|
Post by ee1990 on Jul 2, 2024 22:24:11 GMT -8
You’re right, of course. seastape , too. But I doubt that any of those rivalries had to go through the betrayal and desertion that we have been subjected to. It may be that the rivalry develops into something like you mentioned, but as far as I am concerned, it is dead. Now, my rivalry hate for the has grown to disinterest and disgust. I don’t care anymore. In fact, college football has come dangerously close to being ignored completely. Iowa and Iowa State stopped playing after Iowa stopped returning Iowa State's calls after 1934. The game restarted after a more than 42-year hiatus. And Iowa were still such entitled narcissists that they demanded that the first four games be played in Iowa City. And Iowa State played 'em in Iowa City four times and beat 'em twice. Because they were not a bunch of self-pitying sniveling cowards. Georgia stopped playing football during World War I, but Georgia Tech kept playing. Georgia made fun of Georgia Tech doing so in a parade in 1919, so Georgia Tech refused to play Georgia until 1925. Georgia Tech left the SEC in 1964, because they believed themselves to be better than most of the other teams and because they refused to over-sign like the other teams, mostly Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. They are a better fit in the more education-focused ACC than the SEC. Clemson and South Carolina playing was actually written into state law in 1952. The move to mandate the game be played was one of the first shots across the bow of the old Southern Conference. Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina, and Wake left the Southern Conference to found the ACC in 1953 with previously independent Virginia. Clemson v. South Carolina was played the Thursday during the State Fair until 1959. It then began to be played on Saturdays thereafter. South Carolina left the ACC after 1970, because they felt victimized over basketball (South Carolina went undefeated in ACC play in 1969-70 but lost the Championship Game to NC State and did not play in the Tournament) and because South Carolina did not like the 800 SAT rule at the time. South Carolina thought that they would be invited by another conference right away but were not, because of weird structural issues with the South Carolina Athletic Department. After the 800 Rule was ruled to be unconstitutional, Clemson tried to get them back into the ACC but were shot down by Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia. South Carolina tried to reorganize its Athletic Department to make it more likely to be invited to a different conference but could not until after 1980. In 1975, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, St. Louis, and Tulane founded the Metro Conference. Georgia Tech left after three seasons to join the ACC to fill in the spot that South Carolina had vacated. Florida State and Virginia Tech joined in 1976 and 1978, respectively. Southern Miss replaced St. Louis in 1982. And South Carolina joined in 1983. South Carolina played there until receiving the SEC invite in 1991. Cincinnati, Florida State, and Memphis each left that year as well. Florida State went to the ACC. The other two started up the Great Midwest Conference with Dayton, DePaul, Marquette, St. Louis, and UAB. A lot of old South Carolina fans are still bitter towards Clemson, because they thought that Clemson would leave with them out of the ACC in 1970 and did not work harder to get South Carolina back into the ACC after the 800 Rule was ruled to be unconstitutional. A lot of Clemson fans are still upset that South Carolina left in the first place. From 1905-1947, Florida was the men's college and Florida State was the women's college. Florida State started up its football team in 1947. Florida State played in the Dixie Conference from 1947 -1951 but left to become an independent. Florida, the ancient blue-blood program, refused to schedule Florida State until 1958 and then only agreed to play every year in Gainesville. Florida went 5-0-1 in those games. The tie was compared to being comparable to a "death in the family" by Florida's head coach. Florida State upgraded Doak in 1964 to 40,500 seats (up from 25,000 before). It was only after the 1964 upgrade that Florida agreed to a home-and-home with Florida State winning the first game at Doak. Florida State only won twice int he first 19 meetings. Bobby Bowden was the head coach finally in the 19th meeting, and he proceeded to win the next four. Bowden went 13-11-1 in his first 25 games against Florida after that first loss. (And Florida blew a 31-3 lead in the tie, the Choke at Doak.) The Cyhawk Trophy is such a big deal, because Iowa State refused to accept mediocrity and were not cowards. Play in Iowa City four times for a home-and-home thereafter? Absolutely. They were not cowed, and they were not scared. Georgia did not stop playing Georgia Tech after Georgia Tech left. And Georgia Tech was never so cowed and scared as to cancel the