Sunday, January 15, 2006

Legitimacy and Merit: Why LSU was the only champ in 2003

**This essay is divided into three major categories: Legitimacy, Merit, and an Epilogue**

I. LEGITIMACY

We must go to the contract signed by the PAC 10 and SEC. There we will find the answer to the question of legitimacy. The BCS contract explicitly states that there is only one national championship game, and that game will determine the national champion. USC agreed to this by agreeing to be in the PAC 10. USC fans will quote a sidepage of a webpage, but neither conference or team agreed to the conditions of the webpage. They agreed to the contract.

The BCS champion is the champion. BCS is the genus and the AP and Coaches votes are the species. Both the AP and Coaches polls are subsumed by the BCS. The BCS is correctly viewed as the plumbline of champions. The National Championship game is essentially a one game playoff. The winner of that game is the National Champion. It is the in essence the same as the Final Four national championship game.

Notice that in every BCS Championship game, the winner is awarded the Championship Trophy before the coaches or media vote. That is most significant. It doesn't matter if the coaches or the AP vote another team as their #1. The BCS Trophy and Championship have already been awarded to the legitimate National Champion. Even in college sports that have playoffs, there is still a final Coaches and AP poll. The coaches and media members are free to vote anyone they choose as the champion. That they have always voted the champion as their champ is besides the point. It shows only consistency for those voters.

That was why the 2003 vote of USC #1 by the AP made no sense. They voted a team that obviously did not deserve to even make the championship game as their #1. You will see below why USC had no meritorious argument for even belonging in the national championship game.

Now I ask this question, why are the votes of some 40 out of 65 AP voters more important than the outcome of the national championship game? What would the outcry be if the same happened in basketball? You will say, of course, that basketball has a playoff. But I say that college already does since our season is so much shorter and that the Championship Game is an official one game playoff.

Some USC fans say that the BCS Championship = the USA Today Coaches Title. That is, the BCS is just a new and superfluous name given the Coaches' Title. Let us then go to the official NCAA CFB Championship page:

Official NCAA DI Past Champions Page

There you will notice that the BCS is listed independently of the "USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll" title. Also you will see that the BCS is the one and only title that is in bold. Obviously, the NCAA sees in the BCS National Championship greater significance and legitimacy than an any of the other 15 titles.
The BCS is the ONLY poll that wasn't self-appointed.
It is the ONLY poll and championship that grounds and draws its legitimacy from all the conferences and their teams that agreed to its contract. That includes USC.
It is the ONLY championship that is decided on the field.

The correct view, one upheld by the NCAA, is the view that was held by everyone until the 2003 AP/media crusade convinced some of irrational nonsense in order to prop up USC. The correct view, as the NCAA page suggests, is BCS=genus, AP / Coaches=species.

And just why was the BCS instituted? It was to provide a system that incorporated both objective and subjective elements, equally balancing them. The Coaches and AP polls had proven time and again through the years that their final votes did not always follow any logical pattern or reason. Take for instance in 1978 when USC beat Bama at Bama and finished with the same record as Bama. Who wins the AP title? Bama. It was years of this sort of nonsense that led the conferences to take absolute power out of the hands of a select few voters who had no accountability (The AP withdrew from the BCS formula largely because the BCS wanted to make the voters' ballots open to the public). The fact that USC was boosted greatly by being #1 in both polls going into the final BCS calculations and still finished #3 should show just how weak their results during the season were. Even with the pro-USC crusade, the computers could not be fooled. That's how far behind USC was in the merit category.

The view of splitting is a non sequiter, as the BCS is the determinant and legitimate source of national champions, and not the vote of Coaches and AP.

Now on to the argument of merit. You shall see below that USC and backers have no rational way to defend its ranking of #1 in the AP.


II. MERIT


Determining the relative strength of teams that do not play each other:

We make judgments about the relative strength of teams that do not play each other. It is silly to say we don't make these judgments. For instance, how do we know that LSU was better than Boise State in 2003, even though they had the same record? Or that Georgia was better than TCU?
Of course, we cannot know with any empirical certainty because to get that certainty would require that the two teams play each other.

Nonetheless, we make such judgments all the time. A team that finishes in 10-1 in the SEC or Big 10 is almost always thought of as a much, much stronger team than a CUSA team that finishes 10-1.

