T1B

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... bate_x.htm

Yea, that's right. Bwahahaha. Who cares about LSU's "trophy" now? Not too many. Yea SC doesn't have it from that year but just about everyone outside of Louisiana knows they should have had it or at the very least, the right to fight for it. Sorry, Tigers, your BS trophy doesn't mean a whole lot when you didn't play the best team in the country to get it. USC was out beating a much tougher Michigan while you scrapped to the TD title win against a team SC would embarrass the following year on the same stage. Feel forgotten? Well now you know how SC felt when LSU and OU got the shot that was stripped from them in 2003/2004 when everyone and their mother had them #1. ....Pac-10 school, we know. They're soft. Just ask The Big 10.

Yea, Melvin, you wish you could have played SC that year but I am sure your coaches and 95% of your team is glad you didn't or else you would have nothing to argue about and would have lost the half of the title you have. Wish? Bwahaha. Easy to say now or any time after when you know it could never happen. You get that from Barry Bonds asking to be tested for steroids before baseball was allowed to?

Glad to hear it's eating away at LSU. It should. It should eat away at them more than SC...SC has gone onto bigger and better things and it all means even more, knowing what they had to overcome to get the recognition they have deserved over this entire period of time. You should be forgotten LSU, you always have been from down here in Troy, but don't worry, I don't remember Ohio State's either.

Your name says it all....

This will be your third straight AP and only your second straight BCS....

BCS is what they play for at the beginning of the season, right?

Tell yourself what ever you want.

Mr T wrote:Your name says it all....

This will be your third straight AP and only your second straight BCS....

BCS is what they play for at the beginning of the season, right?

Tell yourself what ever you want.

RACK that, USC has been amazing for over three years but one of those years was co-champs.

The USC love fest reminds me of 1990 UNLV and how no one gave Duke a chance in that game.

Dammit, we already solved this! USC is going for the 2 1/2 Peat!

I can live with that, as much as it irks me. LSU? Oh well, they got their half too...

Dumbass wrote:...but don't worry, I don't remember Ohio State's either.

Oh trust me, we're not worried.

Nah. Hardly anybody even remembers your half. All the talk is of USC's upcoming Three Peat.

Funny, that...

:-)

Jsc810 wrote:Texas will cure all such talk, I'm not worried. USC has had a nice run, props, but hope y'all enjoyed it because it is about over. :wink:

Sin,
LSU and TCU bandwagoner

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:I can live with that, as much as it irks me. LSU? Oh well, they got their half too...

Then our half is bigger and better. :P

The only weight to any "half" that LSU can claim is from a poll where the voters were forced to vote for LSU. Contractually obligated voters champion.
LSU is forgotten because USC was #1 in both polls going in to the bowl games and throttled Michigan in the Rose Bowl, LSU wasnt #1 and only beat a team, that didnt even win their conference, by a TD.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:I can live with that, as much as it irks me. LSU? Oh well, they got their half too...

Then our half is bigger and better. :P

The only weight to any "half" that LSU can claim is from a poll where the voters were forced to vote for LSU. Contractually obligated voters champion.
LSU is forgotten because USC was #1 in both polls going in to the bowl games and throttled Michigan in the Rose Bowl, LSU wasnt #1 and only beat a team, that didnt even win their conference, by a TD.

Keep telling yourself that because your in a very small minority in this part of the country.

The west coast and ESPN may be hyping this threepeat shit but people out here in football country aren't buying it.

THen again it reall doesn't matter because there is nothing outside of California and New England.

Pretty darn certain if we pick up the Mayberry Gazette, the Ann Arbor Shit & Read or the Tuscaloosa Speak & Spell we'll still see talk of USC going for the Three Peat.

"Three Peat" talk where USC is concerned is hardly confined to just California and New England...

<-------

Van wrote:the Tuscaloosa Speak & Spell

I laughed.

There is no three peat talk here, unless it comes from national media.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:I can live with that, as much as it irks me. LSU? Oh well, they got their half too...

Then our half is bigger and better. :P

The only weight to any "half" that LSU can claim is from a poll where the voters were forced to vote for LSU. Contractually obligated voters champion.
LSU is forgotten because USC was #1 in both polls going in to the bowl games and throttled Michigan in the Rose Bowl, LSU wasnt #1 and only beat a team, that didnt even win their conference, by a TD.

