PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's Top 25 teams of the Past Decade


Turtlepower
07-27-2007, 01:05 PM
With college football season almost upon us, ESPN has decided to rank every D1-A team in the past decade. I personally agree with USC being the number 1 team on the list, but I think Notre Dame is too high at 23. If a team is going to be on the list for best in the past decade, it has to beat the best and they are 0-7 in bowl games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2947988

princefielder28
07-27-2007, 01:06 PM
Good to see the Badgers at a tie for 13th

Moses
07-27-2007, 01:08 PM
If you asked me this 5 years ago Miami would be the clearcut #1. How things change. :(

draftguru151
07-27-2007, 01:28 PM
If you asked me this 5 years ago Miami would be the clearcut #1. How things change. :(

It's kinda funny that only 3 of the 7 teams in front of Miami have a better
winning %, and none have as good of a bowl record. They're also a play away from having the most NC. Even with their recent struggled I don't see why they're at 8.

Moses
07-27-2007, 01:36 PM
It's kinda funny that only 3 of the 7 teams in front of Miami have a better
winning %, and none have as good of a bowl record. They're also a play away from having the most NC. Even with their recent struggled I don't see why they're at 8.

Well they did go downhill pretty fast. That said, they had arguably the best team to ever play NCAA football.

iloxygenil
07-27-2007, 02:13 PM
FSU and Miami got the shaft in this, but it's typical to clown on the ACC. The thing I noticed they didn't take into account is the # of pros put out in the first round or otherwise.

Also, this isn't who's NOW, that's the problem with this list that I see, it reflects what have you done for me lately and the more current years are weighted more than the years at the beginning of the decade. Just because USC has come on strong now, and is incredible, they still have 1.5 National Titles and in a weaker conference have less conf titles than FSU too...

Turtlepower
07-27-2007, 02:58 PM
FSU and Miami got the shaft in this, but it's typical to clown on the ACC. The thing I noticed they didn't take into account is the # of pros put out in the first round or otherwise.

Also, this isn't who's NOW, that's the problem with this list that I see, it reflects what have you done for me lately and the more current years are weighted more than the years at the beginning of the decade. Just because USC has come on strong now, and is incredible, they still have 1.5 National Titles and in a weaker conference have less conf titles than FSU too...

And you can make the exact opposite comparison for Miami and Florida St. What have they done recently. The fact of the matter is that five years ago, those two teams could be number one and number two and I wouldn't mind, but it isn't. In the past five years, USC has done much more than FSU and Miami did at the beginning of the decade to merit the number one spot. With that being said, I still believe that Miami has had some of the best teams in the past decade and should be #2 or #3, but USC is the team of the decade.

Moses
07-27-2007, 03:01 PM
And you can make the exact opposite comparison for Miami and Florida St. What have they done recently. The fact of the matter is that five years ago, those two teams could be number one and number two and I wouldn't mind, but it isn't. In the past five years, USC has done much more than FSU and Miami did at the beginning of the decade to merit the number one spot. With that being said, I still believe that Miami has had some of the best teams in the past decade and should be #2 or #3, but USC is the team of the decade.

Miami had perhaps the best team in college football history. I think that warrants some consideration in this debate.

VY10
07-27-2007, 03:06 PM
I don't think ND deserves to be on there.... they haven't won a bowl game....

VY10
07-27-2007, 03:09 PM
To all of you guys.... FSU and Miami did not get shafted. They are right where they belong. Yes they were great but in the past years they have fallen some what though they are on the rise. They had their moments but have not been the most consistent team.

Texas is ranked too high I think. They lost to OU for so many years in a row....and they even choked this year and again didn't win the Big 12 when they should have.

OhioState
07-27-2007, 03:10 PM
i am personally pretty happy with number two. also the SEC and Big 10 both have five teams, tied for the most.

draftguru151
07-27-2007, 03:21 PM
To all of you guys.... FSU and Miami did not get shafted. They are right where they belong. Yes they were great but in the past years they have fallen some what though they are on the rise. They had their moments but have not been the most consistent team.