rivalry with Georgia. Clemson did not stop playing South Carolina after South Carolina left. And South Carolina, despite its severe economic plight until 1983, did not feel so cowed and scared of Clemson that it stopped playing. And Clemson at a huge economic disadvantage since 1992 has not felt so cowed and scared to cancel the series. Florida freaking State, the women's college, played in Gainesville six straight times to start up a series and went 2-15-1 before hiring Bowden. They kept after it. They were not cowed and scared enough to cancel the series. And all of the teams have been handsomely rewarded for keeping after it, and not scheduling scared. And not being swept up in petulant, thoughtless emotion. Wonderful, wonderful post. Thank you for the work and the lesson. I missed it skipping from the first page to the last. This encapsulates everything about why these types of regional CFB rivalries should be maintained.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jul 3, 2024 7:17:16 GMT -8
Ironic, isn't it? And when I noticed it, the timer to edit had expired. Of course, this guy is the one to find it and point it out. Right on character, bro. I hate that. If only I had five more minutes............... ......you could add another three paragraphs. jk
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 3, 2024 14:03:58 GMT -8
Tradition matters. Widespread popularity helps. But you do not get widespread popularity by cancelling the game. That ship has sailed homes. Are you trying to calling me Holmes? Or homey? Homeboy? Hombre? It does not really matter. If an when the Civil War sails, most of my interest in football will sail with it. Oregon State needs to try and maintain all that it can of the last 60 years.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jul 4, 2024 8:41:56 GMT -8
That ship has sailed homes. Are you trying to calling me Holmes? Or homey? Homeboy? Hombre? It does not really matter. If an when the Civil War sails, most of my interest in football will sail with it. Oregon State needs to try and maintain all that it can of the last 60 years. The problem, as I see it, you are imagining that hole is anything but shallow, vapid, corrupt, unscrupulous and evil. They are the epitome of what is wrong with college sports.
Playing them adds legitimacy to their corruption. They have cheated, stole and bought their way to where they are. I am sorry, us playing them for a paycheck is not in my future. Not saying I will quit attending or watching, just do not agree with it.
I see it in reverse of how you see it - playing them elevates them - not the other way around. I would be right there with you if we were discussing the UofO of old - up until roughly the mid '90's. After that? They took the "win at all costs" approach.
Sorry OSU football will not be in your future without hole. For me, hole and UW - don't let the door hit you on the way out. They are the one's who walked away from what was the Civil War, not us - and stabbed us in the back on the way out. F those guys. The only way I want to play them is on a neutral field, in the CFP. And beat them like a rented mule, on national TV. Kinda like how we beat down Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Jul 4, 2024 14:00:00 GMT -8
Are you trying to calling me Holmes? Or homey? Homeboy? Hombre? It does not really matter. If an when the Civil War sails, most of my interest in football will sail with it. Oregon State needs to try and maintain all that it can of the last 60 years. The problem, as I see it, you are imagining that hole is anything but shallow, vapid, corrupt, unscrupulous and evil. They are the epitome of what is wrong with college sports.
Playing them adds legitimacy to their corruption. They have cheated, stole and bought their way to where they are. I am sorry, us playing them for a paycheck is not in my future. Not saying I will quit attending or watching, just do not agree with it.
I see it in reverse of how you see it - playing them elevates them - not the other way around. I would be right there with you if we were discussing the UofO of old - up until roughly the mid '90's. After that? They took the "win at all costs" approach.
Sorry OSU football will not be in your future without hole. For me, hole and UW - don't let the door hit you on the way out. They are the one's who walked away from what was the Civil War, not us - and stabbed us in the back on the way out. F those guys. The only way I want to play them is on a neutral field, in the CFP. And beat them like a rented mule, on national TV. Kinda like how we beat down Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.
This is well said, and pretty much exactly how I feel. I'm ready to start new traditions. Blue Donks off top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jul 4, 2024 15:58:47 GMT -8
The problem, as I see it, you are imagining that hole is anything but shallow, vapid, corrupt, unscrupulous and evil. They are the epitome of what is wrong with college sports.
