The BCS Debate Thread

[buckeye_in_sc]

Hey I figure we are all over the place on this so why not consolidate?

Ok let's debate away...we have roughly 4 teams...

Auburn
ND
Oregon
tOSU

vyeing for the 2 at large births. The media would have you believe that ND already had a birth locked up...again let's present some facts and debate it...nothing personal and homerism will be biased in the posts but hey that is the beauty of CF...

here is my take...

Records:

ND 9-2 (losses to SC and MSU)
tOSU 9-2 (losses to Texas and PSU)
Oregon 10-1 (loss to SC)
Auburn 9-2 (losses to Ga Tech and LSU)

the quality of losses appears to favor IMHO tOSU and Oregon...while Oregons win over Fresno is watered down a bit by their loss this weekend. Ga Tech while a good team and has an upset of Miami is average at best. Auburn playing Ball State and Western KY is not going to help them. ND losing to MSU is the biggest black eye on their resume...regardless of how MSU started say what you want they went 1-5 down the stretch...

Based on schedule strength of PAST Opposition (again according to NCAA.org)

tOSU has the 4th toughest schedule
Auburn 38th
Oregon 47th
ND 61st

again a lot is made about ND schdule but it does not appear that it was as tough as people make it out to be. Oregon and Auburn are a push and as the stats say tOSU is clearly in the lead here...again this is based ON PAST OPPOSITION...

Total Offense

ND 10th
Oregon 16th
Auburn 27th
tOSU 37th

spread on average between ND and tOSU is 85 yards per game on average (489/game vs 484/game)

Total Defense

tOSU 4th
Auburn 10th
Oregon 49th
ND 65th

spread between tOSU and ND is 101 yards per game less on average (275/game vs 376/game)

Non Con Total Record

Big 10 25-6
SEC 20-9
PAC 10 18-7
ND not really in this race...

so based on some of these facts I would believe that Oregon and tOSU should have the edge...but the subjective piece of the ND story and how everyone is already talking about how ND won a BCS birth last night will be hard to over come...

so before more debate is started I will say that I believe the At large should go to

Oregon and tOSU

what tv wants ND and tOSU

what the conferences want (squeeky wheel gets the grease)

ND and Oregon (as the PAC 10 will lobby the hardest, but the Big 10 does have some serious clout)


debate away...


disclaimer...I am in favor of a playoff...

[Shoalzie]

Uh oh, are we going to have to add a 5th bowl game to the mix now?

I don't mean to belittle the situation for the 4 teams but you guys aren't going to play for the big prize, so why pick this apart so much? The bowl reps pick their teams and it'll be hard not to take Notre Dame and Ohio State over Auburn and Oregon simply on name alone. To me, I don't care who gets the two bids...it doesn't factor into the title chase. At this point in the season, the only thing that matters is the Rose Bowl. In essense, the BCS kicks its own ass by having one game for the title and three others that don't. Why even put these games under the same umbrella? It's just another thing I don't like about this bowl system...the list gets longer by the day.

[buckeye_in_sc]

^^^^

understand your position...but we need somthing to talk about other than the board bitches... :D

[Shoalzie]

^^^^

understand your position...but we need somthing to talk about other than the board bitches... :D

I'm with you on that. I'd like to get excited about a Penn State-Notre Dame bowl game but since it doesn't determine who advances to the next round, I don't care. I love college football but it's postseason is FUBAR.

[PSUFAN]

I understand and share in your frustration about the CFB postseason...but I think at some point it's important to just kick back and enjoy individual games. For example, the Stanford/ND game was pretty damn entertaining to watch, as was the A&M/UT game. I'm looking forward to PSU's bowl game, because I think no matter what, it will be a matchup with a team that I will find quite interesting.

[Shoalzie]

I'm looking forward to PSU's bowl game, because I think no matter what, it will be a matchup with a team that I will find quite interesting.

Even you would agree with me on this...you would rather have something at stake in the game instead of some corporate trophy and a check, correct?

