What team is a Dynasty?

[Chef K]

You keep bringin' up Notre Dame as a quality opponent, but how long has it been since ND has been a legitimate threat at a BCS championship? Or a bowl game winner for that matter. Plus who stated that all teams in the Pac-Ten has been ranked in the top ten, Yeah I remember a #4 Arizona gettin embarrassed by penn state a few years ago. {first game of the season} But outside of SC and Cal, the Pac-10 has'nt been shakin' alot of opponents in their cleats. I think the majority of us have great respect for SC. IMO they have the right to claim "dynasty" more than anybody else this decade. That make you happy?

[no_name_needed_2001]

 

And if USC is a dynasty, then NU is obviously a dynasty

[skersfan]

Any team that has 7 NC's is a dynasty.

 

SC more than qualifies, hands down.

 

They had there down years, but so has every major program out there. They have more NC than Nebraska, more hypsmans than Nebraska, play one of the toughest out of conference schedule in the country every single year.

 

They play ND every single year. Compare that to Nichols State. or ball State and any other directional school Byrne could schedule.

 

Do not disrespect the Trojans. They are not a Johnny come lately to College football. Down years we have a few. And for many years we beat absolutely no one of meaning out of conference.

 

Apologies for the kids sir.

[FriscoTXHusker]

Any team that has 7 NC's is a dynasty.

 

SC more than qualifies, hands down.

 

They had there down years, but so has every major program out there. They have more NC than Nebraska, more hypsmans than Nebraska, play one of the toughest out of conference schedule in the country every single year.

 

They play ND every single year. Compare that to Nichols State. or ball State and any other directional school Byrne could schedule.

 

Do not disrespect the Trojans. They are not a Johnny come lately to College football. Down years we have a few. And for many years we beat absolutely no one of meaning out of conference.

 

Apologies for the kids sir.

 

Dynasties last for a period of time. Nebraska isn't a dynasty now because they were a dynasty for a period of time spanning roughly the '70s through the 90's. USC is a dynasty because they have been a great team for the last 5 years, IMO.

[Chef K]

In the last six seasons of the Big 12, eight football teams have participated in BCS bowls. Included in this, the Big 12 Conference is the leader with 4 appearances in the National Championship game.

[skersfan]

I am sorry for the error.. SC has 9 National Championships.

 

They are returning to their former level of play.

 

They are every much a dynasty as Nebraska. Or any other program out there.

 

Actually more so than us if you only consider the recent times.

 

But I still count our 70's run and the 90's run. With those we are a dynasty, just not current.

 

SC had NC's in 28 31 32 39 54 62 68 72 74 03 04.

[skersfan]

And the only one we won was over SC in the last seconds of the game.

[FriscoTXHusker]

I am sorry for the error.. SC has 9 National Championships.

 

They are returning to their former level of play.

 

They are every much a dynasty as Nebraska. Or any other program out there.

 

Actually more so than us if you only consider the recent times.

 

But I still count our 70's run and the 90's run. With those we are a dynasty, just not current.

 

SC had NC's in 28 31 32 39 54 62 68 72 74 03 04.

 

All I'm saying is that I would not consider USC from 28-04 to be a single dynasty. There have been intervening periods of mediocre status, some of them fairly long. I also think 5 years is too short for dynasty status, hence the current USC team isn't a dynasty quite yet. It may well turn out to be a 10 year run. That would be pretty extraordinary and I think would constitute dynasty status. 15/20 years in the top 20 would be pretty impressive too.

[bennychico11]

And now let's put that next to the Huskers record those years (in red)

 

I knew a dynasty, and this ain't no dynasty:

 

1980 USC Trojans 8-2-1 .773 10-2

1981 USC Trojans 9-3 .750 9-3

1982 USC Trojans 8-3 .727 12-1

1983 USC Trojans 4-6-1 .409 12-1

1984 USC Trojans 9-3 .750 10-2

1985 USC Trojans 6-6 .500 9-3

1986 USC Trojans 7-5 .583 10-2

1987 USC Trojans 8-4 .667 10-2

1988 USC Trojans 10-2 .833 11-2

1989 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792 10-2

1990 USC Trojans 8-4-1 .654 9-3

1991 USC Trojans 3-8 .273 9-2-1

1992 USC Trojans 6-5-1 .542 9-3

1993 USC Trojans 8-5 .615 11-1

1994 USC Trojans 8-3-1 .708 13-0

1995 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792 12-0

1996 USC Trojans 6-6 .500 11-2

1997 USC Trojans 6-5 .545 13-0

1998 USC Trojans 8-5 .615 9-4

1999 USC Trojans 6-6 .500 12-1

2000 USC Trojans 5-7 .417 10-2

2001 USC Trojans 6-6 .500 11-2

 

 

21 out of 26 years in RECENT history (we're not talking about the days of old), not once did you have a better record than Nebraska

 

again, if you can consider USC a dynasty (which I don't) then you sure as hell can consider Nebraska one.

