More Dominant 3 year span: USC 2003-2005 or Alabama 2015-2017

[OSR stands with Israel]

USC from 2003-2005 held the record of 34 consecutive weeks at number 1 but Alabama has two titles in that span compared to USC’s 1.5(2003 got split). I would say USC as if there was a playoff they win the title in 2003 outright as well, and 2005 Texas was better than 2016 Clemson as well.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thought that was SoCal, not USC.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I thought that was SoCal, not USC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans_football


USC is associated with SoCal everywhere outside probably South Carolina lol

[7,052,770]

2003 wasn't "split." Yes, the BCS sucked, but all conferences agreed to use it to determine the national champion.

[DINGO Joe]

I thought that was SoCal, not USC.

Since the topic is football dominance, it should be obvious that the Gamecocks are not part of the discussion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thought that was SoCal, not USC.

Since the topic is football dominance, it should be obvious that the Gamecocks are not part of the discussion.

Agreed, hence my joke about how the wrong school is widely known as USC. Given UVA, UNC, and UGA, it would be consistent for the older of the two schools, the University of South Carolina, to have the USC initialism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2003 wasn't "split." Yes, the BCS sucked, but all conferences agreed to use it to determine the national champion.

Not true almost everyone describes that title as split :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season

This was the first split title since the inception of the BCS, something the BCS intended to eliminate.

Even the official NCAA page describes it as Split :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history%3famp

Even LSU players acknowledge it was split : https://youtu.be/Xnm22ouXsu4


6 min on



And both USC and LSU were invited for the National championship White House visit

[7,052,770]

2003 wasn't "split." Yes, the BCS sucked, but all conferences agreed to use it to determine the national champion.

Not true almost everyone describes that title as split :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season

This was the first split title since the inception of the BCS, something the BCS intended to eliminate.

Even the official NCAA page describes it as Split :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history%3famp

Even LSU players acknowledge it was split : https://youtu.be/Xnm22ouXsu4


6 min on



And both USC and LSU were invited for the National championship White House visit

The NCAA recognizes all kinds of phony "national titles," even UCF a couple years ago. That doesn't change the fact that the Pac-10 (outside of the purview of the NCAA) agreed to use the BCS to determine who the national champion is.

I'm aware that the AP voted USC #1 in its final poll. I just don't recognize it as a national championship, because college football had an agreed upon system to determine the national championship that USC did not win. The same is true for the other teams who got screwed, such as 2000 Miami, 2004 Auburn, lots of teams in 2007, and various teams outside the power conferences over the years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2003 wasn't "split." Yes, the BCS sucked, but all conferences agreed to use it to determine the national champion.

Not true almost everyone describes that title as split :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season

This was the first split title since the inception of the BCS, something the BCS intended to eliminate.

Even the official NCAA page describes it as Split :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history%3famp

Even LSU players acknowledge it was split : https://youtu.be/Xnm22ouXsu4


6 min on



And both USC and LSU were invited for the National championship White House visit

The NCAA recognizes all kinds of phony "national titles," even UCF a couple years ago. That doesn't change the fact that the Pac-10 (outside of the purview of the NCAA) agreed to use the BCS to determine who the national champion is.

I'm aware that the AP voted USC #1 in its final poll. I just don't recognize it as a national championship, because college football had an agreed upon system to determine the national championship that USC did not win. The same is true for the other teams who got screwed, such as 2000 Miami, 2004 Auburn, lots of teams in 2007, and various teams outside the power conferences over the years.

It is official though and UCF was not recognized as a national champion. The only season which had split national championship in the past 20 years was the 2003 season.


2012 Oregon was also far more screwed than 2004 Auburn , as Auburn would have lost to USC that year hands down while 2012 Oregon beats Alabama(Who struggled against a team that was a poor mans version of Oregon).

[YE]

You know LSU and their high octane passing attack kinda resembles Oregon a bit in terms of innovation...

But no 03 USC doesn't belong in the same category as 15-17 Bama. I realize Oklahoma's selection was controversial to the BCS title game (a product of the sh**t system but worth noting that prior to the BIG XII title game, Oklahoma was viewed as the slam dunk title favorite). Also SEC > Pac 12 unfortunately.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You know LSU and their high octane passing attack kinda resembles Oregon a bit in terms of innovation...

