A new full-time starter at quarterback (66-of-110 passing for 642 yards, 7 TDs, and 4 INTs last year).
Zero reliable playmakers at WR (last year’s best receiver, a tight end, is gone to the NFL).
Only 11 returning starters (one returning starter on the offensive line).
Ten players drafted to the NFL (seven in the first two rounds).
And you're telling me that's a national title contender? Seriously?
It seems as if we throw all of our rules for evaluating teams out of the window when it comes to USC.
Now, in all fairness, USC has been one of the most dominant college football programs (based on winning percentage and bowl game wins) over the last six years. But let’s take a closer look at USC’s ‘dominance’.
I would argue that since Norm Chow left USC in 2004, USC has become more of a regional power than a national power. Sure, they’ve won the PAC-10 six years in a row, but is that really saying very much?
The very definition of a strong league is the ability of multiple teams to win the title. USC's dominance highlights the PAC-10's weakness. Let’s face it; USC has been to the PAC‑10 what Ohio State has been to the Big Ten.
Now let's look at those bowl game victories. USC has won six of their last seven BCS games (impressive), but five of those games were Rose Bowls (in their backyard). USC winning the Rose Bowl is no more impressive than LSU winning the Sugar Bowl.
It’s great, but that’s not exactly a ‘neutral field’. In addition, USC's Rose Bowl victories have come against the second-best team in the Big Ten two times because Ohio State went to the title game (2006, 2007). If the PAC‑10 champ beats the second best team in the weakening Big Ten, in a virtual home game, should we be that surprised?
Now this is not USC’s fault, it’s the Rose Bowl’s fault, but USC beating Illinois isn’t as impressive as West Virginia beating Oklahoma (a conference champ), or Kansas defeating Virginia Tech (a conference champ).
Furthermore, two years in a row USC has found a way to play itself out of the title game by losing to a team they had no business losing to.
In 2006, they lost to Oregon State, seemingly ending their title hopes. Then they got a second chance at the title game when other teams lost, and they blew it against UCLA.
64 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
Thomas Brown 10 months ago
this article is a humiliation to everything on this earth
usc will, and will always be, #1
and another NCs coming this year bro
Edit Comment Cancel
Cullen Buie 10 months ago
"usc will, and will always be, #1
and another NCs coming this year bro"
I don't think so. Every year, USC finds a way to loose to someone they should smash. Even during the Bush/Leinert years, USC had a way of letting teams hang around too long (Notre Dame and Fresno State in '05, Stanford and UCLA in '04). This years team isn't as talented as the 2003-2005 teams and they'll pay for it if they don't bring their 'A' game every week.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Contizano 10 months ago
I have to admit their defense is loaded. The main reason USC receives the hype is because of their recruits, I mean, just take a look at them. http://usc.scout.com/a.z?s=15&p=9&c=8&yr=2009
I agree with you though, I'm tired of hearing about them every year. Booty was really only good when he had Steve Smith/Dwayne Jarrett, they were damn talented. Now, I don't see any USC receivers that want to seem to step up and become elite.
Edit Comment Cancel
Austin Thomas 10 months ago
Im so glad someone else finally realized that USC is so overrated this year. Seriously they think that Sanchez can handle the pressure that Laurinitis and Wilson will be giving him? They will lose to OSU and maybe even the other OSU-Oregon State- cause they suck in Corvallis. Great article and thank god someone thinks the same way I do.
Edit Comment Cancel
Austin Thomas 10 months ago
Im so glad someone else finally realized that USC is so overrated this year. Seriously they think that Sanchez can handle the pressure that Laurinitis and Wilson will be giving him? They will lose to OSU and maybe even the other OSU-Oregon State- cause they suck in Corvallis. Great article and thank god someone thinks the same way I do.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Chris 10 months ago
Brilliant read Cullen.
You pretty much nailed every deficiency that I also see the condoms having this year.
You did however forget to mention that dirty sanchez has a very green line coming into this year.
