re: Program of the Decade

I reread through this pathetic thread, and by far the best line I saw was "if USC can win the national title next year, then they're in the discussion."

Jesus you people are the biggest homers ever.

eagerly awaits King Joey to individually quote every word I wrote to create 40 different responses...that no one will read

quote:

---

Jesus you people are the biggest homers ever.

---

Figured out how "the decade" started in 2002 yet?

quote:

---

Figured out how "the decade" started in 2002 yet?

---

I tried to start it by each team's relevance, but even if I count both team's poor 00 seasons, I believe USC has won 6 more games and lost 7 less. They have just as many national titles, 4 more conference championships, and three more Heisman winners.

LSU had the edge over USC before this season because the W/L records were almost equal, but after another average season, they have the edge now.

As much as I hate to admit it it has to be Florida.
Two BCS football plus a couple of basketball championships.

quote:

---

As much as I hate to admit it it has to be Florida.
Two BCS football plus a couple of basketball championships.

---

I think we're just doing football, but if we're including the major three sports, UF is probably on top. I believe they made the CWS too in baseball.

I think it's whoever wins the 09 Championship game.
Are USC and LSU on a collision course for 09?

quote:

---

Just because everyone thinks the SEC is the NFL and Pac-10 is pop warner does not give you a legit reason to rank LSU ahead of USC.

---

Considering over half of SC's conference championships were shared anyway, and that in 3 of the 4 seasons we did not reach the SEC Championship Game we were one game away from it (Auburn in '06 and '04; and Arkansas, Auburn or Bama in '02; Auburn in '00), how much difference in the quality of conference competition do you think it would take to eliminate that margin of conference titles? And considering that one more loss in either of what you deem their "National Championship" seasons (by a team that has managed only one undefeated seasons anyway) would have completely eliminated them from consideration, and that LSU was one more win away from a shot at the National Championship Game in '06, is it really a stretch to "objectively" conclude that even a slight difference in strength of conference competition could be responsible for a weaker SC program purportedly equalling a superior LSU program in number of National Titles?

Does it really take an NFL-to-Pop Warner margin of competition to account for one more or less win in 3 or 4 seasons over the course of a decade?

quote:

---

You can't clearly say one is better than the other because both have strong and weak points.

---

You're talking about formats, I'm talking about the strength of the conference.

My point is that noone is suggesting an NFL/Pop Warner margin in conference strength. But considering the very thin margin by which SC has won many of those Pac 10 titles, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that if the Pac 10 were even a little bit tougher, it is unlikely they would have as many conference titles. Likewise, the margin by which LSU missed out on winning the West (and a shot at the SEC Championship) is so narrow in many years that it is very reasonable to conclude that if the SEC were even a little bit easier, it is likely we would have been in another SEC Championship Game or two (or three, etc.), thus greatly increasing the chance that we would have more SEC Championships.

That means that discounting the strength of conference factor while relying on achievements made by thin margins -- margins well within the reasonable range of that difference in conference strength -- is not taking an objective view of the comparison.

quote:

---

You can't clearly say one is better than the other because both have strong and weak points.

---

Dude, I was trying to be nice today, but you fricked that all up! Are you REALLY this stupid? You think you can compare the pac 10 to the SEC? You're joking ..... right?

The problem with this whole discussion is that everyone thinks that we are a "better team" over time because we've had better seasons, as in we won more BCS Championships before this season than any other team. Truth is, we have not been the most dominant program this decade, and I don't think we can lay any claim to the team of the decade when we can't even follow up a championship ranked in the top 25.

Success to me is measured in wins and losses. That takes away any subjectivity for teams that play in different conferences. All the major players, LSU, UF, SC, OU, UT, & OSU play in BCS conferences and the level of competition is similar. Its not like we're comparing the SEC to the Mountain West.

From 2001-2008:

T-1. UT and SC .854 winning percentage
2. OU .824
3. OSU .813
4. LSU .781
5. UF .750

Also, USC, OSU and OU all have 7 BCS bowl appearances each.

4 teams have shown the ability to be more consistent than us, year in and year out. Now I can understand if LSU and UF get a boost due to the fact that an argument can be made that both schools belong in the conversation as an elite team because the SEC is 4-0 in BCS championship games during the same time period, but you can't say that UF and LSU are the most dominant programs of the decade without being biased.