T1B

That NC went to LSU, as you might remember, when they played vs. Oklahoma. I distinctly remember Nick Saban holding up a Crystal "Sears" Trophy. So all this talk about SC's "THIRD straight, (had they beaten Tx.) is crap, ok? Crap.

According to the BCS system, that I see SCfan agrees with, and gladly took part in this year btw, they have ONE legit NC of the last three seasons. They have won ONE BCS National Championship Game. (Much to Auburn's chagrin, I might add.)

Enough allready with the "three" straight. Had they won wednesday night.
I'm sick of it.

The AP were the only ones who voted SC a "NC" that season.
That's the AP voters. A bunch of writers. - Guys who once gave Chris Perry, RB - Michigan, 27 first place votes, his senior year. And how's Chris doing now?

The AP is a joke. A coastal biased group, who don't even see the games
outside of their regions. Total popularity, and hyped results. Baton Rouge, or Southern Cal. Who gets more attention? - Duh!

Again, SC has ONE legit NC. That was last years.

Nuff said.

The only intelligent thing you've ever said...

the_ouskull

No soup for you.

History will always record that USC won a share of the national title in 2003 and no matter how many times and how many ways you petulantly stamp your feet to the contrary nothing will ever change that simple fact.

The AP title has always carried more weight than the UPI title and in 2003 this was particularly true since the UPI title that year ended up being a contractually mandated farce that forced the coaches to vote against their conscience.

Nothing will ever change this.

nothing will ever change the fact that without an actual playoff system it's noting but a fucking opinion anyway.

the entire universe usues some sort of playoff system. about the only thing that is a bigger farce than the BCS is figure skating.

If the BCS was run like international figure skating, SC would have walked onto the field with about a 3 TD head start.

Van wrote:Nothing will ever change this.

Nothing 'cept the BCS "National Championship Game". Ya know, that HUGE thing printed right on the field last Wednesday night at the Rose Bowl.

The THING SC fan gladly recognizes THIS year. One wonders how gladly, had the Michigan home cooked refs not spoiled a sure Penn State win in Ann Arbor. With PSU's obviously tougher schedule, they would have (should have) been playing Tx.
had (again) the AP popularity polls, not so over weighted the SC Trojans all year. (Again, the popularity factor, i.e; the "human" polls). One could definately see how Tx. and PSU would have been #1 and #2. Then SC would again be a "Popular" Champion. Not one which WON IT ON THE FIELD! - As LSU surely did.

Christ! SC needed a PUSH in the back, to beat lowly Notre Dame. A team who beat, absolutely NO ONE all year!!!

Van wrote:The AP title has always carried more weight than the UPI title and in 2003 this was particularly true since the UPI title that year ended up being a contractually mandated farce that forced the coaches to vote against their conscience.

Uhhh, Van, it's the USA Today/ESPN title now. It hasn't been the UPI title for quite some time.

FYI, the UPI, once a legitimate newswire source, much like the AP, is now owned by that right-wing nutjob/dangerous cult leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (who also owns the Washington Times, btw). The UPI lost the coaches' poll right around the same time Moon bought it.

The BCS isn't a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Division I football doesn't have a NATIONAL CHAMPION. They have a BCS Champion, an ESPN/Coaches Bowl Champion, and an AP Champion, amongst others.

USC won a national championship in 2003, and hell the Rose Bowl was a battle between 2 better teams than what was in the BCS "Championship team.

How can you guys deny the authority that goes to a trophy with the name 'Sears' attached to it?

They're all pollster titles . The only difference is, the universities signed onto the BCS, so...you go figure what's more legit. At best, all SC can lay claim to is 1 1/2.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:The AP title has always carried more weight than the UPI title and in 2003 this was particularly true since the UPI title that year ended up being a contractually mandated farce that forced the coaches to vote against their conscience.

Uhhh, Van, it's the USA Today/ESPN title now. It hasn't been the UPI title for quite some time.

Uhhh, Terry, in 2003 LSU was awarded the BCS title by...the UPI coaches...

