Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

USC poised for place among the best

By GARY SHELTON
Published January 4, 2006

When I was very young, they were very good. I had seen nothing like them.

They were the Alabama Crimson Tide, and they were relentless. They came after teams like waves, one after the other, their depth unequaled, their discipline unwavering.

It was the late '70s, and I was a young reporter following Bear Bryant around while he was winning his last two championships.

This, I thought. This is how a dynasty looks.

When I was a little older, they were a little better. I had never heard anything like them.

They were the Miami Hurricanes, and they were merciless. They came after opponents like prehistoric beasts, their talent unmatched, their swagger unimaginable.

It was the mid '80s, and I was an older reporter living in Miami while the Hurricanes were running roughshod through college football.

This, I thought. On second thought, this is how a dynasty looks.

Now there is gray in my hair, I cannot help but notice the spring in their steps. I have never imagined anything like them.

They are the Southern Cal Trojans, and they seem flawless. They streak down the field like track stars, their speed unbelievable, their weapons unstoppable.

It is 2006, and I find myself at the Rose Bowl, tossing around superlatives like everyone else while waiting for yet another USC coronation.

This, I think. On further reflection, this is how a dynasty looks.

Every day, the perceptions grow. For the Trojans, they are only partially playing against Texas tonight. They are also playing against the Tide and the Hurricanes, against the Sooners and the Cornhuskers, against the Irish and the Nittany Lions, against the Mings and the Romans. Somewhere in the bracket, you can find the old Southern Cal teams, too.

After all, if Southern Cal wins tonight, it is going to be easy to wonder:

Are the Trojans having the best run of any college program ... ever?

Given what we have seen, it's worth debating. In a time of limited scholarships, of early defections, of rampant parity, the Trojans have put together a breathtaking run. They have won 34 straight games, and they are one win away from a share of their third straight national championship. They have two Heisman Trophy winners in their huddle and history in their playbook.

I know, I know. The word "dynasty" gets kicked around pretty frequently these days, and if a team that wins a title every two or three years isn't careful, it's going to get poked in the eye by the definition. Take the NCAA, where the definition of dynasty pretty much includes everyone over whatever time period you choose to name.

It's a silly argument, measuring one dynasty over two years and another over 10. Let's be simpler. A player gets to play for four years, right? Fine. Let's look at what programs have done over four years. (And if it didn't win more than one title in those four years, sorry, it isn't a dynasty.)

Throughout the history of college football, even back to those days before Princeton and Yale discovered chess, there has always been one team or another setting the standard. Even later, in those crackly black-and-white films where the players haven't discovered facemasks, someone was on top of the hill of the moment.

There was Army from '44-47, winning two titles, finishing second once and 11th once. There was Notre Dame from 1946-49, going 36-0-2 with three national titles and one second-place. There was the Oklahoma bunch from 1954-57. That team went 40-1, winning two national titles, finishing third in '54 despite being undefeated and fourth in '57 after a 7-0 loss to Notre Dame.

Of course, once, having a sword could make a dynasty. The last half-century or so, college football has become a different game.

Take, for instance, the Oklahoma teams from 1972-75. According the AP poll (the UPI didn't rank them in '74 because of probation), the Sooners won two national titles, finished second one year and third another. Overall, they were 41-4-2.

Take, for instance, those Alabama teams from 1977-1980. Alabama could have won the title in '77 (Notre Dame leapfrogged the Tide in the final polls), then it won back-to-back titles before sliding to sixth in 1980.

Take, for instance, Miami from 1986-89. The '86 Hurricanes, one of the most talented teams ever, were upset by Penn State. The '87 team won the title. The '88 team lost only to Notre Dame on a controversial fumble by Cleveland Gary, and the '89 team won the title. Two firsts and two seconds isn't bad.

Take, for instance, the Nebraska teams from 1993-96. The '93 team lost the title when it fell by two points to FSU, then the 'Huskers won back-to-back national titles before falling to sixth in '96. Not a bad run.

In other words, college football has seen its share of excellence. But has there ever been a run such as this one?

Offensively, it's hard to compare anyone with the Trojans, with Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart handing off to Heisman winner Reggie Bush. The numbers are staggering. They average 50 points a game. There are two 1,000-yard rushers, one 1,000-yard receiver and Leinart.

Yet, there is a lingering notion that the Trojans' defense isn't as good as in the past, which gives Texas a better-than-you-might-think chance of quieting all of this discussion about history.

Personally, I still think that Hurricane run is the best I've seen. If Southern Cal can pull this off, it is in the conversation, however. The Trojans will be able to say they are better than the great Sooners, better than the great Tide, better than the great Cornhuskers.

As Texas coach Mack Brown pointed out Tuesday, those guys are old now.

[Last modified January 4, 2006, 01:07:18]