[FriscoTXHusker]

Here's a statistical analysis clearly showing that the Huskers were significantly (highly statistically significant) better than the Trojans during the period 1990 to 2001 period. If the Trojans were a dynasty then the Huskers were a HYPER-dynasty. The two records are nowhere close to comparable. Sorry for the formatting . The p-value is p < 0.0001 at alpha = 0.05.

 

Huskers Trojans

1980 0.833 0.773

1981 0.750 0.750

1982 0.923 0.727

1983 0.923 0.409

1984 0.833 0.750

1985 0.750 0.500

1986 0.833 0.583

1987 0.833 0.667

1988 0.846 0.833

1989 0.833 0.792

1990 0.750 0.654

1991 0.900 0.273

1992 0.750 0.542

1993 0.917 0.615

1994 1.000 0.708

1995 1.000 0.792

1996 0.846 0.500

1997 1.000 0.545

1998 0.692 0.615

1999 0.923 0.500

2000 0.833 0.417

2001 0.846 0.500

 

Anova: Single Factor

 

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Huskers 22 18.81666667 0.85530303 0.00744878

Trojans 22 13.445 0.611136364 0.021878219

 

 

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 0.655790972 1 0.655790972 44.7226792 4.07513E-08 4.072653663

Within Groups 0.615866968 42 0.014663499

 

Total 1.27165794 43

 

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Here's a statistical analysis clearly showing that the Huskers were significantly (highly statistically significant) better than the Trojans during the period 1990 to 2001 period. If the Trojans were a dynasty then the Huskers were a HYPER-dynasty. The two records are nowhere close to comparable. Sorry for the formatting . The p-value is p < 0.0001 at alpha = 0.05.

 

Huskers Trojans

1980 0.833 0.773

1981 0.750 0.750

1982 0.923 0.727

1983 0.923 0.409

1984 0.833 0.750

1985 0.750 0.500

1986 0.833 0.583

1987 0.833 0.667

1988 0.846 0.833

1989 0.833 0.792

1990 0.750 0.654

1991 0.900 0.273

1992 0.750 0.542

1993 0.917 0.615

1994 1.000 0.708

1995 1.000 0.792

1996 0.846 0.500

1997 1.000 0.545

1998 0.692 0.615

1999 0.923 0.500

2000 0.833 0.417

2001 0.846 0.500

 

Anova: Single Factor

 

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Huskers 22 18.81666667 0.85530303 0.00744878

Trojans 22 13.445 0.611136364 0.021878219

 

 

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 0.655790972 1 0.655790972 44.7226792 4.07513E-08 4.072653663

Within Groups 0.615866968 42 0.014663499

 

Total 1.27165794 43

 

 

And my wife calls ME John Nash!

 

Looks like you added up the winning percentages from each year then divided by the total of years then broke it down further. Interesting.

[FriscoTXHusker]

 

 

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 0.655790972 1 0.655790972 44.7226792 4.07513E-08 4.072653663

Within Groups 0.615866968 42 0.014663499

 

Total 1.27165794 43

 

 

And my wife calls ME John Nash!

 

Looks like you added up the winning percentages from each year then divided by the total of years then broke it down further. Interesting.

 

Actually, this is the really fun part. It basically indicates that the chance the two teams were in the same league is less than 0.0001, in fact closer to 0.00000004.

[California Husker]

It's great to see USC get out of their own conference and play teams like ND and Nebraska...but we have (and have had) Texas/OU games every year.

 

I might make a couple of observations here. . . .

 

First, USC takes second place to no one in the out of conference games they play in the regular season. I will admit that Notre Dame probably plays more D-1 powers across the nation than USC, but Notre Dame doesn't have any conference commitments either.

 

Since I have been following USC football, USC has played, either on a home and home basis or at a neutral site, the following out of conference teams:

 

Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Florida State, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse, Minnesota, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Colorado, Colorado State, Texas, Texas Tech, Missouri, BYU, Hawaii, and Virginia Tech -- and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Oh yeah. . . .there is a school from the midwest that USC plays on a home and home basis, and has done every year for the past 70 or so.

 

And, I might add, USC has never played any non-Division 1 schools (at least since there has been Division 1 schools -- there were a few high school opponents about 100 years ago). Michigan now wishes that they had never played a non-Division 1 school too!! (Applachian State was the first for them).

