BASKETBALL

A Doubleheader That Is Hardly Equal

There is going to be a basketball doubleheader at Intuit Dome on Nov. 14 according to basketball analyst Rocco Miller.

UCLA will play Arizona in one game.

And USC will play . . . Illinois State!

That’s the best they could do? USC vs. Illinois State?

Obviously, they just wanted a game and didn’t really care about anything else.

But it’s not doing anything for USC basketball to play Illinois State.

47 thoughts on “A Doubleheader That Is Hardly Equal”

    1. Yes. Lincoln wants Illinois State of replace ND in football. And maybe move out of the BIG and into the Mountain West. Eventually, he will be able to win a conference championship.

      Like

      Reply

  2. It is not true that this double-header is not doing anything for SC basketball. First off, SC should beat Illinois St. and secondly, with ucla-Arizona as the “undercard” there should be some people present to watch SC

    Like

    Reply

    1. No way the USC game is first. If the UCLA-UA game is first the arena will be empty as Rams Fans head for the exits before the second game. Only the peanut vendors will be there to watch our midget coach.

      Like

      Reply

      2. KAM: Vile antisemitic and racist Board Pest Board Cancer Cowardly Gabby aka Sparrow Calypso aka TebowObama aka Charlie Bucket the UCLA Fan aka The Guy who posts as Buddhakarma & So Cal’s Wife & Michael Guarino & Trojan RJJ & LawyerJohn & Pudly & Plow Horse and TrojanFan 1-3 & steveg49 & DOJ & Scott Wolf and Frank Young and KATHY and Foreskin Thoughts and SCOTTLOVESTHEROOOOOTTÞ and Manureman and eric  and Smacky is recycling her obscene rants from 2023 now.

        DON: Yes she is truly insane.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Gabby

        June 26, 2025 at 6:56 pm

        I have issues between the ears and suffer from:

        Gabby Derangeent Syndrome – GDS

        Biden Derangement Syndrome – BDS

        Riley Derangement Syndrome – RDS

        Harris Derangement Syndrome – HDS

        Democrat Derangement Syndrome – DDS

        Political Derangement Syndrome – PDS

        Gaslight Derangement Syndrome – GLDS

        Confirmation Bias Derangement Syndrome -CBDS

        I’m sure there is more that has not yet been discovered!

        Like

      4. KAM: Plow Horse has diagnosed your malady, Vile antisemitic and racist Board Pest Board Cancer Cowardly Gabby aka Sparrow Calypso aka TebowObama aka Charlie Bucket the UCLA Fan aka The Guy who posts as Buddhakarma & So Cal’s Wife & Michael Guarino & Trojan RJJ & LawyerJohn & Pudly & Plow Horse and TrojanFan 1-3 & steveg49 & DOJ & Scott Wolf and Frank Young and KATHY and Foreskin Thoughts and SCOTTLOVESTHEROOOOOTTÞ and Manureman and eric  and Smacky:

        Plow Horse

        July 8, 2025 at 8:28 pm

        Your right MG. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is characterized by attention seeking. Cowardly Gabby loves the back and forth because it puts her at the center of attention.

        DON: She is hyped on fentanyl now.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. …You have to love his garbled, “hurry! pull the finger!”…

        #Oh, Nooooo

        #[PCP,SuchANastyDrug]

        Like

  3. Sometimes Riley reminds me of Irving the Gunfighter on the old Doctor Demento show. He was the 142nd fastest gun in the West.

    “Irving knew that 141 was faster than he so Irving went after 143.”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. Rumor has it that ‘THE-4′ are constantly assigning “likes” to each others’ comments because they are all MAGAs

    OK, now I am finished for the day

    Like

    Reply

      1. Look! Sybil spelled every word correctly!

        #”YouAnsweredEveryQuestion,Joe!”

        —Jill Biden [on purple haze cured in hash]

        Like

      3. Thank you, So Cal…

        #[LooksLikeOurOwn”Joe”Didn’t”AnswerAllTheQuestions”AfterAll]

        Like

    2. KAM: Notice Cowardly Sparrow Gabby refuses to say a peep about these truly awful posts like this:

      Gabby:

      July 8, 2025 at 8:14 pm

      MG NEEDS A GOOD/ASS/WHIPPING. THE F U C KING IDIOT TWISTED A NUT AND GOT HIS SAD/ASS KNOCKED OUT BY HIS OWN HEAVY BAG….. SPENT TIME IN THE HOSPITAL…… LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      DON: There is your proof Cowardly Gabby is impersonating the old Sparrow Calypso poster who left in a huff months ago.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. KAM: Why does vile antisemitic and racist Board Pest Board Cancer Cowardly Gabby aka Sparrow Calypso aka TebowObama aka Charlie Bucket the UCLA Fan aka The Guy who posts as Buddhakarma & So Cal’s Wife & Michael Guarino & Trojan RJJ & LawyerJohn & Pudly & Plow Horse and TrojanFan 1-3 & steveg49 & DOJ & Scott Wolf and Frank Young and KATHY and Foreskin Thoughts and SCOTTLOVESTHEROOOOOTTÞ and Manureman and eric  and Smacky always threaten violence and then chicken out?

