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

My opponent attacks a straw man. Once=== Now, lok [SIC] 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? Twice==== 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 also three times=== 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. ========= He repeatedly says (but won't admit) that the standard for his premier is perfection. It is impossible, or damn near impossible, for a team to win a championship every year, like my examples of USC and the Lakers. The teams are not PERFECT. But in the era described (4 years stretch for the Lakers, and Pete Carroll Era for USC) no other team has been better. Yes, they have been BEATEN. But the BODY OF WORK for the MULTIPLE YEARS by these teams has NOT been overcome. For example: 4 year stretch for lakers championships: Lakers -3 Pistons-1 For USC championships LSU- 1 undisputed, 1 split Florida-2 undisputed USC-1 undisputed, 1 split all other tied with 1 My opponent lists the years and participators in the National Championship Game. Not only is this a foolish, narrowminded way of looking, as this separates the years in an era which is NOT defined by a single year, but also fails to prove anything. Especially the point of 2009-Looking like Florida again. ================= 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. ================= USC has this kind of schedule - 9 MANDATORY games within the PAC 10 league, and 3 OOC (out of conference) that they CHOOSE Most other leagues have- 8 MANDATORY games within their league, and 4 OOC games of choice. Many team's have Achilles' Heel. Maybe the coaching style of the underdog is special and effective against the team. USC has had problems with Oregon State. (but, I might add, only when they go TO o-state) Florida does have an Achilles' Heel. They cannot beat Auburn. Cannot beat them AT auburn, and cannot beat them AT home at the Florida Swamp. So what did they do? Simple. Because they only had to schedule 8 of the teams, they simply left Auburn off. Result: 1 of the 2 national championships USC cannot do that. They were #1, and when they lost at Oregon State, they plummetted. Say they had not played vs. Oregon State. They didn't lose any of their other games, so they would have finished undefeated, and without a doubt ended up in the National Championship. (See where this is going?) =================== Part 2 of rebuttal Something about PAC 10 being a struggling conference, and SEC being the best. Yes, the SEC is the best. blah blah blah. What has happened over the years is, the SEC has become glorified beyond what they deserve. YES, they ARE the best. But that's all they talk about. b) Pac-10 is struggling. hmm... really, now? snelld7 seems to have short-term memory. YES Pac10 had a HORRIBLE year. but the year before that, the Pac-10 was terrific. They had Oregon at #2, Cal at #2, Arizona State in the Top 10, and USC at #1 at different parts of the year. 4 teams in the Top Ten, out of a league of 10? Not struggling so much are we now? This means that USC played 3 Top 10 teams throughout the year, and still maintained their high level of play. By the way, it might be interesting to see the SEC vs Pac-10 record since 2001 That means any team from the SEC playing any team from the Pac 10 Since 1998 is Pac-10 with 9 wins, and SEC with 6. Yes, this immortal vaunted conference has lost more than won against Pac 10. Any rebuttals to this would definitely include that Top teams from Pac 10 (USC) would beat up on bottom teams from SEC. a) Florida gets wins off those bottom teams b) Well if they are so perfect, their bottom teams should whip everyone too. Even if this were true, that is not the case. Most recently UCLA (bottom team of Pac 10) has beated Tennessee (middle team of SEC). Also, SEC teams are SCARED to play USC. USC has beated Auburn (when they were #6) AT Auburn, 23-0. They also beat Arkansas, another SEC team, 56-0 AT Arkansas. USC is not scared of playing anybody. ================== Rebuttal about NFL players. Sorry, I forgot to respond in LAST post ====================== This one isn't even close. USC is the team with the best talent, and also the best NFL talent. They are routinely compared to NFL teams, with jokes and puns being made about USC going and taking over for the Oakland Raiders, or beating up on the Detroit Lions. Maybe an exaggeration, but players drafted doesn't lie. Since Pete Carroll's induction as coach, he has had FOUR top 5 recruiting classes (from high school), and also the highest NFL output in the nation. NFL Scouts (who generally know what they are doing) have picked USCPac-1011 Ohio StateBig Ten7 Oregon StatePac-107 South CarolinaSEC7 GeorgiaSEC6 LSUSEC6 in this past draft, and since Pete Carroll's arrival in 2001, 54 total NFL players drafted. Since 2000, USC has 61 players, and Ohio State has 69, and Miami had 63 (Top 3) But in the Pete Carroll Era (started at 2001, so first draft was 2002, so discounting the 2000 and 2001 drafts) USC has 54 Miami has 51 Ohio State has 51 So USC has the most number of NFL players drafted. ======================== Heismans in PC era Carson Palmer Matt Leinart Reggie Bush have won this award designating them the top player in the nation. in 8 years, USC has had 3 of players of the year. No school even comes close ====================== Finally, ESPN.com, when ranking teams from 1997-2006 using writer votes and computer rankings, put USC at number one over that era. At that time, USC's streaks had been 5 straight 11 win seasons, and 5 straight BCS bowls, and 2(one undisputed, one split) national championships. That means that Pete Carroll's FIVE years were good enough to not only CANCEL out 5 HORRIBLE YEARS by his predecessors, but also propel him OVER EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE NATION. 2 years later, those streaks still stand. ==================== My last words will be used to show why Florida is the closest, but doesn't pass USC. They have. 2 NCs in 3 years. But while USC cruised to 7 straight 11 win seasons, and top 4 finishes, for a record of 82-8, Florida's record is 8-5,8-5,7-5,9-3,13-1,9-4,13-1 for a final record of 67-24. They have had many good seasons, but that record is simply not indicative of the PREMIER team of the PETE CARROLL era (multiple years, not individual years, like my opponent seems to ignore. Vote Pro! Thanks for reading through my debate! :] http://sports.espn.go.com... http://www.pro-football-reference.com... (replace SC w/ miami, OSU) http://en.wikipedia.org...