..the self same UPI coaches who'd already made their preference known when they voted USC #1 in their last non contractually arm twisted vote.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:How can you guys deny the authority that goes to a trophy with the name 'Sears' attached to it?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spinach Genie wrote:They're all pollster titles . The only difference is, the universities signed onto the BCS, so...you go figure what's more legit. At best, all SC can lay claim to is 1 1/2.

As we decided awhile ago, I'm fine with that. USC won 1 1/2 titles and LSU won 1/2 of a title.

That's dead nuts accurate.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:How can you guys deny the authority that goes to a trophy with the name 'Sears' attached to it?

ADT, I think you'll find. Hasn't been the Sears trophy for a few years.

That'll teach me to rely on Babs for my information.

Van wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:The AP title has always carried more weight than the UPI title and in 2003 this was particularly true since the UPI title that year ended up being a contractually mandated farce that forced the coaches to vote against their conscience.

Uhhh, Van, it's the USA Today/ESPN title now. It hasn't been the UPI title for quite some time.

Uhhh, Terry, in 2003 LSU was awarded the BCS title by...the UPI coaches...

..the self same UPI coaches who'd already made their preference known when they voted USC #1 in their last non contractually arm twisted vote.

You're half right.

It was the coaches' poll, but UPI no longer had it by 2003. It was the USA Today/ESPN coaches' poll. Just sayin'.

Jsc810 wrote:What history will record is USC trying to claim something that isn't theirs.

Before the BCS, you had the possibility of split national titles. Before the BCS, perhaps the AP title carried more weight than the UPI one.

That was then. This is now.

Since the BCS, there is one and only one national champion.

Would you claim LSU won a National Title if they were the AP Champion and USC was the BCS champion that year?

Yes, the BCS is supposed to pit the 2 best teams in the National Championship, but that is not always the case. 2003 was one of those years.

I have no problem saying LSU and USC were National Champs that year. The reason being was that USC was ranked #1 prior to the BCS game and after the season, the AP had them #1. LSy deserved and so did USC. Too bad USC was passed over by an underserving OU squad.

As much as even I want to believe LSU were the outright national champs of 03, it just isn't so. Even the NCAA recognizes USC as a consensus national champ in 03. There's not a whole lot Babs, JSC, you, I, God, or anyone else can say to dispute the credibility that is the NCAA.

Mgo, I'd imagine the NCAA recognizes USC as co-champs in 2003, not consensus champs.

USC was the consensus #1 following the regular season but since they didn't end up being the BCS #1 I don't think they could rightly be called the consensus national champs.

Definitely, LSU won a share.

Fortunately for your Trojans, you imagined wrong.

The NCAA recognizes USC as the consensus national champs (since they were deemed #1 by the AP and FWAA). They recognize LSU as the Bowl Championship Series champion.

Far as I know, the NCAA just recognizes what polls gave who, what. I don't believe they sanction any consensus titles themselves.

Well, they don't sanction titles in the sense of, there's no such thing as a "NCAA national champions" list, but they recognize the winner of the polls as a "consensus national champion". Therefore, according to the NCAA, USC did such, so they are listed as a consensus national champ. Aside from that, they recognize the winner of the BCS as, of course, the BCS champ.

Look it up.

Mgo, I like the way you think!!

:-)

Doesn't matter one way or the other though. Anybody's who's intellectually honest knows 2003 saw a split national title.

The rest is just bitter anti-USC fans and a whole lot of homerism.

USC did win half a championship in '03 in my mind.

However, with the AP's exclusion from the BCS formula now, I would have a hard time saying the AP Poll means anything more than an SI.com or ESPN.com poll in the future.

Van wrote:Mgo, I like the way you think!!

:-)

Doesn't matter one way or the other though. Anybody's who's intellectually honest knows 2003 saw a split national title.

Of course. I'm just trying to maintain discussion. I personally believe LSU was the best team that year, and in my mind they were the outright champs, but when discussing college football on a factual level, SC should (obviously) be mentioned as having shared the title.

Indy, in a few short years the BCS poll and the BCS system will also be history.

The AP poll has always been recognized and down the road history will always recognize the AP poll from 2003..

http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/spo ... 04aaa.html

Does it matter if anyone else recognizes them? They're pretty good at recognizing themselves...

