USC "Dynasty" Over

by Peter Bean on Jan 10, 2006 3:45 PM CST in Texas Longhorns Football

Via our good friends at Bruins Nation.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Awesome

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't onepeat.com running a fundraising drive to actually put this billboard up. Classic Bruin Nation behavior, kicking 'em while they're down.

by AMB on Jan 10, 2006 3:50 PM CST reply actions

Typical of the crew in WASTEwood

They must be smoking again during winter break.

Fight On!

by Paragon SC on Jan 10, 2006 6:16 PM CST up reply actions

bought into the whole BCS "thing" If it weren't for the BCS, the AP would have it's own trophy. In 2003, the AP was part of the BCS that sent OU and LSU to the title game. If they were truly "legit" and "time honored", as USC homers say, then they would have put USC in the game rather than OU or LSU. Take your pick, AP, you can't have it both ways.

by GoHorns on Jan 10, 2006 5:16 PM CST reply actions

The polls are only a component of the BCS

"If they were truly "legit" and "time honored", as USC homers say, then they [the AP] would have put USC in the game rather than OU or LSU."

Since USC was #1 in both the AP and coaches polls, then your logic supports that USC should've been in the title game. The severly broken "strength of schedule" was why USC was not in the title game; the polls had nothing to do with it.

And more than one coach broke their contractual agreement to vote LSU BCS champion.

by blackdog81 on Jan 10, 2006 6:35 PM CST up reply actions

Ap

Internet has been around close to 10 years and newspaper circulations have declined since then. It's said one day internet will completely overtake the old tyme newspapers.

AP has been around since 1936. But you know what? BCS, TV, and internet took over. Just like newspapers, the AP is fading quietly. Under your theory, newspapers are more legit than something we just saw on TV.

So the AP named Texas national champs this year. What if they didn't? If they don't have the same national champ as the BCS then the AP is looking like the one who isn't legit. FYI - all the polls were included so there wouldn't be an East Coast bias

2003
LSU National Champions
USC AP National champs

Notice which one has to precursor their title

by FreedomDip on Jan 10, 2006 5:32 PM CST reply actions

What about Auburn?

Each of USC's national championship were incomplete, to no fault of USC. Their 2003 championship was split with LSU, and their 2004 championship left an Auburn team undefeated, who by the way were annoited National Champions by the Golf Magazine. Two half championships equal 1 UT National Championship. Hook 'em Horns!

by TarHorn on Jan 10, 2006 8:35 PM CST reply actions

1970 champions

Prior to last wendesday, your last championship wasn't even a championship you got run in the Cotton Bowl. Deal with it.

by kidomaha on Jan 12, 2006 6:56 AM CST up reply actions

re: wrong everywhere

I don't understand why you're so defensive about the whole thing, HP.

I know as a Texas fan, I couldn't care less about what championship trophy is more legit, etc.

It just seems like nothing more than a humorous joke between rivals. Why does everything have to be legitimized within the blog community?

by Jason Mayer on Jan 10, 2006 10:26 PM CST reply actions

My problem

My problem with this entire thing, and I think I speak for many others, was the the overhyping of USC's "back-to-back" titles, without any mention that the 2003 title was split with a great LSU squad. There have been many split titles, but until recently the media and fans have always given credit to both teams. The USC hype got out of hand and it became unbearable to listen to these yahoos yelp about the three-peat without anyone even once mentioning that a pretty damn good LSU team shared the title in '03.

I have no problem with USC claiming back-to-back. I just want it put in proper perspective. I say this because I would never want the 'Horn's 1970 title taken away. Although if you throw a few drinks down my throat and talk dirty to me, I'll probably admit to you that it was pretty damn bogus.

by Eric @ Burnt Orange Nation on Jan 10, 2006 10:53 PM CST reply actions

That billboard is 100% correct

The billboard says nothing about National Championships, the reader infers it.

The billboard says "Shouldn't dynasties win more than one"

In this case, the "one" is the ADT crystal ball.

Here's another one floating around:

by the other Andrew on Jan 11, 2006 1:10 AM CST reply actions

Let them

I had no problem with USC running around with their three-peat goals, ***provided they use "three-peat AP champions" to avoid confusion with "three-peat BCS champions," which would just be false.

After all, wasn't the BCS the weapon of choice the major schools, USC included, agreed to use a few years ago in order to determine the national champion?

by bass on Jan 11, 2006 3:06 AM CST reply actions

HP, let me ask you this...