I keep referring back to the Rose Bowl last year as something I can relate to. Awesome game between Michigan and Texas but eventhough Michigan lost, Texas didn't win anything besides bragging rights. Michigan's last game of every season is the Ohio State game. Until they put in a playoff, only one bowl game has the 'can't miss/must see' quality.

I love some of the bowl matchups we see each year but the result of the game is secondary when little or nothing is at stake. This would be the equivalent of taking the two best teams in college basketball and putting them into a title game. Then have the next 6 teams play in three meaningless dream matchups. They'd be great games but they don't mean anything.

[Spinach Genie]

ND and OSU are the ratings darlings so that's really the only defining criteria here. Notre Dame has one quality win over a four loss Michigan team and gets way too much run for their loss to USC. OSU, same quality win and same close call points. Oregon's one quality win came against a middling team who got beat by even more middling Nevada last night. Auburn has the most wins against currently ranked competition...but, I know just like last season irrelevancies like "how weak was their weakest opponent" comparisons rule the day on things like this. Anyway, there's no mystery here. ND and OSU have the strongest chances because they are big money traditionals and media favorites. If Oregon can cry like a Mack Brown bitch loudly enough, they may get their shot, though.

[buckeye_in_sc]

^^^^

tOSU has wins against

Minnesota
Michigan
Miami of Ohio
Iowa
NW

all I believe have winning records...I never said auburn played a weak schedule...I just stated that games against Western KY and Ball State will hurt them as they should...

remember Auburn missed what 4 FG's against LSU??? Lost to Ga Tech...

no flame wars intended rather I would rather point out the facts that we have access to and keep subjectivity out of this...

NCAA.org is full of statistics to add to the discussion I merely picked 4 which I thought were relevant??? have at it...


JSC why should the SEC championship loser have any more right? that would potentially put a 3 loss Georgia team in...it will be bad enough if a 4 loss FSU team gets in...makes Pitt getting in last year look reasonable...

[Spinach Genie]

^^^^

tOSU has wins against

Minnesota
Michigan
Miami of Ohio
Iowa
NW

all I believe have winning records...I never said auburn played a weak schedule...I just stated that games against Western KY and Ball State will hurt them as they should...

I'm not debating the worthiness of OSU. I think they have a stronger claim than Oregon, I'm just making some observations.

remember Auburn missed what 4 FG's against LSU??? Lost to Ga Tech...

They had a bad night against the 3rd ranked team in the country, in their house, and were a few dropped passes and field goals from handing them their ass. If OSU and Notre Dame can get style points for close calls, it makes no sense Auburn doesn't get the same. As for Georgia Tech, yeah...they lost. So did Miami. Georgia Tech is ranked, no excuse for it though. Auburn, however, is also the reason two teams are currently no longer ranked in the top 10.

no flame wars intended rather I would rather point out the facts that we have access to and keep subjectivity out of this...

Logic will have little to do with who gets the BCS picks. It's about money. At the end of the day they are all very good teams and someone has to get fucked.

NCAA.org is full of statistics to add to the discussion I merely picked 4 which I thought were relevant??? have at it...

I'm just throwing a few more in. No flames intended.

[Spinach Genie]

The SEC championship game loser deserves to go before Auburn. Hell, why don't we just call the SEC championship the National Championship and be done with it?

Only if it's LSU. Auburn beat Georgia.

[Van]

Uh oh, are we going to have to add a 5th bowl game to the mix now?

I don't mean to belittle the situation for the 4 teams but you guys aren't going to play for the big prize, so why pick this apart so much? The bowl reps pick their teams and it'll be hard not to take Notre Dame and Ohio State over Auburn and Oregon simply on name alone. To me, I don't care who gets the two bids...it doesn't factor into the title chase. At this point in the season, the only thing that matters is the Rose Bowl. In essense, the BCS kicks its own ass by having one game for the title and three others that don't. Why even put these games under the same umbrella? It's just another thing I don't like about this bowl system...the list gets longer by the day.

