College Football Forum > Rivalry Summed Up
Heh.
Obviously that respect is not shared in the USC/UCLA rivalry, which I've penned the nation's "unhealthiest".
Look no further than the vitriol and insanity at the unhinged BruinsNation.com
Obviously that respect is not shared in the USC/UCLA rivalry, which I've penned the nation's "unhealthiest".
Look no further than the vitriol and insanity at the unhinged BruinsNation.com
July 26, 2006 |
CFR
CFR
True. I've always been a bit amazed at how little class is shown by Bruin fans concerning their rivalry with USC. In my time at USC it seemed that Trojans with the same attitude were pretty rare, though not non-existent. I finally stopped going to the game after experiencing constant confrontation in the parking lots, surrounding park areas, etc.
I think part of it is that, inspite of periods of success on UCLA's part, USC fans don't feel much threatened by the UCLA football program. As a result, Bruins fans don't feel respected. It's purely psychological on both sides, but it explains the behaviors of both.
I think part of it is that, inspite of periods of success on UCLA's part, USC fans don't feel much threatened by the UCLA football program. As a result, Bruins fans don't feel respected. It's purely psychological on both sides, but it explains the behaviors of both.
July 27, 2006 |
Smog
Smog
PS> I think the same phenom explains the relationship between USC fans and the constantly baiting minority of LSU fans still struggling with the split NC in 2003. The behavior of these baiting LSU fans is pretty similar to what we hear out of the Bruins. Made-up nonsense no body buys, but it must make them feel better about themselves in some way.
July 27, 2006 |
Smog
Smog
PS> I think the same phenom explains the relationship between USC fans and the constantly baiting minority of LSU fans still struggling with the split NC in 2003. The behavior of these baiting LSU fans is pretty similar to what we hear out of the Bruins. Made-up nonsense no body buys, but it must make them feel better about themselves in some way.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have never stated that USC does not have a rightful gripe about being left out of the 2003 BCS game, nor have I denied that USC has a legitimate claim to part of the 2003 NC. However, the problem that many of the LSU faithful have is the totally ahistorical way these teams have come to be viewed since Jan./Feb. 2004.
Immediately after the gun sounded at the Sugar Bowl and LSU was hoisting the crystal football, the "what if" discussions started. What if LSU and USC had played? Who would have won? How close would it have been? The general consensus was split, slightly favoring LSU because of its defense. I think EA Sports actually played the game and LSU squeaked by (it may have been a "series" of games w/ LSU taking the majority). Anyway, people agreed that regardless of who won, the game would be tight and they were very evenly matched.
Unfortunately, the fortunes of USC and LSU went different ways the following season, with USC going undefeated and winning the BCS and LSU struggling, ultimately losing on the last play of the Capital One bowl. Because of the divergence in success in the 2004 season, many (especially in the media) essentially forgot the staus of the teams in January 2004 and merely adopted the opinion that USC was the better team then (discussions of "three-petes", absence of any reference to the split NC in 2003 [when LSU was discussed, it was a split NO, when USC's was discussed, that fact was omitted], etc.).
I (and many other LSU fans) have given USC its "props" for what it did in 2003, as well as what it did in 2004 and 2005. However, the same respect has not been reciprocated by the majority of the Trojan faithful and the CFB media.
And THAT is the problem.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have never stated that USC does not have a rightful gripe about being left out of the 2003 BCS game, nor have I denied that USC has a legitimate claim to part of the 2003 NC. However, the problem that many of the LSU faithful have is the totally ahistorical way these teams have come to be viewed since Jan./Feb. 2004.
Immediately after the gun sounded at the Sugar Bowl and LSU was hoisting the crystal football, the "what if" discussions started. What if LSU and USC had played? Who would have won? How close would it have been? The general consensus was split, slightly favoring LSU because of its defense. I think EA Sports actually played the game and LSU squeaked by (it may have been a "series" of games w/ LSU taking the majority). Anyway, people agreed that regardless of who won, the game would be tight and they were very evenly matched.
Unfortunately, the fortunes of USC and LSU went different ways the following season, with USC going undefeated and winning the BCS and LSU struggling, ultimately losing on the last play of the Capital One bowl. Because of the divergence in success in the 2004 season, many (especially in the media) essentially forgot the staus of the teams in January 2004 and merely adopted the opinion that USC was the better team then (discussions of "three-petes", absence of any reference to the split NC in 2003 [when LSU was discussed, it was a split NO, when USC's was discussed, that fact was omitted], etc.).
I (and many other LSU fans) have given USC its "props" for what it did in 2003, as well as what it did in 2004 and 2005. However, the same respect has not been reciprocated by the majority of the Trojan faithful and the CFB media.
And THAT is the problem.
August 4, 2006 |
SDCronin
SDCronin
A split national championship doesn't mean teams have half-shares of titles, SDCronin. It means each has a title and there are two titles that year.
