2004 USC Trojans ranked best of BCS era by ESPN

[TigerBait1971]

2011 LSU > 2011 BAMA

Suck it gumps!

 

[RoboticDreams]

 

[BamaTee1]

lists are made to do just what this one is doing. It gets attention. The crazier the better........................for the list maker!

 

[trojanfight]

2004 USC also had the highest payroll though.

lol here we go with this. cant regulate what someone does 300 miles away from school...no proof school ever knew what was happening. funny pretty sure Miami didn't have to vacate any wins.. and its no question they had the worse infractions.

 

[The Crimson King]

Destroy is probably a strong word but honestly 09,11, and 12 bama beat 10 auburn anyday. That teams defense was terrible and defense wins championships.

not any day. They would all be good games. Auburn's on the verge of winning two nc's in four years with average defense at best

 

[The Crimson King]

And 2010 Auburn should have lost to 2010 Bama

See what I did there...

knew that was coming. So clearly 09 auburn > 10 auburn and 10 bama > 09 bama

 

[The Crimson King]

Oh and funny the best auburn team isn't even listed

 

[The Crimson King]

06 auburn > 07 lsu

Ok, I'm done

 

[Mistaken4193]

Oh and funny the best auburn team isn't even listed

I will agree wit you there 04 was by far yalls best team. That team had a good defense. Yall should have played USC that year. But the voters wanted too see 2 heisman winning QBs duel it out.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

That 2004 USC team was loaded.

Only thing with those USC teams that were listed, is the common theme of "vacated wins".

 

[charlie42s]

So Texas beats the better USC version in 2005, and is ranked 4th?

No need to read list further.

There aren't many times I agree with you, but you are right.

ESPN's mantra(before the game) was that the 2005 USC team, the only team that had 2 Heisman Trophy winners playing at the same time, was the best team ever and they lost to Texas.

 

[cane_man]

USC cheerleaders say FUCK sports bras! That alone makes them the goat.

 

[7Samurai13]

Isn't it a little early to have either 2013 FSU and Auburn on the list. If Auburn gets blown out of the water, they may fall from the list. If Auburn beats FSU you would almost have to put them above FSU.

#1 team had a bought player
#2 team had a murderer
#3 team had a bought player

This is just bad all around.

 

[BamaTee1]

I will agree wit you there 04 was by far yalls best team. That team had a good defense. Yall should have played USC that year. But the voters wanted too see 2 heisman winning QBs duel it out.

No they shouldn't! So if they played USC and got blown out we would then be saying OU should have been in this game? OU started way ahead of Auburn and never lost. Auburn had been beat badly the year before by USC. Auburn fans act like they are the only team to lose out on a close or controversial decision. Wrong! It's the system that was in place and did what it was suppose to do.

 

[trojanfan12]

No they shouldn't! So if they played USC and got blown out we would then be saying OU should have been in this game? OU started way ahead of Auburn and never lost. Auburn had been beat badly the year before by USC. Auburn fans act like they are the only team to lose out on a close or controversial decision. Wrong! It's the system that was in place and did what it was suppose to do.

Exactly. I believe that this season may have been a big part of what really got the ball rolling towards a playoff. The previous season, USC was ranked #1 in both human polls and was left out of the NCG (only time that's happened) and then the very next year we get what was essentially the "nightmare scenario" of 3 BCS teams finishing unbeaten.


Having said that, Mistaken's point isn't without merit. While I doubt that Auburn would have jumped an unbeaten USC or Oklahoma (they started the season ranked too low), there is no way that the voters were going to pass up a chance to have 2 Heisman winning QB's face-off in the NCG.

 

[ElTexan]

Where is 05 Texas? What? That low?


Bahah ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah aha hhah hahahaha ah ah ahh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111eleven

 

[Mistaken4193]

No they shouldn't! So if they played USC and got blown out we would then be saying OU should have been in this game? OU started way ahead of Auburn and never lost. Auburn had been beat badly the year before by USC. Auburn fans act like they are the only team to lose out on a close or controversial decision. Wrong! It's the system that was in place and did what it was suppose to do.

Yea Im looking back at it with the thought of the NCG in my head. Regardless neither one of them would have came close to beating that USC team.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

2004 USC team was better than the 2005 USC team because of one reason, "Defense"

 

[HizzleRocker]

The 2005 USC team was supposed to be better than the 2004 team, because they returned most of the roster and Leinert and Bush had an extra year. Only problem is the team you have ranked 4th went into USC's backyard and beat them to win the title in 2005.

That combined with the fact that wins were later vacated = the best team of the era in 2004?