1997 - 6-5
1998 - 8-5
1999 - 6-6
2000 - 5-7
2001 - 6-6

Wanna guess which team had those records?

neko4
07-27-2007, 04:13 PM
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11432
Already posted

Jericho@SC
07-27-2007, 04:13 PM
I would love to have seen the 2002 Carson Palmer led Trojans play the Canes instead of OSU.

Not saying they would have won, but by the end of that season USC could have played and beaten anyone that year. Plus they still had Norm Chow.

georgiafan
07-28-2007, 08:11 PM
USC only has 1 BCS championship not 2

BamaFalcon59
07-28-2007, 09:46 PM
Appropriate spot for VaTech..

duckseason
07-28-2007, 09:52 PM
USC only has 1 BCS championship not 2

You're right. That game against LSU was never played for some odd reason...

LSUALUM99
07-28-2007, 11:25 PM
I get so utterly tired of the 'USC has 2 national championships' BullSh*t. They have Exactly ONE championship. LSU whipped OU, who before the KState game knew that no matter what the outcome they were going to the national title game so they tanked it, get over it. Prior to that game many people were saying OU was the best team EVER to play college football. LSU manhandled them the whole game.

LSU would have destroyed USC, OU would have destroyed them. USC's defense that year wasn't even ranked in the top 25!!! USC was a benefactor of a pushover schedule (hence the reason their strength of schedule is what kept them out of title contention at the end).

duckseason
07-28-2007, 11:49 PM
I get so utterly tired of the 'USC has 2 national championships' BullSh*t. They have Exactly ONE championship. LSU whipped OU, who before the KState game knew that no matter what the outcome they were going to the national title game so they tanked it, get over it. Prior to that game many people were saying OU was the best team EVER to play college football. LSU manhandled them the whole game.

LSU would have destroyed USC, OU would have destroyed them. USC's defense that year wasn't even ranked in the top 25!!! USC was a benefactor of a pushover schedule (hence the reason their strength of schedule is what kept them out of title contention at the end).

Wow. I wouldn't expect such a ridiculous post from such an intelligent guy. LSU would have destroyed SC? Ok. So why do we even play the games then? Let's just look at the spreads and declare the favorite as the winner. And I'm not so sure LSU would have been favored anyway. There were a ton of people who felt that SC was the best team in the country that year. It would be ridiculous for me to sit here and say either team "would have destroyed" the other. I just wanted to see the 2 best teams battle it out. We've missed out on that far too many times throughout CFB history. LSU was beastly as hell, and so was SC. I don't think either team would have "destroyed" the other. I think it would have been a great game.

mqtirishfan
07-28-2007, 11:59 PM
*yawn* People are complaining about ND being all but an afterthought on a useless list. All lists like this are a joke.

HoopsDemon12
07-29-2007, 12:00 AM
I had no idea boise state has been doing that good.... wow eye opening

duckseason
07-29-2007, 12:04 AM
*yawn* People are complaining about ND being all but an afterthought on a useless list. All lists like this are a joke.

Yeah, I agree. Much like ND's bowl record going back to '95. Actually, the list isn't terrible other than the fact that they felt the need to squeeze the Irish in there.

doingthisinsteadofwork
07-29-2007, 12:56 AM
FSU should be ahead of OSU.More conference titles more bowl games.

draftguru151
07-29-2007, 01:18 AM
1997 - 6-5
1998 - 8-5
1999 - 6-6
2000 - 5-7
2001 - 6-6

Wanna guess which team had those records?

