Sun Tzu said:
Is that website trying to count the bogus 1939 title USC decided to start claiming 2 years ago? Or the bogus 1928, 1929, and 1933 titles where only one of the many polls (and probably the least respected) out there claims USC as the champion?
I can see their argument about 2003, but the course of conduct to try and stake claim to a title regardless of merit sure hurts their credibility. USC tries to claim 11 or 12 national titles and there are only 5 that are not very disputable.
The problem arises when you go earlier than WWII or 1935. Any school that was strong back then has this problem.
It is a joke that CF is maybe the only sport in the world were people can't even decide how many Championships each team has won in the past. On top of USC's 9 to 12 NC's, how many does Bama have? ND? Yale? There is no "correct" way to add the damn things up and the further you go back the more sketchy - teams that were good back then will always have more debate about their actual number of titles.
With teams that have only been contenders in modern times, it's more straight forward - for instance does UT have 3 or 4 titles (3 undisputed, 1 split)? Look at all the teams that say they have a NC even though they have never actually won an undisputed, non-split - UCLA in '54, LSU in '58 and '03, Auburn '57 - just looking at the 1950's. I think you would have a lot of angry people if you said none of these schools have ever won a football national championship and most would accept that split NC's are counted. By those rules, I come up with USC winning 9 NC's and UT winning 4 for example. USC's other 4 claims are much more sketchy and based on polls that did not have the longevity of the AP & UPI/Coaches so I think can be legitimately dismissed.
We may find ways to minimize the controversy but until a playoff is created, there will be no solution that works 100% of the time (see 2003).
