All the sportswriters keep asking... CAN USC THREE-PEAT?!!?!??!?!?!!?!?


Personally, I don't think they can. Even if they were to win the championship this year I think its safe to assume that Reggie Bush will leave early for the NFL and obviously Leinart's eligibility expires.


USC would really have their hands full to win another championship without those guys and it's not like they're guaranteed to win this year.....


I mean talk about getting ahead of ourselves....

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 5:43 AM. Reason : a]

8/18/2005 5:42:07 AM

buddy..... if they win this year, it WOULD be a three-peat.

8/18/2005 6:08:34 AM

I'm confused...

I was under the impression that you had to win three consecutive titles in order to attain a "three-peat"

So if the Wolfpack basketball team wins the championship this year ('74, '83, '06) is that a 3-peat?


I'm even more confused because USC won titles in '67, '72, and '05.... so wouldnt that make this a 4-peat????

8/18/2005 6:34:09 AM

wow.

8/18/2005 6:48:36 AM

wtf

they won in 2005

they won in 2004 (albeit a split championship)

this will be 3 in a row

rallydurham is a fucking moron

8/18/2005 7:23:26 AM

2005 --- USC

2004 ---- LSU

2003 ---- OSU

2002 ---- Miami

2001 ---- Oklahoma


Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) operated jointly by the ACC, Southeastern, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences has used a ranking system to determine the number one and number two teams at the end of the season. These two teams play each other in a post-season bowl game for the National Championship


Not only did USC NOT win the championship, they didn't even play for it.

8/18/2005 7:35:42 AM

^Too bad they still won a share of the championship, otherwise no one would be talking about a three-peat yet. BCS is ghey.

8/18/2005 7:44:06 AM

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

they won the AP vote in 04

it was a split championship

EVERYONE recognizes that

leave now before you further embarass yourself

8/18/2005 7:44:43 AM

well i say if there were split champions in 04 then auburn should have got half of the title last year

8/18/2005 8:01:04 AM

They would have had they won the AP Vote like USC did the previous year.

8/18/2005 8:06:57 AM

hahaha, i love it when someone tries to be a smartass and thinks they're right, and then the shit gets thrown in their face. RallyDurham=ahaha

8/18/2005 9:29:29 AM

Quote :

"they won the AP vote in 04 it was a split championship EVERYONE recognizes that"

I don't recognize the right of a bunch of newspaper writers to give football trophies. #2 beat #1 in the coach's poll, and LSU won the national championship.

8/18/2005 10:41:41 AM

I don't think they will. Everyone is underestimating the effect Chow's absense will have on the team.

8/18/2005 10:50:55 AM

^AGREED THAT GUY MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE...JUST LOOK AT OUR OFFENSE SINCE HE LEFT...FUCKING PATHETIC.......HOW IS THE PAC 10 SUPPOSED TO BE THIS YEAR....THE ONLY OTHER TEAM THAT IS MAKING WAVES SO FAR HAS BEEN OREGON....ANYONE HEARD OF ANY OTHER TEAM THAT COULD CONTEND?

8/18/2005 10:55:56 AM

And just because Chow recommends someone, doesnt make them a good replacement. He recommended Mazzone to us and we all see how that turned out.

8/18/2005 10:57:11 AM

^^^^You don't recognize newspaper writers as giving out National Champions, but it is the same writers that create the polls that factor into the BCS and give out National Championships to teams based on opinions. The BCS Champion is just as flawed as the AP Champion. Until there is a legit playoff system both could be considered National Champions with astericks.

As far as USC Three-peating there is a good possiblity. Even with Norm Chow gone, they have so much talent working on there side. I think the Pac 10 is suppose to be a little more competitive this year, although there isn't a great team like Cal of last year that can match them toe for toe.

8/18/2005 11:23:44 AM

Everyone in the sports media talking about a three-peat is assuming/acknowledging that they won the last 2

8/18/2005 11:27:47 AM

Quote :

"I don't recognize the right of a bunch of newspaper writers to give football trophies. #2 beat #1 in the coach's poll, and LSU won the national championship. "

if you want to turn this into an argument of ap poll versus coach's poll we can do that too

they're both fucking worthless

coaches don't really give a shit who's number one unless its them

steve spurrier gives a vote to every year DUKE

the polls are jokes, gimme a tournament

8/18/2005 11:28:46 AM

Oregon is shit, will be lucky to go 7-4... only hope in the Pac-Shit to beat USC is Arizona St or Cal, and neither will happen... if I had to pick one of the two, it would be Arizona St.