Absolutely excellent point.

This is precisely how I've always felt about all the BCS bowl games that don't factor into the title. Some years, arguments could be made for the importance of two BCS games. This year (or so it seems at the moment anyway, pending one more win apiece by USC and Texas) there will only be one bowl game that matters. The rest are all reduced to being nothing but Stryper opening for Metallica...

We're simply arguing over paydays at that point, and other than to make sure Notre Dame's lacrosse team gets some necessary $$ WGARA about paydays? I know I don't and I suspect most other people who aren't directly connected to each school probably don't care either...

That's the one thing that was better about the pre BCS system: Those bowl games all had a very specific and special appeal and in most years fans of any of 'em could argue that their bowl game was the biggest and best.

No more.

[Spinach Genie]

Uh oh, are we going to have to add a 5th bowl game to the mix now?

I don't mean to belittle the situation for the 4 teams but you guys aren't going to play for the big prize, so why pick this apart so much? The bowl reps pick their teams and it'll be hard not to take Notre Dame and Ohio State over Auburn and Oregon simply on name alone. To me, I don't care who gets the two bids...it doesn't factor into the title chase. At this point in the season, the only thing that matters is the Rose Bowl. In essense, the BCS kicks its own ass by having one game for the title and three others that don't. Why even put these games under the same umbrella? It's just another thing I don't like about this bowl system...the list gets longer by the day.

Absolutely excellent point.

This is precisely how I've always felt about all the BCS bowl games that don't factor into the title. Some years, arguments could be made for the importance of two BCS games. This year (or so it seems at the moment anyway, pending one more win apiece by USC and Texas) there will only be one bowl game that matters. The rest are all reduced to being nothing but Stryper opening for Metallica...

We're simply arguing over paydays at that point, and other than to make sure Notre Dame's lacrosse team gets some necessary $$ who WGARA about paydays? I know I don't and I suspect most other people who aren't directly connected to each school probably don't care either...

That's the one thing that was better about the pre BCS system: Those bowl games all had a very specific and special appeal and in most years fans of any of 'em could argue that their bowl game was the biggest and best.

No more.

The paydays yield improvements across the AD line for teams, plus the larger BCS exposure helps with recruiting and the bullshit prestige train that gets teams ranked 1 & 2 before a snap even gets called the following year. Let's be honest. None of it means jack, because the NCAA doesn't recognize a NC. What everyone is fighting for is a glorified pollster nod, but there are still gains to be made in the system and these teams, and their fans, should be interested in them.

[Van]

Buc, one reason Auburn doesn't get the close call style points that OSU and ND get is down to the teams involved in those close losses.

OSU's "glamour" close loss was to a dominant and still undefeated Texas team. (Their other loss coming at the hands of a very highly regarded PSU team.)

ND's "glamour" close loss was to a dominant and still undefeated USC team. (Their other loss being in Triple O.T...)

Auburn's "glamour" close loss was to a hugely overrated and lucky as sin LSU team that really ought to have three losses right now. (Auburn's other loss being a home loss to a mediocre Georgia Tech team.)

So, all in all, OSU's losses are the best losses, with ND's next and Auburn's decidedly bringing up the rear.

Dude, fuck, you had LSU beaten. Man, I wish your kicker could've sealed that deal...

Meanwhile, Oregon has only one loss, and it was to the still undefeated #1. Generally, at least in terms of teams from the major conferences, one loss always trumps two losses...

[Van]

The paydays yield improvements across the AD line for teams, plus the larger BCS exposure helps with recruiting and the bullshit prestige train that gets teams ranked 1 & 2 before a snap even gets called the following year. Let's be honest. None of it means jack, because the NCAA doesn't recognize a NC. What everyone is fighting for is a glorified pollster nod, but there are still gains to be made in the system and these teams, and their fans, should be interested in them.

All valid points, but they all pale in comparison to the watered down appeal that the Sugar/Fiesta/Rose/Orange bowls now have compared to the pre BCS era...

