"But who did USC beat in the conferences? Michigan was not the best non-conference team that year, LSU was. The next year, Oklahoma wasn't the best non-conference team, Auburn was." First of all, USC was denied the opportunity to play LSU. They wanted to. Secondly, most in the sports industry agreed that USC was better than LSU -- as evidenced by the polls. Most thought LSU was a fluke. Did LSU play Michigan? If the following season is any indication LSU was a fluke. The same can be said for Auburn. If they really were national championship calibre, it wasn't reflected in the following season and sportswriters and coaches didn't see fit to award them a share of the championship they way they did SC the previous year. USC can't help what conference it is in. The fact remains that, for the last 3 years, they have won every non conference game and post season bowl up until last night. You can say SC has an easy conference, but that does not diminish the fact that they are a great team. If it were such a cake walk, they wouldn't have even been in contention with Texas. Not only were they in contention, they handed the win to Texas.
LOL - LSU has done just fine the years following their BCS championship. Auburn lost three players in the top 10 and have kept on winning.
Those voters that you so much admire also thought that LSU stood no chance against Oklahoma. They also thought that Oklahoma was the second best team last year as well - their judgement isn't very good.
The point is that USC only has one or two regular season games a year where there is even the slightest chance of losing. Teams in other conferences have about 5 or 6 real chances of losing - that is why it is so hard to repeat in those conferences.
Let's see how many unbeaten years USC has when they play Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Alabama and Florida all in the same year.