Well since no one wants to respond, that is the record for USC before they began their dominance. That's 4 seasons of 6 wins or less. Anyone know how many Miami had? 1, and that was in 1997. So how is Miami not consistent?

keylime_5
07-29-2007, 11:58 AM
Pretty good list, I'm suprised ESPN didn't make a really sorry one.
It's funny that next to Notre Dame it says "0".
And also you could probably argue Miami or Ohio State instead of USC (whose 2 nat'l titles were won, one of them playing Michigan and not in the BCS NC game, and the other against Oklahoma when they should've played Auburn. Really they have 1.5, but college is a mythical NC anyways, oh well).

BamaFalcon59
07-29-2007, 12:05 PM
Wow on the USC seasons with low wins. So what is their winning % since the 2001 season ended??

Sniper
07-29-2007, 12:35 PM
I get so utterly tired of the 'USC has 2 national championships' BullSh*t. They have Exactly ONE championship. LSU whipped OU, who before the KState game knew that no matter what the outcome they were going to the national title game so they tanked it, get over it. Prior to that game many people were saying OU was the best team EVER to play college football. LSU manhandled them the whole game.

LSU would have destroyed USC, OU would have destroyed them. USC's defense that year wasn't even ranked in the top 25!!! USC was a benefactor of a pushover schedule (hence the reason their strength of schedule is what kept them out of title contention at the end).

Yawn more LSU fans crying about USC. Stunning. Get over it man. USC had a nasty team, a team who had the majority of their players return the next season and throttle Oklahoma. You only beat OU by a touchdown, calm the hell down. No one would have destroyed USC, unless we go by your previous assessment that winning by one touchdown is manhandling a team. USC's team was sick and it would have been a great game with LSU. You guys split a national title, get over it. You got the crystal ball, they got the people's vote. So 1.5 NC it is.

draftguru151
07-29-2007, 01:46 PM
Wow on the USC seasons with low wins. So what is their winning % since the 2001 season ended??

.907, which is absolutely ridiculous. The best team of the last 5 years is no debate, last 10 years though, different story. But it doesn't really matter because the way that list was done was pretty much the last 5 years and more of now than in the past.

LSUALUM99
07-29-2007, 02:00 PM
Wow. I wouldn't expect such a ridiculous post from such an intelligent guy. LSU would have destroyed SC? Ok. So why do we even play the games then? Let's just look at the spreads and declare the favorite as the winner. And I'm not so sure LSU would have been favored anyway. There were a ton of people who felt that SC was the best team in the country that year. It would be ridiculous for me to sit here and say either team "would have destroyed" the other. I just wanted to see the 2 best teams battle it out. We've missed out on that far too many times throughout CFB history. LSU was beastly as hell, and so was SC. I don't think either team would have "destroyed" the other. I think it would have been a great game.

Here's the reason I hold this opinion.

The Pac-10 is a an offense first, defense second league. It's all flash. It's all about the WR, QB, and RB in that league. Until the Pac-10 pushes towards a defensive style of football it won't be a premier league. The stats are there for their own games but when it comes down to Bowl Appearances against SEC, ACC or even to some extent Big-12 teams they won't win consistantly.

I have held the opinion that the ACC is underrated, the Big 10 is overrated and the Pac-10 is generally way overrated.

I do think that SC would have been destroyed by either OU or LSU that year. During the following year SC played a much better defense game and were a more well rounded team.

As to Sniper. LSU won the game by one touchdown. However, if you had watched the game or even looked at the stat lines you'd realize that LSU dominated in every fashion of the game and during the 4th quarter, while leading, 21-7 they played extremely conservatively. OU scored toward the end of the game in a meaningless "thank god I don't bet on the spreads" garbage touchdown. Anyone who ever points to a score to say it was close without having watched the game should rethink their 'expert eyes' label.

draftguru151
07-29-2007, 02:15 PM
LSU definitely dominated the entire game, completely owning Jason White, but it still wasn't a ridiculous game where you can say LSU definitely would have blown out USC. They dominated OU and won by a touchdown, I don't see how they would have blown out USC.

rainbeaukid2
07-29-2007, 05:17 PM
Well since no one wants to respond, that is the record for USC before they began their dominance. That's 4 seasons of 6 wins or less. Anyone know how many Miami had? 1, and that was in 1997. So how is Miami not consistent?

ya, that i was thinking that before pete carroll came to usc, they went 35-35 and then once he came they went 50-0

duckseason
07-29-2007, 05:22 PM
Here's the reason I hold this opinion.

