From Hype to Hate: Is the USC "Dynasty" Really Over?

I have to say, I didn't see it coming.

I never thought Stanford could pull the upset.

In fact, I figured the Cardinal would follow the lead of another organization that embraced the idea of singular mascots—the WUSA.

The Women's United Soccer League had teams named the Atlanta Beat, Carolina Courage, Philadelphia Charge, New York Power, San Diego Spirit, and, my favorite, the Washington Freedom.

Unfortunately, the WUSA with its, um, "creative" team names folded in 2003.

The Cardinal of Stanford had been about as successful lately, winning just one game in 2006.

And then came Saturday.

In beating USC 24-23 in Los Angeles, Stanford snapped the Trojans' streak of 35 consecutive home wins. Southern Cal had gone over six years without losing in the Coliseum.

Their last loss?

To Stanford, by a score of 21-16 on September 29th, 2001.

After USC's stunning stumble, supporters are jumping ship left and right. Some members of the media (ahem...Jim Rome) think the Trojans are all but finished.

Seriously? Can one pass from Tavita Pritchard to Mark Bradford bring the "dynasty" to an end?  

Which begs another question:

Why should one game ever determine how a team is remembered?

Why can't Boise State, Appalachian State, and Stanford just simply beat a Goliath team...without our claiming that the Goliath team fell on its own?

Then again, maybe USC wasn't the Goliath we all thought it was.

The same media personalities dumping on the Trojans this week spent most of the season hyping them to the top of the polls.

Robert Smith of ESPN even wanted to hand USC the championship—and he wasn't the only one.

Now who feels stupid?

I'm not going to lie—I had USC ranked second from the get-go. I thought they were good—and they still are good, at least in my eyes.   

But why must it be one or the other? Why is the question either "Is USC No. 1?" or "Should USC remain in the Top 25?"

Some Trojan bashers have drawn analogies to then-No. 5 Michigan's upset at the hands of Appalachian State. If the Wolverines dropped out of the rankings, the logic goes, so should USC.

Not quite.

First, Michigan's loss came in the first week of the season. Michigan was 0-0, while USC had already proven themselves.

Second, while Appalachian State was a two-time defending national champion, there are just some things you don't do as a Big Ten powerhouse. Losing a home opener to an FCS opponent is one of them.

At least Stanford is an FBS school, and a Pac 10-rival to USC.

Could the Cardinal beat Appalachian State in a head-to-head matchup?  That's a whole other argument.

In any event, I'm sick of hearing the "Should USC still be in the Top 25?" question—same as I was sick of hearing the "dynasty" talk before that. But now that Rome has proclaimed the Trojan "dynasty" to be over, I kind of feel for Southern Cal.

I don't like seeing the media build teams up only to tear them down later. It seems to happen every five years or so.

Before USC it was Miami.

Before Miami it was Florida State.

We could go on and on.

Here's my proposition to the national press:

Don't prematurely declare a team a "dynasty" in the preseason based on prior successes. And don't suggest that a 4-1 team who'd been ranked No. 2 in the country should be banished from the Top 25.

Fair enough, right?

And, finally, some good news for the Stanford Cardinal:

The WUSA is planning to resume play for the 2008 season. Maybe those singular mascots aren't so hopeless after all.