USC Three peat?
- Thread starter Nosigar
- Start date
I can understand some of the distortion on this, but when ABC - the sponsor of the BCS - says the same thing it is rather ridiculous. Heck watching ABC and ESPN, I mean USCPN, you would think the Rose Bowl is USC scrimmaging itself.
But check out USC's website - at least the 2003 title is more legitimate than some of the others they claim. Just a few years ago they decided to start claiming a title from the 20s or 30s.
But check out USC's website - at least the 2003 title is more legitimate than some of the others they claim. Just a few years ago they decided to start claiming a title from the 20s or 30s.
Well, duh :mj16: :dizzy:
Everyone knows they only won it last year and LSU won it the previous year.
kneifl
Everyone knows they only won it last year and LSU won it the previous year.
kneifl
USC 2003 is just as legit as LSU
USC 2003 is just as legit as LSU
No matter what is written it will always be a controversial situation. I can agree with the assessment that the Pac was part of the BCS formula but cannot condone the comment that USC did not win a share of the title. By getting the AP National Title, that in it's self creates a format for legitimacy.
Look at the historical context of the AP, sure enough every winner in the AP since it's existence has been given a share or if unaminous, then an outright title. So what is different in the SC 2003 equation?
Here is the part where there should be no question on the behalf of USC. USC was #1 in both polls leading up to the lack of inclusion in the BCS game. IT was not in USC's control at that time to not be able to play LSU or Oklahoma. Unfortunately they were left out of the BCS game and instead played in the Rose Bowl.
So here is the problem with rapping SC: SC was not voted out of the BCS title for other than contractual rationale as the BCS was Poll was obligated to vote the winner of the BCS game. Since SC was not in the BCS game, and due to contractual situations, could not have been voted #1.
Hypothetically, what do you think would have happended had the contractual situation not been in place? Do you think SC or LSU would have been voted #1?
And for the record no one is disputing that LSU deserved their share of the title. It was one fair and square as was SC's AP portion.
And to top off the equation, why does the NCAA site recognize SC and LSU as title winners if SC was not legitimate?
USC 2003 is just as legit as LSU
No matter what is written it will always be a controversial situation. I can agree with the assessment that the Pac was part of the BCS formula but cannot condone the comment that USC did not win a share of the title. By getting the AP National Title, that in it's self creates a format for legitimacy.
Look at the historical context of the AP, sure enough every winner in the AP since it's existence has been given a share or if unaminous, then an outright title. So what is different in the SC 2003 equation?
Here is the part where there should be no question on the behalf of USC. USC was #1 in both polls leading up to the lack of inclusion in the BCS game. IT was not in USC's control at that time to not be able to play LSU or Oklahoma. Unfortunately they were left out of the BCS game and instead played in the Rose Bowl.
So here is the problem with rapping SC: SC was not voted out of the BCS title for other than contractual rationale as the BCS was Poll was obligated to vote the winner of the BCS game. Since SC was not in the BCS game, and due to contractual situations, could not have been voted #1.
Hypothetically, what do you think would have happended had the contractual situation not been in place? Do you think SC or LSU would have been voted #1?
And for the record no one is disputing that LSU deserved their share of the title. It was one fair and square as was SC's AP portion.
And to top off the equation, why does the NCAA site recognize SC and LSU as title winners if SC was not legitimate?
No 3 peat for USC. You have to be playing in the game to win the trophy. All schools decide at the beginning of the year to abide by the rules. Just because it didn't work out for USC they can't go back on their word. They will beat Texas and win back to back titles, hooray for them, if LSU or Auburn or any other school had guys stay as long as USC it would be a different story. I think Reggie Bush and Lionheart stayed so long because they did not want to take the pay cut to go to the NFL!
ballsweat said:
Well, now there's a doubt that LSU, who won the real game, should not "share" the title? :mj07:
The question would be IF USC deserves a share of the title. No, they do not share the BCS Title. The NCAA is not the BCS, but they, as all other schools agreed to name the BCS winner the champion. The politics or why/why not is not the issue in the article. It's just that folks hype everything so much that some think USC really won the BCS Title (i.e. National Champion 2003).
I don't disagree with what you are saying but with people who dispute the share that SC won in the AP. LSU absolutely won their BCS title, no dispute here or should there be anywhere. USC may have deserved to have played in that BCS game, but they did not and therefore cannot claim any portion of the BCS title. My point was to the people who say they did not deserve their AP title and to point the politics to those who happen to be blind to the contractual portion of voting a the BCS game winner the title winner in the Coaches poll.