Playing them adds legitimacy to their corruption. They have cheated, stole and bought their way to where they are. I am sorry, us playing them for a paycheck is not in my future. Not saying I will quit attending or watching, just do not agree with it.
I see it in reverse of how you see it - playing them elevates them - not the other way around. I would be right there with you if we were discussing the UofO of old - up until roughly the mid '90's. After that? They took the "win at all costs" approach.
Sorry OSU football will not be in your future without hole. For me, hole and UW - don't let the door hit you on the way out. They are the one's who walked away from what was the Civil War, not us - and stabbed us in the back on the way out. F those guys. The only way I want to play them is on a neutral field, in the CFP. And beat them like a rented mule, on national TV. Kinda like how we beat down Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.
This is well said, and pretty much exactly how I feel. I'm ready to start new traditions. Blue Donks off top of my head. I have been told, even by some on this board , I need to let go of some things. There was a time when the donks were a little like USknee, and played dirty. That having been said, Quizz getting his helmet ripped off, and chipping a tooth after the whistle, was also a combination of him running his mouth, and coach Riley being a little too "aw shucks". Point being, I am willing to let it go, especially now that they have new coaching staff, and that reputation went with the prior staff. Just like I have heard that Fresneck has worked to improve their image, and move away from past reputations. I agree - let's build some new rivalries.
Hole? There is a reason why almost everyone in the now defunct PAC hated them and their fan base - it wasn't just us with orange colored glasses.
|
|
|
Post by darthbeavs on Jul 5, 2024 7:36:48 GMT -8
I'm not considering any of that. There is no history or life raft scenario that will make me ever want to see the Beavs compete against that team from just south of Corvallis. None. I am not scared; I don't play, so there is nothing for me to be scared of. I say, take on any team that wants to roll the ball out on the field and have a contest, except one. And only one. I will never forget what UO did to OSU, and it's not just football. Their decision impacted the entire university. Their sister university. In the same state. Drawing from the same people. And it was done for money. I am no glutton for punishment, but I will say that I would prefer the Beavs never playing UO again to its own detriment than ever add a penny to UO coffers (or save them any semolians). There is nothing that can be fixed or improved by playing UO in football. Will it solve OSU's budget problems? Nope (possibly help a little, but the cost/value proposition doesn't seem to pencil out to me). Will it make the Beavs more relevant? Nope (the Beavs can find plenty of other suitable teams to play that would have a similar bump). Should we respect all the history and experiences it held? Bruh ... please. UO crapped on that already many, many times over. They have disrespected all of it, including the illustrious Pac-8/10/12 history. I've been a fan for over 40+ years and I've seen my share of doozies (games and years, and come to think of it, decades!). I may be a freshman on this board, but I'm no Johhny Come Lately. I used to right for Beaverfootball.com way back in the day, writing about Derek Anderson. All that is to say I think I have perspective at this point, and from my point of view, it ain't worth it ladies and gents. Am I duck hater? Absolutely, and unabashedly. They were a rival before; now they are detestable. F the ducks and their pretty little uniforms. GO BEAVS!! You hate Oregon so much you'd harm Oregon State to claim some type of pyrrhic vindication. And if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd have bounced just as fast, laughing all the way to the bank. Oregon wants to compete at a high level, and that means money. Being in a west coast conference without USC and UCLA was going to end up eventually being something like a 70 million dollar a year revenue gap between Pac teams and f%#*ing RUTGERS. You can hate that it happened but don't act like it was something we'd have taken the magical high road to sportball poverty on in the name of solidarity! At some point, a man's gotta have principles, and then stick by them, even if it means you or your interests won't be filthy rich. Some may call that a sucker's bet (and you may have to care about what other people say for that to matter), while others may call it a virtue. I find myself leaning towards the latter.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Jul 5, 2024 20:05:31 GMT -8