The Pac-10 is a an offense first, defense second league. It's all flash. It's all about the WR, QB, and RB in that league. Until the Pac-10 pushes towards a defensive style of football it won't be a premier league. The stats are there for their own games but when it comes down to Bowl Appearances against SEC, ACC or even to some extent Big-12 teams they won't win consistantly.
Really? For every example you can find of a powerhouse beating a Pac-10 school, I can come back with a Pac-10 school beating a powerhouse. And many other regular season examples of Pac 10 legitimacy, such as Oregon State's visit to Death Valley. Remember that middle of the road Pac-10 team coming to your house and making your Tigers look tame? You're perpetuating a myth here. The Pac-10 has always been competitive with the very best the country has to offer. I've cited numerous examples here before, and I can do it again if you'd like. I wouldn't say that our 10 team conference is better than the ACC and SEC, but I would say that we are certainly competitive. I agree the SEC is the class of the country, and I always give them their due respect.

I have held the opinion that the ACC is underrated, the Big 10 is overrated and the Pac-10 is generally way overrated.
Hmm. Interesting. Way overrated? By who? Certainly not the national media. Certainly not the folks in your neighborhood. Who in the world overrates the Pac-10? Pac-10 fans who demand that due respect be given to their conference? You really believe that we don't have some of the best talent in the nation out here? You think kids in Louisiana run faster than kids in California? You think we don't have great coaches out here? How in the heck can the Pac-10 possibly be overrated?

I do think that SC would have been destroyed by either OU or LSU that year. During the following year SC played a much better defense game and were a more well rounded team.
Well, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, but who's defense was it that shutout perennial SEC powerhouse Auburn that year, 23-0? It wasn't an SEC or ACC team that gave SC it's only loss that year, it was another PAC-10 school, Cal. There was good reason for SC being ranked #1 heading into the post season that year. I agree that both OU and LSU had great teams as well, but it will always remain a mystery as to who was truly the better team between LSU and SC. That fact can't be argued. Yeah, LSU handled OU. But that was a pretty sloppy game. Much more sloppy than the SC/Michigan contest. More turnovers and much more penalties in the Sugar Bowl that year (5/2 and 19/5). Also, SC sacked John Navarre 9 times. But hey, that defense was garbage.

As to Sniper. LSU won the game by one touchdown. However, if you had watched the game or even looked at the stat lines you'd realize that LSU dominated in every fashion of the game and during the 4th quarter, while leading, 21-7 they played extremely conservatively. OU scored toward the end of the game in a meaningless "thank god I don't bet on the spreads" garbage touchdown. Anyone who ever points to a score to say it was close without having watched the game should rethink their 'expert eyes' label.
Again, that game was pretty sloppy. And OU's thrashing at the hands of K-State cannot be forgotten or minimized. No way can you sit here and convince anybody that they went out there and threw that game. I watched it. K-State just came out with tons of fire and just wanted it more. They just plain whipped OU's ass. Give them credit, and realize that the team you guys beat in the BCS may not have been as great as people previously thought. Oh, and if OU really did tank that game like you seem to believe, then that's an indictment against their validity as a legitimate power. Doesn't really help your argument.

