back, so Nebraska wouldn't get alot of idea about USC formation of play. But this is their first game of the season, they're looked a little sluggest, but i expect them to come out firing in the Nebraska game. Fight On! Fight On to Victory.
2007-09-03 02:01:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they couldve won by a lot more if they wanted to. john david booty was taken out in the 4th qtr. if you watched the game on tv you can tell that nobody on the USC offense was really trying as hard as they could. it couldve been a lot worse, and i wish that wouldve just annihilated idaho instead of putting in the backups.
2007-09-03 01:01:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i watched it. Booty looked like crap, overthrowing WRs. Their RBs LaPhor & Gable looked really good though.
This was a game where they still trying to iron out some wrinkles. Hence putting the starters in during the 2nd Q.
Still not impressed though.
2007-09-03 00:39:23 · answer #6 · answered by ACCfever.com 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea the game was boring, even though i am sc alum i couldnt help watching the cal-tenn game more then the sc game. my favorite party of the sc game was when they lined up with out a kicker to honor mario danielo. one of the things that has helped make usc big winners is integrity and respect, and they def showed it this game. FIGHT ON!!!!
2007-09-03 12:49:10 · answer #7 · answered by wtf2008 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually thought it would have been worse.
USC has a tough road ahead of them. I think they have the horses to pull through, though.
2007-09-03 00:37:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
overrated!
2007-09-03 00:58:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