I've seen this game before. Here Les, jump through this hoop. Well, we did not like the jump that much, here's another. Okay but I found a Michigan hoop again so can you jump through this . . . and so on. Let's go back to first principals: 1. You entered this post quoting cristof who said: "Icing on the cake, they just solidified their position as College Football's latest dinasty." You emphasized the "they." You then said: "Tell me please, just what did USC have to do with the whole silly thing?" [Note you did not say provide links, notarized documentation and film of USC doing this. You said "what did USC have to do with the whole silly thing."] You also say (later): I never said anything about dynasty. I was referring to original post. You got confused. Well let's look at that original post, shall we? "I guess the Trojans will self-claim another national championship because Sports Illustrated claimed them winners after defeating Oklahoma in the ultimate playoff championship game. . . . Thank goodness there was a year or 2 between their other 3 national championships or they would be claiming 4 or 5 in a row!" Wow! Looks like he is talking about 3 or 4 championships in six years. [That probably refers to what was said out of So Cal after the following BCS Championships: 2003-LSU; 2004-USC; 2005 [USC Greatest Team in History Year] - Texas. Looks like a dynasty, walks like a dynasty, quacks like a dynasty, yep, he was talking about more than the singular one time hypothetical and relating it to USC claims. So you say show me where we said that. I cite four examples, one for each year you did not get crystal: 1. USC player looking at the Rose Bowl Champions trophy. You do not refute that. 2. Matt Lienert, in 2005, the year Texas won. You "refute" that, first by saying he was talking about Oklahoma win. After I had clearly indicated in my post it was after the Texas win. Then you say: Players make silly comments. And accuse me of hating Leinart. This is odd. I say "x" happened. You come back saying "well if it was 'y' that's another matter." Not really a refutation. The you say "oh x is a silly thing." Conceded. You're still not refuting that the "silly thing" happened. So then you say, boo you for hating the person who did 'x.' I don't "hate" him and it is still no refutation. Here's another example "tigerhoss is a felon." So I say "you have ring around the collar." No refutation in my claim, is there? 3. I cite Pete Carrol's quote. First you say there's nothing wrong with what he said, I remember something like that but not that exact statement during the BCS selection show, and oh, by the way, we had injuries. [To which I noted everybody gets injuries, and several teams had devastating ones]. Then later you post a link to a Pete Carrol interview the night before the selection show. That was not where I heard it. I'm not digging for a link. I don't jump through hoops on somebody else's whistle. 4. I also cited 2006 USC player. You do not deny that. So we have Leinart and the bowl season quote from last year after the UCLA loss. 5. And you also later said I need "many," because you said many make this claim. Four was "many" for me, but I elaborated. So I implicate the entire USC athletic media department in an official publication of USC. I say (from a memory and so it is a paraphrase, as is indicated by the lack of quote marks and the "I am not sure:" statements in the following quote: The COVER of the USC Football Media Guide for the 2005 season claimed (in large headlines) that USC was going for three in a row (after they had won ONE in a row). . . . It was going to be pretty impossible for them to win TWO pieces of crystal in one season, so clearly the USC Media Dept, if not the entire Athletic Department, is implicated here. I think that constitutes "many" non-journalist USC employees and associates. . . . I am not sure, but I think that cover even says "Dynasty" on it. You come back and say: "Funny how you are so sure that the 2005 Media Guide claimed "in large headlines" that USC was going for 3 in a row. But then you weren't sure if it used the word "dynasty". I didn't quote it, so why the claim that non-quote here indicates "so sure" and later say paraphrase without quotes and it's clear you mean "roughly, not exactly." But, oh well, let's look at that link to the media guide you posted: The largest headline at the top of the cover says "USC;" the second largest headline at the top of the cover says: "2005 Football;" the third largest headline at the top of the cover says "Back-To-Back National Champions" Ain't no other print in gold or in larger type anywhere on the page (attendance figure in smaller gold type on bottom). So those three "headlines" are at the top of the fold so-to-speak. That makes them "head" lines. And they are in larger print and in gold unlike the type on the rest of the cover. That is therefore Large Print. Back-to-Back means TWO (although I am sure it means "Oklahoma to you). I think that justifies my saying they are claiming the upcoming season will be for three in a row. That seems to me a fair inference. (Or was their goal to lose early and often -- i.e. "Back-To-Back National Champions, So This Year We lose 'Em All!") Now you want me to "PROVE" my statement about Pete Carrol's exact quote. I remember it, which is enough for me. Sorry, I don't have to PROVE anything to you. You've done enough non-refutaton and "Proving" for me. Every time I give you a fresh example, you say I need another one, and another one, and another one. Game ends here. If you really think others (LSU fans, Hawai'i fans, Iowa fans, neutral fans, whoever) do not see USC claiming multiple titles and all-time greatest team status from years when they did not win crystal, fine by me.
I heard a guy on ESPN radio say if LSU beats Ohio State then LSU will be the dominant team of this decade so far with 2 crystal balls. With USC's only BCS Championship in question via the Reggie Bush scandal I can see why he said that.
I admit that you are correct on when I entered the thread. However, my whole point about being silly is that the discussion was based off of a simulated game sponsored by SI. The reference to "they" was to question what USC had to do with the game and the obvious answer is nothing. Here's your initial comment about the Media Guide: The COVER of the USC Football Media Guide for the 2005 season claimed (in large headlines) that USC was going for three in a row (after they had won ONE in a row). Sounds to me like someone who's pretty sure of themselves or has proof but you went on to say you weren't sure about the use of the word dynasty. I gave you the link and Back-to-Back is not the same verbioage as going for 3 in a row. For someone who says, "It's stupid, but idiotic trivia sometimes sticks in my head ", you seem to have jumbled the words. Sure you quoted players but not one of them mentioned a dynasty. As far as Coach Carroll. Just like you didn't exactly get the media guide comments correct, there is a distinct probability that you got his comment wrong. If there were ANY time for him to claim USC as the best team in the country, it would have been the night before the selection show when he had nearly 4 minutes and was being asked to say as much by the ESPN host. He just didn't say it. He's as media savvy as a head football coach gets. Had he made the comment as you suggested, don't you think it would have been carried, dissected, and for sure ripped apart on just about every forum out there? You make my point for me so well though. Take some liberties with words, misquote a few people, assume you know the meaning of what they say, cast intent when there is none and you have the makings of a contrived rivalry/dislike. Both USC and LSU fans have an opportunity to really enjoy what our two teams could accomplish and hopefully meet on the field. That's all. :geauxtige