8/18/2005 11:31:29 AM

Quote :

"the polls are jokes, gimme a tournament"

i agree 1000000%

too bad the ncaa would rather appease some pussy ass liberals by making mascot name changes more politically correct than making any type of legitimate playoff system

8/18/2005 11:32:30 AM

If anyone is looking for reasons why USC might not be a lock to go all the way this should check out this article

http://washington.scout.com/2/412107.html

8/18/2005 11:56:29 AM

Everybody recognizes that?


They do?


I sure as hell don't.

Quote :

"RallyDurham=ahaha"

That's the best you could do? really?


Quick, explain to me why there is a national championship game if it's meaningless....


If all you have to do is win a poll then USC is going for a 4 peat because they were #1 in the Dunkel and Sagarin polls in 2002!!!!!!!!!!!


This thread was just a clever way to remind you they haven't won two straight. The media pulled the wool over your eyes you sheep.




[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 12:08 PM. Reason : a]

8/18/2005 12:01:33 PM

What I don't understand is why they complained. I mean, 2 years ago, if they went undefeated they would've been clear cut champions. Fact is, they lost to California. Sure LSU lost to Florida, but the way the BCS is set up, I don't think USC was deserving. It's not like they were playing the hardest of schedules.

It is ridiculous to me that they even had 'a share.' I don't recognize them as 2003 'national champions' at all..

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 12:06 PM. Reason : asf]

8/18/2005 12:05:46 PM

8/18/2005 12:16:59 PM

Oh yeah btw, I've decided that South Carolina and North Carolina were split national champions in mens basketball last year.


South Carolina won 5 straight postseason games in the NIT. The NCAA selection process is flawed so you can't really say South Carolina didn't deserve to be there.

Since the NCAA clearly illustrates that you aren't required to participate in the National Championship game in order to be National Champions, its really quite ludicrous for anyone to go around claiming that UNC is the undiputed National Champion.

You simply can't say with any certainty that they would have beaten South Carolina, and until the NCAA gets their act together and provides us with a tournament format that includes all 300+ Division 1 teams, we're going to have to settle for Co-Champions...

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 12:26 PM. Reason : a]

8/18/2005 12:24:52 PM

college football is overrated

because of the shitty lack of playoff system

on the field its great

but jesus the NCAA is a bunch of fucking imbeciles

8/18/2005 12:30:26 PM

Quote :

"college football the NCAA is overrated"

College football is the best sport to watch ever, but the governing body/rule makers do suck a fat one

8/18/2005 12:37:08 PM

God i hope not

8/18/2005 12:40:47 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

8/18/2005 12:41:18 PM

Oh i get it!!!!!

You guys are saying USC won half a National Championship in '03-'04.


So shouldn't we say they are going for a "2.5 peat"?

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 12:49 PM. Reason : a]

8/18/2005 12:48:59 PM

Quote :

"It is ridiculous to me that they even had 'a share.' I don't recognize them as 2003 'national champions' at all.. "

8/18/2005 12:55:57 PM

i love it when people post in all caps. IT GIVES THAT **** AUTHORITY.

8/18/2005 12:57:25 PM

^^^did Phil Jackson patent the 2.5-peat?

8/18/2005 1:01:44 PM

Quote :

"did Phil Jackson patent the 2.5-peat?"

Wasn't it Pat Riley that patented "Three-peat"?

USC for Two-and-a-half-peat in '06! Go Trojans!!1

I'm also of the opinion that USC is going for a repeat this year and not 3. The BCS champion is the only champion until they change the agreement. Besides, the writers only voted for them because of the predicament and not because they were clearly the better team.

Quote :

"You don't recognize newspaper writers as giving out National Champions, but it is the same writers that create the polls that factor into the BCS and give out National Championships to teams based on opinions. The BCS Champion is just as flawed as the AP Champion. Until there is a legit playoff system both could be considered National Champions with astericks."

Yes, they are a factor in it but they aren't a sole determining factor. And while its writers who devised most of the computer polls it still isn't subject to change simply off a feeling or bias. Everyone can see what is required of them at the start of the season and there is no lobbying for votes in it *cough* Texas *cough*

Many people, like myself, don't think there should be any opinion polls in the BCS formula. There is no perfect system. A playoff will have just as many people screaming as the BCS does because you still have to rank teams through some method that determines if they have a shot at the National Championship. And quite frankly, there is usually much more debate as to rank the further you get from #1.

