Really? I hate SC as much as the next guy, but SC's been the most dominant college football team under Pete Carroll. When SC falters, its usually early in the season to a team that it doesn't take seriously enough. By the time the season ends, SC is usually the hottest college team and goes into those BCS bowl games with a lot of momentum where they end up destroying their competition. I think SC would have destroyed that Auburn team as well. After all, SC has played SEC teams before and had their way with those teams. In fact, SC played that same Auburn team the year before and destroyed them 23-0.
"Really? I hate SC as much as the next guy, but SC's been the most dominant college football team under Pete Carroll." Are you serious ??? Really.... I am sorry dude, there are two SEC teams with more National Titles than they have. Florida and LSU. To top it off BOTH of those teams played in the BY far the toughest conference in college football. USC is a good football team I will give you that, they are an elite team, but put them in SEC conference and they lose 2-3 year easily. Sorry....... Heck they lose one or two in the PAC 10 against teams they are 4 TD favorites against. Oh and Auburn got jobbed. ANY team that wins the SEC should play for a national title, no matter what happens around college football. I could argue even if they had one loss. The point is the two BEST teams right. Being undefeated doesnt mean you are the best - See Hawaii. UGA I thought almost killed some of their players. The fear in the eyes of Hawaii was almost sad. Their poor QB in that game
We all know SC cheated, but clearly SC was the best team by far that year. They both both played the same opponent, Virgina Tech. SC beat VT 24-13, while Auburn only beat VT by 3. SC's won two National Titles, the same as Florida and LSU. I could go on and on about how good SC was during that time and how many top four finished they had, but that would make me throw up a little in my mouth. That's why I said SC achilles heel was that it lost to teams that it didn't take seriously. When SC has faced top teams, its been almost unbeatable with the exception of that loss to Texas. SEC teams always boast how hard their schedule is, but your out-of-conference games are a joke. At the very least, I have to credit SC with playing big games against big schools for their out-of-conference games. Against a SEC conference schedule, SC would have brought their A game and defeated those SEC teams. And, if it had the same schedule as SEC teams, it would have had those cupcake out-of-conference games which SC would have beaten even if they had a very bad game and all the bounces went against them. As bad as those Stanford or UCLA teams may have been that upset SC, they were still a lot better than the cupcakes the SEC schedules.
Also do you care to explain to me why a low tier team in the SEC like South Carolina beat Southern California October 1st 1983............ 38-14 Do you Remember that fire ant Defense???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
In all honesty, if I was barner, I wouldn't want the '04 title. It would be just like SC's 03 AP b.s. No one would recogize it but the dim, and you'd catch waaaaaayyy too much flack for it.
weisguy, U$C wasn't nearly as good as the media promoted them to be in 2004. They were very good, but to characterize that U$C team as superior to the Auburn '04 team is a complete myth. Here's how one ESPN analyst summarized the matter: another stated it this way: say what you want about the SEC's out-of-conference scheduling practices, but for the particular year in question, your argument is weak sauce .... very weak sauce
Wiseguy. I hate to inform you but Usc has one bcs national championship. Not two. And that is going to be vacated. But you won so I will give you that one. Even though they cheated to get that one. They don't have two. Sorry that is a fact.
Wiseguy. I am happy to inform you that Norte Dame has ZERO BCS national championships. Yours truly, Leather helmets.