Hilarious to see condom bitches crowing BCS one year and spinning when it didn't go their way.

Where have any Trojan fans ever "crowed BCS"??

Our contention has never changed: We were #1 in 2003 in both the AP and BCS/UPI coaches polls and we won our bowl game convincingly so there's one national title. We all know that USC would've also gotten the UPI half too had the coaches been allowed to actually vote rather than being forced to merely rubber stamp a farcical vote that ran contrary to their actual voting wishes.

In 2004 USC finished atop both the AP and BCS/UPI coaches polls so even though Auburn has a gripe there for not getting a title game shot the fact remains that 2004 and 2003 are vastly different scenarios. Auburn was ranked below USC in 2004 in both polls while USC was ranked above LSU in both polls in 2003.

Huge difference. There was no way Auburn could've leapfrogged the higher ranked Trojans last year, not after USC's bowl game performance.



This year, there's no dispute.

So, no, USC Fan has never "crowed BCS". We bitched about getting shafted in 2003 by the BCS, sure, but this year and last year there's been no BCS crowing. No need. We're atop all polls, not just the fucked up BCS poll.

Dont go pointing out stuff like year end rankings and contractually obligated voting to SEC homers, they'll never understand stuff as logical as that.
Allbarn had a chance at USC, the Trojans brought a young team to Jordan Hare with a QB making his first start after being the backups backups backup the season before, White and Bush never left the sideline and the defensive leader from the season before had left for the NFL. And Still the Trojans rubbed their nut sacks all over the face of War Turkey and then fucked every girl, who still had all her teeth, in Alabama on the way out of town.

Dont think I have ever heard anyone around USC say anything positive about the BCS, but I think it would work better if they removed the computers and marked teams down for playing more than 6 home games a year.

Van wrote:Where have any Trojan fans ever "crowed BCS"??

Oh I heard plenty of it last season, Van. Does the argument "you signed on so you have to stand by the results" ring a bell? Auburn heard plenty from Trojan bandwagon, I can assure you. Ironic, wouldn't you say?

SoCalTrjn wrote:Allbarn had a chance at USC, the Trojans brought a young team to Jordan Hare with a QB making his first start after being the backups backups backup the season before, White and Bush never left the sideline and the defensive leader from the season before had left for the NFL. And Still the Trojans rubbed their nut sacks all over the face of War Turkey and then fucked every girl, who still had all her teeth, in Alabama on the way out of town.

You are such a melting pussy.

Spinach Genie wrote:

Van wrote:Where have any Trojan fans ever "crowed BCS"??

Oh I heard plenty of it last season, Van. Does the argument "you signed on so you have to stand by the results" ring a bell?

Yes, it does. It sounds like LSU Fan, ad nauseum, hiding behind red tape and a stupid contractual dictum/loophole.

The only thing Auburn Fan heard from USC Fan was: "Dude, you got screwed. We know. Believe us, we really know."

Auburn heard plenty from Trojan bandwagon, I can assure you. Ironic, wouldn't you say?

The irony is that you received nothing but sympathy from us both during and after the debate. Not once did I even scream, "BCS 'Bode, baby! Crystal Trophy!! You signed up for this shit, live with it!!"

Fuck no. That was LSU Fan. We merely pointed out that we were ranked above you in every poll so while you DID get screwed out of a chance to play us you certainly didn't screwed anything like the way we got screwed when we were ranked #1 in both polls and still didn't get a chance to play in that stupid BCS game...

Van wrote:The only thing Auburn Fan heard from USC Fan was: "Dude, you got screwed. We know. Believe us, we really know."

Coming from a fairly regular poster here and on the Auburn boards, I can assure you that was far from the case.

The irony is that you received nothing but sympathy from us both during and after the debate. Not once did I even scream, "BCS 'Bode, baby! Crystal Trophy!! You signed up for this shit, live with it!!"

No, not you Van. I have good reason to expect better of you. You, however, are in the minority.

