USC - Final word

[Scott4USC]

Since the inception of the BCS, the winner of the BCS game is the national champion. Period! That is why the BCS was created. The system sucks, and we need a playoff, but until then it is 'crystal clear' who the national champion is. Congrats to LSU for their NC and congrats to USC for their 1 title and 2 runner-ups. CASE CLOSED!

WRONG! :nono:

The winner of the BCS NC game gets voted #1 by the coaches poll. Coaches poll is FORCED to vote the winner of that game #1. AP Poll has and always will vote their own National Champion.

Stop crying over the system. This is what CFB has until their is a playoff.

Coaches Poll will ALWAYS vote the winner of the BCS NC game National Champs. AP poll will vote WHOEVER they feel are the champs. So far, there has only been 1 year since the BCS started the AP disagreed. AP could have given Auburn a National Championship last year if they felt they were the best team in the country.

You people look silly crying over this system. IMO, it is better than what we had before. I am a big fan of the BCS. Otherwise we never would have seen USC vs Texas. Actually, Texas never would have won the National Championship if not for the BCS. (if USC and Texas both won their bowl games) BCS is good but they don't always put the 2 best teams in the BCS championship game. Luckily for LSU, coaches poll was FORCED to vote them National Champs. Lucky for USC, AP Poll is not obligated to vote the BCS NC game winner National Champs.

 

[kosar]

I'm not crying over the system. Ohio State has not been screwed by it, but if I was an Auburn fan I might have a different opinion.

We obviously need a playoff, but until then the NC is decided in the BCS title game.

If Sagarin, Massey, The AP, Mrs. Dewsberrys third grade class or anybody else disagrees, good for them.

 

[kosar]

WRONG! :nono:

I was wrong on one thing. Why would we necessarily consider USC the runner-up in 2003 and in 2005? I'm not sure if losing in the NC makes you the runner-up or not. I tend to think so. So in 2003, they were third.

So congrats to USC for their 1 NC, 1 2nd place and 1 3rd place finish. That's nothing to be ashamed of at all!

 

[blgstocks]

WRONG! :nono:
Stop crying over the system. This is what CFB has until their is a playoff.

You people look silly crying over this system. IMO, it is better than what we had before. I am a big fan of the BCS. Otherwise we never would have seen USC vs Texas. Actually, Texas never would have won the National Championship if not for the BCS. (if USC and Texas both won their bowl games) BCS is good but they don't always put the 2 best teams in the BCS championship game. Luckily for LSU, coaches poll was FORCED to vote them National Champs. Lucky for USC, AP Poll is not obligated to vote the BCS NC game winner National Champs.

Scott, I think all of us can agree you are the only 1 looking silly. Or maybe I am for debating a fact with someone who is delussional.

You act by your statments like being voted #1 by Coaches Poll makes a team a NC. I believe WINNING the NC game makes a team a NC. Im sorry you feel different. You are the ONLY 1!!!!! If you asked someone FROM the AP poll what makes the NC they would reply WINNING the NC game!!!!!! Not being #1 in a poll. All the smiley faces/kicking faces/crying faces in the world wont give SC 2003 NC.

And your "theory" that Coaches poll was held at gunpoint by LSU fanatics to vote them NC is classic Scott4SC nonsense. How many losses will it take next year before you become Scott4Lakers or Scott4UCLA orbetter yet Scott4clippers.

 

[THE KOD]

First of all, it was a BONEHEAD move by Bush that played a major

The guy he tried to pitch it too, I DIDN'T even know who he was. I think he is a WALK ON FB. USC starting FB got hurt on that big catch and so Hancock and this walkon Walker. On top of Bush pitch being stupid, he tried to pitch it to a freaking walk on player. :mj07:

............................................................

I still stand by my theory of the walk on guy not blocking and Bush had a momentary pissed off moment and decided to take it out on the guy by putting the ball in his hands. It makes the most sense to me anyways.

 

[ballsweat]

Have to agree for Scott4 SC for some of this

Have to agree for Scott4 SC for some of this

The contractual thing about the BCS has been disputed through and through. If USC did not win part of the National Title in 2003 then the AP title would be considered illegitamate since Day 1. Factually speaking, the AP title was part of the BCS formula but not contractually forced to vote the winner of the Sugar Bowl as the champ.