What does the AP trophy look like? If you know, congratulations. You are one of about 75 Americans that do.

What does the BCS trophy look like? If you know, congratulations. You are one of about 90% of all Americans that do.

USC won 2 straight AP titles. Never in their panderings about 3-peat did they mention they were going for a 3rd straight AP title. That's the point. They try to overlegitimize their titles and don't mention all of the other factors. LSU winning the BCS, Auburn and Utah going undefeated and not having a shot...

All in all, it doesn't matter. History was not made and they did not win the 3-peat. Unless the BoiFromTroy trophy counts. I would never want to see that trophy.

by GoHorns on Jan 11, 2006 9:00 AM CST reply actions

What if UT were in the same situation?

Are you saying that UT wouldn't claim to be back-to-back national champions, or merely that UT would clarify and include "AP" in bold letters?

It seems to me that a majority of sports writers recognize USC as back-to-back national champs, one being a share with LSU. Additionally, this was the first year (recently, anyway) that the format and methods used to determine the championship game wasn't controversial. I'm not saying the BCS crown is less recognized than the AP's, but there really aren't a lot of people who think the BCS system is good.

I just don't get all the anti-USC hoopla over this. It's not as if USC created their own title and bestowed it upon themselves and expect everyone else to acknowledge it. So USC doesn't go the extra mile and asterisk their back-to-back claim and note it's an AP title. Big deal.

by blackdog81 on Jan 11, 2006 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

Anti-USC hoopla

We've been dealing with Anti-Texas sentiment forever. Get used to it. Especially if USC continues to be good. If they fade away into obscurity, then no one will be the wiser.

And to your point of the majority of sports writers recognizing USC's "back-to-back", it's because they wanted to be in on the media blow job that USC was receiving. They wanted their own take on the "3-peat" scenario. It sells because it was history in the making. Regardless of the controversy behind if they won 1 or 2, it would sell. That's all that matters to the media. Do you really think they care if USC is considered the 2003 champion or not?

by GoHorns on Jan 11, 2006 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

USC's AP championship

So when the media recognized USC's AP championship two years ago, they were consipiring to sell newspapers? I know that's not what you're saying, but if it's a joining in on a USC reach-around, then why was it acknowledged back then as legit?

Since the start of the 2003 season, USC lost two games by a combined 6 points (one in triple-OT). Can any other school compare?

Let's give credit where it's due. USC is a good team, and it came down to the wire against this year's champs. Trying to tear them down as less than the stellar program they've been looks like sour grapes.

by blackdog81 on Jan 11, 2006 10:17 AM CST up reply actions

Blackdog

While I agree that USC was a great team for 3 years in a row, unfortunately, they weren't able to prove it on the field like UT was able to this year. The problem that most of us here have is that some USC fans (and players) are poo-pooing on UT's championship (i.e. Matt Whinart's post game comments, BFJ's poll, all the comments regarding VY winning the game and not Texas, etc.).

As you know, it gets old. We've been undisputed champs for 3 minutes and already people are saying that UT didn't earn it. Not you, but many. The anti-USC sentiment comes from the months upon months of blow jobs for USC, then USC still getting credit for a loss. Texas is not getting credit for a national championship. VY is (for themost part).

Blackdog, you seem to be a VERY intelligent fan and you give credit where credit is due. For that, I thoroughly respect you as a fan. For the most part, though, the other USC fans are being ridiculous with their comments. That includes on the TV!!

by GoHorns on Jan 11, 2006 11:27 AM CST up reply actions

Comments

I agree that Matt's comments were inappropriate, but as a completely competitive person, I can understand them. Did Texas make the big plays? Yes. Did USC? No, at least not when it mattered most. Because of that fact, Texas proved to be the better team. However, if they played 10 times, I think the outcome would be pretty even (I'd be surprised if one team won 7 games). My pregame prediction was only a 4-point win for USC, so it's not like I thought the game would be a blowout either way.

Matt would've been much wiser to simply say 'no comment' or suggest they go interview the champions instead.

People definitely need to shutup that USC is the better team. SCOREBOARD.

Maybe this would be better in a new diary, but I've been pondering this for almost a week now: It seems that too many UT fans aren't really taking the time to enjoy this win. There's been a lot of focus on what's going to happen next year, what decision would Vince make, USC's championships, etc. I was a little disappointed that Vince didn't bask in the glory for a week before making the announcement (or longer if it weren't for that lame deadline this Sunday). I'm not saying these fans aren't enjoying it properly, but can't those topics can wait awhile?