You want to talk about weak conferences and schedules, take a look at OU's slate that year. You'll never see a PAC-10 team thrash another by 77 points. See, out here anybody can beat anybody with the current exception of Stanford. Look no further than what happened to SC during their PAC-10 calendar last year. Losses to OSU and UCLA reflect the overall depth and strength of this conference. As do close calls against Washington, Washington St., Arizona, Arizona St. and Cal. 7 of 9 conference opponents either beat, or put a legitimate scare into the conference's best team. The bottom line is that your lack of respect for the Pac-10 is unwarranted. You could make a much better case for the Big-11 being vastly overrated. See, for someone to be overrated, they must be rated highly in the first place, and then they must fall short of those lofty expectations. That's something that's never really happened out west.

keylime_5
07-29-2007, 06:07 PM
Margin of victory is a pretty lousy way to compare two different teams. Circumstances as well as the crowd and atmosphere, and matchups most of all make some teams beat other teams by lots more, and others by lots less. It's especially pointless when comparing two teams from 2 different seasons. LSU beat Oklahoma in 2003, an Oklahoma team that was clearly better than the Michigan team that USC beat that year in their own city, a Michigan team coming off a blowout loss to their rival, who was ranked considerably lower :). I think LSU would've beaten SC in 2003 or at least made it really close, SC wasn't as good that year as they were in 04 or 05. And I still think that Auburn with that defense and the trio of Campbell/Williams/Brown would've beaten USC in 2004. That way we'd be talking about SC's 0 NCs instead of their 1.5. But that's all hypothetical, SC is definitely the best team of the last 5 years.

duckseason
07-29-2007, 06:26 PM
Margin of victory is a pretty lousy way to compare two different teams. Circumstances as well as the crowd and atmosphere, and matchups most of all make some teams beat other teams by lots more, and others by lots less. It's especially pointless when comparing two teams from 2 different seasons. LSU beat Oklahoma in 2003, an Oklahoma team that was clearly better than the Michigan team that USC beat that year in their own city, a Michigan team coming off a blowout loss to their rival, who was ranked considerably lower :). I think LSU would've beaten SC in 2003 or at least made it really close, SC wasn't as good that year as they were in 04 or 05. And I still think that Auburn with that defense and the trio of Campbell/Williams/Brown would've beaten USC in 2004. That way we'd be talking about SC's 0 NCs instead of their 1.5. But that's all hypothetical, SC is definitely the best team of the last 5 years.
Not sure what your point is. You didn't really make one. I know I'm not comparing teams from different seasons here. Also, about SC playing the bowl game in their home city, where do you think the Sugar Bowl is played? As for margin of victory, when you have patsies in your conference that are constantly being blown out by the upper tier teams, that exposes weakness. I'm pointing out that this seems to happen much more often in conferences other than the Pac-10. The fact that every single Pac-10 team has either won or tied for the conference championship at least once in the last 14 years speaks volumes about the incredible parity we enjoy out here.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
07-29-2007, 06:52 PM
Well since no one wants to respond, that is the record for USC before they began their dominance. That's 4 seasons of 6 wins or less. Anyone know how many Miami had? 1, and that was in 1997. So how is Miami not consistent?

so thankful that the U has draftguru to post the facts. people are so focused on right now and quickly forget the past. The U, although it may be on a down, that down isn't all that terrible and still does a good job. they deserve higher their rank.

and i must add, the USC has 2 championships makes me sick also. so does their reactions to losing to Vince Young in the other year (leinart more specifically). not a fan of USC

LSUALUM99
07-29-2007, 07:05 PM
Duckseason,

Let me clarify my position on the Pac-10 as you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say (to be fair, I wasn't overly clear either). I believe the Pac-10 is in many ways similar to the Big-12. By that I mean that in any one year 1-2 two teams are good/great. However, the teams that are good/great are typically a function of a couple of standout players versus a very strong program with a philosophy designed to be constitantly great.

In general, teams that rely on star players go from great to average quickly. This is consistant with UCLA or OSU or Oregon or whomever to occasionally have a stellar season. USC up until a few years ago was in that 'rut'. They'd have to wait for a Rodney Peete every few years to be a very good team.