        Plow Horse
        JULY 24, 2023 AT 9:33 PM
        Unfortunately Chickens%$# Gabby, there is nothing righteous about you.

        Your a gutless, lying punk, that hurls insults on the handicapped, the homeless, or bloggers’ wives, mothers and daughters and then scurries away like a scared little mouse. You belong on the Biden/Harris re-election committee. You will find kindred spirits there. Go and leave the Inside USC blog alone.

        DON: Yes she is The Coward of the County!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. KAM:

    🚨

    BREAKING – VICTORY: The US Supreme Court GREENLIGHTS President Trump’s major federal workforce cuts in 19 departments 8-1

    DON: OMG: Now a LIBERAL Supreme Court justice is trying to teach Senile Joe appointee Justice Ketanji Jackson how this whole “judicial” thing works… Jackson is the ONLY dissent. Sotomayor has to remind Jackson, for some reason, that the case before them is NOT about what Jackson thought it was. My gosh. “The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” “The relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.'” BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Ketanji Jackson is the ultimate DEI hire. She had no business being a candidate for the Supreme Court. But Rep. Clyburn who promised Biden the Black Southern vote on the Super Tuesday primary after Biden was defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire had some conditions – a Black female Vice President and a Black female Supreme Court Justice. The corrupt Joe Biden was happy to sign on and we got Kamala Harris, an incompetent Vice President and Ketanji Jackson, an incompetent Supreme Court Justice. Thankfully, Harris is gone but Jackson will remain for decades. She holds one of the most influential positions in the country and has no idea what she is doing but at least she is a Black woman and that is enough for some people. Her dissent in Trump vs. Casa is so misguided that even Sotomayor and Kagen could not sign on to it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. As long as Trump keeps his promise to Justice Roberts to conceal the Epstein client list, ALL Supreme Court decisions will go Trump’s way….

        #”YouScratchMyBack&I’llScratchYours”

        Like

      3. Jackson won the National Catholic Forensic League debate. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, was editor of the law review at Harvard Harvard Law School, clerked for Justice Breyer, tried cases as an assistant public defender, clerked for Judge Selya in the Court of Appeal, clerked for Judge Saris in the district court, was an appellate specialist at Morrison & Forester. Her qualifications match or exceed those of the other justices. You might not agree with her judicial opinions, but she is eminently qualified to sit on the court.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. She graduated from Harvard… clerked for Breyer, tried cases as a public defender….

        #Exactly…..

        #StopBeingDuped24/7—She’sAnIdiot….

        #[…WhoHadToBeToldByMajority…

        #…”ToFollowTheLast200YearsOfLaw”]…

        Like

      6. She actually put down the majority opinion by calling it “legalese.” What an extraordinarily dumb admission. “Legalese” is what Justices do — she admitted she’s going in “a different direction.”

        #….DifferentFromAngloSaxonLaw?

        Liked by 1 person

      10. RA: Nobody who has truly practiced law is overly impressed with Jackson’s academic background. “The road to perdition is paved with ivy league degrees.” The issue is whether she truly understands the law, and whether she will apply it faithfully commensurate with her office with respect to the issues at hand. In the case of Justice Jackson, the answer is no. She has an agenda – to do what is right for society based on her own values and experience. She will not just apply the laws faithfully as written. That is not the role of a Supreme Court justice. It may be the role of the legislative branch. Jackson had a history of doing her own thing on the DC Appellate Court, was frequently overturned because she did not follow the law, and that alone should have disqualified her. Justice Amy Coney Barret emphasized Justice Jackson’ s error in failing to follow the law in her opinion in the Trump vs. Cava case which held that a single Federal District Court could not issue a nationwide injunction thereby thwarting the policies of the Trump administration.

        Jackson’s opinion “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”

        Who is this Judge on the highest court who thinks she can ignore 200 years of statutory and decisional law and implement her own notions of what is right and wrong. She is a threat to the core elements of the Constitution that set forth a balance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. She also violated her oath of office as a Supreme Court Justice. If the Democrats get their way, they will install more Judges like Jackson and eventually the will of the electorate or laws enacted by Congress will be meaningless. Federal District Judges will determine issues such as immigration policy. This is a very scary proposition.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. “The issue is whether she truly understands the law.”

        How could someone who doesn’t know what a woman is, understand something as complex as the law?

        Liked by 1 person

      12. A great trial attorney, Gert Hershberg, told me before my first trial [which happened to be against a Yale guy], “In a fight between a swamp fox and an Ivy Leaguer, the swamp fox always wins.”

        #Yep.