I'll admit that I might be WAY off base, but that's a perception I've got.

by blackdog81 on Jan 11, 2006 11:51 AM CST up reply actions

AP Titles

Actually in most accounts it was clear they were going for their third straight AP title.

That is something that has never before been done, and part of the significance of the quest.

And again, there is no BCS title. There is a coaches title and a writers title.

by kidomaha on Jan 11, 2006 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

Final Conclusion

No three-peat, three-pete, or whatever. Nobody did it.

BCS Champ (The crystal ball)
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 LSU
2004 USC
2005 Texas

AP Champ (The other trophy)
BCS Champ
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 USC
2004 USC
2005 Texas

End of discussion

by FreedomDip on Jan 11, 2006 11:02 AM CST reply actions

end the misery

I agree. Those are the facts, so until Congress outlaws AP national Championships, or the Bowls come up with some other addled non-playoff scheme, they are what they are.

by DC Trojan on Jan 11, 2006 2:33 PM CST up reply actions

Dont even tease

I can totally see hearings coming down the pipe now.

I beat Wells in pool!!!

by AdamDC on Jan 11, 2006 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

You know it's coming

CA has 53 representatives to the 32 of Texas and Louisiana, but I guarantee you that you couldn't get a California bloc to save anything related to USC. We're not universally popular, oddly enough.

All I know is that if we can't trust them not to f**k up the basics like tax and war (and I think that's true no matter where you sit on the political spectrum), I don't want them anywhere near college football.

by DC Trojan on Jan 11, 2006 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

nice typing

sorry, that should be "32 of Texas and 7 of Louisiana."

by DC Trojan on Jan 11, 2006 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

oops

I messed up. I listed BCS champ underneath AP champ. That's what happens when you copy and paste one championship to another ... errors

by FreedomDip on Jan 11, 2006 11:04 AM CST reply actions

2 problems I had with the Hype

I will admit that USC won 2 national championships. When they won the first one I was rooting for them to win the AP, not because I thought they were better than LSU, but because I wanted them to mess up the BCS.

The problems I have with the hype before this year's game are:
1. Every article or blog seemed to forget that LSU also won in 2003, it seems like some revisionist history was going on to forget about how good LSU was. It comes back to the dynasty vs. single season argument, because USC had the better team in 2004 and had the dynasty title rightly bestowed upon them, they were automatically better that LSU in 2003 and therefore are sole champions of 2003.
2. 3 championship games in a row. 2003 USC was co-national champions, but they were not in the national championship game, that was LSU and OU.

2. 3 championship games in a row. 2003 USC was co-national champions, but they were not in the national championship game, that was LSU and OU.

by Wells on Jan 11, 2006 2:19 PM CST reply actions

Can't speak for all SC fans...

...but I always acknowlege the co-championship from '03; even the more fanatical of my college friends did. They did win the BCS game, after all. Why their fans feel compelled to get into pissing competitions about it is beyond me. Even a co-championship is better than a kick in the ass (as demonstrated 1/4/06).

by DC Trojan on Jan 11, 2006 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

LSU forgotten?

Noooo.

LSU just wasn't part of the story. If the running story was about 2003, there would have been plenty of ink shed on LSU.

But it wasn't. The story was about continuity by USC over the last 4 years that culminated in the Rose Bowl. Where does LSU fit into that story?

LSU fans are hellbent that USC wasn't going for 3 straight because it invites the question: If LSU was so good why aren't they here too?!

by kidomaha on Jan 12, 2006 7:00 AM CST up reply actions

The same BCS website that you keep

touting says the BCS sole purpose is to create the National Championship Game. Face it, the BCS, for all of the hate we all have for it, is the National Championship Game.

by Wells on Jan 12, 2006 10:12 AM CST up reply actions

It seems strange

that the winner of the National Championship did not play in the National Championship game, no?

GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.

by uclawarren on Jan 12, 2006 11:26 AM CST up reply actions

Hey - Heisman Pundit!

Us people really enjoy seeing you people get all riled up when we taunt and provoke you with fun stuff like "USC only won one title."