And I do agree with your assertion about the media hype. If they would just say that SC was going for their 3rd straight AP title then much of this could be avoided. They are going for their second straight BCS title. Hopefully no one tries to discredit the AP poll as it has been around for well over 50 years and is a primary pol in determining a national champion.
Buts lets not ever forget that all of this as they say is mythical.
As for the comment from Ryan..., you can't honestly make the assertion you just made about players staying at Sc longer than at AU or at LSU. AU had a very Sr dominated team last year and they cannot stay past their eligibility and as for LSU, I am not positive about their particulars but other than Mauck not coming back, who have they lost early?
And I do agree with your assertion about the media hype. If they would just say that SC was going for their 3rd straight AP title then much of this could be avoided. They are going for their second straight BCS title. Hopefully no one tries to discredit the AP poll as it has been around for well over 50 years and is a primary pol in determining a national champion.
Buts lets not ever forget that all of this as they say is mythical.
As for the comment from Ryan..., you can't honestly make the assertion you just made about players staying at Sc longer than at AU or at LSU. AU had a very Sr dominated team last year and they cannot stay past their eligibility and as for LSU, I am not positive about their particulars but other than Mauck not coming back, who have they lost early?
No one talks about Auburn last year having a "share of the title". Lets NEVER FORGET that the AP is just people's opinion based on the games they played that year. Who cares who won the AP "title" of #1 team. LSU won the national championship in 03, IF SC has a problem with that they shouldn't have lost to Cal. If SC shares the title of 03 then why doesnt Auburn share the title in 04? Because sportscenter and journalist don't think they aren't as good? If SC shares title in 03 then Auburn shares title with them in 04 and why not give Utah a peice too.
LOL great quote. I don't know how SC can afford those two guys when they are dropping millions on the refs each game for them to turn the other cheek or to give leinhart a first down everytime he does a sneak - even though he will be on the ground 2 yards behind line.ryanmcgwyer said:
Blgstocks,
Once again people do not see the irony. USC gets left out of the BCS even though they were the #1 team in the Coaches Poll and the AP poll. As you say they are both opinion polls, and your assertion is quite correct.
Where you are incorrect is that people don't care about the AP. The AP has been a recognized determinant for the last 50 years plus. To say who cares illegitamizes every MNC to this point.
And about SC losing to Cal, you are right but don't forget about Okie getting blown out in the Big 12 Champ game, or LSU also having a loss. They all had 1 loss.
Last thing is about Utah or AU having a share last year. If indeed AU had been voted #1 then yes they should have been given a share. Was it tragic what happened to them last year, YES. But they were not voted #1, even though the AP could have voted them #1.
So why the hatred for USC? How about giving a credit as many are.
Once again people do not see the irony. USC gets left out of the BCS even though they were the #1 team in the Coaches Poll and the AP poll. As you say they are both opinion polls, and your assertion is quite correct.
Where you are incorrect is that people don't care about the AP. The AP has been a recognized determinant for the last 50 years plus. To say who cares illegitamizes every MNC to this point.
And about SC losing to Cal, you are right but don't forget about Okie getting blown out in the Big 12 Champ game, or LSU also having a loss. They all had 1 loss.
Last thing is about Utah or AU having a share last year. If indeed AU had been voted #1 then yes they should have been given a share. Was it tragic what happened to them last year, YES. But they were not voted #1, even though the AP could have voted them #1.
So why the hatred for USC? How about giving a credit as many are.
AP poll NEVER said they would use the BCS to determine the National Champion. They said the BCS could use the AP poll in their calculation (formula).
In 2003 both the Coaches poll and AP poll had USC #1. The vast majority. Not LSU.
After the bowl games, the coaches poll was FORCED to vote LSU #1. AP poll was not forced because they said the BCS could only use their poll but not force them to vote the winner of the BCS NC game. That is why we have a split NC. AP did not think the winner of the BCS NC game was the National Champion. Coaches Poll had no choice and voted LSU #1. Everyone knows if the Coaches poll had a choice, LSU would not have won ANYTHING!
I sorta feel sorry for LSU because it seems most forget they even won the National Championship in 2003. They earned it and should be recognized!