Which is why USC was a "3-peat" candidate last year.
Even if that were the case (1/2 share of title, as in USC has 0.5 titles and LSU has 0.5 titles), it's too cumbersome and ridiculous to say 2.5-peat.
The argument is ridiculous and is sour grapes.
The fact that the teams' fates since that game have been so vastly different should indicate who was probably the better team in such a matchup anyway. Basically USC has credibility by backing up a disputed title with another outright title and then playing to within 0:19 of a third title against Texas (also a much superior team to that of 2003 LSU).
The real problem here is that LSU is so rarely in the winners' circle I think LSU fans had their feelings hurt because they couldn't bask in the reflected glory of a year as "defending champs" (last title was in what, 1950?) whereas USC and the media and fan establishment has gotten used to USC winning titles and its story could continue to be told.
LSU was given its respect (as much respect as a No. 3 team in the final regular season polls), but its fans simply demanded more and given the way the situation played out they were never going to get that big fat wet national kiss they so badly desired.
Which is why USC was a "3-peat" candidate last year.
Even if that were the case (1/2 share of title, as in USC has 0.5 titles and LSU has 0.5 titles), it's too cumbersome and ridiculous to say 2.5-peat.
The argument is ridiculous and is sour grapes.
The fact that the teams' fates since that game have been so vastly different should indicate who was probably the better team in such a matchup anyway. Basically USC has credibility by backing up a disputed title with another outright title and then playing to within 0:19 of a third title against Texas (also a much superior team to that of 2003 LSU).
The real problem here is that LSU is so rarely in the winners' circle I think LSU fans had their feelings hurt because they couldn't bask in the reflected glory of a year as "defending champs" (last title was in what, 1950?) whereas USC and the media and fan establishment has gotten used to USC winning titles and its story could continue to be told.
LSU was given its respect (as much respect as a No. 3 team in the final regular season polls), but its fans simply demanded more and given the way the situation played out they were never going to get that big fat wet national kiss they so badly desired.
August 4, 2006 |
CFR
CFR
Wow...I guess we have a decent idea where your allegiances lie.
You "counterargument" is the very problem.
LSU lost a number of significant starters from the 2003 team (starting with Matt Mauck, but also including Chad Lavalais, Michael Clayton, Devrey Henderson and Jack Hunt [who was essentially the "quarterback" for the defense]). I am not saying USC did not lose players, but the point is that neither team entered the 2004 season as the same team they were in 2003. Thus, the argument that the subsequent success (or lack thereof) demonstrates who the better team was in 2003 is utter BS.
I love how it is whining and "sour grapes" by LSU fans when they demand their team receive the respect that it DESERVES for 2003. Sure, LSU had not seen the rarified air of a national championship for some time (last one was in 1958 to be accurate), but USC's "pedigree" does not make it any more entitled to lay claim to the 2003 title. Call it what you will, but an objective person without a dog in the fight looking at my post, and your response, will be able to easily conclude whose is the more reasonable and historically accurate.
This thread started with a discussion of the USC-ND rivalry, but has resulted in USC fans sounding like Domers.
You "counterargument" is the very problem.
LSU lost a number of significant starters from the 2003 team (starting with Matt Mauck, but also including Chad Lavalais, Michael Clayton, Devrey Henderson and Jack Hunt [who was essentially the "quarterback" for the defense]). I am not saying USC did not lose players, but the point is that neither team entered the 2004 season as the same team they were in 2003. Thus, the argument that the subsequent success (or lack thereof) demonstrates who the better team was in 2003 is utter BS.
I love how it is whining and "sour grapes" by LSU fans when they demand their team receive the respect that it DESERVES for 2003. Sure, LSU had not seen the rarified air of a national championship for some time (last one was in 1958 to be accurate), but USC's "pedigree" does not make it any more entitled to lay claim to the 2003 title. Call it what you will, but an objective person without a dog in the fight looking at my post, and your response, will be able to easily conclude whose is the more reasonable and historically accurate.
This thread started with a discussion of the USC-ND rivalry, but has resulted in USC fans sounding like Domers.
August 7, 2006 |
SDCronin
SDCronin
Nobody's arguing USC is "more entitled to lay claim to the 2003 title". You just made that up out of thin air.
My argument is rational, noting that USC's pedigree is the reason it has been the more talked about team. If you wanted the national public to give your team more respect and love after that mess, it would have behooved the team to continue playing kick-ass football. But it didn't. Meanwhile, USC continued to tear it up. Thus, USC gets the talk of three titles. What was wrong with that? If LSU had done what USC had done, the talk would have been the same, there wasn't some conspiracy to forget about LSU's 2003 BCS Title.
Is it treated as an anomaly? I'm not sure, but I think USC certainly has done more since then to legitimize itself as a champion.
