How long until USC is . . . .

[California Husker]

California Husker, I think I know what's going on.

 

And I feel your pain.

 

You live in Southern California, and you're not shy about your love, support, and devotion for Big Red football.

 

You have friends and acquaintances who are quite aware of your passion, and have engaged you in perhaps a few spirited discussions about USC football vs. Nebraska football in the past.

 

All in the spirit of good fun, of course, you were enticed into making perhaps a few wagers on the outcome of yesterday's USC/Nebraska game. USC fans, being good sports, probably gave you Nebraska and 15 points or so.

 

And you still loss.

 

So come tomorrow, you are going to have to distribute your honest and hard earned cash to a number of rather obnoxious Trojan fans, who all the time will be mentioning stuff like Nebraska never ever having won a game against USC (even when the Cornhuskers won the national championship), and USC scoring the most points anyone has scored against Nebraska in Lincoln in 50 years, and USC rushing for 313 yards, and USC's true freshman O'Dowd completely dominating Nebraska defensive tackles (touted as some of the best in the nation by Nebraska fans), and so on and so forth.

 

Even worse, so of these obnoxious Trojans may have enticed you into some rather (in retrospect) foolish bets, and you may have to do stuff tomorrow like wear a USC sweatshirt and hum the Conquest fight song.

 

Ah!! The pain!!

 

At least if your were back in Lincoln instead of sunny Southern California you wouldn't be surrounded by cruel, uncaring, and obnoxious USC fans.

 

And so, Big Man, you have my sympathies!!

 

At least Nebraska won't be playing USC anytime again soon.

Wrong on almost every count. Sorry. But then again, USC grads are seldom right about anything.

[I See Red People]

recognized as a football dynasty, like Nebraska is?

 

I have previously been assured by members of this board that in spite of 11 national championships, umpteen Heisman trophy winners, including 3 of the last 5, a 61-6 record over the past five years or so, and more Superbowl players than any other school can boast, USC's football program doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Nebraska's program.

 

Suggesting that USC perhaps has a football dynasty worthy of comparison to Nebraska, posters like "California Huster" protested

 

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!"

 

Others suggested that USC doesn't deserve the "dynasty" label like Nebraska does because the USC home attendance in the past (5-15 years ago) has been somewhat less than Nebraska's home attendance.

 

So here's my question for "California Husker" and others. . . . . .

 

How many more beatdowns do the Trojans have to administer to Nebraska before Nebraska fans will acknowledge that USC has every bit as good a football program as the Cornhuskers do?

 

Now please note -- I'm not trying to claim that USC has a superior football team/tradition than Nebraska -- I'm just trying to get Cornhusker fans to acknowledge that at least in a football sense, USC is at least equal to the storied Cornhusker program.

 

And while I may be myopic as a USC fan, at least I do see well enough to recognize that USC football players seem to block and tackle a whole lot better than the Nebraska Cornhusker football team does.

Okay little trojan man, I'll take the bait. First, what made Nebraska a true football dynasty is that for a span of over 30 years we played for 9 national championships winning five of them. During that span, we never won fewer than 9 games in a season. During that span we averaged...AVERAGED...10 wins a season. During that span we never...NEVER...lost more than three games in one year. During that span we had five...FIVE...undefeated seasons.

 

Now, USC has had a great run over the last five years. I can't deny that. However, you are 60-6 which is not as good as Nebraska's 60-3 from `93-`97. During the last five years you played for two national championships and only won one of them. (I don't count the time you missed the championship game but the spoiled sports writers threw a little fit and gave you guys their biased recognition), and you only had one undefeated season. During our five year run from `93-`97 we played in the recognized championship game three times and won all three and had three undefeated seasons.

 

Sure SC is better right now than Nebraska right now. But you are asking about dynasty. I am not as myopic as some sports fans and media types who think a dynasty is a three-to-four year stretch. That is why Nebraska from 1970-2001 is a true dynasty, and why USC will need another 7-10 years of nine-to-ten win seasons, and a couple more undefeated seasons, and a couple more legit national championships, to really be a dynasty.

 

Oh, and by the way...no matter what your media guide says...you don't have 11 national championships. Sorry but, no matter how much you want to, you can't count the Dunkel, Matthews, and Sagarin polls as championships.

 

[huskers7737]

also, imo what make NEBRASKA a dynasty during the 70's 80's and 90's is their Style of Play and the fans.

 

 

NOoNE! could run the option like we did, It was unique, It was NEBRASKA football. How many games has USC played and not even need to attempt a pass? (not a good example last night)

 

 

Sure USC's playcalling is great along with the offense but WHat traditions does your progam have that you have carried on since the 70's?

 

TRADITION is how a great dynasty is built. and Since the 1970's we still have the biggest # of wins!

