USC Football 2003-2005

The way people talk about this team, it's as if they're forgetting that they were technically just the second best team two of those years. In 2003, they were joint champions with LSU, but LSU was the team that had to play mighty Oklahoma in the championship. In 2005, Texas won the championship, but somehow the only team people talk about is USC. I'm not trying to take away from what they accomplished just that the run is overhyped.

"The idiotic BCS system put Oklahoma in the title game, and USC never had a chance to win it on the field."

Again, that argument could be made for Auburn in 2004. But I don't think that delegitimizes USC's championship. So, why should that delegitimize LSU's championship in 2003? I really don't think I'm being biased here, just reasonable. Being voted the national champion by a bunch of writers and winning the national championship aren't the same thing. You dis the BCS, but I could say that if it weren't for the idiotic sports writers involved with the AP poll, that USC wouldn't have anything to talk about with 2003. I think it goes both ways. You can't call the BCS idiotic when it serves your purposes.

This would make a good showdown.

This argument just goes to show that we need a plus one game for situations like this.

I'm a Notre Dame fan and that USC vs Notre Dame was classic. It was arguably the best win of the USC dynasty with that clutch throw from Leinart and a bit of luck at the end.

The run was a tad overhyped with only one undisputed title. Still its the best run since Nebraska's five year run from 1993-1997 with 2 titles, 1 spilt title, a loss in the title game, and an another 'down' year where they went 11-2.