 

Second -- Nebraska hasn't been playing Oklahoma and Texas every year. NU didn't play Texas regularly until the 90's, and even now NU doesn't necessarily play either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

 

Third -- the PAC 10 is a tough conference. In the last 10 years every one of the ten teams has been ranked in the top ten. When was the last time that Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor or Iowa State were in the top ten?

 

Fourth, I might point out that while USC didn't win any national championships in the 80's and 90's, they did win national championships in the 60's (1963 and 1967) and the 70's (74 and 78). And they were in the running for national championships several times in the 80's and 90's, winding up in the top five nationally.

 

And in overall national championships, USC arguably leads the pack with 11.

 

Fifth, USC has had a few players earn post season laurels -- such as Mike Garrett, OJ Simpson, CHarles White, Marcus Allen, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinert, and Reggie Bush all won the Heisman trophy.

 

Sixth, USC has had some success in sending players to the next level -- in fact, more players from USC have played in the Superbowl then any other school.

 

And so my question remains; if USC isn't a football dynasty, who is?

Okay, here we go. I think it was my post that indicated USC's horrible record in the `80's and `90's. So lets go back and clear up a few things.

 

First, before we go any further, 11 National Championships? Yeah, I know, that's what USC claims in their media hype. But lets get real. There have really only been two organizations that have crowned LEGITIMATE college football national champions (I know, I know, there is no playoff, but it's all we got). The two are the Coaches poll and the Associated Press. So go back and see how many times USC has won either of those and you will find that it is several short of the 11 you stated earlier. I believe it is something like six. USC is one of those schools like Ohio State, and Notre Dame, who claim a National Championship every time some insignificant hack puts out a poll with them on top.

 

Are you seriously going to claim the Dunkel, Sagarin, and Mathew's Championship in 2002? You see, that is the year that Ohio State beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl and was voted National Champion by the AP and Coaches, and anyone else with a brain. But good `ol USC adds THAT into their "11 National Championships." They also claim one in 1979 from the "Football Research Poll" whatever that is.

 

If Nebraska was to claim every off-the-wall poll we would have many more titles than the 5 legitimate ones we claim. For instance:

1993 - National Championship Foundation

1984 - Litkenhouse

1983 - Berryman, DeVold, FACT*, Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling, Sagarin

1982 - Berryman

1981 - National Championship Foundation*

1980 - FACT*, Sagarin

1915 - Billingsley

 

That's right, we went we went back-to-back-to-back in 1993-1995, and we won five straight between 1980 and 1984. A total of 12 National Championships. The difference here is that Nebraska would never be as cheesy as USC and actually claim those as real titles in our media guide.

 

As for my saying that "USC went 22 years without a national title", that is a miss-quote. What I said was that USC sucked for 22 years! I will re-print their record below from 1980-2001.

 

1980 USC Trojans 8-2-1 .773

1981 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1982 USC Trojans 8-3 .727

1983 USC Trojans 4-6-1 .409

1984 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1985 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1986 USC Trojans 7-5 .583

1987 USC Trojans 8-4 .667

1988 USC Trojans 10-2 .833

1989 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1990 USC Trojans 8-4-1 .654

1991 USC Trojans 3-8 .273

1992 USC Trojans 6-5-1 .542

1993 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1994 USC Trojans 8-3-1 .708

1995 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1996 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1997 USC Trojans 6-5 .545

1998 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1999 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

2000 USC Trojans 5-7 .417

2001 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

 

Damn! Only one ten win season? Three losing seasons? Another four non-winning seasons? And two more where you broke .500 but only won six games. An overall winning percentage of .613? Exactly which season in that stretch was USC a championship contender? Wow, that must have sucked to be an SC fan during that stretch. Oh, never mind, everyone out here in LA just becomes UCLA fans when SC is sucking.

 

SC fans are so myopic!

[Ignatius]

It's great to see USC get out of their own conference and play teams like ND and Nebraska...but we have (and have had) Texas/OU games every year.

 

I might make a couple of observations here. . . .

 

First, USC takes second place to no one in the out of conference games they play in the regular season. I will admit that Notre Dame probably plays more D-1 powers across the nation than USC, but Notre Dame doesn't have any conference commitments either.

 

Since I have been following USC football, USC has played, either on a home and home basis or at a neutral site, the following out of conference teams:

 

Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Florida State, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse, Minnesota, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Colorado, Colorado State, Texas, Texas Tech, Missouri, BYU, Hawaii, and Virginia Tech -- and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Oh yeah. . . .there is a school from the midwest that USC plays on a home and home basis, and has done every year for the past 70 or so.