 

ALSO! as long as the Trojans have SNoop DOg along the Sideline, i will NEVER consider you a Dynasty, show some class, seriously

[Marf]

If they had done that to an Osbourne run team, I would acknowledge them. Against Cosgroves barely-blackshirt-worthy defense.... Whole different story.

[Foppa]

recognized as a football dynasty, like Nebraska is?

 

I have previously been assured by members of this board that in spite of 11 national championships, umpteen Heisman trophy winners, including 3 of the last 5, a 61-6 record over the past five years or so, and more Superbowl players than any other school can boast, USC's football program doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Nebraska's program.

 

Suggesting that USC perhaps has a football dynasty worthy of comparison to Nebraska, posters like "California Huster" protested

 

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!"

 

Others suggested that USC doesn't deserve the "dynasty" label like Nebraska does because the USC home attendance in the past (5-15 years ago) has been somewhat less than Nebraska's home attendance.

 

So here's my question for "California Husker" and others. . . . . .

 

How many more beatdowns do the Trojans have to administer to Nebraska before Nebraska fans will acknowledge that USC has every bit as good a football program as the Cornhuskers do?

 

Now please note -- I'm not trying to claim that USC has a superior football team/tradition than Nebraska -- I'm just trying to get Cornhusker fans to acknowledge that at least in a football sense, USC is at least equal to the storied Cornhusker program.

 

And while I may be myopic as a USC fan, at least I do see well enough to recognize that USC football players seem to block and tackle a whole lot better than the Nebraska Cornhusker football team does.

USC is where we used to be and we all know that. It's a fun time for you and all SC fans across the nation. We can call it a dynasty I guess because they are doing now what we did in the 90's. I think they are a fantastic football team and they have all the tools in place to keep making a run at the NC. The only problem with the whole thing is that we have been behind our team since they have begun. Granted we don't have much else to do with our lives as some people like to think, but we stand behind our football team and bye tickets through thick and thin. Dynasty's to me aren't only measured by their teams, but by their fans as well.

 

I'd call USC a 'micro-hegemony.'

[Husker B]

I have a hard time refering to them as a dynasty because of seasons like last year where they lost to Oregon State and UCLA... to be a dynasty you must be unstoppable for quite a few years and if you do lose, it better be to a team like LSU this year or Oklahoma, not a middle of the pack Pac 10 school

 

 

You're totally right - Arizona State and Texas, 1996

[foote_21]

I have a hard time refering to them as a dynasty because of seasons like last year where they lost to Oregon State and UCLA... to be a dynasty you must be unstoppable for quite a few years and if you do lose, it better be to a team like LSU this year or Oklahoma, not a middle of the pack Pac 10 school

 

 

You're totally right - Arizona State and Texas, 1996

 

Are you being sarcastic???? Because Arizona State was a National Title contender in 1996, they went 11-0 in the regular season that year and lost to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl 20-17. And Texas that year did lose four regular season games but they were to #6 Notre Dame, #13 Virgina Tech, #25 Oklahoma, and #8 Colorado, they won the South and the Big 12... and they played #7 Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl.

 

Do a little research before you run your mouth. Oregon State and UCLA are totally different. UCLA lost at Washington and later in the year they dropped four straight to Oregon, Notre Dame, Washington State and California. Plus a loss to a very down Florida State team in the Emerald Bowl. As for Oregon State they did lose to a couple good teams, but those loses were blown outs by the likes of Boise State (42-14) and California (41-13), and also they lost to Washington State and UCLA.

[I Bleed RED]

USC is a program equal to that of Notre Dame and Nebraska and all the others. It is considered a Dynasty and storied program.

 

Anyone who would say otherwise would then say NU isn't because we have only been mediocre ourselves the last 10 years.

[DCHusker]

Give me a break, USC is a dynasty.

 

If you want to compare Nebraska in the 90's to USC in the 00's, I'll take Nebraska (screw you Kirk Herbstreit), and the 95 skers are better than any single team USC has fielded, but if USC continues amassing this level of talent for the next three years, it's going to make for one heck of a decade. There's no denying it.

[California Husker]

USC is a program equal to that of Notre Dame and Nebraska and all the others. It is considered a Dynasty and storied program.

 

Anyone who would say otherwise would then say NU isn't because we have only been mediocre ourselves the last 10 years.

Winingest team in the last 50 years?

Nebraska #1 with a .765 wining pct.

USC is #9 with .699 wining percent.

 

Winingest teams since the modern free substitution rule went into effect in 1965?

Nebraska #1 with .804 winning pct.

USC #6 with .719 wining pct.

 

Winingest teams since the modern pass blocking rules went into effect in 1976?

Nebraska is #1 with .801 pct.

USC is #14 with .697 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1980?

Nebraska is #2 (damn Miami) with .802 pct.

USC is #16 with .671 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1990?

Nebraska #2 (damn Florida State) with .805 pct.

USC #14 with .667 pct.

 

Most wins in college football history?

