this is tough for tf'ers to do, but just because one is good doesnt make the other bad. it is possible for lsu and usc to be good. id be willing to bet usc would have just as many sec titles as anyone in pc's era if they played in our league
And just because USC is good (after last night, I'm not so sure), it doesn't mean that LSU isn't the most dominant team of this decade. But I rarely hear us referred to in that manner. And if USC of this decade was part of the SEC, they'd have a title or two, as well. But they wouldn't have won all of them, like they have in the PAC 10.
I completely agree. Just saying that perhaps Miles is a top coach with Carroll? Maybe? Seems like it to me.
and they would be lumped in with the top half of the SEC over the past decade and never once would you have heard greatest team ever (twice in 3 years). I know its tough for you secblitzers? to dog the condoms with our ex-resident USC poster prevalent there if I remember correctly. Im sure tiga is doing his best USC is still awesome mantra consoling all the condoms. And that LSU is decent.
tiga posted some stupid thread asking if LSU and USC now have a decent shot at playing in the same BCS bowl game.
seriously though, do you think there is any truth to this notion that the USC team is soft by design? how many of their recruits would we have taken? does this prima dona mindset really exist there and is it the players recruited or the coaching. I know we wanted mcknight. we've discussed this for years but last night there was really no sense of urgency on that #1 team down 21-0. a game theyve now lost 3 of 4 in corvalis. and who's kissing more USC ass over there? you or tiga or a tie?
