ESPN's Top 25 teams of the Past Decade

[draftguru151]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by constant cough

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]

Whatever any SEC fan says, USC has two national titles.

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

[Turtlepower]

Originally Posted by constant cough

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

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]

Originally Posted by constant cough

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

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]

Originally Posted by Turtlepower

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]

Originally Posted by constant cough

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

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 ****