OU 59 UCLA 24 OU 53 Iowa St. 7 OU 65 Texas 13 OU 52 Ok. St 9 OU 77 Texas a&m 0 OU 41 Baylor 3 OU 56 Texas Tech 25 I just don't see how it's "outlandish" talk after looking at what OU did in 03'.
Noticeably, you left off the rest of the pathetic schedule. Otherwise, let me see if I understand this correctly....beating Alabama who ended up 4-9 and lost to Hawaii; beating Fresno State who also lost to Hawaii by a larger margin; beating Iowa St. who had a 2-10 season; beating Baylor who had a 3-8 season; and beating Texas A&M who had a 4-8 season, are so huge and spectacular to justify being characterized as the BEST football team EVER! Please! Until you engaged be in this debate I had forgotten just how outlandish the media hype was over Oklahoma in 03. Oklahoma did absolutely nothing to deserve being considered the best college team ever. Sorry.
USC did not win a National Championship in 03. This illustrates the point. Isn't it funny how when the media speaks of LSU winning the NC in 03 they usually mention that LSU was a co-Champ but when referring to USC in 03 they are usually mentioned as the champs. Just today Herbstreet referred to USC as the champs in 03, 04 and were going for a 3rd and never once mentioned co-champ, or LSU for that matter. It is what sells so I guess it will never change.
Conversely, they beat an 8-5 Texas Tech team that averaged 43 points per game by a score of 56-25. They beat a 10-3 Texas team, that averaged 40 points and held every other team to under 20 points, by a score of 65-13. They also beat a 9-4 Oklahoma State team, that averaged 35 points a game, by a score of 52-9. I understand that some of their wins were over weak opponents, but all they can do is beat who's on the schedule. Given the margins of wins over tough opponents, I would have to say you're overlooking what they did.