Of course fans of each team in these games will still watch and care but it's just not the same anymore when the Rose or Sugar is reduced to being a Consolation Bowl...

Didn't the NCAA Tourney do away with the Losers Bracket/Consolation Game in the Final Four? Likewise, I can't see World Cup fans getting too shit hot excited over seeing ousted France losing to ousted Argentina in a Consolation Cup match...

That's really what the BCS has rendered the other three mjaor bowl games: The Losers Brackets. The Fiesta is now no different in the minds of many to the Liberty, Tangerine, Gator or, gawd help us, the "Insight/Lucent Technologies/Thrifty Car Rental" bowls...

[Dinsdale]

Dear BCS G0D, please let Oregon play an SEC team.

Sincerely,
Oregon's AD

Hate to shatter you delusions, but U of O has been begging any SEC team to schedule a H&H for about 15 years. They've hit up each and every one of them. And the only taker has been Miss St. See SEC homer, that would involve a SEC team playing a near-unwinnable road game, which the Conference of Pussies just doesn't do.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Dins...

I know tOSU has played Washington, Washington State, Arizona, and UCLA in recent years...oh yeah and USC in the late 80's early 90's

granted the USC series didn't go as well but tOSU did beat U-Dub when they had some good teams and WSU with that pussy QB in 02 Gessar, and they split with UCLA in 99/01...

and yes some of those series were H&H's...

[Dinsdale]

What's the SEC's record againt the PAC over the last few years?

I should have left this one alone. The only thing SEC homer EVER brings to the table is "we're the best conference, so..." Sorry bud, but the scoreboard doesn't support your delusion...ERR..."theory."

The SEC should be proving they're the best conference by not ducking out of games. Wait, I guess a SEC team or two went out on a limb and hosted USC...how did that work out again?

[Spinach Genie]

What's the SEC's record againt the PAC over the last few years?

I should have left this one alone. The only thing SEC homer EVER brings to the table is "we're the best conference, so..." Sorry bud, but the scoreboard doesn't support your delusion...ERR..."theory."

The SEC should be proving they're the best conference by not ducking out of games. Wait, I guess a SEC team or two went out on a limb and hosted USC...how did that work out again?

We are the best conference.

Let's talk money. What benefit does a major SEC school have in scheduling Oregon? Usually, Oregon is at best an average team. You have to give up a home game - which is guaranteed dollars - to travel to the other side of the country to play a team that may or may not even be ranked when you get there and likely won't do a thing to further you in the polls. The SEC schedule is going to be loaded with ranked teams every year. The Pac travels because they have to to play tough competition. The Pac is loaded with sub-500 teams every year. You think the best conference argument is tired? Try logging every time one of you PACies drops the "OOC" crap which isn't even a supportable argument. And your head to head facts are very cut and paste. Look this one up...between the PAC & SEC, in the last 20 years, who has sent more teams to major bowls, who has won more MNCs, had more ranked teams, put more players in the NFL...and get back to me. USC is a great team, but don't confuse that for a great conference, and conference is the bulk of the season.

[Van]

Dear BCS G0D, please let Oregon play an SEC team.

Sincerely,
Oregon's AD

Hate to shatter you delusions, but U of O has been begging any SEC team to schedule a H&H for about 15 years. They've hit up each and every one of them. And the only taker has been Miss St. See SEC homer, that would involve a SEC team playing a near-unwinnable road game, which the Conference of Pussies just doesn't do.

NOT true!!

WE tried it!

Sincerely, Auburn Fan

Uhhh, check that. Bad example...

Never mind!!

[Van]

Dins...

I know tOSU has played Washington, Washington State, Arizona, and UCLA in recent years...oh yeah and USC in the late 80's early 90's

granted the USC series didn't go as well but tOSU did beat U-Dub when they had some good teams and WSU with that pussy QB in 02 Gessar, and they split with UCLA in 99/01...

and yes some of those series were H&H's...

