Let's not forget who clinched the all-important Lexus Gauntlet today. It was women's crew, which defeated UCLA 6-1 in San Pedro. USC is 7-0 against UCLA since dual meets began in 2002.
5 Comments
Locoweed said:
Scott,
You posted this news almost 24 hours ago and this is the first comment?!
Well, congratulations to all our unsung athletes on defeating those smelly little Ruins! However, USC should end this travesty. It’s just an opportunity for a bunch of sleazy car guys to hitch their wagon to USC football on the cheap. Its not like they’re going to sell any Lexus cars to the Ruins, an UGLA education means you drive a Hyundai, a Kia, or a Transit Bus. Does anyone besides the psychos at Bruinsnation give a crap?
uscfd said:
I think we like to win it because it's so important to them. Besides, we can't be content just dominating them in football. There are other sports and this is a gauge of the overall athletic rivalry.
SCLarry said:
Those who came up with the point formula for the Gauntlet must have been on some illegal substance.
A few points to one might choose to ponder:
1) 10 events are counted for the women…only 8 for the men.
2) 60 points are possible for the women (W)…only 50 for the men (M).
3) 10 points are awarded for VB (W)…only 5 for VB (M).
4) Two VB games (W) equal one football game (M).
5) Points in track (M or W) are equivalent to Rowing (W)...and Golf (M or W).
6) Cross Country (W) is on a par with Baseball (M)…and VB (M).
None of the above seems to make any sense.
For any meaningful competition apart from the commercialism, the formula needs massive restructuring. Individual average game attendance (where applicable) would most likely be a major factor, not to mention revenue production of each sport (a reality nonetheless). The number of scholarships allowed by the NCAA for each sport could be significant in the attempt to arrive at a credible point formula.
After that is done, how about separating the competition into M and W?
Gauntlet competition is a good idea. Too bad it’s current format seems more like eyewash.
Locoweed said:
Larry,
Thanks for putting up the specifics. It’s obvious that a Victory Bell starved UGLA won the negotiations, since this whole competition is heavily stacked to favor the Ruins. However, much to the dismay of the Ruinsnation, so far they have failed in their quest for ownership of the Girlie Gauntlet.
Forget attendance and revenue numbers (UGLA would just accuse USC of being insensitive towards women), but who could deny apportioning value based on the numbers of athletes participating in each sport?
You said it Larry, this joke of a competition needs massive restructuring. The only real winners are the imported Foo Foo Car Salesmen since they get to plaster their ads all over the place. Another great reason why I for one only buy American.
I'm Not Kidding said:
News item: USC is 7-0 against UCLA since dual meets began in 2002.
Reaction: I always knew anything connected with UCLA athletics was a sinking ship.
Leave a comment
About Inside USC
Scott Wolf has covered USC for the Daily News since 1996. A USC
graduate, he covered his first Trojan game in 1984 for
the Daily Trojan. Scott is known as the "scourge of the Internet
message boards," according to radio host Petros Papadakis. Despite this
moniker, there's no truth to the rumor he takes pleasure in
antagonizing the "Internet geeks."
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Scott Wolf published on May 3, 2008 2:35 PM.
Scott,
You posted this news almost 24 hours ago and this is the first comment?!
Well, congratulations to all our unsung athletes on defeating those smelly little Ruins! However, USC should end this travesty. It’s just an opportunity for a bunch of sleazy car guys to hitch their wagon to USC football on the cheap. Its not like they’re going to sell any Lexus cars to the Ruins, an UGLA education means you drive a Hyundai, a Kia, or a Transit Bus. Does anyone besides the psychos at Bruinsnation give a crap?
I think we like to win it because it's so important to them. Besides, we can't be content just dominating them in football. There are other sports and this is a gauge of the overall athletic rivalry.
Those who came up with the point formula for the Gauntlet must have been on some illegal substance.
A few points to one might choose to ponder:
1) 10 events are counted for the women…only 8 for the men.
2) 60 points are possible for the women (W)…only 50 for the men (M).
3) 10 points are awarded for VB (W)…only 5 for VB (M).
4) Two VB games (W) equal one football game (M).
5) Points in track (M or W) are equivalent to Rowing (W)...and Golf (M or W).
6) Cross Country (W) is on a par with Baseball (M)…and VB (M).
None of the above seems to make any sense.
For any meaningful competition apart from the commercialism, the formula needs massive restructuring. Individual average game attendance (where applicable) would most likely be a major factor, not to mention revenue production of each sport (a reality nonetheless). The number of scholarships allowed by the NCAA for each sport could be significant in the attempt to arrive at a credible point formula.
After that is done, how about separating the competition into M and W?
Gauntlet competition is a good idea. Too bad it’s current format seems more like eyewash.
Larry,
Thanks for putting up the specifics. It’s obvious that a Victory Bell starved UGLA won the negotiations, since this whole competition is heavily stacked to favor the Ruins. However, much to the dismay of the Ruinsnation, so far they have failed in their quest for ownership of the Girlie Gauntlet.
Forget attendance and revenue numbers (UGLA would just accuse USC of being insensitive towards women), but who could deny apportioning value based on the numbers of athletes participating in each sport?
You said it Larry, this joke of a competition needs massive restructuring. The only real winners are the imported Foo Foo Car Salesmen since they get to plaster their ads all over the place. Another great reason why I for one only buy American.
News item: USC is 7-0 against UCLA since dual meets began in 2002.
Reaction: I always knew anything connected with UCLA athletics was a sinking ship.