Discussion on whether USC could hang with the worst NFL team
It's so funny how many people scoff at the idea of the nation's top college team competing with the worst NFL team. Back in the old days, a team of College All Stars would meet the defending NFL champions each preseason, and in 1937, the college team beat the Packers 6-0. (Sorry, that's the only legit link I can find with a mention of it.) Yes, it was seventy years ago, but frankly I don't know if it can really be argued that the gap between college players and NFL players has changed dramatically over time. NFL players and schemes have gotten better and more complex, and college players and schemes have as well (see, one BECOMES the other, typically after four years). So then WHY is it that here we are, looking at arguably one of the greatest college football teams of all time, and most people just laugh at the notion that they could compete with the worst NFL team?I'd argue that USC would in fact be better than a team of college all-stars simply because they have the chemistry together that an all-star team just wouldn't. And they wouldn't be playing the defending NFL champs, but the worst team in the NFL. Big difference between the Patriots and the Texans or 49ers, folks.
posted by Publius @ 4:38 PM
1 Comments:
Every time there is a dominant college football team, this question arises and it's comical every time. And I still think the 2000-2002 Miami team was better from a pro standpoint than this era of SC football. That Miami team wouldn't have stood a chance against the worst NFL team, in large part because their quarterback wasn't any good. But even a bunch of those Miami guys that were all-conference and all-American haven't done well in the NFL. How have Mike Rumph, Jerome McDougle, Jamaal Green, Matt Walters, Phillip Buchanon and Andrew Williams done in the NFL?
I'd be willing to bet that this SC team won't have as many players drafted as highly as Miami did in that era. Plus, it's a pretty good bet that not all of the highly drafted guys will play at a high level at the next level. Furthermore, how dominant has SC really been this season? They played a pretty good Arizona State team and struggled to beat them by 10. You'll forgive me for not seeing the huge deal over destroying Hawaii, Arkansas (which may well be th worst team in the SEC) and Silicon Valley Bowl-bound Oregon team. This is akin to Oklahoma two years ago; they ran up the score on greatly inferior opponents and everyone touted them as an all-time great team, then they ran into legitimately good teams and lost--twice. SC hasn't played anything all that good yet. They certainly didn't in their first three games.
As for 1937, it's an unfair comparison because not all the best college players used it as a springboard to the NFL in those days. Because the money wasn't great, a lot of great college players didn't play in the NFL. Now, every great college player plays in the NFL. Every player in the NFL was a star in college. There are plenty of players on SC that aren't a college star and won't ever will be, and there are plenty of starters on SC that won't do anything in the NFL.
So I scoff at the notion that SC could hang with the best NFL team. I doubt the game would be competitive.
Post a Comment
<< Home