Why is this so damn hard for you people to figure out?

by Peter Bean on Jan 12, 2006 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

that is not what your highly touted

BCS website says. If you site it as gospel for the last 6 months and now you turn your back on it. For shame.

by Wells on Jan 12, 2006 3:20 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

How lucky are we to have Mr. Heismanpundit himself here to tell us how stupid we are? Due to his disapproval, I'm going to go sit in the middle of the road, douse myself with gasoline and set myself aflame.

by Kahuna on Jan 12, 2006 3:51 PM CST up reply actions

Hold up

Didnt Texas win the National Championship in football last Wednesday after winning the National Championship game?

by SuperBentley on Jan 12, 2006 3:38 PM CST up reply actions

They won ...

But Texas must have won only the crystal ball. Does anybody ever remember Anyone parading around with the AP trophy?

by FreedomDip on Jan 12, 2006 3:50 PM CST up reply actions

It will be delivered in 7 - 10 days

AP wouldn't even shell out for next day shipping.

by Wells on Jan 13, 2006 9:25 AM CST up reply actions

USC does not equal ESPN

Despite paranoid conspiracy theorists running amok here and elsewhere, USC does not own and/or in any way finance ESPN. I, too, thought the late season hype got ridiculous, but hating on USC for that is juvenile.

I also never heard anyone dis LSU's share of the national championship in saying "USC is going for a 3rd national title"; if they said "a 3rd BCS title" then that obviously wouldn't be the case. The problem for LSU and USC-haters is that USC and LSU will FOREVER be listed in the history books as co-national champions for 2003, like it or not. Even the BCS' own website acknowledges this:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=timeline

Deal with it.

P.S. Never take seriously the opinions of "men" wearing powder blue.

by Defender90 on Jan 11, 2006 2:44 PM CST reply actions

Not quite

We don't hate USC because ESPN hyped them. We hate ESPN for that season-long blow job.

And I think I speak for a lot of us when I say that we don't hate USC per se, just the more obnoxious fans of USC. We even get along fine with some USC fans, like Linkey.

by Peter Bean on Jan 11, 2006 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed

Although most sound like absolute dip-shits, there are a few that have been on this site that were logical, fun, and honest. I won't bother listing them because they know who they are. BFJ is a great example of those we seriously dislike!

ESPN, though, is a different story altogether. That was just irresponsible journalism.

by GoHorns on Jan 11, 2006 3:11 PM CST up reply actions

LL

I've grown fond of Lil' Link. His youthful antics are a refreshing change from the grim urban miasma that grips our workaday lives.

Link, if you ever make it to DC, make sure to let us know so we can show you around town, maybe buy you your first beer, introduce you to some ladies. Of course, you will have to refrain from oddball USC shouts and grabbing your nether region in public.

by Kahuna on Jan 11, 2006 3:21 PM CST up reply actions

He is only a freshman, but...

I would chip in for his ticket to DC. I would love to see his face when a girl at camelot shook her thang in his face. At least you can drink in DC unlike 4 play in LA. Who ever heard of naked ladies and no beer???

I beat Wells in pool!!!

by AdamDC on Jan 11, 2006 4:56 PM CST up reply actions

For future reference

Its "Linky" without the e...but thats just a minor technicality.

Fight On! Beat the (Insert USC opponent here)!

by USCLink on Jan 11, 2006 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

How many times has that sight been links

I think we all know what it says by now.

by Wells on Jan 11, 2006 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

All I know is that UT won't be a dynasty...

...It's tough enough being on top and staying on top, but its damn near impossible to repeat with this guy as QB...

...two words: Colt McCoy!!

by mel kiper jr fan on Jan 11, 2006 10:03 PM CST reply actions

wow

I gotta admit...that is one goofy looking kid.

Fight On! Beat the (Insert USC opponent here)!

by USCLink on Jan 11, 2006 11:25 PM CST up reply actions

Linky

I thought that was you in a Burnt Orange Shirt.

I beat Wells in pool!!!

by AdamDC on Jan 12, 2006 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

Kiper fan is a pouting Trojan

Hey, remember this one, Kiper Fan?

http://www.burntorangenation.com/comments/2005/12/8/15843/2591/23#23

Yeah, good call.

Bitch.

by Peter Bean on Jan 12, 2006 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

May Not Matter

I think this was actually started by an LSU fan who was bitter that the Trojans were given the AP after the Tigers beat the Sooners in the Sugar Bowl.

by MattH on Jan 11, 2006 11:04 PM CST reply actions

Newsflash

Noooooo, you're kidding. An angry LSU fan is STILL upset that the Tigers split the title with USC in 2003?! And here I thought McConaughey started that website.

by Defender90 on Jan 15, 2006 12:04 AM CST up reply actions