Combine that with the fact that this kid is a first-time starter (I don't count last year's games), and they could have a big problem Houston.
And let's not forget the fact that sanchez put his knee on backwards a couple of weeks ago.
He relies heavily on his mobilty, and it may not be there for the first few weeks.
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Peszko 10 months ago
When Irish Eyes are crying - over a 3 and 9 season with 58 sacks - they need something to get pumped up about. Thanks, Cullen, for providing all Notre Lame fans something to cheer about.
Edit Comment Cancel
RT 10 months ago
USC (and the PAC 10 for that matter) are ALWAYS overrated. There are two conferences that play real college football. The SEC and the Big Ten. Sorry, but it's true. You girls out west need to stick to other things. Leave college football to us folks in the north and south. Roll Tide and Go Buckeyes (a shout out to my dad's team).
Edit Comment Cancel
John Tran 10 months ago
Last I checked you Ala "suck ass" Bama finished 7-6, pretty mediocre when you compare it USC's 11-2. Please don't say it's because the SEC is the top conference, Alabama has been a joke in the past recent years, yes even in 05 they were a joke due to the fact they end up losing to teams like Louisiana Monroe by a TD!! I prefer to lose to Stanford by 1 pt then to some team no one knows by a TD. SEC maybe a great conference, but they don't build on mediocre teams like Alabama chief, last i checked you jokes haven't beaten Auburn in 6 years. I even think Ohio St. is a legit team when compared to Alabama and that's not much lol!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 10 months ago
USC has beaten every Big Ten and SEC team they have played this millenium. Arky twice, auburn twice (who was overrated at #6 when they played the USC) and Michigan twice, Iowa once and Illinois twice.
What kind of baseless comment is that? Do some research before you make comments that have no facts behind them. (Pac-10 is 9-6 vs. the SEC since 2000, fyi.) OUCH!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 10 months ago
I MEANT ILLINOIS ONCE, NOT TWICE.
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 10 months ago
The coach at Oregon State, Mike Riley, was an All-SEC performer for Bear Bryant at Alabama so he has some tough workouts. His Beavers are a threat each season to do damage. Pete Carroll used to be a defensive coach at Ohio State so, he brings a rugged philosophy also. As far as Sou Cal being overrated, you could easily make a case they are underrated.
We're glad to have you in the Bleacher Report and look forward to reading your articles. Always good to have another SEC and Big 10 fan on board.
Edit Comment Cancel
tex 10 months ago
"This years team isn't as talented as the 2003-2005 teams..."
Are you sure? How did you come to this conclusion without ever seeing them play a game?
Edit Comment Cancel
Doug Kraus 10 months ago
I agree with you Cullen, but I will never discount the Trojans. By the end of the year they will probably be realy solid, but how can you rank a team that high in the polls when their offense is almost a start from scratch squad. Sure their defense should be outstanding but you still have to score (and not turn the ball over) to win.
I also agree with your bowl analysis - playing bowls in your home town is a HUGE advantage especially if you play the second team from another conference.
Sorry Roll Tide, although I'm a huge Big Ten homer you left the Big 12 off your list. With OK, TX, TX Tech, and Missouri being so strong you have to put them up there as one of the better conferences.
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Peszko 10 months ago
About playing the second team in another conference, what about Florida? They played the third team from another conference in a bowl game last year and LOST. Yes, even with a Heisman Trophy winner at QB. I'll spell that out for you and Cullen. That's L-O-S-T! And the Herbster actually has picked them to beat USC in the BCS title game this year.
Oh, and another team that goes to BCS Bowl games and plays a lesser oppoenent and loses, not once but twice in a row. Oklahoma.
