The general USC debate thread (merged)

#401
#401
They can't win the conference every year for a decade. Given Oregon's off-season troubles, the path looks clear for the Trojans to make another Rose Bowl run and possibly a run at the title. They may need a bit of help, though, this is the first season in a long time without a marquee non-conference matchup.
 
#402
#402
milohimself said:
They can't win the conference every year for a decade. Given Oregon's off-season troubles, the path looks clear for the Trojans to make another Rose Bowl run and possibly a run at the title. They may need a bit of help, though, this is the first season in a long time without a marquee non-conference matchup.
Click to expand...
Their success has been great, but there's really no doubt they've had far less competition than our rivals who are at the top at the moment.
 
#403
#403
They have. Rose Bowl wins, big-time non-conf wins on a near-annual basis and two national titles in a decade speaks for itself. Even stretches of greatness by programs like Miami and Nebraska had the occasional 8-ish win "off year."
 
#404
#404
milohimself said:
They have. Rose Bowl wins, big-time non-conf wins on a near-annual basis and two national titles in a decade speaks for itself. Even stretches of greatness by programs like Miami and Nebraska had the occasional 8-ish win "off year."
Click to expand...
I'll admit they've been great, but it's no secret that the vast majority of their bowl blowouts have been against overrated Big 10 competition. They aren't the premier program right now, although I'd probably have them 3. If you're referring to the last few years, I'd have Florida in front of them.
 
#405
#405
Over the last few? Sure. Over the last decade? Florida had Zook for some of those years. :p

And they can only play who's on the schedule. As somebody pointed out, they did play some decent SEC competition and won those games. Beat Auburn two years in a row who went on to go a respectable 5-3 in SEC play both years, then VaTech in '04 who went on to win the ACC, then pummeled the hell out of Arkansas in '05 then again in '06 when they won the SEC West. Sure, they got Illinois in the Rose Bowl one year. But CPC also got marquee names on the non-con schedule nearly every year and won, in addition to taking home the conference title and BCS win. The one year they didn't happened to be at the hands of one of the greatest individual performances in the history of the game.

I have a feeling they will continue right on course under Kiffin. It might be different if Chip Kelly can right the ship at Oregon, but it looks like he's going to run things a little too fast and loose. USC, on the other hand, can keep the talent rolling in (you all know damn well that CLK will keep the talent rolling in) and be at the top. Their worst case scenario is that Monte's old bones finally retires and they're not that great at X's and O's. They'll still be out-talenting their way to at least shares of the conference title and usual Rose Bowl berths much more often than not.
 
#406
#406
if they did lose 20-21 scholarships, wouldn't that be spread out among the football and basketball programs? If that is the case it may be a 2-3 year probation which makes it more believable to me than a 5 year probationary period. At least if I am understanding some posters that imply the number of scholarships lost is directly proportional to the amount of time on probation.
 
#407
#407
USC only has one national title in this decade, and the other belongs to LSU. USC won a lot of games and BCS games but only one national championship.
 
#409
#409
tmac5469 said:
USC only has one national title in this decade, and the other belongs to LSU. USC won a lot of games and BCS games but only one national championship.
Click to expand...

They actually have 2. One is just the AP. You can't knock them for the BCS being a horrible system.
 
#411
#411
Indications are just going to be vacated wins and self imposed restrictions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#412
#412
droski said:
that team would have destroyed LSU
Click to expand...
LSU got to play a de facto home game against a team with a one legged QB that year in the BCS title game and still only won by a touchdown. The computers saved their asses. Anyone with an IQ above 30 who saw either of those teams has no doubt who was better.
 
#414
#414
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title. Maybe the computers messed up and maybe USC would have beat them, but facts are facts.
 
#415
#415
tmac5469 said:
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title. Maybe the computers messed up and maybe USC would have beat them, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...

there's not a school in the country who wouldn't claim a NC awarded by the AP.
 
#416
#416
tmac5469 said:
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares what you would have claimed. Every program in America would gladly take an AP national title.
 
#417
#417
tmac5469 said:
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title. Maybe the computers messed up and maybe USC would have beat them, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...
The AP title has been around a Hell of a lot longer than the BCStupid. That's what's called a fact. Your babbling about "real national titles" can best be defined as opinion.
 
#418
#418
tmac5469 said:
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title. Maybe the computers messed up and maybe USC would have beat them, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make yourself look stupid?
 
#419
#419
AP Titles meant something prior to the BCS era, but if you're a member of a BCS conference, you sort of have to agree with whomever they determine to be champion. Yeah, it is a stupid system, and I want it to be fixed more than anyone, but you cannot say "We support this system, we'll take the money from it" when it suits you, and then recognize another system when the BCS doesn't suit you. That's the Alabama way of doing things. Apparently USC and Alabama have more in common than just cheating.

If USC doesn't like the BCS system, then they should work to fix it.
 
#420
#420
tmac5469 said:
I would not have even claimed that AP national title and it doesn't matter how how you put it they really only have one national title. Maybe the computers messed up and maybe USC would have beat them, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...

you would not only have claimed it, but would probably have claimed the 2 other titles SC didn't win because they got screwed by the bcs.
 
#421
#421
TNvol86 said:
AP Titles meant something prior to the BCS era, but if you're a member of a BCS conference, you sort of have to agree with whomever they determine to be champion. Yeah, it is a stupid system, and I want it to be fixed more than anyone, but you cannot say "We support this system, we'll take the money from it" when it suits you, and then recognize another system when the BCS doesn't suit you. That's the Alabama way of doing things. Apparently USC and Alabama have more in common than just cheating.

If USC doesn't like the BCS system, then they should work to fix it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely ridiculous. Schools can claim titles from whatever source they want, they just choose to be a part of the BCS for money. If you don't think that every team in America (including Tennessee) wouldn't claim an AP poll as a national championship season, you're high.

Virtually every single credible college football statistical database and analyst accepts the winner of the AP poll as legitimate national champions. The BCSuck completely failed in its mission to eliminate the split national title.
 
#422
#422
TNvol86 said:
AP Titles meant something prior to the BCS era, but if you're a member of a BCS conference, you sort of have to agree with whomever they determine to be champion. Yeah, it is a stupid system, and I want it to be fixed more than anyone, but you cannot say "We support this system, we'll take the money from it" when it suits you, and then recognize another system when the BCS doesn't suit you. That's the Alabama way of doing things. Apparently USC and Alabama have more in common than just cheating.

If USC doesn't like the BCS system, then they should work to fix it.
Click to expand...

[face_palm]

I think Milo pretty much covered what I was going to say.
 
#424
#424
I completely understand why USC would claim a title for 2003. I also understand why Auburn would claim one for 2004. I really could understand why any undefeated team would claim one, since our system is broken and they weren't even given a chance to prove themselves. And really, if someone is willing to call you a National Champion, you take it.

But LSU was the real 2003 champion, and they won it on the field... not on ballot.
 
#425
#425
TNvol86 said:
I completely understand why USC would claim a title for 2003. I also understand why Auburn would claim one for 2004. I really could understand why any undefeated team would claim one, since our system is broken and they weren't even given a chance to prove themselves. And really, if someone is willing to call you a National Champion, you take it.

But LSU was the real 2003 champion, and they won it on the field... not on ballot.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

I'm assuming you have no idea as to why USC got left out of the title game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top