USC Does Not Have Case for National Title Share

Juan Carlos ReyesContributor IJanuary 2, 2009

The USC Trojans won their third straight Rose Bowl last night, 38-24, against the Penn State Nittany Lions.

Trojans quarterback Mark Sanchez had a field day, completing 28 of 35 passes for 413 yards and four touchdowns.

There's no doubt about it, USC is a great football team—but why do we have to hear this question every single year?

Do the Trojans have a case for a share of the national title?

The answer is simple. No.

The obvious argument would be the fact that USC lost to an unranked opponent, but so did the Florida Gators.

However, the Gators beat five ranked opponents, including the No. 1 Alabama Crimson Tide. The Trojans only beat three.

The SEC has the luxury of playing a championship game while the Pac-10 does not, which is unfortunate because Florida's win against the Crimson Tide is what helped them get that boost to the National Championship.

I understand that USC is a great team, but they are not the best. The BCS already decided that.

Last year, the Trojans thought they made a case after owning No. 13 Illinois in the Rose Bowl, and the LSU Tigers, who had two losses, won the BCS Title. USC felt like it deserved some love as well.

The only time USC had a case was back in 2003, when Oklahoma went to the title game despite losing the Big 12 title to Kansas State.

It's starting to seem like the Trojans are beginning to get a bit overrated, which sucks because they are a great team.

If they finished undefeated, this would not be a problem.

Of course, if there was a playoff this could be handled better, but there is not.

As long as the BCS is around, there are always going to be questions surrounding which team should play for the title.

Sorry, USC—it just wasn't your year, according to the polls. There's always next year.