 

And, I might add, USC has never played any non-Division 1 schools (at least since there has been Division 1 schools -- there were a few high school opponents about 100 years ago). Michigan now wishes that they had never played a non-Division 1 school too!! (Applachian State was the first for them).

 

Second -- Nebraska hasn't been playing Oklahoma and Texas every year. NU didn't play Texas regularly until the 90's, and even now NU doesn't necessarily play either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

 

Third -- the PAC 10 is a tough conference. In the last 10 years every one of the ten teams has been ranked in the top ten. When was the last time that Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor or Iowa State were in the top ten?

 

Fourth, I might point out that while USC didn't win any national championships in the 80's and 90's, they did win national championships in the 60's (1963 and 1967) and the 70's (74 and 78). And they were in the running for national championships several times in the 80's and 90's, winding up in the top five nationally.

 

And in overall national championships, USC arguably leads the pack with 11.

 

Fifth, USC has had a few players earn post season laurels -- such as Mike Garrett, OJ Simpson, CHarles White, Marcus Allen, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinert, and Reggie Bush all won the Heisman trophy.

 

Sixth, USC has had some success in sending players to the next level -- in fact, more players from USC have played in the Superbowl then any other school.

 

And so my question remains; if USC isn't a football dynasty, who is?

Okay, here we go. I think it was my post that indicated USC's horrible record in the `80's and `90's. So lets go back and clear up a few things.

 

First, before we go any further, 11 National Championships? Yeah, I know, that's what USC claims in their media hype. But lets get real. There have really only been two organizations that have crowned LEGITIMATE college football national champions (I know, I know, there is no playoff, but it's all we got). The two are the Coaches poll and the Associated Press. So go back and see how many times USC has won either of those and you will find that it is several short of the 11 you stated earlier. I believe it is something like six. USC is one of those schools like Ohio State, and Notre Dame, who claim a National Championship every time some insignificant hack puts out a poll with them on top.

 

Are you seriously going to claim the Dunkel, Sagarin, and Mathew's Championship in 2002? You see, that is the year that Ohio State beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl and was voted National Champion by the AP and Coaches, and anyone else with a brain. But good `ol USC adds THAT into their "11 National Championships." They also claim one in 1979 from the "Football Research Poll" whatever that is.

 

If Nebraska was to claim every off-the-wall poll we would have many more titles than the 5 legitimate ones we claim. For instance:

1993 - National Championship Foundation

1984 - Litkenhouse

1983 - Berryman, DeVold, FACT*, Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling, Sagarin

1982 - Berryman

1981 - National Championship Foundation*

1980 - FACT*, Sagarin

1915 - Billingsley

 

That's right, we went we went back-to-back-to-back in 1993-1995, and we won five straight between 1980 and 1984. A total of 12 National Championships. The difference here is that Nebraska would never be as cheesy as USC and actually claim those as real titles in our media guide.

 

As for my saying that "USC went 22 years without a national title", that is a miss-quote. What I said was that USC sucked for 22 years! I will re-print their record below from 1980-2001.

 

1980 USC Trojans 8-2-1 .773

1981 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1982 USC Trojans 8-3 .727

1983 USC Trojans 4-6-1 .409

1984 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1985 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1986 USC Trojans 7-5 .583

1987 USC Trojans 8-4 .667

1988 USC Trojans 10-2 .833

1989 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1990 USC Trojans 8-4-1 .654

1991 USC Trojans 3-8 .273

1992 USC Trojans 6-5-1 .542

1993 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1994 USC Trojans 8-3-1 .708

1995 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1996 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1997 USC Trojans 6-5 .545

1998 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1999 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

2000 USC Trojans 5-7 .417

2001 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

 

Damn! Only one ten win season? Three losing seasons? Another four non-winning seasons? And two more where you broke .500 but only won six games. An overall winning percentage of .613? Exactly which season in that stretch was USC a championship contender? Wow, that must have sucked to be an SC fan during that stretch. Oh, never mind, everyone out here in LA just becomes UCLA fans when SC is sucking.

 

SC fans are so myopic!

 

Yeah, and take a look at their attendance up until 4 years ago, consistently 55K or so...

[REDSTEEL]

It's great to see USC get out of their own conference and play teams like ND and Nebraska...but we have (and have had) Texas/OU games every year.

 

I might make a couple of observations here. . . .

 

First, USC takes second place to no one in the out of conference games they play in the regular season. I will admit that Notre Dame probably plays more D-1 powers across the nation than USC, but Notre Dame doesn't have any conference commitments either.

