USC Football

[theprofessor]

How can that be? According to theprofessor they were an elite school before Bush even got there. Because, you know, averaging 7 wins a year for the 20 before bush arrives is ELITE.

 

:drawspictureforpopeflicktoo:

 

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936.

[SLAYER]

:drawspictureforpopeflicktoo:

 

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936.

Just one question when was the last time USC won a National Championship?

[Pope Flick]

:drawspictureforpopeflicktoo:

 

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936.

 

 

No, here's the picture:

 

When you said this, you were demonstrably wrong, especially if we're talking about the football program.

 

It really is that simple.

It's amazing how USC's recent success has overshadowed its mediocrity in the 1990s. The Trojans didn't enjoy a single 10-win season between 1989 and 2001. It is barely over .500 (37-35) in the last five years of that stretch before Pete Carroll came to town. If you look at just the '90s, USC has fewer Prestige Points than schools like Syracuse, Wisconsin and BYU. USC was also docked for minus-29 points on our probation scoring system.

 

You had a 20 year gap in relevancy, then Carroll arrived, started cheating and lo and behold. Now, Kiffin coasts on the mo that Carroll's recruiting did, so let's see what he's got in 3 years.

 

And of course, your BS really is something else: you are quoting rankings made in 2009, after Carroll loaded the breakdowns and pushed them as high as they did in those rankings. In short, they were NOT number 2 before Bush came to town like you say, they ONLY became #2 (how fitting) after they cheated their way to that spot, and the rankings reflect USC up until 2009.

 

Nice try on a fast one, but if those ranks were put together in 2002 they wouldnt be as high. As it is, you need to hide behind doublespeak...

Edited November 29, 2011 by Pope Flick

[theprofessor]

No, here's the picture:

 

When you said this, you were demonstrably wrong, especially if we're talking about the football program.

 

It really is that simple.

 

 

You had a 20 year gap in relevancy, then Carroll arrived, started cheating and lo and behold. Now, Kiffin coasts on the mo that Carroll's recruiting did, so let's see what he's got in 3 years.

 

I love how you guys go through almost 80 years of college football and pick out a small percentage of time where USC had down years to make your point. 4 losing seasons in the last 30+ years. Again, you heard the word "elite" and got your panties in a bunch. It's OK, relax .... we know that over the last 6-7 years the SEC elite teams have dominated college football and would beat every team in the NFL. We get it. Now, if they could just beat that football program from Boise St? And given the recent admission of cheating by recent SEC players and the Cam Newton situation how ironic is it for an SEC fan to call out another team for cheating?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I'm not sure what USC being selected as "best of the decade" by any opinion publication has to do with anything. Your argument is what were they before Bush? As far as I can see, they had 2 really good years (1988 and 2002 with pretty solid years in 1989 and the keyshawn team in 1995) in that 20+ year stretch that SEC cited earlier. USC was pretty much a middle of the pack pac 10 team. So your argument doesn't hold much water if you're looking at Post-years that anyone cares about to Pre-2003.

[theprofessor]

No, here's the picture:

 

Wrong again. Mine is real. Yours is your opinion. Once again :drawspictureforpopeflickagain:

 

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” [b]and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936.[/b]

 

If that type of recognition doesn't justify my opinion that USC has been an elite college football program then I'm convinced that you are more interested in arguing than anything else.

[Trojanmojo]

It is too bad that there doesn't seem to be a way to punish the college players and coaches who cheated without punishing those who didn't ... often, those who cheated are rewarded with contracts at bigger colleges or the NFL while the school programs they leave behind in disgrace suffer the consequences. Yep, if the USC program hadn't cheated and if the current team hadn't lost this year, they'd likely be considered for the BCS championship game. Still, Lane's own success at prior schools was built in part by violations, so who knows if he'd have even caught USC's eye without them. And who's to say what draw Reggie Bush's success at USC, rife with violations, played in attracting in the current players. If USC had gone 3-6 those years having not been paying Reggie's family, would they have recruited so well? Still, amongst it, is just a sad situation that does indeed punish some innocent hard working kids whose on the field play has been strong.