Fuck no. That was LSU Fan. We merely pointed out that we were ranked above you in every poll so while you DID get screwed out of a chance to play us you certainly didn't screwed anything like the way we got screwed when we were ranked #1 in both polls and still didn't get a chance to play in that stupid BCS game...

Screwed is screwed. USC got screwed by polls in '03, Auburn got screwed by polls in '04. The rest is useless. It's what is wrong with pollster titles. In situations like 2003 and 2004 someone is going to get fucked, and all that's left is worthless speculation. USC and Auburn both got fucked by the same system...but I can't count how many times I've heard USC fan assure me that the BCS "got it right" in '04. Bottom line is pollster titles are still pollster titles just like they were 20 years ago. Nothing is fixed, we just have another poll.

USC wasnt screwed by polls in 03 they were screwed by Computer Geeks, Computer Geeks that said Miami of Ohio was a better team than USC, Computer Geeks that are VT fans and Alabama and UCLA employees. Both Polls had USC #1, LSU just won the Computer Geek title

As for getting it right in 04, whos to say? but Allbarn had their shot at USC in 03 and 02 and were found to be inferior, yeah yeah youre going to say that the Pussies improved since 03 when they couldnt even cross mid field at their own house infront of 100 thousand shagging cousins but you would have to be incredibly nieve to not consider the fact that USC improved at least as much if not more since 23-0

Allbarn had 11 first downs
ran the ball 36 times for 43 yards
turned the ball over 3 times
and managed just 164 yards total
and this was you early in the fourth quarter


and it was USC that wasnt going to be able to handle the heat and humidity

you lose your arguement about what could have happened in 04 when you just look back at the 03.... that and the fact that you cunts replaced USC with the Citadel the next year, way to sack up, couldnt find a school of deaf girl amputees to play? or have you saved the game vs Helen Keller State for the 2006 season and that 4th OOC game

Buc wrote:I can't count how many times I've heard USC fan assure me that the BCS "got it right" in '04.

If that's true then those people were absolute idiots. Nobody in their mind could've called '04 a BCS success.

The only part they got right was USC. Auburn got screwed, and if they hadn't, OU would've gotten screwed.

Both '03 and '04 were unmitigated abortions for the BCS. '03 was so bad that they they were forced to admit their error and they at least fixed the biggest and most obvious design flaw during the off season...

"It does kind of bother us that the national media doesn't even mention us winning it two years ago," Green says. "ESPN's always saying USC's going after their third, but they only have one, and a half of one, really. And we still have the trophy."

Umm, he should've stopped here.

Yes, LSU and SC split in 03, but from a midwestern unbiased observer, I think LSU's season was a bit more memorable. People say you're always remembered by your last game, and the BCS title game vs OU was so much more hyped and remembered than SC's little fling against Michigan.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:and the BCS title game vs OU was so much more hyped and remembered than SC's little fling against Michigan.

bullshit. i throughly enjoyed every minute of that beat down. any time scu-m is embarassed on national television is fine with me.

Time to throw another log on the fire

USC will not be a 3 peat champion if the win the Rose Bowl

It's the BCS, stupid!

By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
December 22, 2005




The surest bet of college football's annual overload of wild and woolly bowl action is simple, Southern California will not capture a third consecutive national championship, no matter what everyone keeps saying.

Oh, the Trojans may defeat Texas in January's Rose Bowl, host site for this season's Bowl Championship Series title game, but only hype or revisionist history says it would mean a three-peat for SC.

A second title? Sure. Pete Carroll's team whipped Oklahoma last year in the title game to win it all. Do it again and you get back-to-back.

But that certainly isn't three, because the year before it was LSU coach Nick Saban (not Carroll) who hoisted that ugly glass football that goes to the "champion" of the national system that each Division I-A football program (USC included) agrees each season to play under.

Why everyone is saying otherwise is beyond me.

ADVERTISEMENT


Regular readers know that you can't oppose or detest the BCS more than I do. They also know that in December of 2003 we called Oklahoma's selection over USC into the title game against LSU "a fraud."

But our sympathy to SC's plight back then doesn't change the basic reality of sports, namely that the rules are the rules are the rules. In 2003, just as last year and this one, USC and its representatives of the Pacific 10 Conference, agreed that the system of determining the national champion of college football was the BCS.