So, the fact that USC plays the second team from the Big Ten only matters if they lose like Florida and Oklahoma. But the fact is they win. I'll spell that out for you and Cullen. That's W-I-N! And win big.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
Paul, get real, OK? Florida was the 2nd team in the SEC East behind UGA, making them at best the 3rd team in the SEC behind LSU and UGA. He was talking about conference champ USC getting to beat up on 2nd place Big 10 teams like Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois, not a middling team in one conference getting to play a middling team in another.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Tran 10 months ago
If USC is overrated then i guess conferences like the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and the ACC must really and I mean REALLY SUCK. USC has beaten two SEC greats such as Auburn and Arkansas who always do well in the SEC west, beat Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa who were contenders in the Big 10, beat OU and Nebraska also contenders in the Big 12, and has also beaten Va Tech whose top in the conference of the ACC. USC has beaten more ranked teams than any other sorry ass team lately, so I guess by the logic of this article I guess everyone must suck then. What's retarded about this article is that Florida, OU, and Texas Tech deserves to be lower then USC why? Florida ended the season losing to Michigan, offensively they'll be fine, but defense is a question. OU might as well be overrated due to the fact they cant win BCS games, but still offensively they're fine, but question looms in the DL. Texas Tech is overrated, sure Harrell and Crabtree will score on people only because they're the only playmakers and their defense doesn't look legitimate, more mediocre when compared to real teams.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
Are you high John? SEC greats Auburn and Arkansas. The two years that USC beat Auburn, they lost 4 and 5 games. That sounds more like average than great.
Did you really use Nebraska as a team that is a quality win for USC? They went 5-7 last year, and lost 5 games in 2006 when they played USC. Eric Crouch is gone John.
Besides the whole Pac 10 is overrated. They were suppose to challenge the SEC last year as the top conference and they failed badly. The Big 12 was better than them last year. When half of the Pac 10 has a lossing record then that makes them overrated. Also, Cal finished 7-6 and they were suppose to contend for the PAC 10 title and maybe a NT.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil HHH 10 months ago
I guess the PAC 10 and USC is overrated considering that USC's last non-conference loses were against UT where Vince Young had a memorable performance that occurred a few years ago and by Kansas State coached by Bill Snyder. Wow....could it be that the PAC 10 teams are more equipped to face USC than its non-conference opponents and thus not as weak as the other conferences. Last time I checked OSU can't beat SEC teams (USC can), OU can't win its bowl games (USC can) and USC actually attempts to play good Div I teams and isn't afraid to travel (at OSU in 2009 and at UV this year).
The reason the QB situation is not a strong issue is because they are affordable the luxury of waiting in the wings for a couple of years to learn the system and could it be that it actually works for USC. If USC was overrated why haven't they been blowned out of games? Oregon had the best offense in the country last year and they barely beat USC by 7 points whereas Oregon destroyed UM and USF.
You have to be kidding about Texas Tech considering that they have a good offense that feeds of weak non-conference opponents, no problem with UF because they are a good team and OU can't stop the run.
USC is still the team to beat in country until they either lose to nonconference opponents or get blown out of their bowl game which is very unlikely to happen.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Tran 10 months ago
Finally someone who is intelligent and well educated about NCAA football, something that most comment posters and the article writer lacks. You know what's funny, Oregon beat USC when USC wasn't even healthy at the time. last I checked under Pete Carroll USC's worst loss was by 11 pts in 2001, seven years later we haven't seen the Trojans lose by more then a TD. Wake up people, hate USC all you want, but they're elite compared to your sorry teams.
Edit Comment Cancel
Cullen Buie 10 months ago
Gil,
I love the word 'overrated'. Fans see it and automatically think 'bad'. I'm not saying USC is 'bad', I'm saying they are not the second or third best team in the nation. You don't need to get blown out in bowl games to be overrated. Now, looking at USC in 2006 and 2007, I would argue that they're best win, including bowl games, was a thrashing of Arkansas (who went to the SEC champ game that year), at Arkansas. But let's face it, for a team that far and away recruits better than anyone in the PAC-10, they have some horrible losses on the resume. Every year, since the split NC with LSU in 2003, USC has controlled their own destiny in the BCS. Heck, they changed the BCS formula to give the human vote more weight, just because USC was left out in '03. The media absolutely loves USC, and that's an advantage since the BCS is part beauty contest. So, every year that USC doesn't make the title game it's their own fault. You can't blame injuries, every college football team deals with injuries, and if you've recruited so well someone should be able to step in. The injury arguments John makes actually prove the point of my article. Injuries are only a problem when less experienced/talented guys are the backups. If you only lost last year when your backups played, aren't I justified in saying the team won't be as good this year when you have to rely on those same backups full time? Seems reasonable to me.