 

USC has always recruited well. We've put more players in the NFL than any other team or very close to it. If USC has had problems at any point in time it has been due to poor coaching (see Paul Hackett, Larry Smith, Ted Tollner, etc). The talent to compete with just about anyone has almost always been there. As far as Reggie Bush goes, USC would have been great with or without Bush and I'm not sure how paying Bush affected the recruitment of anyone else besides him. Also, you say Lane's violations at prior schools...did you mean to say school? There's no evidence he commited any violations outside Tennessee.

[theprofessor]

Just one question when was the last time USC won a National Championship?

 

A better question might be ...... how many?

[Trojanmojo]

A better question might be ...... how many?

 

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans_f...National_titles

 

National titles

USC claims 11 national titles, including seven from the wire service AP Poll and/or Coaches' Poll. Two of USC's championships, 1928 and 1939, are based on the Dickinson System, a formula devised by a University of Illinois professor that awarded national championships between 1926 and 1940. The Dickinson System is cited in the Official 2010 NCAA FBS Record Book as a legitimate national title selector.[46] USC's claim is consistent with other FBS programs that won the Dickinson title. In 2004, USC recognized the 1939 squad as one of their national championship teams.[47][48][49] The 2004 team was forced to vacate the final two games of its season, including the 2005 Orange Bowl due to NCAA sanctions incurred as a result of loss of institutional control, and namely, in connection with Reggie Bush. USC appealed the sanctions, delaying consideration of vacating USC's 2004 championship by the BCS. Ultimately, USC lost the appeals and forfeited the 2004 BCS championship.[50] The AP has stated that it will not vacate its 2004 championship award given to USC and hence retains a share of the national title.[50]

 

Also...

 

Trojans in the NFL

USC has had more players (472), and more 1st round NFL Draft picks (74) than any other college.[3][52] 162 Trojans have been selected to the NFL Pro Bowl, while a Trojan has played in all but two Super Bowls.

 

Pacific-12 conference titles

The Trojans have suffered only three losing seasons since 1961 and have captured 37 Pac-12 titles (including PCC titles, which today's Pac-12 recognizes as its own). This gives them the 4th most conference championships of any NCAA school, and twice as many as any other Pac-12 member team. From 2002 through 2008, the Trojans won or shared an unprecedented seven consecutive Pac-10 titles.

 

Bowl games

The Trojans have played in 47 bowl games, a total that trails only Alabama's 58 bowl appearances. USC has the highest winning percentage in bowl games—66%—among teams with at least 15 bowl appearances. Finally, USC's 33 Rose Bowl appearances and 24 victories are the most of any school in a single bowl.

 

Individual awards

Individual players have won numerous accolades with six officially recognized Heisman Trophy winners, 34 College Football Hall of Fame inductees, and 150 All-Americans. USC's first consensus All-American was offensive guard Brice Taylor in 1925, who notably excelled despite missing his left hand, and who was one of USC's first black players.

 

Heisman Trophy winners and retired numbers

Six USC players are currently recognized as Heisman Trophy winners. Reggie Bush won the 2005 award, but the school, and later Bush himself, forfeited the award.

 

If the above is not enough to be considered an elite program then I'm not sure what a program needs to do to get there.

[Pope Flick]

Here's why you're full of it professor: if, in ten years, I said that Cierre Wood of Notre Dame (who is currently a freshman) went to ND when ND was an elite program you would then point out that in the 20 years prior to his enrollment they were not elite because they hadn't done bupkus in 20 years. And if I came back with their 11 Championship argument you'd be laughing just like we're laughing. You're semantically twisting your way out of a silly statement.

 

And let's not forget: your team cheated your way to success this past decade. That is not something to hang your hat on, nor ignore it and take credit for. Your 04 AP championship isn't valid, plain and simple - and frankly in the BCS era none of the polls matter in final NC splits the way they did in the 70's for example.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Pope Flick

[theprofessor]

Here's why you're full of it professor: if, in ten years, I said that Cierre Wood of Notre Dame (who is currently a freshman) went to ND when ND was an elite program you would then point out that in the 20 years prior to his enrollment they were not elite because they hadn't done bupkus in 20 years. And if I came back with their 11 Championship argument you'd be laughing just like we're laughing. You're semantically twisting your way out of a silly statement.

