T Nation

USC's Third In a Row?


What the hell?

Why is it that every time I turn on a sports radio show, I hear about USC's chances of a third consecutive national championship this year? I thought a necessary condition for a third title was a second title, which they do not have. Yes, two years ago, the AP poll ranked USC no. 1, however, that is not the national title. I will even go as far to say that I believe USC may have even had a better team than LSU. However, according to the rules, LSU wins the title.

Observe the gentleman in the picture. Who is holding up the crystal football? Not Pete Carroll.



I know what you mean, but technically, they were co-national champions with Southern Cal. Other than that, i'm not sure. We'll see what happens this year.


Last year it was Auburn and USC. USC won and got the votes in the poll but Auburn went undefeated also with a tough schedule. It seems like there was less controversy in the old days(excepth the CU Georgia Tech year, that was gay) which is funny. I'd like to see only one team go undefeated and tear up everyone else. No controversy. I would like that team to be Colorado.


Says who? The AP poll has been used since 1936 to help determine the national champion. And has created a co-champion many years.

Only according to "BCS rules".

Look, I see what you're saying(kind of). LSU won the BCS title, which is supposed to be what the NCAA recognizes as the national champion. But the BCS is very flawed. USC won the AP poll and may very well have won the coaches poll, too, had they not been forced to select LSU. That makes them co-champions. They won a(share of the) championship that year, that makes this year a shot at their third in a row.

We need a playoff system,


It's USC again, just admit it and drink your Hater-ade.

Fight On!

-Xen "Trojan" Nova


Where did the trophy go that year? Baton Rouge.

The AP poll isn't even used anymore. And, also, it was only one componet of determining the BCS rankings, which I will agree are flawed, but rule was, that BCS no.1 and BCS no.2 would square off in the national title game, which LSU won.

Whether the BCS is right or wrong is not the dispute. I am not saying that the BCS is a good system. I am saying according to the rules, LSU won the national title game.


LSU won that year. Deal with it.


Now that Norm Chow has moved on, I predict that USC will fall back to being mediocre (9-3 or 8-4) within 2 years. Pete Carroll didn't do shit before Norm Chow arrived, and he never gave credit to the man who turned it around.




USC is in the sorriest football conference in D-1. Put them in the SEC and they'd have at least 2 losses.

Put them in the Big 12, and they would be struggleing just to get bowl eligible.

But you don't hear that from the media clowns.



Utah was undefeated last year also. And Utah could have whipped Auburn.


USC should've played LSU for the NC in '03. That's two straight years that OU played for the NC and clearly wasn't a worthy NC opponent. LSU may have the crystall football for the '04 season, but the fact is, they were CO-champs. I could care less if USC or the media uses the "threepeat" line. They took care of their business on the field. It's the flawed postseason system that you should be bitching at, not the Trojans.

As far as the SEC goes, they're probably the best conference top-to-bottom, but they also blatantly violate more NCAA rules than any other conference in America and still get away with it because CFB is and probably always will be a good 'ol boy's sport when you get right down to it. IMO, USC was still the best team in America last year by a wide margin and would've brought home the hardware regardless of which conference they played in.


I seriously doubt they'd whoop Auburn, but it would've been a more competitive game than what my Panthers gave you guys. That's for sure. Good riddance to Walt "I refuse to hire a competent OL coach or establish a running game" Harris.


C'mon. You know that's not true. Is it the toughest, no, but it's far fromm the sorriest.

But they're not in the SEC, and that's just they way it is. Some conferences have strong years and some don't. And 2 losses? Auburn, ok, but who's the other loss?

USC man-handled OU, so I don't really think they would have struggled to get bowl-eligible. You realize that would be 6 losses. There are six teams in the Big 12 that could have beaten last year's USC? I'm sorry I don't see that. Look, I agree, they probably wouldn't have gone undefeated, but let's not exaggerate too much.

The media always hypes champions and big name schools. That's they way it is. The Big 12 gets plenty of hype with OU and Texas. And, shit, I still have to hear about Nebraska. Tom Osbourne's been gone for 8 years.

Ron Dayne was the greatest back ever,


The whole USC is in a weaker conference doesn't stand up. Oklahoma is in the Big 12. They went through the Big 12 undefeated, and got CRUSHED by USC. I hate USC, but they were still the best team in the country regardless of conference. 55-19 shows clear dominance by one team, obviously the better team. Better teams win games, regardless of conference. Texas should be good this year though, Vince young is a stud (thrown in so as to limit rainjack's wrath).


Should be interesting to see how Young does without Benson in the backfield, a young and inexperienced (as far as starting is concerned) WR corps and a retooled OL. His passing is suspect, but he's a helluva runner and has all the tools to be a championship caliber QB. They just need to get that albatross known as OU off their neck for a change.


As far as worst conferences in D1-A FB goes, I'd say that the Sun Belt conference holds that title. I think the 1-AA CAA (Colonial Athletic Association) is a better conference. With regards to the 6 BCS conferences, unfortunately I'll have to admit that it's the Big East. While I don't think the BE is nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be and will probably become a solid conference again once the split from the bball schools happens in 5 years, they are definitely the weakest of the BCS conferences. Here's how I'd rank the BCS conferences:

  1. SEC
  2. Big 12 (the North division needs to pick it up bigtime)
  3. ACC
  4. Big Ten/Eleven
  5. Pac 10
  6. Big East


My post was just the opinion offered up by an admitedly biased Big-12 fan.

Now - for what it's worth - I was rooting for USC to beat the Sooners, or The University of Texas at Norman as they are known around here.

But I think from top to bottom - the Big-12 has the toughest conference schedule of any major conference in the country. Especially the Big-12 South. YOu are playing 2 top five teams, and usually 4 top 25 teams in your conference schedule.

On another note - the BCS is a crock. There will be these same partisan arguments made every year until there is a playoff system.


Here's to a 16 team playoff, but that is another thread.


Honestly, I think that this Texas team will live up to the hype, but Vince Young will not. He was not talked about nearly as much before the Rose Bowl, where he ran all over UM...but then again, UM is terrible with mobile QB's. Troy Smith and Drew Stanton did the same thing.

However, I think the Longhorns running game will suprise a lot of people. Their offensive line is amazing. I think their defense is very underrated too.

Of course the big Texas game I'll be watching is when they come to the 'Shoe. I'm so pissed I can't be there. Damn out of state job.