For instance, why in 1998 when Tennessee finished 12-0 everyone said they were the champion when Tulane also finished 12-0? It is because we have criteria on which we base these judgments. But what are the factors we use when making such a judgment? Here is a critical breakdown of what I think are the important elements that go into our rational decision making. They are ordered in order of most important to least important.

1. Win / Loss Record
2. Strength of schedule
3. Margin of victory
4. Number of ranked teams played (similar to strength of schedule, but not exactly the same because to be the best you have to beat the best).
5. Results against common opponents, if any.
6. How teams did on the road (used in NCAA bball tournament decisions)
7. Strength of defense (defense wins championships)
8. Talent and coaching

It's interesting that when it comes down to 2003, LSU was ahead of USC in each of the above categories. It makes you wonder why a slight majority of AP voters decided that USC was better than LSU, doesn't it?


Fact, Fiction, and Opinion


Fact: LSU had a tougher strength of schedule than USC.
Fact. LSU had a larger margin of victory than USC.
Fact: LSU played four times the number of ranked teams during the regular season than USC. That 400% more! Fact: LSU's only loss was to a ranked team. USC's only loss was to unranked, six loss Cal.
Fact: LSU had better results against common opponents, Arizona and Auburn, than USC.
Fact: Common opponent coaches and players, Arizona and Auburn, said after playing both teams that LSU was superior to USC. Source: Common Opponents Opinions
Fact: LSU had the #1 defense in the nation. USC had the 30th, including the 110th rated pass defense.
Fact: LSU had more wins than USC, granted one was to a Division2 team, but that team was better than two Division1 teams USC played.
Fact: LSU won two championship games, including the National Championship Game. USC won zero championship games. Its bowl win was against a team that finished #7.
Fact: LSU ended the season in what was a [i]de facto[/i] playoff. Lose, and there was no shot at a championship game. It was all quality competition, as well. LSU ended the season playing #13, #27, #5, and #3. LSU won by an average of over 15 against each.
Fact: USC finished the season playing three unranked mid-level teams before beating 3 loss Michigan (one of those losses was to an unranked team).
Fact: LSU played ranked teams on the road.
Fact: USC played zero ranked teams on the road. Considering how it did against unranked Cal on the road, had USC played some real competition on the road who knows how many they would have lost.
Fact: LSU had 5 more players from the 2003 team on NFL rosters in 2004, including 3 more starters, than USC. USC evened that number in 2004. Most of USC's 2003 talent was young, while LSU's was mature and ready for the NFL. Slight edge to LSU.
Fact: LSU's coach is currently one of the most respected coaches in the NFL. Pete Carroll? We all know how he did at the next level.


Schedules compared and analyzed

LSU proved it is #1 by beating top teams. USC went through the season playing almost exclusively #50-#60 teams. In fact, USC was voted #1 by the AP after playing just one top 25 team! And zero ranked teams on the road!

Schedules compared side by side (LSU on left/ USC on right).
Oklahoma (12-2) vs Michigan (10-3): OU favored.
UGA (11-3) vs. Washington State (10-3): UGA favored.
UGA (11-3) vs. Auburn (8-5): UGA beat Auburn.
Ole Miss (10-3) vs. Cal (8-6): Ole Miss favored.
Florida (8-5) vs. Oregon State (8-5): UF favored.
Arkansas (9-4) vs. Notre (5-7) Dame: Arkansas favored.
Auburn (8-5) vs. UCLA (6-7): Auburn favored.
------------------------------------------------
Bottom 7:
#62 South Carolina vs. #54 Washington : Washington favored.
#68 Alabama vs. #56 Hawaii: Hawaii won.
#77 LA Tech vs #67 Stanford: Stanford favored.
#89 Arizona vs #72 Arizona State: Arizona State won.
#95 Mississippi State vs #74 BYU: BYU favored.
#117 ULM vs. #89 Arizona: Arizona favored.
Western Illinois: No USC opponent to compare with.

So despite LSU playing three of the worst teams, LSU's strength of schedule is better than USC's in every computer except one. A top 5 team should be able to #60 as easily as #117. Should the strength of schedule consider beating #117 and #1 as indicative as beating #60 and#61? Would you be more impressed if LSU had beaten #1 Oklahoma and #117 Louisiana Monroe or if LSU beat #60 North Texas and #61 Tulsa? LSU's SOS was hurt greatly because of its bottom half schedule (even so, LSU's SOS was tougher than USC's!). But a great team is defined by its ability to win the tough games, which LSU has done. Beating abunch of 45-75 teams is nice for your strength of schedule, but it does nothing to prove that your team deserves a shot at the national title.

