USC-Penn State Report Card
Here's the final report card of the season.
RESULT: No. 5 USC 38, No. 6 Penn State 24
RECORD: 12-1
WEEK 13 GPA: C+
QUARTERBACK
This was the Mark Sanchez people waited to see for 10 weeks.
A-
RUNNING BACKS
With the passing game working, it didn't really matter.
D-
WIDE RECEIVERS
Penn State's zone defense made Damian Williams a near-MVP.
B+
OFFENSIVE LINE
Dealt with many blitzes and still allowed only one sack.
B
DEFENSIVE LINE
Who knew replacing Clay Matthews next year would be the big worry?
B-
LINEBACKERS
Three Rose Bowl defensive MVPs need replacing next season.
B-
SECONDARY
Took off part of second half but who could blame them?
C
SPECIAL TEAMS
Luckily for USC that wild punt snap did not affect outcome of game.
D+
COACHING
Pete Carroll doesn't even get pushed preparing for these Big Ten bums.
B
Amazing. USC dominates a BCS Bowl and gets a C+. As for my grade of the Daily News coverage of USC Football, D-. And the Oregon cheerleaders called. They want to know when Scott Wolf is getting arrested for stalking.
PLH55........Well said.
The funny thing is, for the first time all season I actually agree with MOST of Scott's grades.
The big mistake he makes on most of the grades though is that he seems more focused on *Penn State* and their ability or lack thereof to challenge certain position groups than on USC's performance itself.
The running backs deserve more than a D-. As I recall, one or two actually found the end zone, remember?
The secondary deserves more than a C for their overall performance. One of the things we seem to forget is that the threat of our secondary has effectively taken away a lot of the long passing game throughout the season. So offenses never really allow the secondary to show their stuff.
And a D+ just because of the botched snap? Really?
Finally, for some reason Scott likes to average up all the grades (including the questionable ones above) and come up with a GPA rather than just giving the team an overall grade for the overall game.
I'd suspect that the overall grade would be somewhat higher than averaging up all the other grades. It would be interesting to know what that grade would have been -- but I'm sure he would have been greatly affected by his apparent perception that it wasn't that USC played well that led to the victory but rather that Penn State played poorly -- so according to Scott we still really can't tell about USC.
C+ Scott? Really?
Something's wrong with you. I could break down grade by grade where you went wrong but it's a waste of my time to argue with you. Just the fact that you could give that game performance a C+ grade should be enough proof to anyone that you're not to be taken seriously...
I guess the running backs pass blocking or catching the ball doesn't count for anything in Scott's world.
And a C+? Come on, we played above average.
C+, Scott Shame on you!