That is the most assanine thing i've heard.
Good point.
I'm not calling them the greatest team in the history of college football, Booty didn't need the stats for his team to win, his backs had the stats. It's not always about the QB, and don't mention the '95 team. We are in 2007, the '95 team may have been the best team of all time but they are not the ones playing on the field right now and it doesn't matter if they could have beat this USC team, the '95 team played there season, won their championship, let the 2007 team make a name of it's own without you having to live in the past.
I think you missed the point. The final score was not indicative of how close the game was. To say anything else is comical. It wasn't a matter of "
if our defense put together 3 stops" or anything else. The game was out of hand well before that point.
This goes back to my comment about the only statistic that matters. We are definitely gravitating towards mediocrity if we hang our hats on the statistics of our offensive production and not the outcome of the game. Did they score when we needed them to? No. The first touchdown was a gift from USC as we got the 2 yards needed to gain a first down on a penalty, then we had 3 attempts to pound the ball 2 yards for the score. Booty didn't have a statistically awesome game, he didn't need to. That's one thing we agree on. He did what he had to do to win, hand the ball off to his backs and watch them explode basically untouched for 15 yards at a time.
One last comment: I'm surely not living in the past. I was merely comparing this year's USC team (which the press has drawn comparisons, albeit in SoCal) to the fan-voted best team of all time. I think, given the press, it was a fair thing to do.