That and the BCS became a complete sham when it could exclude the #1 team yet include the #3 team in the polls. LSU has a title, but just one of two from that year. That cannot be ignored.
Because USC went on to continue its success it has given itself validity in the public's eye for that 2003 title whereas LSU was seen as a team that snuck in and won its share but who otherwise is a one hit wonder.
Credibility counts and because LSU isn't contending and USC is, USC's been the more recognized champion from the 2003 season. Thus the publicity, thus all the talk of three titles, etc. which bothers you so immensely but given that USC did win a title itself your argument is just bitterness. People haven't forgotten LSU won that title. But people also have a right to recognize that USC won one that year as well, big deal.
That's why I'm telling you its sour grapes. Everyone knows both teams won a title, nobody disputes that, but you're just whining (see your original post) about recognition and respect and I'm calling you on it.
Celebrate your title! Your team earned it as did USC. I never hear these arguments from USC fans because they don't have a complex about titles when they know their team can go out and win another one whereas with LSU it's a once every 50 years phenomena (or so it seems).
My argument is rational, noting that USC's pedigree is the reason it has been the more talked about team. If you wanted the national public to give your team more respect and love after that mess, it would have behooved the team to continue playing kick-ass football. But it didn't. Meanwhile, USC continued to tear it up. Thus, USC gets the talk of three titles. What was wrong with that? If LSU had done what USC had done, the talk would have been the same, there wasn't some conspiracy to forget about LSU's 2003 BCS Title.
Is it treated as an anomaly? I'm not sure, but I think USC certainly has done more since then to legitimize itself as a champion.
That and the BCS became a complete sham when it could exclude the #1 team yet include the #3 team in the polls. LSU has a title, but just one of two from that year. That cannot be ignored.
Because USC went on to continue its success it has given itself validity in the public's eye for that 2003 title whereas LSU was seen as a team that snuck in and won its share but who otherwise is a one hit wonder.
Credibility counts and because LSU isn't contending and USC is, USC's been the more recognized champion from the 2003 season. Thus the publicity, thus all the talk of three titles, etc. which bothers you so immensely but given that USC did win a title itself your argument is just bitterness. People haven't forgotten LSU won that title. But people also have a right to recognize that USC won one that year as well, big deal.
That's why I'm telling you its sour grapes. Everyone knows both teams won a title, nobody disputes that, but you're just whining (see your original post) about recognition and respect and I'm calling you on it.
Celebrate your title! Your team earned it as did USC. I never hear these arguments from USC fans because they don't have a complex about titles when they know their team can go out and win another one whereas with LSU it's a once every 50 years phenomena (or so it seems).
August 7, 2006 |
CFR
CFR
I am sorry...at what point have I asserted that USC is not entitled to the laurels tossed its way over the last three years? Where have I said that LSU has been as good since the 2003 season? My discussion/points/argument/rant is intended solely to be applied to the 2003 season and the wholly ahistorical hindsight that has been applied to that season.
I also agree that the BCS system, as it played out in 2003, was terribly flawed. However, why should LSU be punished for that? They did what they were supposed to do. They won out after losing to Florida and won their Conference Championship Game. LSU deserved to be in that game (regardless of their final ranking at No. 3). Even most Oklahoma fans would admit that they did not deserve to go to the Sugar Bowl after getting destroyed by K-State in the Big XII Championship Game. Take your griping to Norman, because it won't play in Baton Rouge.
Also, you don't here these arguments from USC fans because it has not happened to them. I did hear plenty of carping and whining from them when the whole "three-Pete" concept was being challenged by LSU and UT fans. It is also interesting how that BCS trophy apparently did not mean sh*t in January 2004, but the Trojans were sure damned happy to be holding it over their heads in January 2005. I guess I missed the massive celebration they had when the got that coveted AP trophy for the second year in a row.
I also agree that the BCS system, as it played out in 2003, was terribly flawed. However, why should LSU be punished for that? They did what they were supposed to do. They won out after losing to Florida and won their Conference Championship Game. LSU deserved to be in that game (regardless of their final ranking at No. 3). Even most Oklahoma fans would admit that they did not deserve to go to the Sugar Bowl after getting destroyed by K-State in the Big XII Championship Game. Take your griping to Norman, because it won't play in Baton Rouge.
Also, you don't here these arguments from USC fans because it has not happened to them. I did hear plenty of carping and whining from them when the whole "three-Pete" concept was being challenged by LSU and UT fans. It is also interesting how that BCS trophy apparently did not mean sh*t in January 2004, but the Trojans were sure damned happy to be holding it over their heads in January 2005. I guess I missed the massive celebration they had when the got that coveted AP trophy for the second year in a row.
August 7, 2006 |
SDCronin
SDCronin
How is LSU being "punished" for what happened in 2003? Nobody challenges their claim to the 2003 BCS crown.