8/18/2005 1:49:51 PM

^nah Phil Jack had the 3-peat right? Riley never even won three in a row

8/18/2005 1:59:38 PM

Quote :

"2005 --- USC 2004 ---- LSU 2003 ---- OSU 2002 ---- Miami 2001 ---- Oklahoma"

That's the system. Deal with it.

8/18/2005 2:06:33 PM

Georgia Tech has 1/2 of a championship...so does Clemson if I'm not mistaken?

8/18/2005 2:21:44 PM

The obvious difference being that Georgia Tech's national title in 1990 was legit....

8/18/2005 2:34:28 PM

i agree but there also wasnt a BCS then...its like comparing an NCAA Championship when only one team per conference could enter to a modern day 65 team tourney...sort of

8/18/2005 2:40:04 PM

Quote :

"^nah Phil Jack had the 3-peat right? Riley never even won three in a row"

No, I mean quite literally Pat Riley trademarked the phrase "Three-peat"
http://www.snopes.com/legal/3peat.htm

8/18/2005 2:40:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm confused... I was under the impression that you had to win three consecutive titles in order to attain a "three-peat" So if the Wolfpack basketball team wins the championship this year ('74, '83, '06) is that a 3-peat? I'm even more confused because USC won titles in '67, '72, and '05.... so wouldnt that make this a 4-peat???? "

Quote :

"This thread was just a clever way to remind you they haven't won two straight. The media pulled the wool over your eyes you sheep. "

hahaha dude just admit you're stupid.

8/18/2005 2:44:19 PM

^interesting

Byron Scott should sue his ass

8/18/2005 2:45:16 PM

This is one of the few times I overwhelmingly agree with rallydurham

Everybody keeps talking about a potential three-peat at USC, and every time they do they erase a little more of LSU's 2003 season from everyone's memory.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2005 2:46:36 PM

the BCS is a clusterfuck anyway...it doesnt really matter if USC or LSU won...Auburn got raped in the ass last year...OU didnt deserve to play in that game...who cares...its not like State is gonna make a BCS bowl or they are ever gonna have a tournament/playoff...the NCAA is a bunch of faggots

8/18/2005 2:51:43 PM

Quote :

"[quote]2005 --- USC 2004 ---- LSU 2003 ---- OSU 2002 ---- Miami 2001 ---- Oklahoma"

That's the system. Deal with it.[/quote]

you have your years all off by one. That range should go from 2000-2004.

8/18/2005 3:01:02 PM

^ yeah, yeah... USC was crowned champion in the year 2005. clearly i'm referring to the '04-'05 season.

According to EA Sports it's already 2006.

Quote :

"hahaha dude just admit you're stupid."

Yeah, I'm the stupid one.


Before I made this thread you had already forgotten who won the national championship less than TWO freaking years ago.

Hell, if I hadn't spelled it out completely for you at 7:35:42 AM this morning, you'd probably still be laying in your bed of ignorance.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

8/18/2005 3:03:32 PM

I agree with rally.



I'm not a huge LSU fan, per se, but it made my blood boil when I watched USC hold the Rose Bowl trophy, and not the ADT Championship Trophy, and have the unmitigated gall to call themselves the champions.



To be the champ, you have to win the last game of the season. By the logic that USC is using, I could say that the Saints won the 2002 season championship because they beat the Bucs twice that year.

8/19/2005 3:41:49 PM

Quote :

"Everybody keeps talking about a potential three-peat at USC, and every time they do they erase a little more of LSU's 2003 season from everyone's memory."

Yeah, it really is pretty shitty to LSU. Since USC won it outright last season (not to get into the Auburn thing), in the media's eyes that vindicated USC as being worthy of the true championship the previous year. Basically it's all just a way for them get more exciting articles out, but it happens to be at LSU's expense.

It's impossible to argue against the talent that USC has, but I do think the loss of Norm Chow (along with other members of the staff) will hurt them this year.

8/19/2005 4:06:28 PM

USC is a talented team, but it is a lot easier for a talented team to win when they have 12 scrimmages in lieu of a decent schedule....i mean, alot of bowl games are decided on who is less worn down at the end of the season

8/19/2005 5:21:50 PM

just try to imagine if NC State had won that championship and every three minutes we had to hear about USC's threepeat...

8/19/2005 6:28:25 PM