You hate Oregon so much you'd harm Oregon State to claim some type of pyrrhic vindication. And if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd have bounced just as fast, laughing all the way to the bank. Oregon wants to compete at a high level, and that means money. Being in a west coast conference without USC and UCLA was going to end up eventually being something like a 70 million dollar a year revenue gap between Pac teams and f%#*ing RUTGERS. You can hate that it happened but don't act like it was something we'd have taken the magical high road to sportball poverty on in the name of solidarity! At some point, a man's gotta have principles, and then stick by them, even if it means you or your interests won't be filthy rich. Some may call that a sucker's bet (and you may have to care about what other people say for that to matter), while others may call it a virtue. I find myself leaning towards the latter. Okay? There's nobody at OSU who has those virtues. If the question is play in the MWC and freaking WCC or play in the B1G for $70,000,000 a year, you'd be screaming bloody murder if the powers that be picked the former. It's super easy to take the high road on paper when in reality there was no option to do what the dirty evil greedy teams did.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jul 5, 2024 22:12:32 GMT -8
At some point, a man's gotta have principles, and then stick by them, even if it means you or your interests won't be filthy rich. Some may call that a sucker's bet (and you may have to care about what other people say for that to matter), while others may call it a virtue. I find myself leaning towards the latter. Okay? There's nobody at OSU who has those virtues. If the question is play in the MWC and freaking WCC or play in the B1G for $70,000,000 a year, you'd be screaming bloody murder if the powers that be picked the former. It's super easy to take the high road on paper when in reality there was no option to do what the dirty evil greedy teams did. Maybe not - but they should. Actions have consequences. This isn't about whether or not OSU would have done the same thing. It is what happens when you decide to leave a long standing relationship, a conference you made pledges to, and burn a bridge on the way out the door.
In business, the timeless adage has always been do not burn a bridge when moving on to a better opportunity - it may come back to haunt you. Turning down a TV deal before giving it a chance, not being forthright about the under the table negotiations, trying to take money out of the conference on the way out the door, etc. in my opinion - was burning a bridge. They did not do it with consideration and class. It was a crass money grab all the way around.
It seems that you, and others on this board, are hunky dory with being dropped like a hot potato when a new hotter dude comes along, and then after being dumped, having your girlfriend come back and say "can't we just be friends, and pretend it never happened?" In other words, "can't I have my cake and eat it too"? Answer? No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You made your decision, burned the bridge - now deal with it. Have a nice life - take a hike. It was you, not me, that decided to leave, and blow up a 100 year old relationship. No sympathy whatsoever.
And if the shoe was on the other foot? I would not blame hole or the fuskies for feeling the same way.
|
|
Mike84
Sophomore
Posts: 1,025
Member is Online
|
Post by Mike84 on Jul 5, 2024 22:32:37 GMT -8
There's a lot of anger, understandably so, for what Oregon "did to us." However, had the situation been reversed and OSU had a chance to take a huge chunk of money that also meant Oregon got significantly less money, not one person here would say "gee guys, we shouldn't do this to our sister school." Not saying we shouldn't play the ducks, given that beating them on the field is the best sort of revenge, but I disagree with the spin you put on those complaining about what UofNike "did to us". Sure, if we could have found a way to get a big chunk of money, especially if it would mean less money for the ducks, we would have done that and been happy about it... but not at the expense of killing the Pac-12 conference. And I could be wrong or naive or both, but I don't think Barnes or Murthy would agree on a Thursday night to meet the next morning to finalize the details of the Pac-12 TV deal and then leave the conference before even making it to the meeting the next morning. This was not about the ducks getting money and the Beavers getting less. It was about striking the killing blow to a 108-year-old conference, thinking only of the money. It was about the ducks and Huskies saying, "it's both of us or none of us" instead of "it's the 4 of us or none of us". It was about failing to do everything in their power to keep the conference together or at least the NW schools together, and taking the first bus out of town that had a big dollar sign on it. What the ducks "did to us" was not just reduce our budget while they fattened theirs. Our budget was reduced because they killed the conference. That is unforgivable and, regardless of whether we continue to play them in any sport, I'm not going to criticize anyone for holding a long, long, long grudge. Not the kind of grudge that happens all the time in a rivalry but the kind of grudge that is generational.