Looking at USC's schedule, it's no wonder they looked impressive onpaper. They simply played inferior opponents.

One ranked team during the regular season.
Zero ranked teams on the road.
As many losses to unranked teams as wins over ranked teams.
Embarrassing.


The LSUoverUSC Breakdown:

1. LSU is 3-0 vs. teams ranked in the final AP Top Ten with wins over #3 Oklahoma and #7 Georgia (Twice). USC is 2-0 vs. AP Top Ten teams with wins over #6 Mich and #9 Wash State, a team that was comparable to an unranked LSU opponent Arkansas.

2. LSU is 4-0 vs. teams ranked in the top 15 (top ten wins plus #13 OleMiss). USC is 2-0 vs. top 15 teams

3. LSU has FIVE wins against teams that finished in the AP Top 25. USCl has TWO wins against teams that finished in the AP

4. The seventh-highest ranked team LSU defeated (30th-ranked Auburn) was the third-best team that USC played.

5. Losses compared:
LSU's lone loss was the 24th ranked Florida. The Gators five losseswere ALL to top 15 teams (final rankings): Miami (5th), Tennessee(15th), Ole Miss (13th), Florida State (11th -- game refs stole from Florida) and Iowa (8th). In addition to beating LSU the Gators posted a win over No. 6 UGA and Arkansas (27th-RV). LSU lost the game due to turnovers. The game was close, and it took a late game fumble at the Florida 20 to seal the game for the Gators. Florida only outgained LSU by 20 yards.

USC's loss was to UNRANKED and SIX LOSS California. Cal's six losses were to Kansas State (13th) and Utah (21st) and UNRANKED Colorado State, Oregon State, UCLA and Oregon. Cal beat no other ranked teams. Cal dominated the game, and the only thing that kept USC in the game was Cal's turnovers (5 in total). Cal outgained USC by 100 yards.

6. Margin of Victory
LSU's margin of victory (22.9) was greater than USC's (22.6).

7. SECCG > Rose Bowl
USC plays a home game in the Rose Bowl against #4 Michigan (a team which also had a loss to an unranked opponent as well) and wins by 2 TDs. The media calls it a dominating victory and immediately declares USC national champs days before the polls come out.

LSU defeats #5 UGA in front of heavily UGA-partisan crowd in the Georgia Dome by 3 touchdowns. Good game says the media.

8. Common Opponents, Auburn and Arizona:
LSU defeated common opponent Auburn 31-7 after AU had won five straight including wins over then-Top Ten ranked teams in Arkansas and Tennessee. LSU sprinted out to a 21-0 lead early in the first quarter and cruised the rest of the way, taking its starters out of the game in the middle of the 3rd, up 31-0. USC defeated Auburn 23-0, but was forced to keep its starters in the entire game, up by only 2 TD's in the 4th quarter.

LSU defeated common opponent Arizona 59-13, scoring 38 first half points. The Trojans scored 35 first half points en route to a 45-0 win over the Wildcats. Pretty much a wash, until you realize that Arizona players and coaches said that LSU was a superior team to USC. Whose opinion matters more than those of the players and coaches who faced off against both teams?

9. SEC and PAC 10 Compared:
5 SEC teams finished the season ranked in the AP Top 25 compared to 2 for the PAC. The PAC went 4-2 in the bowls with the only wins over ranked teams by USC and Wash State. The SEC went 5-2 in bowls with wins by LSU over No. 3 OU, UGA over then No. 18 Purdue, Ole Miss over then No. 22 Oklahoma State. Florida lost to No 8 Iowa and Tennessee was upset by No. 22 Clemson. All 7 SEC bowl opponents were from BCS conferences, compared to 4 for the PAC. Only two Pac-10 won 10 or more games, compared to four in the SEC.

10. Bowls Compared
OU was much better than Michigan. The National Championship Game, even though it was in Louisiana, was a good 50-50 split between LSU and OU fans. The Rose Bowl, played 15 minutes from USC's campus was a good 80-20 split for USC. OU was playing for a national championship. Michigan was playing for a higher ranking. Both LSU and USC were equally dominant. The difference was that LSU was playing a far better team that had much more motivation to win in a non-LSU dominated atmosphere.

