clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Last word on Trojan whine re.

Obviously lot of Trojan fans have been blowing their gaskets over last  few days.  Some morons have even come up with response websites that are too retarded or lame for us to link. We are not going to waste much more time on the topic whether we can call what Pom Pom has done during last three years at South Central a "dynasty."  I think this post from the blog Gunslinger pretty much nails down this issue (emphasis mine):

The whining coming out of Heismanpundit (and here) about how USC really is a dynasty and LSU fans are dumb and stuff is seriously like fingers on a chalkboard. Here's the deal. We pick one hard and fast rule and stick with it - no complaints. Either the BCS champion is the "National Champion" or we allow split titles. If the former option is what we use, then if you don't hold that crystal trophy, tough shit; if you get screwed out of playing in the title game even though you should've, tough shit. If the latter option is the one we're going to use, then the definition of "title" cannot be limited to the BCS title winner, the AP poll, or the coaches' poll, or any particular poll just because you think it's more valid than someone else. If there can be split titles, any group with a reasonable argument can claim to crown a title. So that means under the former option, USC is the undisputed champion for 2004-5, but isn't anything for 2003-4. If we use the latter option, USC can claim half of a split title in 2003-4, but that also means USC can only claim a split title in 2004-5, because Auburn has as much a claim to a title. So let's pick a rule and go by it. Either you call USC a one time BCS champion, or you can say they were back to back split champs. Undisputed once or Disputed twice. My personal view is for the latter. I say if you have a team that has as good or better a record as anyone else and hasn't lost to a team with an identical record, that team can claim a "title".

In either event, while USC has been very dominant over the last three years (and it's possible that their 2002 team might've been their best, by the end of the season), I don't think they're a dynasty. Being involved in the national title picture in three (or 4) years in a row is a tremendous accomplishment. But let's leave it at that. I think any talk about a dynasty in this era, where everyone has the same number of scholarships and there are 50+ schools that play big time college football (with huge budgets, firing caches after 9 win seasons, etc), is just silly. I could accept that Oklahoma in the 50s was a dynasty, but the system then was totally different. These days, a dynasty is not possible. And a dynasty over 3 and a half years doesn't cut it in my book. To me a dynasty means at least 5-6 years where nobody else really had a chance to win against them. UCLA hoops in the 60s-70s. The Celtics with Russell. College football today is different. Talent is too spread out. On the one hand, there aren't enough games in a season to have the matchups between top teams and ensure one team stands alone. On the other hand, there are enough serious programs to where multiple programs can play comparatively difficult schedules without playing one another, or even common opponents. There isn't a playoff to determine that only one team stands alone. So it comes down to this: Is USC a great team, possibly the best program of the decade so far? Probably so. But they're in the same class as Miami was from 2000-2002. And Nebraska from 1993-1997. And Alabama from 1977-1979. Tremendous, dominant teams. Not dynasties. There's no such thing as a dynasty in college football's modern era.
That is pretty much it. HT to the boys from BurntOrangeNation for flagging it.  All we are going to do now is just be on the lookout for those pictures of the billboard when it actually goes up somewhere near the 110 (and the 10?). GO BRUINS.