I also think this is why teams like Miami, FSU, tOSU, and Florida are consistantly great teams. They typically have Defense as their backbone (despite the Spurrier offense or the Hurricane RB/QB dujor). I think until the Pac-10 teams adopt the philosphy of defense first they won't be a consistant power house conference.

I stand by the fact that going into the KSU game OU had nothing to gain by winning. They had the BCS championship game locked up before the game even started. I live in Dallas, heart of the Big-12 with way more sooner fans than I'd like to live around. All I hear about daily is OU this and UofT that. Alot of talk around the area was that going into that game that OU was probably going to come out flat.

That all being said. USC has been the best team over the past 5 years. I don't have a problem with that. They also seem to be very concerned with developing a top tier defense and this year they may be better than any of the previous 5 years. But, they do not deserve to get this B.S. 2003 National Championship anymore than Auburn could claim the 2004 National Championship.

draftguru151
07-29-2007, 08:19 PM
Except for the fact that USC won 55-19 and not 21-14 in their NC. Did USC win the BCS championship game? No, but they didn't get the trophy for that, they were voted to as the AP national champions, so if you agree with it or not they did win a national championship.

22,895
07-29-2007, 08:38 PM
Either way no matter how much LSU fans cry we still have two Titles hundreds, thousands, millions of years from now people will say USC and LSU shared that Title like what Nebraska and Michigan did in 1997. As of right now we have 11 National Championships. Not 10.5 or 10 we have 11.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:31 AM
I like this blurb from cfn's SEC preview.

Of all the national champions since Florida State won in 1993 (remember that only the BCS champions count in our new world…sorry USC of 2003), only three finished with a loss. Take a wild stab at which league produced those three; yes, the SEC (1995 Florida, 2003 LSU, and 2006 Florida). You can understand why Auburn fans are still angry after their unbeaten team got left out in the cold in 2004. The SEC has proven time and again that when given the chance, it shines through on the highest stage.

And yes I know USC beat Auburn the year before but I don't think they wouldn't have beat that undefeated 04' Auburn team. They got lucky and dodged the SEC champ two years in a row 03 LSU and 04 Auburn.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 10:36 AM
55-19

I think it's more like Auburn got lucky so at least they could think about the NC and get a bowl win instead of getting throttled in the national championship.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:38 AM
55-19

I'm not sure what 03 Auburn has to do with 04 Auburn. Different squads. I believe that 04 Auburn team had 4 1st rounders and USC had 1 or none that year. I stand by my statement that USC is lucky they didn't have to play Auburn and instead got to face Jason White.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 10:39 AM
That's the score of the USC/OU NC. Auburn wouldn't have stood a chance that day.

neko4
07-30-2007, 10:42 AM
Auburn Wins:
LSU 10-9
at Tennessee 34-10
Arkansas 38-20
Georgia 35-14
atBama 21-13
Tennessee (Conf Champ game) 38-28

USC
Virginia Tech 24-13
at Stanford 31-28
California 23-17
Arizona State 45-7
at UCLA 29-24

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:43 AM
Well then that's even more absurd. I really don't see what 04 OU has to do with 04 Auburn. You do realise those are two different teams, right?

We'll never know who would have won because they didn't get the chance to play.

Turtlepower
07-30-2007, 10:44 AM
I'm not sure what 03 Auburn has to do with 04 Auburn. Different squads. I believe that 04 Auburn team had 4 1st rounders and USC had 1 or none that year. I stand by my statement that USC is lucky they didn't have to play Auburn and instead got to face Jason White.

People put too much emphasis on players drafted as a basis of how well a team is. If draft status is so important than why didn't the 05' NC State team play like one of the best teams in the nation. I think many people would agree that Auburn should have played USC instead of Oklahoma, but to say that they would have out right won is just wrong.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 10:47 AM
It has everything to do with 04 USC, they put up 55 points, it wouldn't have mattered who they played, they completely dominated that game in every way, Bush and White, Leinart, Jarrett and Smith, as well as the defense. I don't think Auburn would have lost 55-19, but I don't think they would have had a chance.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:48 AM
I never said that Auburn would have outright beat USC. What I said was that USC was lucky they didn't have to play Auburn that year.