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Peszko 10 months ago
Cullen, I'm really sorry to say this, but you need to take a course in logic. Yours is more twisted than the 110 Freway.
"Injuries are only a problem when less experienced/talented guys are the backups." Cullen, if they were more experienced and more talented, they wouldn't be backups. They would be starting.
"If you only lost last year when your backups played, aren't I justified in saying the team won't be as good this year when you have to rely on those same backups full time? Seems reasonable to me."
No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me or even logical as Mr. Spock would say. You see those backup did get experience from their playing time. And, lo and behold, unless they have vegetated for an entire year, they are bigger, stronger and yes, more expereinced than they were a year ago. Comprendez?
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick The Only 10 months ago
USC is not always overrated, but they are vastly overrated this year. USC will struggle offensively and will almost surely lose to OSU. USC will have more talent on the field than just about every team it plays except for OSU. That is the advantage of playing the Pac-10.
If USC played in the SEC, they would have to face 2-3 teams per year with similar talent level (Florida and LSU are always in the top 10 in recruiting and Georgia has as much or more talent than USC this year).
This is what happens to USC this year: They blow out Virginia to start the season, although the game will be closer on paper than on the scoreboard (USC's defense will score twice). Then USC loses to OSU and goes on winning streak after the loss.
When the end of the season gets close everyone will be clamoring for USC to get into the BCS title game because they have only 1 loss. There will be a more deserving SEC or Big 12 team with 1 loss. The country will be arguing over who goes to the BCS title game and whether USC should have another shot at OSU (if OSU makes it).
Alas, it won't even matter, as the season's end approaches USC will lose its 2nd game to a huge underdog (I'm looking at you Stanford, Notre Damn, and UCLA) and end up playing an outmatched Big 10 opponent once again.
On a related note: If you compare USC's schedule to the top SEC team's schedule's its laughable.
USC plays 3 ranked teams: #2 OSU, #21 Oregon, and #15 ASU. Georgia plays #15 ASU, #24 Alabama, #18 Tennessee, #7 LSU, #5 Florida, and #10 Auburn. Georgia plays 3 top 10 teams to USC's one. Georgia plays another 6 top 25 teams to USC's 3.
Florida, who has a relatively easy SEC schedule still has two top 10 opponents (Georgia and LSU) and will likely have to play a third top 10 opponent in an SEC title game if they want to get to the BCS title.
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Peszko 10 months ago
Ah, Nick, the injustice of it all! But, shoot, I have the perfect solution. Let's break the SEC out of Division 1 football and put them in a division by themselves - Division SEC East and Division SEC West. The two division winners will play each other for the mythical BCS National Championship.
The remaining teams left in Division 1 will just play the same old Bowl games as usual. Hey, not only did I solve the injustice. I just created the perfect solution for the BCS dilemma.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil HHH 10 months ago
Nick-- I think you are incorrect about USC losing two or three games in the SEC beacause regardless of the offense people forget that USC has a very good strong defense and they are a very physical team (ask Auburn and Arkansas two of so called best SEC West teams). Coach Carroll brought defense to the PAC 10. The reason non-conference opponents have a hard time beating USC is because they are not used to seeing the pro-style type of offense that takes full advantage of the fullback (dying breed) and tight end. PAC 10 teams are require to play each other instead of playing a Div II school and thus give each team an opportunity to better prepare themselves against USC on a yearly basis.