Here is the main argument for SC: in both polls prior to the Sugar Bowl they were the #1 team in teh country. A CONTRACT was in place that obligated the coaches to vote the winner of the Sugar Bowl as the coaches champ and subsuquently the BCS champ. That same BCS recognizes both LSU and USC as champs in 2003.
PLEASE READ THE PROCEEDING STATEMENT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now we all know that OU may or may not have been deserving of playing in the Sugar Bowl to the debacle against KSU, but the computers were the faction that forced the points to move in the favor of OU over USC.

I will not sit here and pontificate that SC was more deserving than LSU or OU to play in the Sugar Bowl because THEY ALL HAD ONE LOSS TO INFERIOR COMPETITION.

What I will do is ask all of you why USC has been granted a title by an authorized entity, the AP, and why the media and coaches recognize SC's title. This is the same media that recognizes the title of LSU, which I am am sure will be pointed was won because of the BCS contract signed by all the conference commissioners.

Here are a few simple questions to naysayers that SC did not deserve their 1/2 title in 2003:

• 
  If SC was voted #1 before the game and convincingly beat the #4 team in the country, do you think they should have dropped down to #2?
  
  If the BCS, the supposed reigning authority, rules that SC won a share of the title, then why is the title disputed?
  
  If AU had been voted #1 in the AP title in 2004 and USc won the BCS title, would this argument be out there again?
  
  How much of this banter is to cause emotion or to counter the amazing passiion, somewhat overwhelming as it is, that SCott has?
  
  How much of this has been caused by your hatred of USC that the media has perpetuated?
  
  
  Just a reply that that I know will do nothing. We all have our beliefs and this will never go away. Can we make my post the last post ever on this topic and just give SC and LSU 1/2 a title each?

 

[gecko]

WOW.....ballsweat comes up with one of the most honest posts I've read regarding this issue. :clap: True dat.


And ballsweat's right. Even the BCS recognizes USC and LSU as co-champs in 2003! Lot's of hating and naysaying going on about USC deserving title status, but.....If the friggin' BCS says BOTH USC AND LSU ARE NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, that's good enough for me.


Took this right from the BCS website:


http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=timeline




2003


For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl.



The Conference Champions:

Atlantic Coast: Florida State (10-2)
Big East: Miami (10-2)
Big Ten: Michigan (10-2)
Big 12: Kansas State (11-3)
Pac-10: USC (11-1)
Southeastern: LSU (12-1)



Other Participants:

Oklahoma (12-1)
Ohio State (10-2)



The Matchups:

Sugar: (2) LSU 21, (1) Oklahoma 14
Orange: (9) Miami 16, (7) Florida State 14
Rose: (3) USC 28, (4) Michigan 14
Fiesta: (5) Ohio State 35, (10) Kansas State 28



The Result:

A split decision: LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll; USC is No. 1 in the Associated Press poll.

 

[gecko]

Oh me oh my!!! A split national title in 2003???? I believe so. Hey, the BCS even said so. Or as our commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush stated, "It's my honor to recognize the football co-champs this year (2003), LSU and USC."


link to official White House press release "President Welcomes NCAA Fall National Champs to White House":

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-7.html

 

[THE KOD]

geck

You surely dont believe everything that George says about it.

 

[gecko]

geck

You surely dont believe everything that George says about it.

:142lmao: LOL....yeah, I know. DUB-YA's record is DUB-IOUS at best. But even the Prez had better stand up and "recognize".

 

[Killrus]

Assholes are like opinions. Everyone has one

 

[gecko]

You're right, killrus. I just hope everyone accepts that 2003 produced CO-NATIONAL CHAMPIONS -- LSU & USC. The proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the BCS itself. How this can be ignored is beyond me. Some folks will just believe what they want, I guess.

Sure, USC was the glamorous team going for the 3-peat vs. Texas, but LSU's share of the title shouldn't be forgotten. Nor should the Bengal Tigers' great year in trying times this past season.

 

[DerekNJND]

I'm not crying over the system. Ohio State has not been screwed by it, but if I was an Auburn fan I might have a different opinion.

This is what makes you pathetic. You tell Scott USC has no Title from 2003, and the BCS is all that matters. Then you say IF you were a Auburn fan, they would have a beef! Make up your mind. If you can see how an Auburn fan would have felt they deserved a title shot, being ranked #3 in the polls, how can you argue to a USC fan that they DIDNT win a title when they finished #1 in the poll?