11. USC fans wanted to go to the Sugar Bowl because it was the Championship Game.
All year long, the goal of all top teams was to make it to the Sugar Bowl. Everyone rightfully assumed that if you didn't make it to the BCS Championship Game, you couldn't be named a champion. USC fans know this quite well, and you can see in the following link to pictures the sentiment among USC fans following their last regular season game against Oregon State, where they clearly want to go to the Sugar, not Rose, Bowl.

Beware of those revisionist USC fans who say they wanted the Rose over the Sugar. Not true!
Proof that USC fans wanted Sugar:
http://public.fotki.com/LSUoverUSC/ The password is "lsu" in lowercase letters.


Final BCS Standings after the bowls

The computer polls actually post new rankings after the bowl games. And since SOS changes can still be determined, Rich Tellshow has come up with the final tally.


.........................W-L...Comp..CoachAP....Ave....QW....SOS.....Total
LSU.................13-1....1.00......1......2.....1.5.....1.2.....0.52.....2.822
USC.................12-1....1.83......2......1.....1.5.....0.4....0.80......4.733
Ohio State......11-2....4.33......4......4.....4.0.....0.2....0.56.....10.294
Oklahoma.......12-2....5.00......3......3.....3.0......0......0.56.....10.56


Final Computer Rankings:

LSU wins 6 of 7 computer polls, most by SIGNIFICANT margins over USC. Only the NYTimes poll gave USC the #1 spot, by a VERY SLIGHT margin. LSU finishes 13th in the nation in SOS, ahead of OU who finishes 14thand USC finished 20th. LSU was mere fractions away from actuallyfinishing 10th. Remove the Western Illinois game, which should havenever been scheduled, and LSU finishes 8th. Computer poll results:

Kevin Massey
1 LSU..........5.060
2 USC..........4.756
3 Ohio St.....4.604
4 Georgia.....4.572
5 Miami OH...4.550

Jeff Sagarin
1 LSU..........98.21
2 USC..........95.56
3 Georgia.....92.01
4 Miami OH...91.89
5 Miami FL....91.21

NY Times
1 USC...........1.000
2 LSU............0.996
3 Maryland.....0.934
4 Ohio St.......0.927
5 Miami..........0.909

(Note: The NY Times computer was readjusted time and time again DURING the season. It continued to get whacky results. For those reasons, the BCS discontinued its use in 2004.)

Billingsley
1 LSU.............309.977
2 USC.............308.769
3 Oklahoma......295.654
4 Miami FL.......291.686
5 Ohio St.........290.926

(Note: LSU started the season 30 points behind USC in the first pollingfor Billingsley)

Anderson-Hester
1 LSU...........0.792
2 USC...........0.774
3 Miami OH....0.758
4 Oklahoma....0.746
5 Ohio St.......0.744

Peter Wolfe
1 LSU............7.634
2 USC............7.252
3 Miami OH......6.910
4 Georgia........6.904
5 Oklahoma.....6.766

Colley Matrix
1 LSU...........0.93172
2 USC...........0.91873
3 Ohio St......0.87783
4 Oklahoma...0.87058
5 Miami FL.....0.84364

As you can see, there is as much distance between LSU and USC as there is between USC and the 3rd place team in Massey, Sagarin, Anderson-Hester and Peter Wolfe. These polls are handing #1 to LSU without a doubt. Billingsley is only close because teams are not considered even going into the season, he uses a preseason ranking and USC had a 30 point margin on LSU to start off with. Colley also gives LSU some breathing room ahead of USC. What can you say about the NY Times? Maryland #3 says it all. Computer polls tell the whole story. Humans do not get to meddle with it and show their bias like the AP/Coaches poll.


III. EPILOGUE


Reasons to question and disregard the AP (and Coaches Poll for that matter):

1. Voters are not able to watch all the games. Saturdays are sportswriters and college football coaches' busiest days. If they cover the local college football beat or coach their team, they are going to be at just that game, worried almost exclusively about that game. There is not enough time to gauge accurately the other 100+ teams that play that day.