Based on your schedule analogy I hardly doubt it that Alabama will be ranked by the end of the year (maybe a year away), either Tennessee or Auburn will turn out to be overrated (my guess UT because Coach Cutliffe is gone), and at the same time I think Cal will be ranked before the year is out even though I think Cal will also underachieve. Don't underestimate USC because they have earned all of the pub they received. The reason people hate OSU and OU is because they have been blown away in the bowl games. Don't you think it's kind of weird that OU lost its swagger after USC destroyed them?
If you had to bet all of your savings who would you pick to win out of UG, Auburn, UF, LSU, tenn, Alabama and USC? The reason people hate USC is because they are very, VERY, good.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick The Only 10 months ago
The SEC always has at least one, usually two or three, top 10 defenses. If I had to pick I'd go with UF, then Georgia, then USC, then LSU.
UF first because to win one game, I'd go with the team with the best QB. UF has that hands down. UGA second because they have the best overall talent and a decent QB. USC third because they have somewhat of a proven QB, but I don't trust the rest of their offense. Then I'd go with LSU because they have a sick defense, but no proven QB. Alabama has a QB, but what else? And Tennessee, I don't trust Fulmer.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Stanley 10 months ago
You very succinctly nailed it. USC is a program that gets a pass when it comes to the polls, and I can't explain why. Ohio State got the benefit of doubt two years ago when they had 10 new starters on defense. They proceeded to an undefeated season until they were exposed as frauds against Florida, so they're not the only team to get this preseason love. For whatever reason, the polls have certain darlings that seemingly can't go wrong. It took years before FSU stopped being a top 10 team on reputation alone, and Bama gets more press than they deserve based on their past.
I only have a problem with this because it forces (unnecessarily) legitimately strong teams to surmount yet another obstacle in terms of poll position. If, for instance, Auburn had the ranking that was given to Oklahoma in 2004, we might not have seen the debacle that was the BCS Championship Game that year. Same goes for OSU in 2006. Beating up on pitiful conference patsies should not automatically vault a program into national prominence, or maintain that prominence year in and year out.
Edit Comment Cancel
jeff close 10 months ago
dear john, oregon had 7 opening day starters out for sc game- sc had three out and if you watched the game you know the score could have been worse 31-10
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 10 months ago
How can USC be a " regional power" when all but two losses (regular season K-State early in Pete's career, and Texas in Title game) have been from pac-10 teams in SEVEN YEARS? In other words, they have beaten Auburn twice, Nebraska twice, Arkansas twice, Iowa once, Oklahoma once, Michigan twice, Va Tech once, K-State once, Illinois once.
Your statement is completely without merit. USC has mostly lost to Pac-10 teams (Cal, Oregon State, Oregon State, Stanford and Oregon and UCLA).
In Pete's SEVEN YEARS, HE HAS LOST TO TWO NON-CONFERENCE TEAMS: TEXAS AND KANSAS STATE. The rest he has won.
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 10 months ago
"It's like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, did we all lie down and quit?"
"Forget it, he's on a roll now".
John Belushi, Tim Matheson, 1978
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
Readings is fundamental. He said "since Pete Carroll left" right?
LSU's record in nonconference games is similar to that of USC's, and that includes 4 PAC - 10 teams. It is just that no one ever talks about it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 10 months ago
And by the way, USC lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl, so nice try with the "backyard" advantage.
Edit Comment Cancel
Cullen Buie 10 months ago
USC losing to Texas doesn't disprove the advantage of playing 20 miles from campus. Just because the venue gives you an advantage, it doesn't mean you win every game.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Tran 10 months ago
You do realize the Rose Bowl isn't USC's backyard, they've lost twice there to Texas and UCLA during these recent years. Technically they're on the road, and your last comment why bash me when your supporting USC and the Pac-10 against the SEC? I'm a Trojan fan. eek now you know.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
You really don't think playing in the rose bowl is an advantage for them? Come on, since when has playing at home not been an advantage.
It took a once in a lifetime performance (actually he did it the year before agianst Michigan) to beat them. Not every team has a Vince Young on its roster..