USC fans complained because the OnePeat thing was inflammatory and ignored fact: USC was challenging for a third national championship. There is no rule saying the BCS trophy is the only real championship.
Of course USC was going to celebrate the BCS trophy in 2004, what were they supposed to do, grab the AP trophy as well during the BCS ceremony and completely embarrass the BCS folks? lol. You're being silly here.
Here was your original gripe: "I (and many other LSU fans) have given USC its "props" for what it did in 2003, as well as what it did in 2004 and 2005. However, the same respect has not been reciprocated by the majority of the Trojan faithful and the CFB media"
LSU has been afforded its respect, but 2003 was three years ago now and since then the other title-winning team from that year has gone on to win one title and play to within 0:19 of a third. So yes, they're going to get some attention and respect. But nobody's slighting LSU in calling it a 3-peat run. That's fact.
It's not a 2.5 peat, USC doesn't have 1.5 titles, they have two, just as LSU has one. But that doesn't mean that every time USC gets referenced for its achievements the public and media have to reflexively kiss LSU's toes, pat them gently on the head and remind them that they, too were champions once. That's nonsense and it's out of context.
In other words the LSU fan base needs to get over itself and be mature and realistic about the whole thing. The OnePeat stuff was funny but also incredibly childish and inflammatory.
But that's past, just as 2003 is past. Time marches forward...
USC fans complained because the OnePeat thing was inflammatory and ignored fact: USC was challenging for a third national championship. There is no rule saying the BCS trophy is the only real championship.
Of course USC was going to celebrate the BCS trophy in 2004, what were they supposed to do, grab the AP trophy as well during the BCS ceremony and completely embarrass the BCS folks? lol. You're being silly here.
Here was your original gripe: "I (and many other LSU fans) have given USC its "props" for what it did in 2003, as well as what it did in 2004 and 2005. However, the same respect has not been reciprocated by the majority of the Trojan faithful and the CFB media"
LSU has been afforded its respect, but 2003 was three years ago now and since then the other title-winning team from that year has gone on to win one title and play to within 0:19 of a third. So yes, they're going to get some attention and respect. But nobody's slighting LSU in calling it a 3-peat run. That's fact.
It's not a 2.5 peat, USC doesn't have 1.5 titles, they have two, just as LSU has one. But that doesn't mean that every time USC gets referenced for its achievements the public and media have to reflexively kiss LSU's toes, pat them gently on the head and remind them that they, too were champions once. That's nonsense and it's out of context.
In other words the LSU fan base needs to get over itself and be mature and realistic about the whole thing. The OnePeat stuff was funny but also incredibly childish and inflammatory.
But that's past, just as 2003 is past. Time marches forward...
August 7, 2006 |
CFR
CFR
Bear in mind that it was a USC fan (Smog) that brought LSU into this discussion.
August 7, 2006 |
SDCronin
SDCronin
True.
August 7, 2006 |
CFR
CFR
"Notre Dame fans often speak in terms of "rivals" and "big games". Often younger fans are influenced by games that have been important recently, such as Miami in the eighties. Some fans are influenced to call teams they dislike intensely "rivals", such as Michigan. Others focus on teams that may have had recent success against us, such as Michigan State. In my opinion, there is only one team worthy of being called Notre Dame's greatest rival, and it is the Trojans of USC. They have earned it.
It is a fact that no team has beaten Notre Dame more than USC and it is a fact that no team has beaten USC more than Notre Dame. This alone would make each school consider the other the prime rival. But it is also a fact that the nature of the wins and losses has been something to behold. No team has had more memorable and -- from our perspective -- devastating wins over Notre Dame than USC and probably vice versa. USC's largest loss? 51-0 to Notre Dame in 1966. Worst loss in ND history? In my opinion, 55-24 in 1974. Undefeated seasons lost in the last game of the year? SC did it to ND in 1964, 1970 and 1980 -- thats a lot of heartbreak. ND did it to SC in 1952 and 1988.
Heisman winners who have played in the game? 14 - more than in any other rivalry. National Championship teams among the two schools - just counting AP and UP champs 14 - more than in any other rivalry. ND and USC games count for five of the ten most-watched college football games in television history.
But one thing above all of this makes ND-SC the greatest rivalry in college football and that it that it is an "unrequired" rivalry. The schools are not in the same conference, nor are they two schools in the same state who must play each other like Georgia/Georgia Tech or Florida/Florida State. Notre Dame and USC don't have to play each other and it would be easier if they did not. No regional or conference prerogatives compel the rivalry. What does is an unquenchable desire by each program to take on the best. And that is what puts this game a step up in prestige and glamor from intense "civil wars" and regional slugfests between "tech" and "state"..."
The link below contains the rest of the story. It's a great read and illustrates many points those outside of the rivalry never seem to get.
http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=139693;d=this