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Jul 6, 2024 4:42:32 GMT -8
There's a lot of anger, understandably so, for what Oregon "did to us." However, had the situation been reversed and OSU had a chance to take a huge chunk of money that also meant Oregon got significantly less money, not one person here would say "gee guys, we shouldn't do this to our sister school." Not saying we shouldn't play the ducks, given that beating them on the field is the best sort of revenge, but I disagree with the spin you put on those complaining about what UofNike "did to us". Sure, if we could have found a way to get a big chunk of money, especially if it would mean less money for the ducks, we would have done that and been happy about it... but not at the expense of killing the Pac-12 conference. And I could be wrong or naive or both, but I don't think Barnes or Murthy would agree on a Thursday night to meet the next morning to finalize the details of the Pac-12 TV deal and then leave the conference before even making it to the meeting the next morning. This was not about the ducks getting money and the Beavers getting less. It was about striking the killing blow to a 108-year-old conference, thinking only of the money. It was about the ducks and Huskies saying, "it's both of us or none of us" instead of "it's the 4 of us or none of us". It was about failing to do everything in their power to keep the conference together or at least the NW schools together, and taking the first bus out of town that had a big dollar sign on it. What the ducks "did to us" was not just reduce our budget while they fattened theirs. Our budget was reduced because they killed the conference. That is unforgivable and, regardless of whether we continue to play them in any sport, I'm not going to criticize anyone for holding a long, long, long grudge. Not the kind of grudge that happens all the time in a rivalry but the kind of grudge that is generational. What is funny about all of this is that USC and UCLA come out smelling like a rose in all of this to many here. Especially USC which some here continue give a free pass on time and time again.
......With the Trojans and Bruins in tow, the Pac-12’s deal could have placed the league an easy third behind the Big Ten and SEC. But here’s the thing: USC in particular was not feeling like letting its massive football brand be used to dole out charity payments to the rest of West Coast programs any longer......
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jul 6, 2024 5:22:05 GMT -8
Not saying we shouldn't play the ducks, given that beating them on the field is the best sort of revenge, but I disagree with the spin you put on those complaining about what UofNike "did to us". Sure, if we could have found a way to get a big chunk of money, especially if it would mean less money for the ducks, we would have done that and been happy about it... but not at the expense of killing the Pac-12 conference. And I could be wrong or naive or both, but I don't think Barnes or Murthy would agree on a Thursday night to meet the next morning to finalize the details of the Pac-12 TV deal and then leave the conference before even making it to the meeting the next morning. This was not about the ducks getting money and the Beavers getting less. It was about striking the killing blow to a 108-year-old conference, thinking only of the money. It was about the ducks and Huskies saying, "it's both of us or none of us" instead of "it's the 4 of us or none of us". It was about failing to do everything in their power to keep the conference together or at least the NW schools together, and taking the first bus out of town that had a big dollar sign on it. What the ducks "did to us" was not just reduce our budget while they fattened theirs. Our budget was reduced because they killed the conference. That is unforgivable and, regardless of whether we continue to play them in any sport, I'm not going to criticize anyone for holding a long, long, long grudge. Not the kind of grudge that happens all the time in a rivalry but the kind of grudge that is generational. What is funny about all of this is that USC and UCLA come out smelling like a rose in all of this to many here. Especially USC which some here continue give a free pass on time and time again.
......With the Trojans and Bruins in tow, the Pac-12’s deal could have placed the league an easy third behind the Big Ten and SEC. But here’s the thing: USC in particular was not feeling like letting its massive football brand be used to dole out charity payments to the rest of West Coast programs any longer......