Last year, NOBODY felt Auburn was the #1 team. Vast majority of the Coaches poll and AP poll felt USC was #1 prior to bowl games. Again, Coaches poll was FORCED to vote USC #1 and AP felt USC was #1. Nobody felt AU was #1. Therefore, AU wins nothing and nobody recognizes AU winnning anything. AU could have won an AP NC (like USC in 2003) but AP poll did NOT think AU was the best team in the country.
All in all, Coaches poll is worthless once bowl season starts. (kinda stupid) AP poll at least factors in bowl season to determine their National Champion. AP poll is NOT forced to do anything. Coaches poll is forced to vote the winner of the BCS NC. I am clueless why people are more in awe of a BCS NC over an AP NC. AP Poll has so much more history and credibility than the BCS NC. Especially when so many complain about the BCS calculations etc. AP poll NEVER said they would claim the winner of the BCS National Championship the National Champion. NEVER ONCE SAID THAT! So why are people bitching about it? 2003 just happened to be the first year the AP poll did not agree with the winner of the BCS NC being the champion. The posters in this thread have NO ARGUMENT and look quite silly. Jealous too! :mj21: :mj21: :mj21:
In 2003 both the Coaches poll and AP poll had USC #1. The vast majority. Not LSU.
After the bowl games, the coaches poll was FORCED to vote LSU #1. AP poll was not forced because they said the BCS could only use their poll but not force them to vote the winner of the BCS NC game. That is why we have a split NC. AP did not think the winner of the BCS NC game was the National Champion. Coaches Poll had no choice and voted LSU #1. Everyone knows if the Coaches poll had a choice, LSU would not have won ANYTHING!I sorta feel sorry for LSU because it seems most forget they even won the National Championship in 2003. They earned it and should be recognized!
Last year, NOBODY felt Auburn was the #1 team. Vast majority of the Coaches poll and AP poll felt USC was #1 prior to bowl games. Again, Coaches poll was FORCED to vote USC #1 and AP felt USC was #1. Nobody felt AU was #1. Therefore, AU wins nothing and nobody recognizes AU winnning anything. AU could have won an AP NC (like USC in 2003) but AP poll did NOT think AU was the best team in the country.
All in all, Coaches poll is worthless once bowl season starts. (kinda stupid) AP poll at least factors in bowl season to determine their National Champion. AP poll is NOT forced to do anything. Coaches poll is forced to vote the winner of the BCS NC. I am clueless why people are more in awe of a BCS NC over an AP NC. AP Poll has so much more history and credibility than the BCS NC. Especially when so many complain about the BCS calculations etc. AP poll NEVER said they would claim the winner of the BCS National Championship the National Champion. NEVER ONCE SAID THAT! So why are people bitching about it? 2003 just happened to be the first year the AP poll did not agree with the winner of the BCS NC being the champion. The posters in this thread have NO ARGUMENT and look quite silly. Jealous too! :mj21: :mj21: :mj21:
Strange how USC keeps counting thaose 1974 and 1978 titles which they werent given by the all-knowing AP.
Or the newly recognized (in 2003) 1939 National Championship from the all knowing "Dickinson Poll." AP gave it to Texas AM. USC had 2 ties that season.
USC claims 11 national championships, yet only 5 are AP, and 1 of those is the 2003 year they didnt win the BCS.
USC actually claims there are 5 other seasons they continue to "investigate" to determine if claiming a national title is warranted.
I guess it just changes to suit their needs.
EDIT: Guess I should clarify. Dickinson was not a "poll." It was based on amth program developed by a Professor in Illinois. In today's terms, it would be a Sagarin National Title. USC claims 2 of those. USC also claims 1928, 1929, and 1933 even though only 1 of more than 10 ranking systms in each season selected USC. As an aside, 2 rankings gave Texas the 1941 title, but Texas doesnt claim it. Ditto 1977. 3 say Texas in 1968, also not claimed. Even 1 for 1981. Presumably the ones like this USC has are the ones being "investigated."
Or the newly recognized (in 2003) 1939 National Championship from the all knowing "Dickinson Poll." AP gave it to Texas AM. USC had 2 ties that season.
USC claims 11 national championships, yet only 5 are AP, and 1 of those is the 2003 year they didnt win the BCS.
USC actually claims there are 5 other seasons they continue to "investigate" to determine if claiming a national title is warranted.
I guess it just changes to suit their needs.