Auburn was alot better than Oklahoma that year.



Auburn Wins:
LSU 10-9
at Tennessee 34-10
Arkansas 38-20
Georgia 35-14
atBama 21-13
Tennessee (Conf Champ game) 38-28



USC
Virginia Tech 24-13
at Stanford 31-28
California 23-17
Arizona State 45-7
at UCLA 29-24

Exactly.

neko4
07-30-2007, 10:49 AM
QB: Matt Leinart v Jason Campbell
RB: Reggie Bush, Lendale White v Caddilac WIlliams, ROnnie Brown
Anyone know the rest of each team's roster?

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 10:52 AM
People put too much emphasis on players drafted as a basis of how well a team is. If draft status is so important than why didn't the 05' NC State team play like one of the best teams in the nation. I think many people would agree that Auburn should have played USC instead of Oklahoma, but to say that they would have out right won is just wrong.

Yea, I didn't see his argument about the draft picks before, USC's entire offense (other than maybe the TE) was drafted. The defense had Lofa, Patterson, Cody, Wright, Bing.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:54 AM
Well neko4's argument was better in comparing scores. Going through the SEC undefeated is more impressive than going through the Pac 10 undefeated anyway you slice it.

Anyway like I said we'll never know.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 10:56 AM
But if OU has nothing to to do with Auburn, what do the SEC teams have to do with the teams USC played? I see, now that the argument works in your favor it's relevant.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 10:59 AM
But if OU has nothing to to do with Auburn, what do the SEC teams have to do with the teams USC played?

Tougher competition. And as neko4 pointed out USC didn't exactly blow out their Pac 10 competition.

I see, now that the argument works in your favor it's relevant.

You're the one that started that line of reasoning not I. You can't say just because they blew out Oklahoma that they would have blown out Auburn. But if you can say that than I can say Auburn faced tougher competition in the SEC thus were more battle tested. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Either way it comes down to the fact that USC only has 1 BCS title and may not have even had that had they faced Auburn in 04.

Turtlepower
07-30-2007, 11:21 AM
Either way it comes down to the fact that USC only has 1 BCS title and may not have even had that had they faced Auburn in 04.

Whatever any SEC fan says, USC has two national titles. In 03, USC should have played LSU in the national championship instead of a team that did not even win its own conference. Also for anyone that claims that USC played Michigan in "a home game" in the rose bowl, I could argue the point that LSU played even more of a home game in the Sugar Bowl.

constant cough
07-30-2007, 11:26 AM
Whatever any SEC fan says, USC has two national titles.

And whatever any USC fan says, they still only have 1 BCS title.

http://stephanielogerot.worldmagblog.com/stephanielogerot/archives/One-Pete.jpg

Turtlepower
07-30-2007, 11:35 AM
And whatever any USC fan says, they still only have 1 BCS title.

http://stephanielogerot.worldmagblog.com/stephanielogerot/archives/One-Pete.jpg

I'm not a USC fan, I'm a Pac-10 fan. And all I'm saying is that as much as all SEC fans like to complain about it, the record books say that USC has two national titles. You complain about Auburn not playing for the national title, but are ok with USC not playing for it in 03. I think Auburn should have played USC instead of Oklahoma in 2004, but to say that USC shouldn't have played LSU in 03 is just hypocritical.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 11:42 AM
Tougher competition. And as neko4 pointed out USC didn't exactly blow out their Pac 10 competition.



You're the one that started that line of reasoning not I. You can't say just because they blew out Oklahoma that they would have blown out Auburn. But if you can say that than I can say Auburn faced tougher competition in the SEC thus were more battle tested. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Either way it comes down to the fact that USC only has 1 BCS title and may not have even had that had they faced Auburn in 04.