I think that’s because there were still options available to keep the Pac alive. But when Oregon and UW held hands and did their Thelma and Louise act, it was clear that the Pac was over. As for USC and UCLA getting free passes, I don’t think they are. Arrogant a-holes that will end up hurting in a league with better arrogant a-holes.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 6, 2024 13:19:19 GMT -8
There's a lot of anger, understandably so, for what Oregon "did to us." However, had the situation been reversed and OSU had a chance to take a huge chunk of money that also meant Oregon got significantly less money, not one person here would say "gee guys, we shouldn't do this to our sister school." Not saying we shouldn't play the ducks, given that beating them on the field is the best sort of revenge, but I disagree with the spin you put on those complaining about what UofNike "did to us". Sure, if we could have found a way to get a big chunk of money, especially if it would mean less money for the ducks, we would have done that and been happy about it... but not at the expense of killing the Pac-12 conference. And I could be wrong or naive or both, but I don't think Barnes or Murthy would agree on a Thursday night to meet the next morning to finalize the details of the Pac-12 TV deal and then leave the conference before even making it to the meeting the next morning. This was not about the ducks getting money and the Beavers getting less. It was about striking the killing blow to a 108-year-old conference, thinking only of the money. It was about the ducks and Huskies saying, "it's both of us or none of us" instead of "it's the 4 of us or none of us". It was about failing to do everything in their power to keep the conference together or at least the NW schools together, and taking the first bus out of town that had a big dollar sign on it. What the ducks "did to us" was not just reduce our budget while they fattened theirs. Our budget was reduced because they killed the conference. That is unforgivable and, regardless of whether we continue to play them in any sport, I'm not going to criticize anyone for holding a long, long, long grudge. Not the kind of grudge that happens all the time in a rivalry but the kind of grudge that is generational. The thing is that it was not about the money. It was about viewership. And it was about Washington. From all indications, Oregon wanted to stick it out in the Pac-12 but did not see a way forward without Washington. I think that a lot of this Oregon vilification and hatred is wildly misplaced. Washington is the true villain here. Oregon is an Igor at best. I could see all of this angst, if Oregon draggedWashington kicking and screaming out of the conference. But that is flatly not the case. I have seen less angst out of a pack of teenagers. Stuff and nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jul 6, 2024 14:41:54 GMT -8
Not saying we shouldn't play the ducks, given that beating them on the field is the best sort of revenge, but I disagree with the spin you put on those complaining about what UofNike "did to us". Sure, if we could have found a way to get a big chunk of money, especially if it would mean less money for the ducks, we would have done that and been happy about it... but not at the expense of killing the Pac-12 conference. And I could be wrong or naive or both, but I don't think Barnes or Murthy would agree on a Thursday night to meet the next morning to finalize the details of the Pac-12 TV deal and then leave the conference before even making it to the meeting the next morning. This was not about the ducks getting money and the Beavers getting less. It was about striking the killing blow to a 108-year-old conference, thinking only of the money. It was about the ducks and Huskies saying, "it's both of us or none of us" instead of "it's the 4 of us or none of us". It was about failing to do everything in their power to keep the conference together or at least the NW schools together, and taking the first bus out of town that had a big dollar sign on it. What the ducks "did to us" was not just reduce our budget while they fattened theirs. Our budget was reduced because they killed the conference. That is unforgivable and, regardless of whether we continue to play them in any sport, I'm not going to criticize anyone for holding a long, long, long grudge. Not the kind of grudge that happens all the time in a rivalry but the kind of grudge that is generational. The thing is that it was not about the money. It was about viewership. And it was about Washington. From all indications, Oregon wanted to stick it out in the Pac-12 but did not see a way forward without Washington. I think that a lot of this Oregon vilification and hatred is wildly misplaced. Washington is the true villain here. Oregon is an Igor at best. I could see all of this angst, if Oregon draggedWashington kicking and screaming out of the conference. But that is flatly not the case. I have seen less angst out of a pack of teenagers. Stuff and nonsense. Assuming all of this is true, they still made the decision, just like UW, to abandon their partner university in the same state, same conference. I also did not see hole protesting the traitorous ten trying to take the money and run. If your point is they have less accountability for the blowup than UW - okay, but they are still culpable. Kinda like two bank robbers, one in the bank, and one in the getaway car. The getaway driver is still going to jail.
I like you, would like to roll back the hands of time to when the conference was intact, and we had our 108 year rivalry intact. As has been said, that ship has sailed, and by all accounts, considering how the entire personality, budget, attitudes, etc of hole has changed - it ain't ever comin back.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 6, 2024 14:46:09 GMT -8
This may be after-the-fact spin. Somewhere I read that uo went to PKnight and he said not to leave the PAC. uw then told uo they would go without them. At that point PKnight said ok. Who knows if this is factual. But my main pissed-offedness is directed towards the school in Seattle, their soon-to-be former President and their former athletic directer along with their former football coach. It should also be directed at usc, but I never had respect for them to start with.
|
|