 

And let's not forget: your team cheated your way to success this past decade. That is not something to hang your hat on, nor ignore it and take credit for. Your 04 AP championship isn't valid, plain and simple - and frankly in the BCS era none of the polls matter in final NC splits the way they did in the 70's for example.

 

You're wrong so much that it's actually comical. Simply put, I made the comment that USC is an "elite" type program. You picked out a 5 year stretch where they were 37-35. I bet you can go back in Oklahoma's history (they were ranked the #1 elite program, right in front of USC) and pick out a 5 year period of time where they had a similar record? So what? The facts are right in front of you, if you choose to not see them and put your own spin on the "facts" that's your choice. I could care less.

 

BTW, funny how you THINK you know how I think and that I would be as foolish as you and bring up the same scenario that you did in your post above. I don't think like you. Gratefully. And if you want to believe that the Trojan's dominance during the last decade was because a booster paid for Reggie Bush's parents to live in a nice home your more foolish than even I thought.

 

In addition, USC is not MY team I am a UW grad and follow the Huskies. My thread was about my admiration for the job Lane Kiffin has done this year to get his kids motivated to play with no end of the season incentive and Matt Barkley being left out of the heismann discussion even though he has had a very good season. It's you guys that turned this into something else.

[SEC=UGA]

You're wrong so much that it's actually comical. Simply put, I made the comment that USC is an "elite" type program. You picked out a 5 year stretch where they were 37-35. I bet you can go back in Oklahoma's history (they were ranked the #1 elite program, right in front of USC) and pick out a 5 year period of time where they had a similar record? So what? The facts are right in front of you, if you choose to not see them and put your own spin on the "facts" that's your choice. I could care less.

 

BTW, funny how you THINK you know how I think and that I would be as foolish as you and bring up the same scenario that you did in your post above. I don't think like you. Gratefully. And if you want to believe that the Trojan's dominance during the last decade was because a booster paid for Reggie Bush's parents to live in a nice home your more foolish than even I thought.

 

In addition, USC is not MY team I am a UW grad and follow the Huskies. My thread was about my admiration for the job Lane Kiffin has done this year to get his kids motivated to play with no end of the season incentive and Matt Barkley being left out of the heismann discussion even though he has had a very good season. It's you guys that turned this into something else.

 

In my initial post I conceded that Lane Kiffin has done a great job and that USC should be a very good watch next year...

 

What I took exception to is that some of the other stuff that you put in there is ridiculous.

1. Even had they not lost to Stanford, they would not be in the national title mix. ASU sucks and that would have killed their hopes against a 1 loss Bama and Okie St. team.

2. USC had a 22 year run of almost utter irrelevance in the NCAA picture which is not indicative of it having "ALWAYS been an elite" program. That 22 year span of insignificance comprises a large segment of my life, therefore, to me, they have not always been elite.

3. Indeed, the cheating by Carrol and Co. did, in fact, reverse the fortunes of a USC team that had been relegated to a 22 season stretch of mediocrity.

 

Those are my arguments against your statement.

 

But, if you want to ignore your embellishments (which I should have), again, Kiffin has done a very impressive job with growing this team. They are loaded with young talent in offensive skill positions. If Barkley comes back, they could run the PAC 10 next year. I haven't paid too much attention to the age of their D, but it acts like a young group that could grow into a pretty solid crew, they appear to have some mashers up front, may need more discipline in their secondary.

 

Now, back to my normal responses to you... You're a freaking moran....

[Pope Flick]

You're wrong so much that it's actually comical. Simply put, I made the comment that USC is an "elite" type program. You picked out a 5 year stretch where they were 37-35. I bet you can go back in Oklahoma's history (they were ranked the #1 elite program, right in front of USC) and pick out a 5 year period of time where they had a similar record? So what? The facts are right in front of you, if you choose to not see them and put your own spin on the "facts" that's your choice. I could care less.