 

Since I have been following USC football, USC has played, either on a home and home basis or at a neutral site, the following out of conference teams:

 

Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Florida State, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse, Minnesota, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Colorado, Colorado State, Texas, Texas Tech, Missouri, BYU, Hawaii, and Virginia Tech -- and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Oh yeah. . . .there is a school from the midwest that USC plays on a home and home basis, and has done every year for the past 70 or so.

 

And, I might add, USC has never played any non-Division 1 schools (at least since there has been Division 1 schools -- there were a few high school opponents about 100 years ago). Michigan now wishes that they had never played a non-Division 1 school too!! (Applachian State was the first for them).

 

Second -- Nebraska hasn't been playing Oklahoma and Texas every year. NU didn't play Texas regularly until the 90's, and even now NU doesn't necessarily play either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

 

Third -- the PAC 10 is a tough conference. In the last 10 years every one of the ten teams has been ranked in the top ten. When was the last time that Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor or Iowa State were in the top ten?

 

Fourth, I might point out that while USC didn't win any national championships in the 80's and 90's, they did win national championships in the 60's (1963 and 1967) and the 70's (74 and 78). And they were in the running for national championships several times in the 80's and 90's, winding up in the top five nationally.

 

And in overall national championships, USC arguably leads the pack with 11.

 

Fifth, USC has had a few players earn post season laurels -- such as Mike Garrett, OJ Simpson, CHarles White, Marcus Allen, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinert, and Reggie Bush all won the Heisman trophy.

 

Sixth, USC has had some success in sending players to the next level -- in fact, more players from USC have played in the Superbowl then any other school.

 

And so my question remains; if USC isn't a football dynasty, who is?

Okay, here we go. I think it was my post that indicated USC's horrible record in the `80's and `90's. So lets go back and clear up a few things.

 

First, before we go any further, 11 National Championships? Yeah, I know, that's what USC claims in their media hype. But lets get real. There have really only been two organizations that have crowned LEGITIMATE college football national champions (I know, I know, there is no playoff, but it's all we got). The two are the Coaches poll and the Associated Press. So go back and see how many times USC has won either of those and you will find that it is several short of the 11 you stated earlier. I believe it is something like six. USC is one of those schools like Ohio State, and Notre Dame, who claim a National Championship every time some insignificant hack puts out a poll with them on top.

 

Are you seriously going to claim the Dunkel, Sagarin, and Mathew's Championship in 2002? You see, that is the year that Ohio State beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl and was voted National Champion by the AP and Coaches, and anyone else with a brain. But good `ol USC adds THAT into their "11 National Championships." They also claim one in 1979 from the "Football Research Poll" whatever that is.

 

If Nebraska was to claim every off-the-wall poll we would have many more titles than the 5 legitimate ones we claim. For instance:

1993 - National Championship Foundation

1984 - Litkenhouse

1983 - Berryman, DeVold, FACT*, Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling, Sagarin

1982 - Berryman

1981 - National Championship Foundation*

1980 - FACT*, Sagarin

1915 - Billingsley

 

That's right, we went we went back-to-back-to-back in 1993-1995, and we won five straight between 1980 and 1984. A total of 12 National Championships. The difference here is that Nebraska would never be as cheesy as USC and actually claim those as real titles in our media guide.

 

As for my saying that "USC went 22 years without a national title", that is a miss-quote. What I said was that USC sucked for 22 years! I will re-print their record below from 1980-2001.

 

1980 USC Trojans 8-2-1 .773

1981 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1982 USC Trojans 8-3 .727

1983 USC Trojans 4-6-1 .409

1984 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1985 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1986 USC Trojans 7-5 .583

1987 USC Trojans 8-4 .667

1988 USC Trojans 10-2 .833

1989 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1990 USC Trojans 8-4-1 .654

1991 USC Trojans 3-8 .273

1992 USC Trojans 6-5-1 .542

1993 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1994 USC Trojans 8-3-1 .708

1995 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1996 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1997 USC Trojans 6-5 .545

1998 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1999 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

2000 USC Trojans 5-7 .417

2001 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

 

Damn! Only one ten win season? Three losing seasons? Another four non-winning seasons? And two more where you broke .500 but only won six games. An overall winning percentage of .613? Exactly which season in that stretch was USC a championship contender? Wow, that must have sucked to be an SC fan during that stretch. Oh, never mind, everyone out here in LA just becomes UCLA fans when SC is sucking.

 

SC fans are so myopic!

 

Yeah, and take a look at their attendance up until 4 years ago, consistently 55K or so...

 

 

Remember all those years it wasn't about playing for the National Championship it was all about the getting to the great Rose Bowl at least that's what the Big Ten and Pac ten people claimed back then when they couldn't get to the NC.