Why USC 05 can't be considered among the best ever

[KT2000]

I've been sitting on this one for a few weeks now. Just a friendly warning.

I allowed myself to absorb the circus hype for this national championship thinking people would actually acknowledge both teams as is the usual practice for this kind of game.

However, I've been exposed to about the most one sided parade of hype I've ever witnessed for a championship game.

USC is being touted as one of the greatest teams of all time, and how they'd be "a definite top 3" with a win against Texas. Pundits have spent more time talking about how USC would handle 95 Nebraska or 88 Notre Dame instead of what they'll need to do next week.

Reggie Bush is receiving more man love right now than a cast of "The Real World". He's an incredible talent, but Holy crap, dismount and let him breath. It's ridiculous. ESPN's Mark May actually tried to compare Matt Leinart and Vince Young in the rushing department just because Young only has two or three more rushing TDs. Laughable at best, and glad Lou Holtz of all people put May in his place for that idiotic piece of "analysis".

Anyway, here is why USC can't be considered the greatest team in the history of college football regardless of what happens against Texas.

2005 USC

09/03 at Hawaii W 63-17
09/17 Arkansas W 70-17
09/24 at #24 Oregon W 45-13
10/01 at #14 Arizona St W 38-28
10/08 Arizona W 42-21
10/15 at #9 N Dame W 34-31
10/22 at Washington W 51-24
10/29 Wash St W 55-13
11/05 Stanford W 51-21
11/12 at California W 35-10
11/19 #16 Fresno St W 50-42
12/03 #11 UCLA W 66-19
01/04 vs #2 Texas 8:00 PM

Avg PPG 50
Avg PAPG 21

That 21 points per game given up is the main reason they can't be considered one of the best overall teams of all time. Heck, they won't even be the best USC or Matt Leinart led teams of all time. Leinart's best team was last year. 72 USC is widely considered to be the school's best ever. They beat Ohio State 42-17 for the title that year.

The greatest teams of all time are usually dominant on the defensive side of the ball which this USC team is definitely not. Look at the 85 Bears and 70s Steelers championship teams in the NFL for further evidence of that. Also, the greatest ever dominate their opponents all-around and you have to have a great defense and special teams to do that.

USC 05 has an average defense and horrible special teams. USC has won three games by 10 points or less this year. One against an Arizona State team that barely beat Rutgers in a bowl game despite playing minutes from campus. Another against a Notre Dame team that barely beat Michigan (who just lost to Nebraska!) and lost to a Michigan State team that's not playing a bowl game. The last against a Fresno State team that lost to Nevada and Louisiana Tech.

Texas only has one win by 10 points or less, and that was @ Ohio State...arguably the toughest road venue in the country against a top five ranked opponent. Texas' average victory margin this year is just over 36 (51-15)...a full eight points better than USC and they've played a tougher schedule. That's every SOS rating in the country, not my opinion.

The best college football team I've ever seen was the 1995 Nebraska national champions. They outscored their opponents 52-12 on average. They played four top 10 teams that year and beat #2 Florida 62-24 in the title game!

71 Nebraska led by Johnny Rodgers only gave up 8.6 points per game and dominated everyone on their schedule except for #2 Oklahoma (35-31) in what's widely considered "The Game of the Century".

2001 Miami beat opponents by 34 on average, and had what's likely the most talented college defense you'll ever see. Everyone in the secondary ended up being a first round draft pick. Heck, the back up free safety (Sean Taylor) ended up a top five pick. Oh yeah, the QB Ken Dorsey, RB Clinton Portis and TE Jeremy Shockey were pretty good on offense. WR Andre Johnson was decent. Best team I've seen after 95 Nebraska.

1956 Oklahoma averaged 47 points a game on offense and shut out six of their 10 opponents. 73 and 74 OU weren't bad either.

1961 Alabama gave up just 25 points in 11 games for an average of 2.3 per game against.

1988 Notre Dame snapped defending national champs Miami’s 36 win streak on the way to the title. Elevated the Irish back to prominent modern times status with Lou Holtz at the helm. ND finished the year a unanimous #1.

There's no way USC can be considered one of the best teams ever regardless of what happens next Wednesday in my opinion. No way they crack the top 5. They are extremely good on offense, but average at best everywhere else. I believe Texas has more of a claim in the "greatest ever" argument than USC because they not only average a little bit more per game points wise, but have a defense a full 6-7 points better on average per game against a tougher schedule.

The teams people are comparing this 2005 USC team to should almost feel insulted. USC is very good, but they aren't even the best in Matt Leinart's era...much less in the entire history of college football.

[Primetime536]

I've been sitting on this one for a few weeks now. Just a friendly warning.

I allowed myself to absorb the circus hype for this national championship thinking people would actually acknowledge both teams as is the usual practice for this kind of game.

However, I've been exposed to about the most one sided parade of hype I've ever witnessed for a championship game.

USC is being touted as one of the greatest teams of all time, and how they'd be "a definite top 3" with a win against Texas. Pundits have spent more time talking about how USC would handle 95 Nebraska or 88 Notre Dame instead of what they'll need to do next week.

Reggie Bush is receiving more man love right now than a cast of "The Real World". He's an incredible talent, but Holy crap, dismount and let him breath. It's ridiculous. ESPN's Mark May actually tried to compare Matt Leinart and Vince Young in the rushing department just because Young only has two or three more rushing TDs. Laughable at best, and glad Lou Holtz of all people put May in his place for that idiotic piece of "analysis".

Anyway, here is why USC can't be considered the greatest team in the history of college football regardless of what happens against Texas.

2005 USC

09/03 at Hawaii W 63-17
09/17 Arkansas W 70-17
09/24 at #24 Oregon W 45-13
10/01 at #14 Arizona St W 38-28
10/08 Arizona W 42-21
10/15 at #9 N Dame W 34-31
10/22 at Washington W 51-24
10/29 Wash St W 55-13
11/05 Stanford W 51-21
11/12 at California W 35-10
11/19 #16 Fresno St W 50-42
12/03 #11 UCLA W 66-19
01/04 vs #2 Texas 8:00 PM

Avg PPG 50
Avg PAPG 21

That 21 points per game given up is the main reason they can't be considered one of the best overall teams of all time. Heck, they won't even be the best USC or Matt Leinart led teams of all time. Leinart's best team was last year. 72 USC is widely considered to be the school's best ever. They beat Ohio State 42-17 for the title that year.

The greatest teams of all time are usually dominant on the defensive side of the ball which this USC team is definitely not. Look at the 85 Bears and 70s Steelers championship teams in the NFL for further evidence of that. Also, the greatest ever dominate their opponents all-around and you have to have a great defense and special teams to do that.

USC 05 has an average defense and horrible special teams. USC has won three games by 10 points or less this year. One against an Arizona State team that barely beat Rutgers in a bowl game despite playing minutes from campus. Another against a Notre Dame team that barely beat Michigan (who just lost to Nebraska!) and lost to a Michigan State team that's not playing a bowl game. The last against a Fresno State team that lost to Nevada and Louisiana Tech and the final.

Texas only has one win by 10 points or less, and that was @ Ohio State...arguably the toughest road venue in the country against a top five ranked opponent. Texas' average victory margin this year is just over 36 (51-15)...a full eight points better than USC and they've played a tougher schedule. That's every SOS rating in the country, not my opinion.

The best college football team I've ever seen was the 1995 Nebraska national champions. They outscored their opponents 52-12 on average. They played four top 10 teams that year and beat #2 Florida 62-24 in the title game!

71 Nebraska led by Johnny Rodgers only gave up 8.6 points per game and dominated everyone on their schedule except for #2 Oklahoma (35-31) in what's widely considered "The Game of the Century".

2001 Miami beat opponents by 34 on average, and had what's likely the most talented college defense you'll ever see. Everyone in the secondary ended up being a first round draft pick. Heck, the back up free safety (Sean Taylor) ended up a top five pick. Oh yeah, the QB Ken Dorsey, RB Clinton Portis and TE Jeremy Shockey were pretty good on offense. WR Andre Johnson was decent. Best team I've seen after 95 Nebraska.

1956 Oklahoma averaged 47 points a game on offense and shut out six of their 10 opponents. 73 and 74 OU weren't bad either.

1961 Alabama gave up just 25 points in 11 games for an average of 2.3 per game against.

1988 Notre Dame snapped defending national champs Miami’s 36 win streak on the way to the title. Elevated the Irish back to prominent modern times status with Lou Holtz at the helm. ND finished the year a unanimous #1.

There's no way USC can be considered one of the best teams ever regardless of what happens next Wednesday in my opinion. No way they crack the top 5. They are extremely good on offense, but average at best everywhere else. I believe Texas has more of a claim in the "greatest ever" argument than USC because they not only average a little bit more per game points wise, but have a defense a full 6-7 points better on average per game against a tougher schedule.

The teams people are comparing this 2005 USC team to should almost feel insulted. USC is very good, but they aren't even the best in Matt Leinart's era...much less in the entire history of college football.
Interesting post KT.

You have very good points. But your not seeing the whole picture. Your looking at just this year. This team is so great because they have done this for 3 straight years. They have won the last 2 national championships and could win this year. This team has to considered at least in the top 5 teams of all times. There defense is a little suspect but their offense is simply unbelivable. They cant be stopped. They are led by 2 of the best college players of ALL TIME(bush and Matt. L). Uscs multiple weapons on offense has led this offense to being the best offense of all time easily. I dont know how you could argue that. An offense with 2 heisman trophy winners, rediculous. Everyone keeps talking about their defense and how mediocre it is. Look at the offenses they have played ND, Organ, Fresno, and UCLA all have great offenses. I would say only giving up 20 a game playing these teams it pritty good.


You said UT should be considered one the greats of all time instead of usc? How could this be if there not even the ranked number 1? Yea their great but one of the best of all times? No way. UT almost lost to aTm for christ sake. aTm, how pathetic. aTm secondary was dead last in the nation and Texas had trouble passing against them. If they cant light up the worst secondary in the nation how are they even going to contend with USC offense who will likely score at least 31. Bottom line, I think being one of the greats means you have won multiple tittles in a short period of time.

UT they are a good team, hell they may be great. I just think before you win even talk about them being great they have to beat USC and win around 11 games next year.

[Favpack]

If Texas takes care of business they will be considered one of the greats of all time. There has not been ONE analyst go against USC even once this year. One of the greatest of all time? Please - their opponents have been weak at best - I think OU spanks Oregon tonight - we'll see.

[BAMF cowboy]

He didn't say 05 Texas should be considered and all time great. He said he feels they have more of a claim with a great offense, defense and special teams. He said he feels that USC is lacking on defense, and especially Special Teams.

Yes, what they've done over the past 3 - 4 years is remarkable, but that doesnt mean that this team is the best yet. That's the point he's trying to make, is that the best USC team of this current USC era was last years, and that its stupid to compare this year's to the all time greats, like the 01 Miami, or 95 Nebraska.

[BAMF cowboy]

oh...and i agree with you KT

I'm hoping that UT will show that jan 4

[Primetime536]

If Texas takes care of business they will be considered one of the greats of all time. There has not been ONE analyst go against USC even once this year. One of the greatest of all time? Please - their opponents have been weak at best - I think OU spanks Oregon tonight - we'll see.
wow oppenents weak at best?


09/03 at Hawaii W 63-17
09/17 Arkansas W 70-17
09/24 at #24 Oregon W 45-13
10/01 at #14 Arizona St W 38-28
10/08 Arizona W 42-21
10/15 at #9 N Dame W 34-31
10/22 at Washington W 51-24
10/29 Wash St W 55-13
11/05 Stanford W 51-21
11/12 at California W 35-10
11/19 #16 Fresno St W 50-42
12/03 #11 UCLA W 66-19
01/04 vs #2 Texas 8:00 PM

#24,#12,#9,#16,and # 11........man thats weak:rolleyes:

[KT2000]

TEAM to me means a singular year. That doesn't equal multiple years. USC is working on a dynasty yes, but as far as greatest ever INDIVIDUAL teams are concerned...USC 05 has no argument whatsoever in my opinion against what many would consider the current top 3-5 of all time.

I wouldn't claim Texas 05 to be the best ever if they beat USC, but they have more of an argument than this USC team does because they have been much more dominant across the board.

71 Nebraska, 95 Nebraska and 2001 Miami are prime examples of truly dominant football teams in my opinion. Texas did have trouble with A&M, but USC barely beat a Fresno State team that lost 40-28 to Louisiana Tech and 38-35 to Nevada. USC doesn't have any big advantage in that department. USC needed a push to beat a Notre Dame team whose banner win came against a Michigan team that just lost to someone from the Big 12 north.

Greatest team ever does not include multiple seasons in my opinion. That is about a SINGLE team and what USC has done the previous two seasons should have absolutely no bearing on it.

[Primetime536]

He didn't say 05 Texas should be considered and all time great. He said he feels they have more of a claim with a great offense, defense and special teams. He said he feels that USC is lacking on defense, and especially Special Teams.

Yes, what they've done over the past 3 - 4 years is remarkable, but that doesnt mean that this team is the best yet. That's the point he's trying to make, is that the best USC team of this current USC era was last years, and that its stupid to compare this year's to the all time greats, like the 01 Miami, or 95 Nebraska.
Ok, this years team should be considered a top 5 team of all time.

Look at the talent they have

[KT2000]

Three of those ranked teams USC beat in the reg. season have turned out to be flops (Fresno, UCLA, AZ State). The jury is still out on Notre Dame. They play Ohio State, so we'll see how they do against a team that plays defense.

[Primetime536]

TEAM to me means a singular year. That doesn't equal multiple years. USC is working on a dynasty yes, but as far as greatest ever INDIVIDUAL teams are concerned...USC 05 has no argument whatsoever in my opinion.

I wouldn't claim Texas 05 to be the best ever if they beat USC, but they have more of an argument than this USC team does because they have been much more dominant across the board.

71 Nebraska, 95 Nebraska and 2001 Miami are prime examples of truly dominant football teams in my opinion. Texas did have trouble with A&M, but USC barely beat a Fresno State team that lost 40-28 to Louisiana Tech and 38-35 to Nevada. USC doesn't have any big advantage in that department.

Greatest team ever does not include multiple seasons. That is about a SINGLE team and what USC has done the previous two seasons should have absolutely no bearing on it.
no arguement?

2 heisman winners
2 1100+ yard running backs
1 QB with 3500 passing yards
2 1000 yard WR

Is that not an arguement?

[Primetime536]

Three of those ranked teams USC beat in the reg. season have turned out to be flops (Fresno, UCLA, AZ State). The jury is still out on Notre Dame. They play Ohio State, so we'll see how they do against a team that plays defense.
They shut down UCLAs offense. That team has all kinds of talent on offense. Drew and stanton have to be one of the best backfields in the nation and they were shut down.

[KT2000]

I measure greatness by dominance, and there have been far more dominant teams than this USC group. USC had a much better team last year in my opinion. Much better defense and kicking game.

[Primetime536]

I measure greatness by dominance, and there have been far more dominant teams than this USC group. USC had a much better team last year in my opinion. Much better defense and kicking game.
yea there has been a few, 3 or 4. Not many. This team has dominated as much as any team in my opinion for 34 straight games.

[Primetime536]

I measure greatness by dominance, and there have been far more dominant teams than this USC group. USC had a much better team last year in my opinion. Much better defense and kicking game.
so the new england patriots arnt great? They never dominate teams, but they have won 3 of 4 super bowls.

[KT2000]

I think you are confusing dynasties with best individual teams again. If you pull up a list of greatest NFL teams of all time right now, you probably won't find any of the recent New England teams on there despite their championships (well earned). Everyone acknowledges they are a dynasty, but that's a different argument than what we're talking about.

[Primetime536]

I think you are confusing dynasties with best individual teams again. If you pull up a list of greatest NFL teams of all time right now, you probably won't find any of the recent New England teams on there despite their championships (well earned).
oh you wont? the 03 team who won 15 games in a row isnt one of the greatest TEAMS of all time?

[KT2000]

I haven't seen it....

72 Dolphins
85 Bears
One of the 80s 49er teams
One of the 70s Steeler teams
First NFL Super Bowl winning Packer team

usually make up the top lists I've seen. Not trying to be a punk or anything. I'm just trying to make sure we're debating the same thing.

[Primetime536]

I haven't seen it....

72 Dolphins
85 Bears
One of the 80s 49er teams
One of the 70s Steeler teams
First NFL Super Bowl winning Packer team

usually make up the top lists I've seen. Not trying to be a punk or anything. I'm just trying to make sure we're debating the same thing.
ok thats 5. ill say they are 6

[KT2000]

If you had a choice between 2004 USC and 2005 USC (disregarding coach changes, based purely on the players)...which would you take and why?

[yankee]

If you had a choice between 2004 USC and 2005 USC (disregarding coach changes, based purely on the players)...which would you take and why?
i would take this years team. usc has a killer backfield, a killer qb, and a great receiver corps. everybody keeps saying how bad the defense is, and its not very good i know, but they held a pretty good ucla team to under 300 yards of offense. id give up a little on the defensive side of the ball to have those weapons on offense.

[farmerfan]

ok thats 5. ill say they are 6

man 92 Dallas would have beat any of these NE teams. So would the 98 Denver Broncos. I think you could argue that the 91 Skins could also push that NE team.

If having to choose between 04 and 05 USC its a no brainer, give me the team who had the senior experience on defense. However I think the best of these USC teams was the 02 USC team. I know they lost 2 early games, however the way they were playing at the end of that year was as dominant as any USC team in this era. I know since they did not win the national championship they wont be considered, I just think the way they were playing was better than any of these teams. Just look what they did to a great Iowa Hawkeye team in the Orange Bowl.

[BAMF cowboy]

i would take this years team. usc has a killer backfield, a killer qb, and a great receiver corps. everybody keeps saying how bad the defense is, and its not very good i know, but they held a pretty good ucla team to under 300 yards of offense. id give up a little on the defensive side of the ball to have those weapons on offense.

but they have the exact same weapons on offense as they did last year? they lost some guys on defense.

I go with the '04 team.

[yankee]

but they have the exact same weapons on offense as they did last year? they lost some guys on defense.

I go with the '04 team.
no, the 04 team didnt, otherwise i woulve gone with them.
heres the link from the usc official website, with stats too.
http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2004-2005/teamcume.html

Now u can see why i chose the 05 team.
04 usc team= 1 3000 yard passer, 1 1000 yard rusher, and 0 1000 yard reciever.
05 team= 1 3000 yard passer, 2 1000 yard rushers, and 2 1000 yard receivers

[farmerfan]

no, the 04 team didnt, otherwise i woulve gone with them.
heres the link from the usc official website, with stats too.
http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2004-2005/teamcume.html

Now u can see why i chose the 05 team.
04 usc team= 1 3000 yard passer, 1 1000 yard rusher, and 0 1000 yard reciever.
05 team= 1 3000 yard passer, 2 1000 yard rushers, and 2 1000 yard receivers

look at those same stats and you see a defense that was giving up less than 3 yards a rush, less than 80 rushing yards a game and less than 200 passing yards a game. They only gave up 13 ppg, that offense even though not as impressive as this years complimented the defense better. Their average margin of victory was 25 ppg. The 2004 Trojan defense was nothing short of awesome. That defense would be able to contain this years USC offense, this years USC defense would not be able to contain the 2004 USC offense.

[yankee]

look at those same stats and you see a defense that was giving up less than 3 yards a rush, less than 80 rushing yards a game and less than 200 passing yards a game. They only gave up 13 ppg, that offense even though not as impressive as this years complimented the defense better. Their average margin of victory was 25 ppg. The 2004 Trojan defense was nothing short of awesome. That defense would be able to contain this years USC offense, this years USC defense would not be able to contain the 2004 USC offense.
but luckily this years defense wont be playing 04s usc offense.;)

[KT2000]

Yeah, Texas' 05 offense is better than USC 04. Scoring wise, it's better than USC 05 as well. :)

[KT2000]

USC's strength of opponent gets less impressive with every bowl game. OU now up 17-7 on #6 Oregon in the 4th. The scary thing is, Oregon is the best overall team USC has played this season.

I don't deny USC is a good team, but good Lord their competition is unimpressive.

[Firebird]

I'm with you on this one, KT. Watching the mighty Ducks get steamrolled in the second half doesn't speak strongly of USC's competition. I also tend to agree with you that 2004 USC probably would have spanked this year's edition of the Trojans, and I think that the Horns will give them a better game than any one is predicting.

I nearly spewed my Coca Cola across the room when Mark May tried to compare Leinart vs Young in rushing. This media love fest has to stop, I hope VY and the 'Horns are the ones to do it.

[BAMF cowboy]

I'm with you on this one, KT. Watching the mighty Ducks get steamrolled in the second half doesn't speak strongly of USC's competition. I also tend to agree with you that 2004 USC probably would have spanked this year's edition of the Trojans, and I think that the Horns will give them a better game than any one is predicting.

I nearly spewed my Coca Cola across the room when Mark May tried to compare Leinart vs Young in rushing. This media love fest has to stop, I hope VY and the 'Horns are the ones to do it.

i really want to see this....im up for a good laugh

[Firebird]

I'll tell you th eother thing that torques me off about the media lovefest over USC. Reggie Bush blatantly cheated by pushing Matt Leinart in the back for the win over Notre Dame, but you haven't ehard the national media make a peep about that blown call. Yet how many times have we seen blown calls in scores of other games plastered all over ESPN.

Let's get one thing straight-- I think that SC deserves that win and I HATE IT when people start blaming the referees for losses. But what bugs me here is the double standard. Rather than chewing out the refs (as they would have done if it was any other team) the media lines up to pat Reggie on the back for his heads up play.

[farmerfan]

I'll tell you th eother thing that torques me off about the media lovefest over USC. Reggie Bush blatantly cheated by pushing Matt Leinart in the back for the win over Notre Dame, but you haven't ehard the national media make a peep about that blown call. Yet how many times have we seen blown calls in scores of other games plastered all over ESPN.

Let's get one thing straight-- I think that SC deserves that win and I HATE IT when people start blaming the referees for losses. But what bugs me here is the double standard. Rather than chewing out the refs (as they would have done if it was any other team) the media lines up to pat Reggie on the back for his heads up play.

if you think its bad now. wait till Notre Dame starts winning on a consistant basis. at that time the media will forget all about USC and ride the Irish all they can.

[FootballJunkie]

I'm with you on this one, KT. Watching the mighty Ducks get steamrolled in the second half doesn't speak strongly of USC's competition. I also tend to agree with you that 2004 USC probably would have spanked this year's edition of the Trojans, and I think that the Horns will give them a better game than any one is predicting.

I nearly spewed my Coca Cola across the room when Mark May tried to compare Leinart vs Young in rushing. This media love fest has to stop, I hope VY and the 'Horns are the ones to do it.


If UT had won 2 in a row with the chance to win 3 the media would be all over UT...No one up here would have a problem then.. so stop hating now!!!

[wide-e-wide]

Hey KT............Duck Fuke.....You know what I'm trying to say.
Same thing huh? Tired of hearing about the legendary USC team...that just about crapped their skivvies against Fresno freakin' St.
gimme a break.

[Favpack]

One score why this USC squad can never be considered elite:

unranked Oklahoma 17
No. 6 Oregon 14

The Pac 10 is so weak this year it defines weakness. Ariz. State barely beat Rutgers in their bowl game AT HOME!! I think Rutgers had lost 76 straight games before this year.

[pack4life]

no arguement?

2 heisman winners
2 1100+ yard running backs
1 QB with 3500 passing yards
2 1000 yard WR

Is that not an arguement?

Since when was the game all about offense?

[yankee]

Since when was the game all about offense?
its not, but hes showing the deadly offensive weapons that usc has.

[yankee]

One score why this USC squad can never be considered elite:

unranked Oklahoma 17
No. 6 Oregon 14

The Pac 10 is so weak this year it defines weakness. Ariz. State barely beat Rutgers in their bowl game AT HOME!! I think Rutgers had lost 76 straight games before this year.
why did oregon use two qb's? did the starter get hurt or something?

[Favpack]

why did oregon use two qb's? did the starter get hurt or something?
FF's post refers to the injured qb earlier. I think these two qb's were 2a and 2b -- neither really stepped up much did they? I think the Ducks would have probably squeeked out a win with their No. 1 qb in - but there were very mediocre to me - just like Cal last year.

[Lp78]

SC is going for their 2nd BCS Championship. I'm sick of hearing about their 3rd National Championship. LSU 03, SC 04 , ? 05

[BAMF cowboy]

SC is going for their 2nd BCS Championship. I'm sick of hearing about their 3rd National Championship. LSU 03, SC 04 , ? 05

Me too! Honestly, it frustrates me so much, and although that '03 title was split blah blah blah, I ask people this: "Who won the 2003 National Championship Game"

Answer: LSU

[nsmustang]

I'm with ya on this one KT. I think to be one of the greatest of all time you have to completely dominate on both sides of the ball. Come from behind wins in the 4th quarter says you have ability but to me, not greatness. You also don't let opponents score that many points on you.

[Primetime536]

One score why this USC squad can never be considered elite:

unranked Oklahoma 17
No. 6 Oregon 14

The Pac 10 is so weak this year it defines weakness. Ariz. State barely beat Rutgers in their bowl game AT HOME!! I think Rutgers had lost 76 straight games before this year.
Who cares? Is it their fault that they play weak teams? Bla bla bla, who cares, Oregon lost to a underrated OU team. Whats that matter, SC beat Oregon by what 15? All this talk about USC being in the PAC 10, have they won? How many games in a row? have they won 34 games in a row or not? I guese 34 games doesnt mean much to UT fans, right? Because im sure all 34 teams they have beat have just been below par pac-10 teams, every single one of them.

[wide-e-wide]

USC gets to hold the title of "longest win streak" for one more day. After tomorrow that will belong to the Horns!!

[cougardude]

USC gets to hold the title of "longest win streak" for one more day. After tomorrow that will belong to the Horns!!


:D :D :D :D :D \m/

[Diablos]

USC gets to hold the title of "longest win streak" for one more day. After tomorrow that will belong to the Horns!!



Otherwise known as Black Wednesday for those of us in Texas.

[lufkin_82]

05 USC cant be considered the best ever... i mean i dont think they could beat last years USC team...

[GTown02]

05 USC cant be considered the best ever... i mean i dont think they could beat last years USC team...
This years USC has one of the best offenses ever, but not overall team. If the 2004 USC team played this years team, the 2004 team would win because they had a better defense last season.

[GTown02]

Oopsies, double post. Sorry about that

[Diablos]

i would take this years team. usc has a killer backfield, a killer qb, and a great receiver corps. everybody keeps saying how bad the defense is, and its not very good i know, but they held a pretty good ucla team to under 300 yards of offense. id give up a little on the defensive side of the ball to have those weapons on offense.


Everyone talks about Bush. Lindale White has 25 td's of his own and that's as a part time back.

[bullrock]

Heres my take on the SC defense. They stretch, but don't break. That's why they're called TROJANS.

[RPM]

Lololol!