Don't Look Now, but USC's Dynasty Might be Done

[mookie2001]

[gaKNOW!blee]

Dynasty?

[MajorMike]

Is that a San Fran wedding??

[Thunder Dan]

did they write this article in 2006 or by dynasty do they mean winning the Pac Ten?

[bostonguy]

USC was never a dynasty. And no this isnt the end of them being in the bcs mix era. They are like the Lakers. They reload.

[tlongII]

SC will still be great in the future. It's just that this year will be a down year for them. Frosh QB's don't cut it in the Pac-10.

[Ghazi]

Yes, it is a dynasty. First off, considering the BCS is a horrible system, I think they should get some slack for only having 1 national le. If there was a playoff, they likely would have 2-3. They very well could have been the best team in years like 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008.

From 2002-2008, 82-9... 6-1 in bowl games, 3 heisman trophy winners, 1 BCS national le, 1 AP national le... even if that doesn't fit the true definition of a dynasty I think it is such unprecedented dominance that it's not illegit to call them one.

A few more notes.... ALL of those bowls are BCS... they had at least a split of conference le every year... and they featured an all time great offense ('05) and all time great defense ('08).

[mookie2001]

what? should every other team get slack for having one le?

LSU and florida have two real ones in that time and theyre not dynastys so why would usc be one?

did auburn get when they went undefeated?, no

[johngateswhiteley]

Yes, it is a dynasty. First off, considering the BCS is a horrible system, I think they should get some slack for only having 1 national le. If there was a playoff, they likely would have 2-3. They very well could have been the best team in years like 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008.

From 2002-2008, 82-9... 6-1 in bowl games, 3 heisman trophy winners, 1 BCS national le, 1 AP national le... even if that doesn't fit the true definition of a dynasty I think it is such unprecedented dominance that it's not illegit to call them one.

A few more notes.... ALL of those bowls are BCS... they had at least a split of conference le every year... and they featured an all time great offense ('05) and all time great defense ('08).

didn't expect that from a tiger fan...but its great to know that competing teams fanbases can have unbiased perspectives. course, i agree.

[mookie2001]

i would like to know the first season ghazi remembers being a fan of college football

100 bones hes younger than 24

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yes, it is a dynasty[. . .]even if that doesn't fit the true definition of a dynasty

[Ghazi]

what? should every other team get slack for having one le?

LSU and florida have two real ones in that time and theyre not dynastys so why would usc be one?

did auburn get when they went undefeated?, no

Because they're not as consistent in their dominance... LSU has combined 10 losses in '02 and '08 seasons... USC had 9 losses THROUGH the 02-08 seasons.

Same w/ Florida/Auburn. Florida had a 5 loss and 4 loss season in that gap, Auburn aside from that undefeated season has been fairly mediocre... Although Florida if they win a national le this year can and should be considered a dynasty as well.

[Ghazi]

i would like to know the first season ghazi remembers being a fan of college football

100 bones hes younger than 24

I'm 20, old enough to remember 2002-2008 . Not like we're talking about the 90's.

[mookie2001]

exactly- only old enough to remember the only thing that youve ever heard called a dynasty

[johngateswhiteley]

Because they're not as consistent in their dominance... LSU has combined 10 losses in '02 and '08 seasons... USC had 9 losses THROUGH the 02-08 seasons.

Same w/ Florida/Auburn. Florida had a 5 loss and 4 loss season in that gap, Auburn aside from that undefeated season has been fairly mediocre... Although Florida if they win a national le this year can and should be considered a dynasty as well.

not to mention, florida lost to a mediocre michigan team. big 10 too, lol.

[Spursfan092120]

9-3 this year.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

that's a pretty good record...


if they were notre dame

Given their schedule, IMO Notre Dame would have easily gotten 9-3 if not for Floyd's injury.

[vander]

Dynasty? ROFL

What dynasty?

look at it this way:
in 7 years from 2002-2008, they lost 9 games.

Texas - 13
Oklahoma - 17
LSU - 20
Florida - 24

edit: and what's more, is just about all of those 9 losses should have been wins for USC, they were never over-matched or playing a better team, they had to underachieve and/or choke to lose any game in the last 8 years

[vander]

Look at it this way: They play in the Pac10, one of the tiest conferences in college football the last decade. They have to win, give or take, 2 big games per year to be in the national le game -- being that the media sucks their s something fierce. They've got 1 championship. They are nothing close to a dynasty.

yeah, yeah, everyone east of nevada loves to say the pac 10 is weak, yet it's actually the 3rd best BCS conference. and pac 10 teams generally schedule tougher OoC opponents than any other conference, especially the SEC.
face it, for the last 8 years or so, no one has been as consistently great as USC, and that isn't going to change for a while yet

[vander]

I don't think the Ducks will win it. I think it will be the Bears or the Beavers.

[Brutalis]

USC will continue to get top talent. Just cause of one loss and an upset loss each year to finish 12-1 and this article gets written?

I dislike USC as much as the average fan but god damn man.