        Like

      13. Gert was right. I did primarily civil law. Loved it when big companies who I sued hired big law firms with lawyers with ivy league degrees. They would pound me with pre-trial discovery, multiple depositions, many of them unnecessary, motions, ect. but I knew that if I could withstand that barrage they would generally fold and give me a nice pay day. Much more than I would have originally settled for. And most of them had no interest in actually trying a case before a jury. I also questioned their ability to do it. Very talented hard working people but no street smarts. You need street smarts.

        Liked by 1 person

      14. They don’t like going to jury trial cuz (1) they don’t know or understand the values of the communities they live in (2) don’t want to interact with live people in jury selection and (3) since they talk like Ra writes, they know nobody’s gonna listen.

        Like

  6. KAM: California has just REJECTED the Trump Administration’s resolution agreement to follow federal law and keep men out of women’s sports.

    DON: Turns out Democratic California Gov. Mimbo’s acknowledgment that ‘it’s an issue of fairness’ was empty political grandstanding.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I fail to see how graduating from Harvard with honors, clerking for Breyer, who Republicans supported, and trying cases makes her an “idiot.” If Harvard makes her an idiot, the Scalia, Gorsuch, and Roberts must join her since they too went to Harvard.

      You misconstrue how she used “legalese” in her dissent. She was making the point the majority’s dense description of the issue obscured what the case should have addressed. The Oxford dictionary describes legalese as formal or technical legal language that is often hard to understand. The Cambridge dictionary says its legal words that “people find hard to understand.” Jackson quotes the majority’s passage she describes as legalese. Tell me if you think she has a point. Here is the quote: ” Are universal injunctions “sufficiently analogous to the relief issued by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act to fall within the equitable authority Congress granted federal courts in the judiciary Act of 1789?”

      Like

      Reply

      2. RA, do we have to explain to you what Affirmative Action is, and how it advances unqualified people on the basis of ethnicity? Kenjanji is the DEI Poster Girl, advanced way beyond her area of expertise in the name of Social Justice. She should be working at a McDonalds. Now she embarrasses herself daily with here stupidity and is an example of why DEI must be ended.

        Like

  7. Plow Horse, I agree an Ivy League education doesn’t necessarily mean someone will be a good justice. But her academic background is the equal of or surpasses those of other justices. If you mean to say you are not impressed with her legal analysis then that’s fine. But the notion she has an agenda is another way of saying she has a judicial philosophy you don’t agree with. But the same can be said for the Republican appointees. They too have an agenda that conveniently coincides with Republican policies.

    You suggest she didn’t follow the law in the Trump v Casa case. But nationwide injunctions have been issued for the last 100 years. The conservative court had no problem with these injunctions when the 5th Circuit was overturning Biden executive orders and other legislation. Suddenly the court grows concerned when the tables are turned and President Trump’s orders are stayed. Now, after the practice has been in place for the past century, the court now discovers it doesn’t pass muster.

    A cynic might conclude the court follows the originalist analysis only when it will lead to a desired result, but abandon it if it doesn’t yield the desired outcome. That is the only way to explain the court’s decision in granting a president presumptive immunity from prosecution. The simply is no basis from an originalist viewpoint to get that result.

    Like

    Reply

    1.  “Suddenly the court grows concerned when the tables are turned and President Trump’s orders are stayed.” A cynic would say RA supports the legal resistance movement organized after the Kamala loss last November by various left-leaning legal groups that engage in judge shopping to get anti-Trump decisions out of friendly district jurists. 

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. RA says “. . . But the notion she has an agenda is another way of saying she has a judicial philosophy you don’t agree with.”

    No. A Judge is not allowed to ignore the Constitution and 200 years of judicial precedence. That was Justice Barret’s point. Justice Jackson is obligated by her office to follow the established law. The “judicial philosophy” smokescreen is an invention by those who want to unconstitutionally expand the role of the judiciary. Is it too much to ask a judge to follow the law!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Plow,

      Like a lot of other progressives, RA has a psychological need for a weak president…. he’s for anything that interferes with a strong Commander In Chief……hence his defense of renegade federal jurists….

      Deep down he wants another weak, meandering president like Joe who dishonors the presidency….

      #ItDidn’tServeTheCountryThen,ItWon’tWorkNow…

      #[&WeCan’tAffordItEverAgain]

      Like

      Reply

  9. Gabby, the “legal resistance movement” is how the system is set up. Republicans did the same when they filed numerous challenges to Obama and Biden orders or laws passed by a Democratic Congress. Courts then make the call. We have prospered over the years because officials and the public follow the decisions of the court., even when the losers disagree with the court’s decision.

    Like

    Reply

  10. Gabby, saying she is a DEI appointment is to merely repeat talking points you’ve heard from others. Defend your argument with facts. Specifically, how is she unqualified? Saying “She should be working at MacDonalds” is not an argument.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Michael, it’s not me that wants a weak executive. The drafters of the Constitution deliberately limited the powers of the executive branch.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Plow Horse, I don’t disagree. The scope of judicial review has always been subject to debate, especially since the Lochner era.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment