Well, well, its a little early but UFC is once again looking like a dominant team hell bent on destroying everything in their path. So here is my question. When my boys beat Oklahoma I did not hear a responce from all the people that said they had no chance. When we were playing Texas I was told it was gonna be a Texas blowout and USC had no chance. Instead it was a great game that could have gone either way. When I suggested that USC was a dynasty I was laughed and told I dont know college football. So if USC wins it all this year (yes its early and LSU is great) do they get the dynasty crown?
Re: Usc Question?????
Originally Posted by LaRamsFanLongTime
No doubt that usc has been a great team for a few years. LSU won the 2003 championship (See their BCS Trophy on Campus) and yes 'sc played a crappy michigan team in the rose bowl that year with the same qb that lost to applachian state and then to the ducks. usc was the best in 2004 but I know Auburn would have been the better opponent than stoops' team.
When you play a vanilla schedule like byu did for so many years then it is hard to tag the "dynasty" label.
It was not 'sc's or LSU's fault that they should have played for said championship. But the weak schedule was noted for the reason. C'mon notre shame? We have seen how the trojans and Tigers blew them out in similiar manners. The only difference was LSU took a knee at the three with 2 minutes left.
BTW espn and fatboy chris HYPED the trojans FOR TWO WEEKS. We were calling it USCN!
Y'all have talent, not the schedule. The slack ten is improving but it is no where near the caliber of the SEC or some other conferences.
I think the players playing in the NFL are dominated by the SEC in comparison to the slack-10.
One more thing, I grew up in Southern California and I can honestly say, the SEC at this point has the dynasty when it comes to top ten teams at the end of the year for the last ten years, IMHO!!!
C'Ya in New Orleans!