Won't try to speak for Dins but never in a million years would I ever attempt to equate OSU with any SEC team in terms of beng willing to schedule OOC...

The Big 10 schedules.

[JayDuck]

Oregon is at best an average team.

Well, this year will be our 3rd Top-10 finish since 2000...

...perception and reality are two very different things.

[The Seer]

Dear BCS G0D, please let Oregon play an SEC team.

Sincerely,
Oregon's AD

Hate to shatter you delusions, but U of O has been begging any SEC team to schedule a H&H for about 15 years. They've hit up each and every one of them. And the only taker has been Miss St. See SEC homer, that would involve a SEC team playing a near-unwinnable road game, which the Conference of Pussies just doesn't do.

rACK

[Spinach Genie]

Buc, one reason Auburn doesn't get the close call style points that OSU and ND get is down to the teams involved in those close losses.

OSU's "glamour" close loss was to a dominant and still undefeated Texas team. (Their other loss coming at the hands of a very highly regarded PSU team.)

ND's "glamour" close loss was to a dominant and still undefeated USC team. (Their other loss being in Triple O.T...)

Auburn's "glamour" close loss was to a hugely overrated and lucky as sin LSU team that really ought to have three losses right now. (Auburn's other loss being a home loss to a mediocre Georgia Tech team.)

So, all in all, OSU's losses are the best losses, with ND's next and Auburn's decidedly bringing up the rear.

Dude, fuck, you had LSU beaten. Man, I wish your kicker could've sealed that deal...

Meanwhile, Oregon has only one loss, and it was to the still undefeated #1. Generally, at least in terms of teams from the major conferences, one loss always trumps two losses...

USC dominant? They had to come from behind to beat Fresno State. I don't care how the media likes to spin FSU, they aren't a top 25 team and last night proved it. They also barely survived a Notre Dame team that lost to 5-6 MSU. You can say what you want about LSU, but they have three wins against currently ranked teams under their belts which is a claim few can match...those few not including Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon or OSU.

[Dinsdale]

You have to give up a home game - which is guaranteed dollars - to travel to the other side of the country to play a team that may or may not even be ranked when you get there

SEC homer is so delusional, they don't even realize how silly they sound.

Just about every team out there has a home-field advantage to some degree. Hence, playing 8 games at home every year gives the something of an advantage, wouldn't you say?

Great fucking argument. "We win lots of games at home, therefore we shouldn't have to play road games, because we win so much at home."

Brilliant, SEC homer, just brilliant. Play 8 home games againt other teams that believe in the "run it up the middle 3 times and punt, and hope that eventually somebody falls down on defense and we can geta big play," which you somehow translate into "we have dominant defense."

Pathetic. Scheduling OOC would shatter your illusions of greatness, so it's understandable why the SEC doesn't do it. The sugar-coating the homers put on it is always good for a laugh, though.

[Spinach Genie]

You have to give up a home game - which is guaranteed dollars - to travel to the other side of the country to play a team that may or may not even be ranked when you get there

SEC homer is so delusional, they don't even realize how silly they sound.

Just about every team out there has a home-field advantage to some degree. Hence, playing 8 games at home every year gives the something of an advantage, wouldn't you say?

Great fucking argument. "We win lots of games at home, therefore we shouldn't have to play road games, because we win so much at home."

Brilliant, SEC homer, just brilliant. Play 8 home games againt other teams that believe in the "run it up the middle 3 times and punt, and hope that eventually somebody falls down on defense and we can geta big play," which you somehow translate into "we have dominant defense."

Pathetic. Scheduling OOC would shatter your illusions of greatness, so it's understandable why the SEC doesn't do it. The sugar-coating the homers put on it is always good for a laugh, though.