2. The AP is irrelevant. In 1998 when the BCS was formed by the major conferences, the AP was stripped of its power of giving a national championship that is recognized by the teams involved in college football. The AP saw what it perceived to be the perfect opportunity to discredit the BCS in 2003, and used the power of the press to campaign for an inferior and less deserving team. How many anti-BCS, implicitly pro-AP articles were written during December 03 and January 04? The AP was motivated to destroy the BCS for selfish reasons; so that it might once again be able to proclaim a legitimate national champion of its own.

3. The human polls are inherently flawed:

a. First, they start with a preseason poll. A team ranked in the preseason at #10 and finishes 8-3 will be ranked ahead of a team that starts unranked and finishes with the same record. Is that fair? There simply is too much emphasis, which carries over the entire season, put on preseason rankings.

b. Second, it rewards teams for losing earlier rather than later. Because USC lost a week before LSU in October matters in determining who is better and more deserving? Did you see how LSU finished its 2003 season, playing a [i]de facto[/i] playoff against 4 great teams?


The strange absence of USC fans' arguments. Where is it?

There has never been any substantial USC argument for 2003. This essay has been worked and reworked in a dialectic between USC and LSU fans. You would think, then, with an essay as comprehensive and compelling as this one, that USC fans, who claim to be smarter than LSU fans, would have an elaborate, convincing argument.

But there is none.

Why is that? Before USC beat Oklahoma in 2004's National Championship Game, its last title was in 1978. The results from the 2003 season are out in the open for everyone to see. USC fans have had ample opportunity to disprove me or prove their own case. Yet they haven't, even though the internet brings out pride in people and their causes. If USC had a case, it would have already been made. Simply put, 2003 USC is one of the most overrated teams in college football history, even more than 1984 BYU. USC fans who have analyzed their season in 2003 I think have realized this, and hope that the media will continue to pull the fleece over the public's eyes.


Wait a minute, you say human voters are wrong, but you use their rankings throughout!


Human voters are somewhat reliable in rankings. I am not saying that the AP/Coaches is irrational through and through and should be thrown out with the bathwater. By and large their rankings are close to accurate. It is a lot easier in an argument like this to say "#13" rather than "Ole Miss who finished 10-3 with a strength of schedule in the top 25." Of course, I could do it, but I choose not for your benefit. When it comes to the top spot, however, we must seriously bring into question the motives for and justification of anyone putting USC over LSU in 2005. If this were a court of law, LSU would be found legitimate and more worthy.

Concluding Remarks:
How can you win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WHEN YOU DON'T EARN A BERTH IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME? For the above reasons, USC did not deserve to be in the title game. But we're going to accept the biased, ignorant, and motivated to destroy the BCS opinion of the AP voters and its media friends? Miami OH had a more legitimate claim to the title than USC because at least Miami didn't agree to the BCS system as the way in which the two top teams would earn a spot in the title game to play for the championship. USC simply did not have the credentials in 2003 to earn a spot in the title game, muchless win the title.

Please support the cause at http://www.OnePeat.com

130 Comments:

At 12:24 AM, Blogger loveandtheft said...

"The strange absence of USC fans' arguments. Where is it?"

Disclaimer: LSU was every bit as deserving as USC to share the national title in 2003. This is simply my rebuttal to LSUoverUSC’s argument that USC doesn’t even deserve to be part of the discussion or that they are the most overrated National Champ since the ’84 BYU team.

Here's my argument, for what it's worth:

FACT: USC played more road games (6) than LSU (5) in the regular season.
FACT: USC played back-to-back road games twice on the season. LSU played back-to-back road games once.
FACT: LSU played 1 Div1-AA opponent (or was it Division 2?). USC played none.
FACT: Don’t let that difference in margin of victory fool you. Upon closer inspection: LSU won 3 games by only 7 points or less. All of USC’s victories were by AT LEAST 14 points.
FACT: What about margin of loss? USC lost by 3 in triple overtime, on the road. LSU lost by 12 AT HOME.
FACT: Don’t let the passing yardage fool you either. USC (18.3 ypp) actually gave up FEWER yards per pass than LSU (22.9 ypp). USC just faced more pass plays in the more pass-friendly Pac-10.
FACT: USC (1.8 ypc) gave up FEWER yards per rush than LSU (2.3 ypc).
FACT: USC’s D had MORE sacks (55 sacks) than the vaunted LSU defense (44 sacks).
FACT: USC’s O gave up FEWER sacks (15) than LSU (22).
FACT: USC forced MORE turnovers (+20 on the season) than LSU (+5 on the season).
FACT: USC dominated their opponents ranked in the Top 15, Michigan and Washington State, outscoring them a combined 71-31. LSU had close games against their opponents ranked in the Top 15, beating OU, Georgia and Ole Miss by only single digits (they did blowout Georgia in their second matchup).
FACT: USC lost by just 3 points, a mere field goal, in triple overtime, an aspect of the college game that was only recently introduced. FACT: LSU was dominated AT HOME in regulation, losing by 12 points; that’s double digits if you’re counting. Their offense NEVER scored, essentially SHUT OUT. Their only score was off special teams. When was the last National Champ whose offense was SHUT OUT?
FACT: USC defeated the Big 10 CHAMPION in their bowl game. LSU defeated the Big 12 RUNNER-UP, not even a conference champion.
FACT: USC’s loss came to a team that won their bowl game (Cal over Va Tech). LSU’s loss came to a team that lost their bowl game (Florida losing to Iowa). Bowl games are the final measuring stick of a team’s worth.
FACT: USC had two shutouts on the season. LSU had none.
FACT: LSU was held to 17 points or less three times on the season. USC never scored less than 23.
FACT: LSU scored 40+ points 5 times. USC scored 40+ 8 times.
FACT: Common opponents Auburn and Arizona scored a combined 20 points against LSU. Auburn and Arizona scored a combined 0, zip, zero, nada, against USC.
FACT: In your argument, you cannot use the rankings to devalue USC’s #1 ranking in the AP and coaches’ poll. It goes against all basic rules of logic to do so. For instance, if you legitimize Florida’s #24 ranking at the end of the season, in order to prop up LSU’s strength of schedule, then you are by default, likewise legitimizing USC’s #1 ranking, because the rankings of both teams are being culled from the same polls. You cannot logically place value and yet also discredit the same entity in the same argument.

Again, I just want to reiterate that LSU deserved to be in the Sugar Bowl and deserved their half of the National Championship. I am only asserting that it is absurd to think that USC didn’t even belong in the same sentence as LSU.

 
At 9:22 AM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

Fact: USC played no road games against ranked teams. Playing a bunch of middle of the pack teams on the road, unimpressive. LSU played the same number of road games during the entire season (6) as USC. Those included two against ranked teams.

Fact: Back to back road games? Is this significant?

Fact: LSU's 1AA opponent was ranked higher in the computers than 2 of USC's opponents.

Fact: The 3 games LSU won by 7 or less were against Top 14 teams: OU, UGA, and Ole Miss. Our two best performances against ranked teams were better than USC's only two performances against ranked teams, based on margin of victory.

Fact: Florida was a far better team than six loss Cal. It took a late fumble by LSU on UF's 20 late in the game to seal the game for UF.

Fact: Teams did not complete but 30 something % of their passes against LSU. When they got one complete, it was for a large gain. USC got picked apart. Overall passing and overall D is more important than avg. per pass.

Fact: Sacks? We can pick and choose silly, insignificant factors, like sacks, to bolster an argument. However, unlike me, you cannot show how the number of sacks means anything in the result of a game. Lots of teams win even when giving up 4 or 5 sacks a game. Sacks are lagniappe.

Fact: USC's defense was ranked #30. LSU's was #1.

Fact: Wins and results are better than turnover margin. Didn't USC have a better turnover margin than Texas in 2005?

Fact: LSU's best two results against ranked teams were better than USC's best (and only) two results against ranked teams. To punish LSU for playing many more games against real teams is the most ridiculous thing!

Fact: Watch the UF-LSU game and the Cal-USC game. It will become very apparent that UF-LSU were very close. Cal played a better game than USC, and USC was extremely lucky just to get into overtime.

Fact: LSU was not shutout by Florida. Does it matter how a team scores? LSU's offense finished the season averaging 35, against #27, #5, and #3.

Fact: If LSU kept in its starters all game like USC was forced to, LSU would have at least 3 shutouts.

Fact: You beat a Michigan team that finished ranked #7. Michigan lost 3, including one to an unranked team. Oklahoma, though not a conference champion (according to PAC 10 rules they actually would be a conference champion, though), only lost 2 (both to top 15 teams, including #1). I think you'll have a hard time selling to anyone outside of Michigan that Michigan was better than Oklahoma. Or that Michigan was better than two time opponent of LSU, Georgia.


