This is an open letter to SportingNew's Tom Dienhart in response to his article "Rose Bowl rout leaves no doubt: USC is the nation's best". In fairness, I've provided a link to Mr. Dienhart's article at the bottom of the letter so you can judge for yourself.
Dear Tom,
In your January 2
nd column you posed the following question:
"Is there any doubt Southern Cal is the best team in the nation?"
Now you know if you are going to ask a question, you should be prepared for answers, and not just the one you so tritely gave in the next line of you column.
Then again, maybe the only purpose for this rhetorical act was to position yourself for a run the 2008 campaign for President, of the Pat Carroll fan club that is. Perhaps
SportingNews should check to see if you've been moonlighting as the Sports (
mis)Information Director for
USC. Face it you article has more spin on it than a pinwheel in a hurricane.
Let's start with your assertion that
"USC is to this decade what Florida State was to the 1990s". I'll admit you provide some tremendous accomplishments by the Trojan's over the past six seasons, but are they really so far above and beyond the powers of mere mortal schools such as Ohio State or
LSU?
For example, you cite the seven first round draft picks from the Trojans from 2002 to 2007. Impressive, but if you check, you'll see the Buckeyes had 10 in that same period. You also rave about
USC's two National Championships in three tries. In case you haven't done the math, this will be Ohio State's third championship game in that period. Plus whichever team emerges victorious on Monday night will also claim their second National Championship in six years. (Remember Ohio State in 2002 and
LSU in 2003?)
But wait a minute, you're claiming
USC is the team of the decade, not just the past six years. Last time I checked there were two more seasons in the 2000s. Did you conveniently forget Southern Cal's 5-7 and 6-6 records in the 2000 and 2001 seasons respectively? That gives
USC a combined 81-21 record for all games played since the opener of the 2000 season.
Ohio State's record over the same period of time? 81-19. And wait a minute, Ohio State had three more first round draft picks in those two seasons while the Trojan's didn't have any. That brings the total first rounders for the 2000-2007 period to 13 for Ohio State vs the same 7 for
USC. (Looks like your pinwheel is starting to wobble a bit.)
So let's look just at this season and your original question,
"Is there any doubt Southern Cal is the best team in the nation?". I'm sure you will tout the strength of the PAC-10, the weakness of the Big 10, and of course the soft schedule played by the Buckeyes (since you obviously believe
USC should be in New Orleans instead of OSU) as part of this argument. Especially given the treatment you afforded Illinois in your article.
True, Ohio State had Youngstown State, Akron, and Kent State on their schedule (with their combined record of 14-21). By comparison,
USC played 2007 powerhouses Nebraska, Idaho, and
Notre Dame (a combined record of 9-27). The Buckeyes did have one common opponent with the Trojans, the Washington Huskies. How did those games turn out? Look it up and you'll note that Ohio State eked out 33-14 victory in Seattle, only two weeks prior to
USC's domineering 27-24 victory over the Huskies.
Naturally you will counter with the fact that the Buckeyes lost to Illinois who you beat up in the Rose Bowl. Only one response to that, can you spell S-T-A-N-F-O-R-D. A loss (at home) to a 41-point underdog playing a backup QB is not the stuff National Champs, let alone Teams of the Decade are made of. The worst part, you might even have survived that loss and ended up playing for
BCS trophy were it not for the other "L" on
USC's schedule, Oregon (at least both of
LSU's losses were in OT).
Prince Pete spoke of the Stanford game by saying -
"Unfortunately, that game is killing us right now," "Without that, we'd be coasting into the national championship game." While you wrote
"USC could have won the national title the last two years, save for stunning losses to UCLA (2006) and Stanford (2007)". Sounds like both of you studied under the same spin doctor.
"Without" and "Could", what great words.
Without Pitt, West Virginia
could have coasted into and won the national championship game.
Without South Carolina, Georgia
could have been there.
Without Boston College (whom they beat in the
ACC title game), Virginia Tech
could have emerged as the National Champions.
In my opinion, this article is nothing more than a classic example of the slanted reporting and "Cry Baby" journalism that has come to plague our society. You manipulate the statistics to support your predetermined position, while omitting other facts that might refute it.
USC may well be playing the best football of the year right now, but to denigrate other teams and leagues by declaring the Trojans
"the nation's best" not only of this season but of the decade (which you conveniently tailored to be only the past six seasons) is absurd.
You may be humming "Conquest" as you go to sleep tonight, but the noise you hear in the background will be the rest of us laughing as we drift off.
Doc
Click Here to read Mr. Dienhart's column.