I started it out but you said it doesn't matter, so why would you even agree when someone else says something about it? Like I said, because it helps your argument.

So LSU has one BCS NC, but maybe not if they would have played USC that year and not OU. See I can use terrible logic with no reasoning as well.

P-L
07-30-2007, 12:01 PM
Auburn was not a lot better than Oklahoma that year. When the Bowl picked USC and Oklahoma to play for the title no one outside the state of Alabama complained. It's easy to look back now after USC destroyed Oklahoma and claim Auburn was the better team. But at the time, no one thought that way. Oklahoma was #2 over Auburn in both the AP and ESPN/USA Today polls. Oklahoma also ranked #1 in the final computer polls. They dominated nearly every team they played that year. They won all of their games by an average score of 37-13.

LSUALUM99
07-30-2007, 01:08 PM
This is exactly my point.

USC should not be able to claim a NC in 2003 because they did not play in the NC championship game. It is exactly the same argument as saying Auburn can not claim a NC in 2004 because they did not play in the NC game.

Comparing scores is silly. Whether you beat a team by 1 point or 50 points you get exactly the same number of wins. In fact, many coaches prefer not to blow out their collegues because of their idea of good sportsmanship. I am not passing judgement on whether blowing out your opponent or not is good sportsmanship, I'm simply stating that some do and some do not. There is no doubt in my mind that USC won the 2004 NC fair and square. I even think they were the best team that year. It's just a crock that they claim a 2003 NC also.

Every team went into 2003 knowing the BCS NC game would crown the NC for the year. So, after the rules were in place, the game changed? It was B.S. then and is B.S. now.

draftguru151
07-30-2007, 01:17 PM
This is exactly my point.

USC should not be able to claim a NC in 2003 because they did not play in the NC championship game. It is exactly the same argument as saying Auburn can not claim a NC in 2004 because they did not play in the NC game.

Comparing scores is silly. Whether you beat a team by 1 point or 50 points you get exactly the same number of wins. In fact, many coaches prefer not to blow out their collegues because of their idea of good sportsmanship. I am not passing judgement on whether blowing out your opponent or not is good sportsmanship, I'm simply stating that some do and some do not. There is no doubt in my mind that USC won the 2004 NC fair and square. I even think they were the best team that year. It's just a crock that they claim a 2003 NC also.

Every team went into 2003 knowing the BCS NC game would crown the NC for the year. So, after the rules were in place, the game changed? It was B.S. then and is B.S. now.

That's exactly what happened, the winner of that game would be crowned the BCS national champ, and that's what happened when LSU won. The AP voted USC the #1 team in the country, you know why? Because before the bowls USC was #2, and the team that was #1 lost, and the #2 team won. USC was ahead of LSU in both polls before the bowl game, so it really isn't shocking to see USC get the votes afterwards. Even in the coach's poll that has to have the BCS champ as the victor, 3 coaches broke the agreement and voted for USC.

ncst8fan83
07-30-2007, 01:41 PM
People put too much emphasis on players drafted as a basis of how well a team is. If draft status is so important than why didn't the 05' NC State team play like one of the best teams in the nation. I think many people would agree that Auburn should have played USC instead of Oklahoma, but to say that they would have out right won is just wrong.

Two words: Marc Trestman

Sniper
07-30-2007, 04:26 PM
And whatever any USC fan says, they still only have 1 BCS title.

http://stephanielogerot.worldmagblog.com/stephanielogerot/archives/One-Pete.jpg

I like how in 05 it's asterisked that Auburn and Utah are undefeated, yet in 03 it doesn't mention how USC got ****** over out of the national title game. And there should be no doubt anyway about their win vs. Oklahoma seeing as how it was almost by 40 points. It's 2 national titles either way because the BCS is a crock of ****