The reason I use polls in my argument is that they do a relatively good job of ranking teams. Therefore, when I argue saying "The #14th team so and so" it is an argument of convenience. I could say LSU's opponent who finished 10-3 with a top 25 strength of schedule did so and so. But that is not brief and to the point. Giving a ranking cuts through that. AP/Coaches are usually accurate to an approximation. However, especially in the case of its #1, there are other consideratoins that must be taken account for. For instance, did the AP have any motives to vote USC #1? Most importantly, did USC really deserve #1?

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Christopher Williams said...

Love the blog, check out mine when you get time.
http://cdubsissyman.blogspot.com/

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous JayB said...

To refute loveandtheft's "argument" (i.e. invalid, irrelevant "points,") I'll say that MANY teams could claim superiority over any given team by picking and choosing stats that may seem significant but in actuality are nothing more than making a team look better on paper.

When looking at the bigger picture, LSU is THE champion. Period. USC has NO "half."

Put LSU (or any other team for that matter) in USC's place in 2003. Let's pretend for a moment that the 2003 Sugar Bowl matched together USC and OU and LSU had to play Michigan (this is all hypothetical, but relevant.) USC beats OU and LSU beats Michigan. Does LSU win the AP Title? Why or why not? I think that LSU (or any other team)would get NOTHING! Why should they when they didn't win the BCS GAME? Think I'm full of it? Look at Auburn in '04. I think they deserved some "AP love" didn't they? Did they get any? No, because USC had already started its affair with the AP. It's sad but true.

USC was good in 2003, but so were a myriad of other teams. There are WAY too many variables to speculate on WHO the better team is/was. That is my MAIN reason for claiming LSU as the one and only champion from 2003. Well that and the fact that LSU has the crystal ball on display in Baton Rouge.

 
At 11:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great argument there, buddy. USC grad, right?

The National Champ game had #1 and #2.
The Rose had #3 and #4.

Next time don't agree to a system if you're not willing to live up to its rules.

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear LSUOVERUSC Blog,

Hello, I am currently the head of the editorial staff at ESPN.com. I would like to interview the owner of this site for an upcoming article. Would you please post your email address on the front page so that I might contact you?

Thank you,
MHE

 
At 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

USC OWNS YOU. USC DIDNT SIGN THE BCS! USC HAS A BETTER ARGUMENT WE JUST DONT LIE LIKE YOU. USC #1 FO EVA AND EVA AND EVA. 3PETE

 
At 9:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually UCS did agree to the BCS, LSU could have many more titles if they claimed being recognized from any publication like USC.

 
At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are saying that the AP National Championship means nothing, then LSU should give back its 1958 championship. Only then will your argument have any merit.

CBass33

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

You must have missed the opening paragraphs of the essay.

The AP Title mattered before 1998. But when the major schools agreed to the BCS, the AP mattered only in that it helped determine the participants in the national championship game.

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No SC fans are arguing because there is no debate. This idea was merely created out of the anger of LSU fans. The AP is accepted by the entirety of the college football community, including the BCS itself, with only few exceptions (as there are also a few fools who do not accept the BCS champion as well). No one seriously debates the fact that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way; your debate is clearly flawed ab initio. Now if you were to argue for the discontinuation of the AP as a valid selector it would be a fair debate. However, even then you would have to consult the Div.I athletic directors--I don't see them rushing to get rid of it.

 
At 4:10 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

I would recommend you read the BCS contract, which USC signed, and states that there is but one national championship game, which will decide the national champion. That essentially makes the AP illegitimate and ancillary to all BCS teams involved.

The lack of USC argument is not really regarding the AP/BCS. It is about the merit of USC. There is no meritorious argument in favor of USC. That is why every objective observor of CFB in 2003 could easily decipher that LSU was far better and more deserving of a spot in the national championship game.

 
At 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I don't think you are a lawyer (please, no offense intended). The BCS agreement did not foreclose any other selector awarding a national championship nor was there any prohibition against recognizing such a selection. There was no exclusionary language in the affirmative. Basic contract law. Plus, as you certainly know, the BCS website recognizes the split (no matter who penned the article's timeline).