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Rupert 10 months ago
Show me a team that recruits top five every year, plays a weak schedule in a weak Conference,wins that Conference every year and is a perennial media darling and I will show you a USC and a TOS.
The media will prop up their darlings every year, REGARDLESS. Good article.
Edit Comment Cancel
jeff close 10 months ago
I'm not a USC fan, but I dont get your weak remark about schedule and comference. I think you're in serious denial. I hate to admit it but SC rocks
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Stanley 10 months ago
I can name six SEC schools that would be top 10 programs every year with USC's schedule, four of whom would be annual top 5. And I would bet my house that USC would not have 5 top tens in the past 6 years (what UGA has accomplished) if they had played the Dawgs' schedule during that time. It's really that simple. I know, I know, USC beat Auburn one year and Arkansas a couple of others, but that's not quite joining the SEC. Try preparing for 6 of those games a year (at a minimum) instead of the 2 or 3 who might cause problems for USC now. More importantly, try recruiting the region against these other SEC schools. The Trojans have a near monopoly on California talent but wouldn't enjoy that dominance in the Southeast. No SEC school can, either. The schools keep their spheres of influence and occasionally poach a recruit from someone else's sphere, but ther is no 800 pound gorilla in the SEC like in the Pac 10. USC is a good, even sometime's great, team but their reality would be far different in the SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
That is a very good point about recruiting. USC gets what ever they want from California as far as players go but if they were down south they would have to compete with UGA, Alabama, UF, Auburn, LSU and Tennessee for the best athletes.
Edit Comment Cancel
RT 10 months ago
Here are some PAC 10 vs. SEC stats.
1883-2007 National Champs:
SEC =18
PAC 10 = 13
1990-2007 National Champs:
SEC = 6
PAC 10 = 2
BCS (since it's inception) Champs:
SEC = 4
PAC 10 = 1
The numbers don't lie, people. Deal with it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
Why cut off at '83?
and '90?
Manipulating numbers can be fun, can't it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
BCS Bowl Appearances:
Pac-10: 12
SEC: 14
W-L in those Bowls
Pac-10: 9-3
SEC: 10-4
The numbers don't lie Roll Tide, deal with it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
Nick: he is not manipulating numbers. Not only does the PAC - 10 have fewer national titles than the SEC, virtually all of those titles, 11 of 13, have been won by USC. Translation: in order to win a national title, USC does not have to beat another national title contender in their own conference. This has especially been the case during the BCS era. SEC teams frequenly knock each other out of the title game, as Sugar Bowl champion LSU did 11 - 1 Tennessee. Meanwhile, the losses that have knocked USC out of title contention have just been huge upsets against teams that are not in title contention. A better example: UGA and LSU had two games in 2003. LSU won both. Had UGA won both, they play for the title instead and win it instead. The same goes with LSU - Florida in 2006. The winner won the national title, the loser won the Sugar Bowl and finished with a top 4 ranking and won the national title the next year despite losing 4 first round draft picks. That doesn't happen in the PAC - 10. If a USC team is good enough to play for the national title, they pretty much will, because they do not play another national title contender during the regular season. As a matter of fact, in 2003, they did not play a single national title contender the whole year long, because they beat 10 - 3 Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Stanley 10 months ago
and short of buying the game, UGA lobbied as hrd as possible to get into the Rose Bowl to play USC last year, but the Rose was intransigent about their conferencr tie-in with the Big 10. So instead of a possible classic game between top 6 schools, USC mauled Illinois and UGA manhandled a hapless Hawaii team that didn't belong in a BCS game at all. I don't fault the Trojans, but they weren't exactly twisting arms to make the game with UGA happen, either. Too bad, because both schools deserved better. The BCS simply made conference bowl commitments more important than seeking the most competitve games. Politics like this will eventually take away from BCS credibility, or at least what remains of it.