But no 03 USC doesn't belong in the same category as 15-17 Bama. I realize Oklahoma's selection was controversial to the BCS title game (a product of the sh**t system but worth noting that prior to the BIG XII title game, Oklahoma was viewed as the slam dunk title favorite). Also SEC > Pac 12 unfortunately.

Pac 12 till around 2014 was great when you had great Oregon team , great Stanford team, and one great other team. In 2011 if USC wasnt sanctioned the Pac-12 would have had 3 top 10 teams .


SEC also didnt really get that good till around 2006, from 2000-2005 the Pac-10 was better

[7,052,770]

It is official though and UCF was not recognized as a national champion. The only season which had split national championship in the past 20 years was the 2003 season.


2012 Oregon was also far more screwed than 2004 Auburn , as Auburn would have lost to USC that year hands down while 2012 Oregon beats Alabama(Who struggled against a team that was a poor mans version of Oregon).

The NCAA does recognize UCF in 2017. I don't, and UCF and the AAC should not have agreed to participate in the College Football Playoff if they aren't going to recognize its champion as the national champion.
https://www.al.com/sports/2018/08/ncaa_recognizes_ucfs_national.html

As for your second point, who knows. I don't think you can just declare that the 2004 and 2012 Pac-10/12 champions would have beaten the SEC champions, nor vice versa. But Auburn went undefeated on an SEC schedule in 2004, while 2012 Oregon lost a game at home. Regardless, there should be an 8-team playoff, and it should have been done decades ago.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is official though and UCF was not recognized as a national champion. The only season which had split national championship in the past 20 years was the 2003 season.


2012 Oregon was also far more screwed than 2004 Auburn , as Auburn would have lost to USC that year hands down while 2012 Oregon beats Alabama(Who struggled against a team that was a poor mans version of Oregon).

The NCAA does recognize UCF in 2017. I don't, and UCF and the AAC should not have agreed to participate in the College Football Playoff if they aren't going to recognize its champion as the national champion.
https://www.al.com/sports/2018/08/ncaa_recognizes_ucfs_national.html

As for your second point, who knows. I don't think you can just declare that the 2004 and 2012 Pac-10/12 champions would have beaten the SEC champions, nor vice versa. But Auburn went undefeated on an SEC schedule in 2004, while 2012 Oregon lost a game at home. Regardless, there should be an 8-team playoff, and it should have been done decades ago.

2001 Miami and 2004 USC are probably the two best teams in the 21st century and I don’t see anyone beating them . SEC wasn’t that great though pre 2006


Also for 2012 both Oregon and Alabama lost 1 Conference game , Oregon came much closer though and to the Rose bowl champs as well .

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Write-in: 2011-13 Alabama

[OSR stands with Israel]

Write-in: 2011-13 Alabama

That 2013 season leaves them off the list where they didn’t even finish in the top 5.


If I had to rank those 9 teams this is how it would be like

1. 2004 USC
2. 2005 USC
3. 2011 Alabama
4. 2015 Alabama
5. 2016 Alabama
6. 2003 USC
7. 2012 Alabama
8.  2017 Alabama
9.  2013 Alabama

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/where-does-15-alabama-rank-among-bcs-cfp-national-champions/amp/

Note : it’s no accident the two best teams in the 21st century (2001 Miami and 2004 SC) got their through massively violating eligibility rules

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Oregon had Mario Cristobal as our coach let alone Pete Carroll or Nick Saben there is no doubt 2012-2014 Oregon would be up here too and maybe even 2010-12 Oregon .

[Sirius_]

I wouldn't consider 15-17 Bama that dominant, no more so than 16-18 Clemson. They barely even made the shot at the championship in 2017 and didn't have a perfect season. 03-05 USC seem like they were more dominant to me, although I'm no professional and haven't sat down and watched every single game, but they did have a perfect season, a championship(+1/2?)(back when that more difficult), and I don't see the sanctioned activities as a reason to deny this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I wouldn't consider 15-17 Bama that dominant, no more so than 16-18 Clemson. They barely even made the shot at the championship in 2017 and didn't have a perfect season. 03-05 USC seem like they were more dominant to me, although I'm no professional and haven't sat down and watched every single game, but they did have a perfect season, a championship(+1/2?)(back when that more difficult), and I don't see the sanctioned activities as a reason to deny this.

True but I dont think USC would have been able to run off 34 consecutive wins from 2003-2005 without violating those rules. Doesnt take away from their dominance but they did deserve to be sanctioned