Nebraska #4 = 812 wins (one of only four teams with over 800 wins)

USC #10 = 746 wins

(If USC averages 3 more wins per season than NU they will catch the Huskers in 22 short years)

 

All of the above is what makes NU a dynasty, and USC a sometimes very good football team.

[HuskerT]

I don't know why arrogant SC fan continues to forget that they were absolutely irrelevant to college football from 1980-2001. That's 22 seasons! So how about this SC fans, we'll call you a dynasty and label it like this:

"USC is a dynasty minus the 22 year span from 1980-2001 when they were absolutely irrelevant to college football, but the fans don't seem to remember because they either hadn't jumped on the bandwagon yet or just weren't paying attention." Congratulations and fight on!

[HSKRNOKC]

USC is a program equal to that of Notre Dame and Nebraska and all the others. It is considered a Dynasty and storied program.

 

Anyone who would say otherwise would then say NU isn't because we have only been mediocre ourselves the last 10 years.

Winingest team in the last 50 years?

Nebraska #1 with a .765 wining pct.

USC is #9 with .699 wining percent.

 

Winingest teams since the modern free substitution rule went into effect in 1965?

Nebraska #1 with .804 winning pct.

USC #6 with .719 wining pct.

 

Winingest teams since the modern pass blocking rules went into effect in 1976?

Nebraska is #1 with .801 pct.

USC is #14 with .697 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1980?

Nebraska is #2 (damn Miami) with .802 pct.

USC is #16 with .671 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1990?

Nebraska #2 (damn Florida State) with .805 pct.

USC #14 with .667 pct.

 

Most wins in college football history?

Nebraska #4 = 812 wins (one of only four teams with over 800 wins)

USC #10 = 746 wins

(If USC averages 3 more wins per season than NU they will catch the Huskers in 22 short years)

 

All of the above is what makes NU a dynasty, and USC a sometimes very good football team.

 

Hard to argue those numbers.

[Trojanspy]

USC is a program equal to that of Notre Dame and Nebraska and all the others. It is considered a Dynasty and storied program.

 

Anyone who would say otherwise would then say NU isn't because we have only been mediocre ourselves the last 10 years.

Winingest team in the last 50 years?

Nebraska #1 with a .765 wining pct.

USC is #9 with .699 wining percent.

 

Winingest teams since the modern free substitution rule went into effect in 1965?

Nebraska #1 with .804 winning pct.

USC #6 with .719 wining pct.

 

Winingest teams since the modern pass blocking rules went into effect in 1976?

Nebraska is #1 with .801 pct.

USC is #14 with .697 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1980?

Nebraska is #2 (damn Miami) with .802 pct.

USC is #16 with .671 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1990?

Nebraska #2 (damn Florida State) with .805 pct.

USC #14 with .667 pct.

 

Most wins in college football history?

Nebraska #4 = 812 wins (one of only four teams with over 800 wins)

USC #10 = 746 wins

(If USC averages 3 more wins per season than NU they will catch the Huskers in 22 short years)

 

All of the above is what makes NU a dynasty, and USC a sometimes very good football team.

 

 

guys i know it was a hard loss. if listing all those things makes you feel better about your program, then by all means use it. good game and great program you guys have. im done with this site since SC wont be playing Nebraska any time soon.

 

good luck

[alairguard]

USC is a program equal to that of Notre Dame and Nebraska and all the others. It is considered a Dynasty and storied program.

 

Anyone who would say otherwise would then say NU isn't because we have only been mediocre ourselves the last 10 years.

Winingest team in the last 50 years?

Nebraska #1 with a .765 wining pct.

USC is #9 with .699 wining percent.

 

Winingest teams since the modern free substitution rule went into effect in 1965?

Nebraska #1 with .804 winning pct.

USC #6 with .719 wining pct.

 

Winingest teams since the modern pass blocking rules went into effect in 1976?

Nebraska is #1 with .801 pct.

USC is #14 with .697 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1980?

Nebraska is #2 (damn Miami) with .802 pct.

USC is #16 with .671 pct.

 

Winingest team since 1990?

Nebraska #2 (damn Florida State) with .805 pct.

USC #14 with .667 pct.

 

Most wins in college football history?

Nebraska #4 = 812 wins (one of only four teams with over 800 wins)

USC #10 = 746 wins

(If USC averages 3 more wins per season than NU they will catch the Huskers in 22 short years)

 

All of the above is what makes NU a dynasty, and USC a sometimes very good football team.

 

 

guys i know it was a hard loss. if listing all those things makes you feel better about your program, then by all means use it. good game and great program you guys have. im done with this site since SC wont be playing Nebraska any time soon.

 

good luck

Sorry Trojanspy but this has nothing to do with Saturdays game. If a trojan wants to come on the board and find out why we don't consider USC to be a dynasty, we are going to let them know why we don't consider them to be a dynasty. The numbers aren't about Saturdays game and to make us feel better, they are about explaining a point.