That's how all sports work. Before the start of the season, everyone gets together and determines how to crown a champion. Some leagues, such as the NBA or NHL, have a series of playoff series. Some, such as the NFL, have a single elimination tournament. Some, such as NCAA hoops, have bigger fields. Some, such as major league baseball, have smaller ones.

College football's is the most controversial because it is the most ridiculous, designed to protect long standing power and profit in six major conferences (including the Pac 10) rather than equitably determining a champion. Fans hate it. Players hate it. Most coaches hate it.

None of which matters. The powers-that-be who count the money love it, or at least love it enough to agree to it every year. And back in 2003, once Pac 10 Commissioner Tom Hansen, on behalf of USC, did that, the Trojans had to live with the result.

That meant a complicated formula weighing computer stats and human polls determined that LSU and Oklahoma got to play in the championship game even though they, like, USC, had suffered a loss. Most people thought USC was better than OU, but the system factored more than what most people thought. The computers liked OU and once that happened, USC had no claim, ever, to the 2003 national championship.

Yes, the Trojans wound up being crowned champs by the Associated Press pollsters, which is fine and dandy, but that has no official bearing on anything. Before the 1997 creation of the BCS, the AP was about all anyone had, so it is understandable why teams cited its results. But post-'97 it is meaningless.

The agreed upon system was and is the BCS, not the BCS or a popularity contest if it turns out a certain team doesn't like the BCS. You can't rewrite the rules after the fact just because it benefits you.

Now, we understand why the Trojans would lay claim to the 2003 title. The BCS is so pathetic, untrustworthy and impossibly bad, it is human nature to just selectively ignore it. But intellectually it doesn't work that way. The official 2003 champion was LSU.

Why the media says (and will say it a million times in the next two weeks) USC won it all that year is baffling because it certainly isn't factual. I guess if everyone repeats the lie long enough, they no longer think they are lying. Who knows?

It is not like the silly formula hasn't assisted SC through the years. While it is my opinion the BCS screwed them back in 2003, it's also my opinion that it helped them last year. It was then that the formula decided that USC and Oklahoma should play for the title while three other undefeated teams sat out, Utah, Boise State and, most formidably, Auburn.

USC pounded an OU team that was the puffed up product of a weak Big Twelve Conference. It wasn't the Trojans fault, but the reality is they got a cupcake championship game. Considering what Auburn's two great running backs (Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams) are currently doing to NFL defenses, is there any doubt the Tigers would have been a much more formidable opponent?

That's the thing with the BCS, some years it helps, some years it hurts. Given the chance, maybe USC would have won it all in 2003. But maybe Auburn would have won it in 2004. We'll never know.

As long as we have the system we have, we can only go with the facts, no matter what the newspapers and television analysts say. In this case, USC and their 34-game and two-Heisman win streak are gunning for their second consecutive national title.

Win the Rose Bowl and next season they can go for the three-peat.


Dan Wetzel is Yahoo! Sports' national columnist. Dan's new book, "Runnin' Rebel: Shark Tales of 'Extra Benefits,' Frank Sinatra and Winning It All" with coach Jerry Tarkanian, is on sale now.

Look for more Dan Wetzel commentary on the back of this month's Wheaties box -- available in stores now!

Screw_Michigan wrote: bullshit. i throughly enjoyed every minute of that beat down. any time scu-m is embarassed on national television is fine with me.

how exactly were they embarrassed? they lost to a much better team, and the score was only 28-14. i forget the score of that year's alamo bowl.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

"It does kind of bother us that the national media doesn't even mention us winning it two years ago," Green says. "ESPN's always saying USC's going after their third, but they only have one, and a half of one, really. And we still have the trophy."

Umm, he should've stopped here.

Yes, LSU and SC split in 03, but from a midwestern unbiased observer, I think LSU's season was a bit more memorable. People say you're always remembered by your last game, and the BCS title game vs OU was so much more hyped and remembered than SC's little fling against Michigan.

True, but both games were far overshadowed in the minds and memories of most by the sheer spectacle that was the BCS Controvery. What everybody remembers more than the individual games was the overriding enmity of the situation that led to a split title. Everybody remembers that both USC and LSU were the teams that shared the title due to that BCS Controversy.

