re: Program of the Decade

quote:

---

What about USC?

---

Dude get off the USC bandwagon

quote:

---

When Florida repeats next year, there will be no doubt. I hate to say it but it is true.

---

Nope, it's LSU's turn again next year.

just like the typical bcs mess, why don't we just say there's another 3-way tie right now for the mythical team of the decade:

1a - Florida
1b - LSU
1c - USC
4 - Texas
5 - Oklahoma

quote:

---

LSU 90-27, 2 BCS #1, 4-0 in BCS games, 4 top 5 finishes

UF 87-29, 2 BCS #1, 4-0 in BCS games, 3 top 5 finishes

USC 93-22 1 BCS #1 (+2003 AP), 6-1 in BCS games, 7 top 5 finishes

---

Plus USC has two Heismans, Florida one and LSU none.

LSU is not in this debate anymore thanks to another 5 loss season. And Florida needs to repeat or else its the Trojans.

Take off the P&G glasses and just enjoy the fact that we're in the top 5.

I think there can be arguements made for all three teams (UF, LSU, USC)

But from start to end of the season, who has the most years where they were in the national title discussion.... USC has 7 straight top 5 finishes, and hasn't had a season with more the 2 losses since 2001, neither LSU of UF can say that.

If you are talking about team of the decade (or even team on the 00's) then based on consistancy, it would tilt to USC....

LSU has 5 seasons with 3 or more losses, UF has 6 with 3 or more losses since 2000.

quote:

---

when do you end the decade?

---

Decades are 0 to 9.

quote:

---

USC has 7 straight top 5 finishes, and hasn't had a season with more the 2 losses since 2001, neither LSU of UF can say that.

---

And USC can't say they've done it against better competition.

quote:

---

Oh c'mon. Put USC in the SEC from 02-08 and they never go 8-5.

---

But in this DECADE, they went below .500 in the Pac 10, something LSU has never done in this DECADE in the SEC.

Why can't you just stick with the relevant topic (this DECADE, which has absolutely nothing to do with a period starting in 2002), rather than intentionally twisting the subject to find a way to put LSU lower than we deserve to be placed in the conversation at hand.

Why eliminate a period clearly in the relevant time period where LSU was so much further ahead of SC than SC has ever been ahead of LSU in any season this decade? Can you honestly come up with a rational reason for eliminating the 2000 and 2001 seasons from consideration in a discussion on the "Program of the Decade"?

Of course not. You just had to find someway to tear down other people's opinions of LSU. Which is the only motivation for anything you have to say.

quote:

---

Damn, you may very well be the biggest homer I've ever seen

---

No one who insists on ignoring 2000 and 2001 from a discussion of the "program of the decade" has any room to question the objectivity of anyone. You are so ridiculously biased and unobjective on this it is laughable. Bama fans could only dare to dream to reach your levels of bias and homerism.

quote:

---

For the 2001 (first year of the decade) through 2008, how can we not agree that USC has been the team of the decade, so far?

---

Several reasons. One, there is not necessarily consensus on whether the decade in question is 2001-2010, or the "2000s", which would run from 2000-2009. I mean, "the '90s" would logically include the ten years that included a 90 in their number (1990-1999), which would leave the next decade (this one) starting in 2000.

Two, LSU has never in this decade had a season as bad as SC's 2001 season.

Three, SC has never faced a schedule as rigorous as the one LSU has faced every year of this decade. Obviously some of the more deluded homers like LSU=AWESOME would try and pretend like SoS doesn't matter, but then the somehow ignore programs like De La Salle, whose wins, winning percentage and # of titles dwarf both LSU and SC.

Four, both LSU and Florida have more National Championships (that were actually earned on a field as opposed to being 100% based purely on nothing but the choices of sportswriters; always remember, there is absolutely nothing preventing the AP from voting an 0-12 AP "National Champions", and that title would have 100% as much legitimacy, validity and credibility as SC's claim to an '03 title).

Obviously SC has ammo to make their own arguments. And since there are no "official criteria" for this "award", it is impossible to objectively assess the respective programs' arguments. But only the blindest of homers would label the arguments of either LSU or Florida over SC as ignorant, deluded or particularly "homer"ish.