I see you remain one of the larger dipshits on this board, Dins. Let me try and break it down to you a little slower. How does scheduling Oregon help an SEC team? You lose a home game to do so...guaranteed money. You pay out more. You have to take your team to the other side of the country to play a team you could honestly get better competition easily within a day's drive in any direction. Given that you are going to face two or three top 25 schools, at least, in conference...OOC becomes less of an issue than it might for a PAC squad who typically might play one ranked team in conference in any given year. It isn't about home advantage. It's simply dollars and cents, which is why the SEC is annually a premiere conference and the PAC is USC and everyone else.

By the way, Auburn just got done with a home and home with USC, LSU traveled to ASU this season. Tennessee has been playing the domers, Florida plays Florida State annually, Georgia plays Georgia Tech annually, Arkansas went to USC, Auburn went to Tech and will start a series with Washington State next year...and that's just some of the weak OOC scheduling going on in the SEC annually. But, continue your typically incoherent rambling. It's amusing, if nothing else.

[Van]

USC dominant?

Absolutely. Despite a rash of defensive injuries which would've taken any other team out of title contention this season USC has managed to maintain the nation's longest winning streak and they're still on track for an unprecedented in the modern era Three Peat.

Their offense will likely go down as the best in CF history. They feature two Heisman winners in the same backfield, something which may've never occured before.

Two separate thousand yard backs, two separate thousand yard receivers plus Leinart's numbers and Bush's All Purpose numbers.

USC has been a double digit favorite in every game they've played for as long as anybody can remember and their average margin of victory has been, yes, dominant.

They've been doing all this while shouldering the insane burden of maintaining this winning streak under the bright lights and distractions of L.A. Each week it's the other team's program making Super Bowl, while many of USC's starters have already won two national titles.

Maintaining motivation...

Two more wins, that's it. Two more wins and they go down as the most dominant team in the modern era and there's not a single person here who doesn't know deep down that given a month to prepare for Texas (or anybody else) in USC's back yard that USC will not only be favored big time but they're going to roll whoever they play in their coronation game.

Anything less would make for a major surprise and if you're being honest you know you wouldn't bet against it.

That's true dominance. Absolutely.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Dins...I am an tOSU alum I was merely pointing out that tOSU has scheduled PAC 10 teams and even went on the road and will in the future...

Spinach...great you won against Bama, Georgia, and what was the other ranked team? according to today's USA Today poll you only beat Bama and Georgia...two ranked teams along with tOSU (michigan and Iowa), the other two teams Oregon and ND have only beaten one currently ranked team...

not sure where you are pulling your shit from but if you are calling South carolina ranked then you must be citing last weeks information...


look all of this is pure conjecture until the last few games are played...next Sunday at 5:30 will be when the real debates start as to who got shafted or what not...

I just want ND fan to explain to me how they are that much better based on facts and not subjectivity...sure their offense is top 10 and they are getting a lot of mileage out of their loss to SC, but they lost TO FUCKING MSU...not too mention most of the teams on their schedule are average at best...

I am not picking on ND fan as I would love for tOSU to go up 3-2 all time especially after the last two ass whippings we laid on them 95/96...

two teams will get screwed and two will get in that is the only thing we know at this time...although does anyone feel as though voters may start swaying votes?


edit...just noticed the new USA Today poll and tOSU jumped ND this week, but oregon and Auburn still remain 8th and 9th...

[Dinsdale]

Sorry, no 3 peat possible this year, as USC did NOT win the NC in 2003.

Win 3 BCS championships in a row, then that is a 3 peat.

As much as I'm a PAC10 homer (not like everyone else here isn't a conference homer), the rules is the rules, and the PAC agreed to them just like everybody else did.

LSU was the 2003 Champion. No split titles in the BCS era.

[Terry in Crapchester]

(not like everyone else here isn't a conference homer),

raises hand You forgetting something?

[Dinsdale]

ND isn't a real CFB team.

If you can't play by the same rules as everyone else, then to hell with you. Join a conference, or remain a joke. When you quit having the rules rigged in your favor and get out of the "conference of one," then you'll be acknowledged.[/ND hating]

Although on the flip side, it does give ND the opportunity for very creative scheduling, which I've always thought to be a big plus for ND's deal. But financially, it's extremely unfair. Then again, I root for a team that has blank-checkbook alums who build $3.5 million locker rooms, so take it for what it's worth.

