Saturday, January 26, 2008

Booty still arguing that USC should have been in BCS Champoinship

You know, hearing the USC players and some fans continually argue that "they wuz robbed" is getting old. Not that it will stop anyone, but at least I have a blog to vent about it on. Got some cheese? Ready for some whine? Take it away, John David Booty:

“After the Rose Bowl we knew, and I think a lot of people around the country knew, that we should have been in that game,” said Booty, the Trojans’ quarterback. “And we would have been if we hadn’t hit a little rough patch there during the middle of the season.”
So let me get this straight. It says here that you lost to Stanford at home. Standford was a team that won 4 whole games all year, and lost to *ahem* Notre Dame! The loss to Oregon was on the road and definitely against a worthy opponent, but losing at home to Stanford is as unforgivable, in the BCS championship game sense, as losing to Appalachian State (arguably a much better team). LSU, on the other hand, lost multiple overtime games to two teams that went to mid-level bowls.

So I really wish you would do us all a favor, JD, and be a man and a leader. Own up to the fact that your team's big bowl blowout was against a team that half the SEC could have beaten, and accept it. We are all very sorry you were hurt for the Stanford game, but if you were so important to the team that it can't even defeat an overwhelmingly inferior opponent at home without you, what chance had you against LSU -- or Ohio State, for that matter?

Not to be outdone, Georgia's kicker, Brandon Cotu, aught to close his pie hole as well. Cotu brings us a Southern vintage of Booty's whine:
“We definitely had an argument for being the two-loss team that should have had the opportunity to move forward and play for the national championship,” Coutu said. “If we had played any of the other teams, I think we definitely would have given them a game, if not won.”
WAAAAHHH. Good grief. You couldn't even hold serve at home against South Carolina, a team that also failed to make a bowl appearance, and Tennessee drubbed you in Knoxville. They didn't just beat you -- they beat the living daylights out of you, and LSU beat Tennessee. So by what twisted logic do you consider yourselves justified in making such a claim? Spare me, and yourself further embarrassment and just stuff a sock in it.


Tommy said...

Can we just can the stock "but you lost to so-and-so" retorts? Those same arguments could be used against LSU and Ohio State, both of whom lost to teams that Georgia and USC beat. That entire line of reasoning merely gives us the argumentative equivalent of a Mexican standoff.

Here's how I look at it. Let's say either USC or Georgia is playing Ohio State and someone puts a gun to your head to bet the mortgage on a straight-up outcome. Do you take Ohio State in either of those games? I wouldn't. Apparently, neither would John David Booty or Brandon Coutu. I don't see how it's whining to say as much.