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 10 months ago
Anthony, I would like for you to put this comment where we can all get our hands on it whenever we need it. This is the most 5 star comment of the month. Thank you.
Edit Comment Cancel
rod wood 10 months ago
Anthony,
It seems you are misguided in your assertion that the Rose Bowl was the impediment to a potential USC-UGA matchup in the 2008 Rose Bowl.
As so clearly articulated by Mr. David Wunderlich, a Florida Gators fan and a writer here on Bleacher Report, the reason that game did not happen was not because the Rose Bowl did not want the game but because of the Sugar Bowl itself. According to Mr. Wunderlich's article "Decoding the BCS Selection Process," in order for the Rose Bowl to have selected Georgia to face USC, the Sugar Bowl would have had to agree to release the SEC team since they had already lost one of its anchor teams, LSU, to the BCS championship game which they would not have agreed to and subsequently refused to do.
Even if the Rose Bowl wanted to select Georgia to face USC, the Sugar Bowl would not have allowed that match up to occur, according to BCS selection rules. You can read Mr. Wunderlich's article at:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/49350-decoding-the-bcs-selection-process
This same selection issue can be found on the archives of Stewart Mandel's column on www.cnnsi.com.
Both schools certainly deserved better games, but in this instance, the Rose Bowl tried to do what most fans wanted but were unable to get the Sugar Bowl to sign off on the game.
rodwood
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
Yeah David Booty left
and Im sure you were just as cynical when Leinhart and Bush left.
All USC did was win 2 more Pac-10 championships with a relatively "new full-time starter at quarterback"
Its a system of greatness that is above its individual stars.
THE END.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
Nick your last comment was funny: which was . . .
BCS Bowl Appearances:
Pac-10: 12
SEC: 14
W-L in those Bowls
Pac-10: 9-3
SEC: 10-4
The numbers don't lie Roll Tide, deal with it.
---------------------
You basically just proved yourself wrong. You're sticking up for USC but then you show us that the SEC has more BCS Bowl apperances and virtually the same winning percentage in those bowl games. Nice job! lol
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
Can you do basic arithmatic?
9/12=.75
10/14=.71
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Peszko 10 months ago
Yada-Yada-Yada. You folks are unreal. Who cares which conference is better or worse? What is a team going to do? Leave its conference and move clear across the country to join another conference just to prove to you jokers that Georgia would win the Pac-10 every year or that USC could hold its own in the SEC??? What pigeon droppings all this is!!
Points are proven on the field with players competing against one another and nowhere else. Certainly not in blogs of ridiculously narrow-sighted homers who have gone orgasmic over their conference or fav school.
Watch your games, root for your teams, but don't slam other schools because they happen to be on the other side of the continent and not in your almighty, precious conference. Get a life!
Remember, Pete Carroll has said on numerous occasions that USC will play any team, anywhere at any time. I'm not aware of any coach from any conference that has responded to that. If someone has heard of another coach's response, please by all means enlighten me.
Edit Comment Cancel
Cullen Buie 10 months ago
Seems to me like Ohio State responded.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Stanley 10 months ago
The point I was trying to make is that there was an opportunity to do exactly what you suggest-settle a debate on the field. I thought the BCS arrangement was supposed to make this possible, but the bowl fiasco last year (Kansas getting the Orange bid over Mizzou was egregious as well as the Sugar and Rose Bowl match-ups) made it clear that AD's and university presidents, along with the various bowl commissions, have a much different motive-money. Because of that you will have debates of this nature, as it is not possible to have a national round-robin in the regular season. I for one am not debasing any other school or conference so much as I'm attempting to boost my own.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
I think people are just pointing out that, yes USC has had a lot of success in the past 6 or 7 years but they don't have to deal with some of the hardships or conflicts that an SEC team has to face.
For one an SEC schedule is tougher than a PAC 10 schedule. Also, USC really doesn't have to compete with anyone else in their conference for the top recruits. In the South you have 5 or 6 teams fighting for the same recruits.