[Van]

Sorry, no 3 peat possible this year, as USC did NOT win the NC in 2003.

Win 3 BCS championships in a row, then that is a 3 peat.

Sure they did. They won the AP title, the legitimate one, in fact. Just as in years past such as '78 with USC/Alabama there was a split title in 2003.

History will ultimately declare that while USC's consensus UPI/AP title was legitimate (just as it always was in year's past) LSU's share was the result of a flaw in a long since abandoned system whereby those same coaches who chose USC as #1 were forced by contractual obligation to go against their conscience and reverse their votes in order to award LSU their share.

Spiritually if not in fact LSU's share of the title will eventually carry an asterisk. Their title came as a result of a unique set of flawed circumstances that conspired against giving the consensus #1 team and bowl game winner USC both shares of the title, as would've been the case in every other season of CF.

Spin it any way you need to in order to feel less shitty about it but that's the fact. USC Fan goes to bed at night knowing those same UPI coaches voted USC #1 when they were free to vote their conscience and those same coaches would've made sure that USC didn't have to share their national title were it not for an obvious flaw in a truly stupid sytem.

A flawed system, mind you, that they never would've agreed to had they envisioned a scenario whereby they'd be forced to vote against their conscience.

A flawed system, mind you, that has was immediately changed that very off season in full recognition of its error.

LSU Fan goes to bed at night clinging to a hollow piece of crystal and an equally hollow argument when they try to deny USC's share...

USC Fan knows that in ANY other season and under ANY other system (even including the since updated BCS sytem) USC would've been the undisputed national champion. No shared title.

LSU Fan knows that in ANY other season and under ANY other system (even including the since updated BCS system) LSU would've finished the season ranked second in both polls and they wouldn't have received even a share of the national title.

USC Fan knows they were jobbed of having both shares of the title.

LSU Fan was gifted with a half share of the title.

The entire world outside of Baton Rouge accepts that USC and LSU each own a share of the 2003 national title and no amount of shallow BCS rationalizing by LSU Fan is ever going to change this simple fact: There ended up being a shared title in 2003 and USC Fan is far more pissed about it than LSU Fan.

[Dinsdale]

The PAC 10 made an agreement on USC and everyone else's behalf.

By the terms of that agreement, the BCS champion is the National Champion...period. That was LSU in 2003.

USC fan is starting to sound like the Terrel Owens of CFB -- I don't like the deal I agreed to, since it doesn't suit me at the moment. I think I'll unilaterally renegotiate the terms of the deal I made to put myself in a better light.

Sorry Van, it doesn't work that way. I'm neither endorsing or critcizing the BCS system at this point, but a deal is a deal. Don't tarnish what SC has accomplished over the last 3 seasons by being a whining cunt. SC should be striving to shed the University of Spoiled Children label, not reinforce it.

LSU is the outright 2003 Champ.

[Van]

Oh, and on top of all that, USC has a national title trophy from 2003 in Heritage Hall and it looks exactly like the ones Alabama and Texas and Michigan and Notre Dame have in their trophy rooms.

Moreover, ask those same BCS coaches if USC's share of the title in 2003 is legit or not?

Anywhere you go, any column you read, any telecast you watch, those coaches (plus every game announcer and color comentator) all describe USC as co-national champs in 2003 and the current two time defending national champs...

Deal with it. We have to.

[Van]

The PAC 10 made an agreement on USC and everyone else's behalf.

By the terms of that agreement, the BCS champion is the National Champion...period. That was LSU in 2003.

USC fan is starting to sound like the Terrel Owens of CFB -- I don't like the deal I agreed to, since it doesn't suit me at the moment. I think I'll unilaterally renegotiate the terms of the deal I made to put myself in a better light.