:mj07: :mj07:

 

[DerekNJND]

Just because the BCS exists now doesnt mean the AP, which solely used to crown national champs since 1936, should be forgotten. There will always be the problem of co-champions until there is either a playoff, or the AP and BCS agree to some conformity. I dont see either happening soon, so 2003 scenarios will definately be repeated.

 

[Sun Tzu]

The AP never "solely" crowned the champions. There has ben UPI and many other outfits that schools have recognized. Take USC - one or more of their claimed national titles are NOT AP, UPI or BCS.
Just got to the NCAA web site and you can find this.

 

[pt1gard]

usc 10/1 for 2006-2007

 

[dlvlsu]

There is no question that the talent in the SEC is head and shoulders above the other conferences. Yet the national media still insists on ranking the schools on tradition. This is just wrong and will not be changed until a playoff is instituted.

This year, LSU finished this season playing 5 AP ranked teams and finished at #6. Let?s look at who those who finished above LSU and how many ranked teams they played. Keep in mind that the number will also contain the ranking of the team that it played in the bowl game:

Texas - 4
USC - 4
Penn State - 2
Ohio State - 3
West Virginia - 2

LSU - 5

What does this tell us? The Big 10 is the most overrated conference in the country, closely followed by the ACC. The Big Twelve and Pac 10 are about even but none come close to the SEC.

How two Big 10 teams finish in the top five is a travesty and an injustice that can only be matched by the CRIME of ANY SEC team that goes undefeated and is left out of the BCS National Championship.

 

[kosar]

This is what makes you pathetic. You tell Scott USC has no Title from 2003, and the BCS is all that matters. Then you say IF you were a Auburn fan, they would have a beef! Make up your mind. If you can see how an Auburn fan would have felt they deserved a title shot, being ranked #3 in the polls, how can you argue to a USC fan that they DIDNT win a title when they finished #1 in the poll?

Is reading comprehension a requirement in law school anymore? My comment was referring to the fact that a playoff would be a much better solution than the BCS. I would be pissed if I was an Auburn fan and was undefeated and was not able to play for a NC. It's not that difficult counselor.

 

[Sun Tzu]

There is no question that the talent in the SEC is head and shoulders above the other conferences. Yet the national media still insists on ranking the schools on tradition. This is just wrong and will not be changed until a playoff is instituted.

This year, LSU finished this season playing 5 AP ranked teams and finished at #6. Let?s look at who those who finished above LSU and how many ranked teams they played. Keep in mind that the number will also contain the ranking of the team that it played in the bowl game:

Texas - 4
USC - 4
Penn State - 2
Ohio State - 3
West Virginia - 2

LSU - 5

What does this tell us? The Big 10 is the most overrated conference in the country, closely followed by the ACC. The Big Twelve and Pac 10 are about even but none come close to the SEC.



How two Big 10 teams finish in the top five is a travesty and an injustice that can only be matched by the CRIME of ANY SEC team that goes undefeated and is left out of the BCS National Championship.

To me conference comparisons are useless. And I could just as easily argue your post means the rankings are demonstably invalid.


And last I checked lowly Mizzou from not only the Big 12 but Big 12 North beat the 2nd place team from the SEC East. Does it matter? No. But one can go in circles on this conference horsehit. Nobody cares.

 

[gecko]

Is reading comprehension a requirement in law school anymore? My comment was referring to the fact that a playoff would be a much better solution than the BCS. I would be pissed if I was an Auburn fan and was undefeated and was not able to play for a NC. It's not that difficult counselor.

kosar -


Then you can understand why Scott and other USC fans felt wronged about not playing in the championship game.

Yes, the BCS is reality right now. A bunch of powerful conferences concerned with only how they and their teams do in the postseason. That's why they love the BCS bowl system -- a bunch of second and third-tier bowls and four (soon to be five) larger revenue-generating bowls.

Taking into context your back-to-back posts on this page, you flatly deny USC the co-championship in 2003 which even the BCS apparently recognizes. This shared title is NOT a media creation (which you and others seem to believe), otherwise the BCS wouldn't even touch it. USC deserved the split title because it did finish #1 in the AP poll, which the BCS recognized. This even though LSU won the BCS title game. The fact is, like it or not, the so-called "BCS system" of crowning ONE champ did not work that year, as was originally intended....and that is why USC and LSU are co-champions.