13 different polls recognized national champs in 1939? Like I said, si.com and espn.com may be shit now, but someday, AUburn will claim last year's due to some shit poll if they use USC's formula.

Yep. That's why it's comical that Alabama claims 12, or some such number. If ND counted the way they do, they would have 18 or 21, I forget.

I'm good with limiting it solely to the AP, UPI and BCS polls. The first two are the only ones that've ever really counted and the BCS counts now.

BCS relies far too much on computer polls, Id rather have an AP title than a computer title.

The real problem with the BCS is it's ever-changing format. From year to year, it has no consistency.

We already have that with the AP and ESPN polls, which have always been fundamentally-flawed...but we know that going in and it's truthfully what makes CFB great. They're bullshit but they've been the same bullshit for decades.

Over a fifty year horizon, which is what we're really getting at here, eventually I think the BCS rankings become an asterisk. Not saying they haven't yielded the correct results each and every year of their existence, but I think it was a good experiment and it failed.

You can't profess to be credible when you're not. The AP and Coaches' polls make no qualms about it...they're BS. The BCS, on the other hand, calls itself the answer and I don't see it that way.

I'm more content with a computer poll. It factors more criteria into account than I imagine the average human would.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:The real problem with the BCS is it's ever-changing format. From year to year, it has no consistency.

True, but I'd rather they fix the flaws on a yearly basis, as opposed to maintaining a consistently flawed system (And please refrain from saying, "they can fix it by getting rid of it and instituting a playoff...we all feel that way, but this BCS stuff is what we have for now, so might as well make the best of it).

I think the BCS rankings become an asterisk.

Seriously doubt it. What's been embedded in history cannot be changed, revoked, or tampered with in any way, in this particular instance anyway. Besides, though the BCS has had its problems with teams ranked higher than #2, it has indeed bred a true champ that few of us have ever argued with, so there's another reason askterisks would not need to be applied.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I'm more content with a computer poll. It factors more criteria into account than I imagine the average human would.

Computer polls too often produce absolutely bizarre results, much moreso than human polls which at least take into account some modicum of common sense. We've all seen 'puter polls where they went off some arcane S.O.S. formula to end up with Miami Of Ohio being ranked above USC or, better yet, giving a higher ranking to one of two teams with identical records...even though the other team blasted the first team 41-7 when they actually met on the field just one week ago.


The human polls are flawed too but they just don't seem to ever produce the absolutely absurd results so often seen with 'puter polls.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:(And please refrain from saying, "they can fix it by getting rid of it and instituting a playoff...we all feel that way, but this BCS stuff is what we have for now, so might as well make the best of it).

And please refrain from puting words in my mouth. Thanks.

What's been embedded in history cannot be changed, revoked, or tampered with in any way, in this particular instance anyway. Besides, though the BCS has had its problems with teams ranked higher than #2, it has indeed bred a true champ that few of us have ever argued with, so there's another reason askterisks would not need to be applied.

Betcha in ten years the BCS ain't still here. In a fifty year kind of perspective, that's an asterisk. I never said it detracted from the results that were generated during it's existence, only that it would be a blip over the longer history of the game.

If you share a national title, you're credited with 1/2 a title in my book...before the BCS or during the BCS era. I never bought into the three-peat stuff for USC. They had 1-1/2 titles in the last two years. Then again, just because LSU won the "BCS" title game...they didn't win the AP title so they get only a 1/2 title. Nothing against the Tigers because it's not their fault the system is flawed. If you can still get split national champions and have unbeaten teams go without a sniff at the national title, the BCS is and remains FUBAR.

Jimmy Medalions wrote: Betcha in ten years the BCS ain't still here.

Agreed.

In a fifty year kind of perspective, that's an asterisk. I never said it detracted from the results that were generated during it's existence, only that it would be a blip over the longer history of the game.

I guess I don't see what the significance of your point is, then. So what if there's an asterisk? It's not like people will look back and question the validity of USC's 04 championship or Texas' 05 championship. The asterisk will only denote that there was a different system used during a certain period of time. No big deal.