It is hard to say anyone is underachiving given everything USC has accomplished under Carroll, but I think Lupica’s central point is at least debatable. Since USC has been on this run of theirs, USC has won one BCS title, won a share of the title (a non-BCS title) and played for one more. Now, that is a great record. All the Pac-1o titles, BCS games/wins, players drafted, etc.-there is no doubt that USC has done something incredible. But if the standard is titles, given the generally lackluster performance of the Pac-10 since 2001, shouldn’t USC at least have played for more titles if not have won more? The Stanford game, 13-9, Oregon State-the last several years USC has been knocked out of title shots by inferior teams-occasionally VASTLY inferior teams. Is it really unreasonable to at least argue that USC has underachieved given the talent Carroll has had come through and the Pac-10’s relative weakness the past 7-8 years?

Just sayin’.

It’s jerk-offs like Lupica who keep us out of the BCS, judging that a home loss to Ole Miss is better than a road loss to a good Oregon St. We can’t win for trying. Has Carroll underachieved, or has the BCS system underachieved?

I thought you would be taller, but I guess the Chip Monks have to work too.

USC does get screwed by the PAC-10, in two big respects: 1) inferior competition, as compared to the SEC and BIG-12, and 2) not having a PAC-10 championship game, which limits extra BCS points. Yet, those same circumstances have not stopped Ohio State from making two of the last three BCS NC games.

Anyone who watched that Stanford loss, however, knows that Lupica is correct. Anyone who saw USC blow a 16-pt lead to Texas in the NC game agrees. When you have the #1 recruiting class 6 years running, you don’t get slack cut for you.

And for all their bitching and moaning, where was this “screwed one-loss” USC team when LSU made the NC game with 2 losses? I’ll tell you where they were — sitting on the sidelines with two losses, as well.

I’m sorry. I should have been more accurate and said five #1 classes in six years, with merely the #3 class in the sixth year.

Do YOUR research…and while you’re at it, apply some critical thinking. You cannot evaluate a class based on quantity. That’s just # of scholarships. The only reason Scout and Rivals include quantity in their mysterious “calculations” is so that other schools beside USC can claim the recruiting title in a given year.

You have to evaluate a class based on quality and it’s incredibly simple to do. Look at the team/class rankings from 2004 – 2009 and sort by Average Stars. Here’s how it looks:

Scout: Rivals

2004 #1 2004 #1
2005 #1 2005 #1
2006 #1 2006 #1
2007 #1 2007 #1
2008 #3 2008 #2 (FYI – USC was still Scout’s overall #1 class)
2009 #1 2009 #2
2010 #1 2010 #1 (incomplete class)

I threw in the 2010 verbals for the heck of it, but you can clearly see that, in terms of ranking player quality, USC has ranked #1 in the country virtually every year. Additionally, in two of those years, USC’s quality ranking was miles ahead of the #2 school (Oklahoma 2004 & Florida 2007). In 2004, USC had eight (8) 5-star players. The next school had three (3).

it’s good PR for Florida to claim 3 straight recruiting championships, but in terms of pure talent, they have been behind USC every year from 2004 – 2009. They are tied right now in terms of 2010 quality rankings.

That’s three excuses disproved. What’s next?

1) If what you said was in any way accurate, USC would have built a 16-pt lead fielding a LB corp made up of redshirt freshman. They couldn’t hold that lead?

2) You are blatantly wrong about this flimsy premise anyway. Are you lying or just misinformed? I seem to remember Oscar Lua (All-PAC-10 Honorable Mention Junior and future NFL draft pick) seeing the most time at MLB in that game. He had six tackles and caused a key fumble.

3) I also seem to remember a Sophomore LB being Keith Rivers, the 8th pick in the 2008 NFL Draft. I know he had hammy issues during the season, but he still had 5 tackles against Texas.

THERE GOES ANOTHER EXCUSE. HOW ABOUT TWO MORE?

4) Unless one is playing for the NC, bowl games generally mean squat. I’ve talked to a few players about this. I’ve seen NFL 1st round draft picks pounding Hurricanes at Pat O’Brien’s the night before the Sugar Bowl. Perhaps there is a little more incentive in the Rose Bowl, but – come on – you get the luxury of playing a team from the most disappointing conference in football, the Big Ten.

5) OOC games mean squat when you don’t play anyone, and/or you play a mediocre team on opening day. Look at the top of the SEC, widely regarded as the best conference in football. Have you ever played Florida? Georgia? Tennessee? Have you played Alabama or LSU since 1984 or 85? In 2003, the year you were National Champions, you played an 8-5 Auburn team (a year in which they did not have to play Florida and in which they lost to a 4-9 Alabama team) in the first game of the season. That’s your one win over the top half of the SEC, and it was over an incredibly mediocre Auburn squad.

You want to hang your hat on that? Be my guest.

I can hear a pin drop.

Apparently facts, research, and critical thinking made the two of you vanish.

Criss Angel, watch out. I just made two USC-homers disappear with the power of the mind.

None.

Let’s see if I can remember the last teams to go undefeated:

Utah 2008
Boise State 2006
Texas 2005
USC 2004
Auburn 2004
Ohio State 2002

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.The simple fact that USC does not play cupcakes for non-conference games, and plays their whole conference pretty much makes it highly unlikely that the whole year will go perfectly.

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.The simple fact that USC does not play cupcakes for non-conference games, and plays their whole conference pretty much makes it highly unlikely that the whole year will go perfectly.This Lupricka guy expects perfection in order to give USC props. I say its a tall order to ask for.

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.The simple fact that USC does not play cupcakes for non-conference games, and plays their whole conference pretty much makes it highly unlikely that the whole year will go perfectly.This Lupricka guy expects perfection in order to give USC props. I say its a tall order to ask for.What we can expect every year is to be in the hunt for a title. To be in the picture, and part of the conversation every year. But by no means does that mean that the BCS will hand us the opportunity to play for the championship. In fact the BCS has worked hard to keep worthy Pac-10 teams out of the big game.

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.The simple fact that USC does not play cupcakes for non-conference games, and plays their whole conference pretty much makes it highly unlikely that the whole year will go perfectly.This Lupricka guy expects perfection in order to give USC props. I say its a tall order to ask for.What we can expect every year is to be in the hunt for a title. To be in the picture, and part of the conversation every year. But by no means does that mean that the BCS will hand us the opportunity to play for the championship. In fact the BCS has worked hard to keep worthy Pac-10 teams out of the big game.USC 2003

Yeah.. guess what… Florida has lost a game every year. USC has lost a game or two every year since 2004, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that people’s perception of USC is that if they lose 1 game, then the whole season is an underachievement. This is a giant pile of bullshit.The simple fact that USC does not play cupcakes for non-conference games, and plays their whole conference pretty much makes it highly unlikely that the whole year will go perfectly.This Lupricka guy expects perfection in order to give USC props. I say its a tall order to ask for.What we can expect every year is to be in the hunt for a title. To be in the picture, and part of the conversation every year. But by no means does that mean that the BCS will hand us the opportunity to play for the championship. In fact the BCS has worked hard to keep worthy Pac-10 teams out of the big game.USC 2003Oregon 2000

don’t know how that happened.

When you realized you were wrong, you didn’t step up and admit it…you just suddenly don’t care.

A man admits his mistakes; he doesn’t run away.

The thing is that no matter what you do only one can win, so I guess that makes all teams that didn’t win it all underachieved (or underperform). But I say USC has done just fine because they have entertained myself just fine, and I for one realize they can’t always win them all. Do you people that believe what Mike L. says realize that USC hasn’t been blown out in any of their losses, fine me 10 teams that can say that.