Edit Comment Cancel
RT 10 months ago
Nick,
1883 was the earliest year a NC was listed. And the numbers are what they are. We have more NC's than the PAC 10 and more BCS National Champs than the PAC 10. And last I check, the team with the most bowl wins (and appearances) was an SEC team. Should I go on?
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
Oh sorry I thought you stated 1983-2007 not 1883.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Martin 10 months ago
False
Most BCS bowl appearances USC-6 wins-5
for SEC LSU-4 wins-4
p.s. football is only one sport
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Inglis 10 months ago
The key word was virtually.
Reading is fundamental.
Edit Comment Cancel
USCfbfan USCfbfan 10 months ago
Well find out wont we, cant wait for 9/13!
Fight On!
Edit Comment Cancel
rod wood 10 months ago
All of this nonsense with the conference debate comes down to basically a few teams doing what should never be done in sports:
They are trying to take credit for the success of other teams in their conference to make their football program look stronger than it might actually be.
I don't begrudge a program like Alabama for their national titles. They certainly earned it. But every time I hear another SEC school play the conference card, such as LSU or Florida, and how great it is because another team in their conference experienced some success it comes off as trying to use another's success to hopefully make their program look better. You would think that maybe standing on the merits of your own university's accomplishments would be enough but instead we have Gator fans rejoicing because LSU has done something.
I guess when Tigers or Gators football has never been able to earn long term success on their own that they would think it is OK to use another school's success to boost up their own program (LSU - 1 national title in the 20th century; Florida Gators - a football history that basically only started in 1990 and not before despite a single Heisman in 1966). If that's what it takes to erase the sting of not being as accomplished in athletics as USC, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State or UCLA then in some way they can rationalize it as somehow OK.
rodwood
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
This question is answered here:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/51121-why-usc-is-overrated-but-alas-still-the-best
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Rupert 10 months ago
Yes.. and so is Pete Carrol, he has a complete lock on the most talent rich state, very little competition on the schedule and is just barely ahead of Mark Richt, Urban meyer and others in the SEC, in winning percentage, they play against real competition.
Many others would have done better given his recruits and the fact that USC doesnt play any body year after year. If I was a USC fan not making the MNCG every year while facing such weak competition would be a problem. Yea I know he recruits well but if you're a top high school talent in California where else can you go in the region, UCLA needs to prove they've found a Coach. He has more talent than any Coach, has a path of least resistance and he still can't get it done.
Edit Comment Cancel
jeff close 10 months ago
In the last 10 years the pac 10 leads the sec 9-6 head to head! winning % in bowl games is almost equal 55%-52% in favor of the sec. The weak competition statement just means you dont know what your talking about! The pac 10 conference of champions!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick The Only 10 months ago
USC just plays weak Pac-10 defenses every year.
By way of example, lets use this past season.
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2007&div=4&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org
The Pac-10 had two (2) top 25 defenses. One of those defenses was USC. That means that USC only had to face ONE other top 25 defense in its conference schedule.
The SEC had five (5) top 25 defenses. That means an SEC team will have to play several top 25 defenses every season.
Lets go back another year to 2006. http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2006&div=4&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org
The Pac-10 had one (1) top 25 defense. That was USC. That means USC played no other top 25 defenses in their conference schedule.
The SEC again had five (5) top 25 defenses. That means that each SEC team had to play several top 25 defenses. The SEC even had the #26 best defense, too.
USC gets a free conference pass through their schedule. Most other Pac-10 teams recruit 3-4 star talent and USC recruits 5 star talent. Compare the SEC: Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Alabama, and Georgia regularly pull in 5 star talent.
That is why I am confident that USC would lose 2-3 games per year in the SEC. USC could still win the SEC, but it wouldn't win it 6 years in a row. It would have to trade championships with the other elite programs.
Edit Comment Cancel
jeff close 10 months ago
Arkansas middle of the road sec team? USC HAMMERED them two years in a row then loses to stanford bottom of the pac 10 enough said !
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.