I always thought that the team that took home the trophy was the champion.

maybe I can explain it in a way that you might understand. two guys in a bar try to pick up the same hot babe. they make a bet that the one who takes her home is the winner. guy 1 puts his best moves on and gets her number, guy two puts his best moves on and takes her home and pounds that ass all night long. The next day guy one says I won because I got her number and took home another hot chick and smoked that ass. While guy two says I won because I took the girl home we bet on and pounded that ass.

So who was the winner?

If you said guy 1 your a Trojan fan
If you said guy 2 then you back the team that got the trophy.

Vito Corleone wrote:I always thought that the team that took home the trophy was the champion.

Are you talking about just post BCS years? Because Nebraska has the '97 trophy, even though Michigan won almost every major and minor poll out there. But Nebraska won the coaches poll, so they have the crystal.

And anyone who can rationalize the BCS's line of thinking in 2003 isn't someone who thinks to far outside the box or tries to come up with opinions of their own. If you say, "Well that's the system, that's why we got the results", fine. But if you agree with their results, I don't understand it.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:and the BCS title game vs OU was so much more hyped and remembered than SC's little fling against Michigan.

bullshit. i throughly enjoyed every minute of that beat down. any time scu-m is embarassed on national television is fine with me.

I'm with you on the Scum-hatred thing, but the implications and the storylines behind the BCS title game made that one much more memorable than SC's win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Killian wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:I always thought that the team that took home the trophy was the champion.

Are you talking about just post BCS years? Because Nebraska has the '97 trophy, even though Michigan won almost every major and minor poll out there. But Nebraska won the coaches poll, so they have the crystal.

And anyone who can rationalize the BCS's line of thinking in 2003 isn't someone who thinks to far outside the box or tries to come up with opinions of their own. If you say, "Well that's the system, that's why we got the results", fine. But if you agree with their results, I don't understand it.

Yes I'm talking about the BCS only, IMO there was no system before the BCS. There is no Texas fan that would rationalize the BCS system as being anything but a POS, especially after getting screwed out of a BCS bowl 2 years ago. The system sucks, but it is the system all the conferences agreeded to and IMO 2K3 exposed the system as a POS but that does not change the results, the AP changed the rules when it did not fit their needs. The BCS champion was LSU they took home the trophy.

BTW the whole concept of thinking outside the box is very over used. One could argue that a bank robber is thinking outside the box when trying to earn money. Afterall he is earning his money working outside the system.

If anyone asked me who the best team in the country was in 2k3 I would have said USC but the champion was LSU plain and simple.

I'm not trying to turn this into a semantics debate, my point was most people who don't question 2003 will take any info that is force fed to them. It's the old "if you say it enough, it must be true".

Either way, I view the BCS as a recent cluster fuck trying to crown a champion of a sport that doesn't have any way to settle it on the field. The AP has been around since Joseph thought he was a cuckold, and is the one that is and has been generally recognized as "the" poll until this abortion came about. Personally, I view the AP as more credible than the BCS, but both are horseshit.

Concur.

Vito Corleone wrote:The USC love fest reminds me of 1990 UNLV and how no one gave Duke a chance in that game.

You mean '91. Duke lost by 30 in the '90 title game to UNLV.

Maybe his subconcious is speaking/posting?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:The USC love fest reminds me of 1990 UNLV and how no one gave Duke a chance in that game.

You mean '91. Duke lost by 30 in the '90 title game to UNLV.

Yea but I always go by the start of the season like this is the 2k5 season even tough we crown a MNC in 06. So infact I mean't it as the 90-91 season.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:The USC love fest reminds me of 1990 UNLV and how no one gave Duke a chance in that game.

You mean '91. Duke lost by 30 in the '90 title game to UNLV.

No, he got it right!

Exactly.

Since I was talking about the 90-91 season I did get it right. That UNLV team with their amebia defense was crowned the champs from the beginning of the season. Problem is someone forget to tell Duke.

"amebia"?

yea, lets here it for the grammar police ridding the world of bad spelling and bad grammar one post at a time.