Quote
Originally posted by: makikiboy
While USC did beat Hawaii by 39, they allowed Hawaii to march down the field twice in the second half. Hawaii was able to put up sustained drives. Yeah it could be argued that SC put in the reserves the whole second half (which I doubt) you also have to realize that Hawaii has a new coach and a completely new offense put in and a new qb that hadn't started in 4 years (since high school, was a benchwarmer at another college and transferred to UH).
Actually USC had a few plays that helped them out (missed tackle by UH that turned a 10 yard reception into a 76 yard TD score in the first series, kickoff run back for TD, and some other missed tackle plays by UH), take away those plays and the score wouldn't have been as high. While USC was the better team they really didn't look that awesome that a #1 team should look IMHO. SC should have been running up and down the field against a non top 75 team. Maybe they wanted to keep the score down so they could play against Hawaii more often and get some Hawaii trips in.
I figured that USC needed to run up the score to keep their ranking. That's why I took them with the 42 pt spread (I figured that they should win by at least 48). I only bet $100 so wasn't that bad but I expected them to blast Hawaii (sorry UH). In the beginning of the year it's the teams that run up the score that will get the higher ranking, especially against weak teams.
Norm Chow (new head coach at Hawaii) was the offensive coordinator when Lane Kiffen was an assistant coach. Norm Chow has probably produced the most quaterbacks to not only go to the NFL but be successful in the NFL. I actually took Hawaii at +41 . Technically the game should have been a push if SC goes for single point PAT's.
The fact is that Bama beat a way over-rated Michigan team and many of the coaches and writers are big SEC fans.