Sorry Van, it doesn't work that way. I'm neither endorsing or critcizing the BCS system at this point, but a deal is a deal. Don't tarnish what SC has accomplished over the last 3 seasons by being a whining cunt. SC should be striving to shed the University of Spoiled Children label, not reinforce it.

LSU is the outright 2003 Champ.

Dins, it was the AP, not USC or its fans, who declared USC their national champion in 2003. USC's national championship trophy wasn't awarded to USC by Jimmy Meds, SoCalTrjn or myself, it was awarded by the other (more legitimate) half of the polling body.

That same 2003 trophy would be sharing space with the UPI trophy too had the coaches been allowed to vote without restrictions.

Oh well. What's done is done and it'll all come out in the wash eventually...

[Dinsdale]

Oh, and on top of all that, USC has a national title trophy from 2003 in Heritage Hall and it looks exactly like the ones Alabama and Texas and Michigan and Notre Dame have in their trophy rooms.

I guess you're not up on current events.

They came up with this system a few years back to prevent split national championships, and to take a little power from everything being rigged in the SEC's favor...

It's called the BCS. Maybe you've heard of it?

If your imaginary 2003 championship season took place in say...1997, your point would be quite valid. In 2003, it is not.

There's ONE champion per year in the BCS era...and guess what? In 2003, it was LSU. As much as I'd like to see another championship come home to the Conference of Champions, I can't sit here and make up lies to try to spin it as such.

Hey, I've got an idea...me and my buddies can get together and have our own season's end poll, and make ourselves a cool championship trophy. It will be based not upon rhyme or reason, but on which teams we saw the most of which impressed us the most. I think we'll call it the Dinsdale Championship Trophy. And it will be only slightly less valid than an AP trophy in this day and age.

[Dinsdale]

Dins, it was the AP, not USC or its fans, who declared USC their national champion in 2003.

Help me out here -- I'm just not seeing what the hell any of that has to do with...follow along here...the deal that the PAC 10 made on behalf of USC and its other members.


SC fan is almost making me root for Texas. That would be poetic justice. Bust a deal, spin the wheel, and all that stuff.

Do they have a cirriculum for student-athletes at USC called "Renegging on your contractual agreements 101?"


Blame your choked game in 2003 for the failure to win the title, not the BCS.

[Adelpiero]

Jsc


it's nice that one of the 8 teams you follow won a title almost 3 years ago. Congrats. You showed them

[Van]

Dins, nah, I'll blame the BCS. They correctly blamed themselves, and immediately fixed their error, so I'm completely comfortable with joining in and blaming 'em too.

Dins, the Confederacy used to print money. If you have some of it now you can't buy dick with it, even though it meant something in its day. Meanwhile, the other long standing monetary system in place back then is still recognized to this day, even in the former Confederate states.

LSU's share of the title in the singularly fucked up system of 2003?

Well, you get the idea...

[Van]

Jsc, speaking of which, when is this guy...



...going to hoist something similar for my stupid fucking Dolphins???

We're actually getting...worse!! I didn't even think that was possible!

[Dinsdale]

Dude, don't get me wrong. If you'll remember (which is something you seem to struggle with here lately), my team of choice was the original "got screwed by the BCS" team.

I'm not crying about it 5 years later, rather I just say "congratulations, University of Miami...well done."

As far as speculation about whether we'll look back at the BCS era as a blight on CFB, it's just that...speculation(although likely). Your entire argument is based upon your speculation, that we'll someday see the error in the BCS ways. Claiming a championship based on what you speculate will happen in the future is just so...USC.

Ask yourself these questions (they're yes or no, no subjectivity) -- Did USC, via the PAC 10, agree to the BCS system? Did LSU win UNDER THE SYSTEM USC AGREED TO?

Now, the answer to the question "Did LSU win the undisputed title" is obviously the same answer as both of the above questions.

Once again, I'm sorry that USC doesn't like the deal THEY AGREED TO in retrospect, but the sour grapes change nothing now. Claiming what is now a booby-prize as a "championship" is fucking weak.