Maybe USC isn't so great...

[Free Bagel]

Disclaimer: I, like most others, happen to think USC is the best team in the country. That being said, maybe they're not as great as we all think.

It seems that, especially this week, some of their "competition" has looked pretty awful. All these teams get hyped up just for playing it close (even if only for a half) against the mighty unbeatable USC.

First, we have Arizona State, who lead USC at halftime and with their unimpressive 3-point win over the mightly 3-8 Arizona just squeaked into a bowl game at 6-5.

Then Notre Dame basically beat USC (we all know how that went down), and the hype was mighty and ND looked like a lock for a BCS bowl, until they eeked out a last second victory over a team that's not even bowl eligible to round out the season.

Lastly came Fresno St, who of course got boatloads of undeserved hype (and if I'm not mistaken actually moved up in the rankings after the USC game) about being a quality team, only to see themselves fall to the almighty Nevada in pretty convincing fashion the next week.

Now I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but maybe USC isn't so great after all. I'm really starting to think that this team is not nearly as good as the Nebraska's, FSU's, Miami's, Florida's, Tennessee's, etc of the 90's, but that USC comes off as more "dominant" because of who they're playing against. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I figured it would be an interesting discussion..

[VaderFin]

No, Notre Dame almost beat them...thus, they are the greatest college football team of all time.

[dave416]

USC basically sleepwalks through the first half of every game they play, only to wake up in the seocnd half for the W. They wont be able to do that in the national championship (assuming they defeat UCLA).

[HskrPwr13]

This is a tough one. I certainly felt that NUs 60-3 run from '93-'97 was pretty awesome. But I gotta give it up to 33-0. College football hasnt seen that since OU in the '50s. I will agree that since it seems to me that there are less dominant programs around (due to parity), you could make the arguement that the level of competition faced isnt as great. True, USC wouldnt have been able to sleep walk through first halves of games and still win against the '90s Huskers and 'Noles, and others.

[BaseballFann0008]

Its tought to be fired up to win a game when u havent lost in 33 games, they wont come out like that in the ship.

[VaderFin]

This is a tough one. I certainly felt that NUs 60-3 run from '93-'97 was pretty awesome. But I gotta give it up to 33-0. College football hasnt seen that since OU in the '50s. I will agree that since it seems to me that there are less dominant programs around (due to parity), you could make the arguement that the level of competition faced isnt as great. True, USC wouldnt have been able to sleep walk through first halves of games and still win against the '90s Huskers and 'Noles, and others.

Miami would disagree with that.

[HskrPwr13]

This is a tough one. I certainly felt that NUs 60-3 run from '93-'97 was pretty awesome. But I gotta give it up to 33-0. College football hasnt seen that since OU in the '50s. I will agree that since it seems to me that there are less dominant programs around (due to parity), you could make the arguement that the level of competition faced isnt as great. True, USC wouldnt have been able to sleep walk through first halves of games and still win against the '90s Huskers and 'Noles, and others.

Miami would disagree with that.

When did Miami win 33 or more straight? '01-'03?

[Payne Dailey]

When did Miami win 33 or more straight? '01-'03?

2000-2002 34 in a row.

[VaderFin]

When did Miami win 33 or more straight? '01-'03?

2000-2002 34 in a row.

[HskrPwr13]

When did Miami win 33 or more straight? '01-'03?

2000-2002 34 in a row.

I guess the fact that there was only 1 national title in there threw me off. (You'd think I wouldve remembered that one )