EDIT: Guess I should clarify. Dickinson was not a "poll." It was based on amth program developed by a Professor in Illinois. In today's terms, it would be a Sagarin National Title. USC claims 2 of those. USC also claims 1928, 1929, and 1933 even though only 1 of more than 10 ranking systms in each season selected USC. As an aside, 2 rankings gave Texas the 1941 title, but Texas doesnt claim it. Ditto 1977. 3 say Texas in 1968, also not claimed. Even 1 for 1981. Presumably the ones like this USC has are the ones being "investigated."
Last edited:
This is not about the SC supposed titles pre 2000
This is not about the SC supposed titles pre 2000
Sun,
You are absolutely correct about the titles with this Dickinson thing. As for 74 and 78, SC was voted the champ in one of the 2 major polls and split the titles with Okie and Bama respectively.
The question about their legitimacy should be settled with a link to the NCAA website. They recognize SC with titles in 74, 78, 2003, and 2004. If they recognize them then why should not every one else.
The Dickinson poll was a joke and I am an SC fan.
Also, on the 74 and 78 polls the AP and UPI were the recognized polls, so why should SC not have been given a share. Others may dispute that LSU deserved a share, but most fans do not dispute their legitimate NC per the BCS. What SC fans don't want is the claim that 2003 all of a sudden is illegitimate because they did not play in the BCS.
THE AP is and will continue to be recognized until further notice. IF the AP is not legit should we not reciognize Texas in 69?
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history
This is not about the SC supposed titles pre 2000
Sun,
You are absolutely correct about the titles with this Dickinson thing. As for 74 and 78, SC was voted the champ in one of the 2 major polls and split the titles with Okie and Bama respectively.
The question about their legitimacy should be settled with a link to the NCAA website. They recognize SC with titles in 74, 78, 2003, and 2004. If they recognize them then why should not every one else.
The Dickinson poll was a joke and I am an SC fan.
Also, on the 74 and 78 polls the AP and UPI were the recognized polls, so why should SC not have been given a share. Others may dispute that LSU deserved a share, but most fans do not dispute their legitimate NC per the BCS. What SC fans don't want is the claim that 2003 all of a sudden is illegitimate because they did not play in the BCS.
THE AP is and will continue to be recognized until further notice. IF the AP is not legit should we not reciognize Texas in 69?
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history
Last edited:
Scott, you bring up some valid points, but it doesn't take LSU's name off that trophy for 2003. Everyone voted to use the BCS to recognize the National Champion, and so we can't pick and choose which year we want to recognize it and which year we take the AP's choice. The BCS decides the National Champion, and USC has won only one in 2004.
Some will say that I am just sour grapes over Auburn being left out last year, and that's ok with me. I guess my point is less valid coming from an Auburn alum, but if you agree to let one system dictate who is the National Champion, then you should stick by that system, and that system alone. Just my 2-cents.
BTW, I don't like the BCS system as I have posted many times. So, until we get a playoff, we can continue to fill our times with arguments and insults...
Some will say that I am just sour grapes over Auburn being left out last year, and that's ok with me. I guess my point is less valid coming from an Auburn alum, but if you agree to let one system dictate who is the National Champion, then you should stick by that system, and that system alone. Just my 2-cents.
BTW, I don't like the BCS system as I have posted many times. So, until we get a playoff, we can continue to fill our times with arguments and insults...
Last edited:
You would mean Texas 1970. Many a Texas fan question that poll (this was a recent debate on a message board), but it is also true their rules were regular season only at the time. Texas would have won in 1965 if the bowls counted (when they beat Alabama in the bowl game) so it sort of cancels out.
I only referenced 1974 and 1978 because some claim the AP is the superior poll. If so, those titles from a consistent person would have to be questioned.
My only real issue with 2003 is how ABC and ESPN - who give us the BCS - are calling it a three-peat. The de-legitimize their own enterprise to perpetrate a story.
Believe it or not I was a lifelong SC fan until this board and the current ESPN nonsense. My hero as a kid was Anthony Davis.
I only referenced 1974 and 1978 because some claim the AP is the superior poll. If so, those titles from a consistent person would have to be questioned.
My only real issue with 2003 is how ABC and ESPN - who give us the BCS - are calling it a three-peat. The de-legitimize their own enterprise to perpetrate a story.
Believe it or not I was a lifelong SC fan until this board and the current ESPN nonsense. My hero as a kid was Anthony Davis.
It is hard to believe anyone really cares about this crap. But at least I know that USC has won because they paid off the referees. And I guess Leinhart and Bush stayed because of the money. So why is Bush leaving this year? Talk about envy.