 

BTW, funny how you THINK you know how I think and that I would be as foolish as you and bring up the same scenario that you did in your post above. I don't think like you. Gratefully. And if you want to believe that the Trojan's dominance during the last decade was because a booster paid for Reggie Bush's parents to live in a nice home your more foolish than even I thought.

 

In addition, USC is not MY team I am a UW grad and follow the Huskies. My thread was about my admiration for the job Lane Kiffin has done this year to get his kids motivated to play with no end of the season incentive and Matt Barkley being left out of the heismann discussion even though he has had a very good season. It's you guys that turned this into something else.

 

 

Um... right. I welcome anyone to check the thread and see that most of what you laid out is not the case. I pointed out a 20 year drought that led right up to Reggie Bush's freshman year as not being 'elite' which you most certainly said it was WHEN Bush joined. But please continue with your spin, you are not and never been a fan of them anyways , so why does it matter?

[untateve]

Just so I understand...we still all believe that the SEC is the King of College Football, right?

[theprofessor]

Um... right. I welcome anyone to check the thread and see that most of what you laid out is not the case. I pointed out a 20 year drought that led right up to Reggie Bush's freshman year as not being 'elite' which you most certainly said it was WHEN Bush joined. But please continue with your spin, you are not and never been a fan of them anyways , so why does it matter?

 

My Spin? Pot meet Kettle. Again, I proved my point by showing you facts. USC was voted #2 (behind Oklahoma) for all-time "Elite" college football programs. Not 10 years before Reggie Bush or for the 5 years after Reggie Bush but "all time". :drawspictureforpopeflickforthelasttime:

 

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936

[theprofessor]

Just so I understand...we still all believe that the SEC is the King of College Football, right?

 

Almost ....... 2nd to the Big 12

[theprofessor]

Now, back to my normal responses to you... You're a freaking moran....

 

Stay classy

[untateve]

In 2009, USC was named “Team of the Decade” by both CBSSports.com and Football.com, as well as the “Program of the Decade” by SI.com, plus was No. 1 in CollegeFootballNews.com’s “5-Year Program Rankings” and was ranked No. 2 in ESPN.com’s “Prestige Rankings” among all schools since 1936

 

I'd be curious what their criteria was in judging as I'm somewhat surprised that a team who violated NCAA sanctions and was put on probation won all of these accolades.

[SEC=UGA]

I'd be curious what their criteria was in judging as I'm somewhat surprised that a team who violated NCAA sanctions and was put on probation won all of these accolades.

 

Under Pete Carroll's direction, the Trojans became the sport's most dominant program, winning seven straight Pac-10 titles (2002-08), six BCS bowl games and two national titles (2003 AP; 2004 unanimous). At one point from 2003-05, Carroll's teams won 34 straight games, tying Miami for the longest streak this decade. USC won 11 or more games for seven straight seasons while consistently playing one of the nation's toughest schedules.

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/maga...l#ixzz1fCq3jKVS

 

ESPN

USC. It's easy to forget what college football felt like without the Trojans dominating the left side of the map. When Pete Carroll resurrected USC, he brought flair, flash and a lot of fleet feet back to a campus that had been unable to sustain any magic for two decades. After two national championships, seven consecutive Pac-10 titles, 102 victories, a 34-game winning streak that matched the longest streak in the past 40 years, and three Heisman winners, it is clear that USC achieved what no other school could match. The Trojans made the decade their own.

 

CBS Sports

The USC AD had just fired Paul Hackett after the 2000 season. The big names, at least Garrett's top choices, weren't returning his calls -- Mike Riley, Mike Bellotti, Dennis Erickson.

 

Hey, but what was Pete Carroll doing? Nothing, it turned out. The selection of the former Patriots coach went over like a rainy day in L.A. When the Trojans started 1-4, things got worse.

 

Carroll, though, was the spark.

 

What happened next defined the decade. USC won 53 of its next 58 games and two national championships. Three players won Heismans. There have been seven consecutive Pac-10 titles and BCS bowls.

 

The names defined the decade: Bush, Leinart, Palmer. The success rejuvenated the program.

 

Sure, Garrett got lucky, but USC got back to the top.

 

"The real exciting thing is, I don't feel like we're at the end of it," Carroll said. "We're in the middle of it, this is our world."