USC (Southern Cal) in the Pete Carroll Era has become the nation's premier college football program

>>>>>"This contention, I'm sorry to say, was a complete waste of your time. The statement that is under debate is "USC (Southern Cal) in the Pete Carroll Era has become the nation's premier college football program." I'd like to point out the words PETE CARROLL ERA. These words make it clear that I am only arguing that the USC football program is the top program in the nation SINCE PETE CARROLL'S start at USC."~You! Now, lok at the resolution from my standpoint with this contention. The resolution is sayin that Pete Carroll has lead them to become the nation's premier college football program. For this to happen, he has to be as good or better than all others from all times. And obviously he hasn't done that. How can you be the nations premier college football program, without being the definition of premier? ============================================================================ Addressing attacks on my 1st contention >>>>>"Although this argument may make sense at first, this feeling doesn't, and rightfully shouldn't last. I did not say that USC was the ONLY good team in the PC era, nor did I argue that USC was always going to be the best in the PC era. My only argument is that if you examine USC's track record and performance in the PC era, no program has matched USC's success over that era."~You! No, don't go back on the resolution. It clearly states "USC (Southern Cal) in the Pete Carroll Era has become the nation's premier college football program!" It doesn't say that they've become one of the best [...] but that they're the best. In a sport where there is a National Championship games, there aren't any ties only winners and losers. And If you're not the number 1 team nor are you winning or at least in the National Championship, you are losing. =========================================================================== >>>>"But giving another example may help the voters. The Los Angeles Lakers had a streak of 3 consecutive championships, from the 1999-2000 season to the 2001-2002 season, and were upset by a upstart Detroit Pistons team that kept their 4th straight championship from them. At that time, I may have contended that "In the Phil Jackson Era, the Lakers have become the premier team in the NBA". (He had started the first championship year). Would anyone argue that simply because Detroit had ONE good season and beat the Lakers ONCE, they were the premier team?"~You! No, one would conclude that during the years of the seasons they won, they were the premier team. But the year they lost, they were not. Simply put. You have to beat the best to be the best, and the pistons beat the best and were rightfully crowned THE BEST. ============================================================================ I read you go on and on about USC's winning percentage not being matched by anyone else in college football today. However, you fail to mention that they're in a struggling conference and have lost 2 of the last 3 years to Oregon State in that conference. They can't even make it out of their own "struggling" conference! The SEC is undoubtedly the toughest conference in all of college football. Any refute on this is nieve and injudicious. Last time I checked, the Pete Carroll era isn't over. So lets review the winners of the National Champs of his era. -2001 was Miami Florida. -2002 was Ohio State -2003 was LSU -2004 was USC -2005 was Texas -2006 was Florida -2007 was LSU -2008 was Florida -2009 looking like Florida again With this, you see he was NOT premier (1st) in any of those years except 2004 So once again, How can someone be premier, when they don't fit the definition of the word? If anything, Florida is dominaing his era (IN THE TOUGHEST CONFERENCE)