Now, getting over that issue,the merits: I'm not going to argue that as it is not relevant at all. However a selector chooses may not be agreeable but the truth is many questionable teams in the past have been selected, deserving or otherwise. Probably half or more of the national championship selections are flawed in some way. But I would point out that this is a beauty contest with warts. If you wish to call many champions undeserving, fine. BYU is a controversial choice but the trophy is not being taken away. There have been many ugly teams picked for whatever reason. I do not believe in stripping teams of NC's under any circumstances but I don't mind looking back to see if something could be added--1964 Arkansas comes to mind.

Without a playoff, this will happen. What about other sports with human judging? Not always good but once again, the medals aren't usually given back.

Also, stats are not really that good an indicator of performance: The Twins won the World Series in 1987 but were out-scored for the regular season.

By the way, mathematical formulae for picking NC's are not new--Dickenson used it from 1924 to 1940 with controversial results but it was the main selector of its time. Some schools don't like that either but I say so what.

Remember, sports isn't about justice per se but about competition for the kids and the fans who enjoy the games. I would never take anything away from LSU and your argument as to which team is better is a fair one standing alone but I really think that until and unless the athletic directors say otherwise the AP will also stand. Seriously, have you thought about contacting some of them? Even if the BCS language were to be air-tight (which it clearly is not) I would almost certainly bet that by consensus they would still recognize the AP. There is presently little incentive not to.

Good discussion and best of luck.

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

That is why there is insurance on the billboard. If it is defaced, the company hosting the ad will have to pay to fix it. That means the company has an interest in protecting it, and it will be protected.

Violent reactions as the ones USC fans are threatening is the response of those who have no other means of responding. If you had an argument, you could fight fire with fire.

 
At 6:02 PM, Anonymous K Jizzle said...

Just want you guys to know that this billboard isn't going to last a night in LA... if anyone can even find it (there aren't any billboards near USC). Personally if I see it around I'm going to bust out my water balloon launcher and throw some paint in some balloons and LAUNCH AWAY. If you guys think that I would actually be tried and found guilty of vandalism then you are kidding yourself. We're the state who let OJ off for killing people (SC alumni) and MJ for playing with little kiddies.

 
At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll try again. The BCS contract did not foreclose a split championship. There is no affirmative exclusionary language which would be required. You are not a lawyer so don't try to be. Have you checked with the athletic directors regarding recognition of the AP? I bet you would get an overwhelming consensus that they recognize it. They have never indicated that it is not legitimate as you try in vain to argue, nor, I suspect, will they ever. In fact, even if the BCS language were airtight (which it's not) I am certain they would still recognize the AP and I doubt they would consider eliminating it.

That being said, what does it matter at that point who is better? It is a moot point. Do you think BYU will give their 1984 trophies back? They have the hardware despite what you might think about the strength of their team. Many questionable champions have been selected but that does not take away their legitimacy. In fact, I would bet over half of the national champs have flaws (see all the splits) causing some question. That being said, the recognition is that it's a split. Period. Now you can go on to a discussion of the two teams' merits standing on its own, free from the NC debate. That's fine and the debate will go on forever (as it probably should). But the split can't be ignored no matter how you feel about it.

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Analogy:

Group of friends get together for some pickup basketball. They play a round robin tournament. One team that looks good loses in bracket play. Because of that loss they don't make the championship game.

Then some of the onlookers say that team that didn't get in the championship game is the champion.

That's what happened basically. The team didn't make it to the big stage, and a bunch of onlookers said they were better than the champion.

Doesn't make them the champion, does it?

 
At 10:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The analogy is absurd and doesn't deserve comment. However, I commend Chris--I disagree with almost everything he has said but I admire his passion. I also appreciate the fact that his board at least has an honest discussion without the garbage and attacks of some of the other boards. Good job!

 
At 12:28 AM, Blogger loveandtheft said...

In the Daily Bruin article, the originator of onepete.com is quoted as saying, "We are simply exposing USC's embarrassing attempt at claiming a part of the 2003 BCS National Championship."

I think this is the crux behind his dementia. He somehow believes Pete Carroll tried to organize some kind of coup to overthrow the BCS and force Nick Saban to at least saw the crystal ball in half and FedEx it back to L.A.

The truth is, USC never tried to lay claim to the crystal prize, nor did they ever boycott the Rose Bowl and have their players storm the Superdome during the singing of the Nationl Anthem and attempt to challenge a combined squad of LSU and OU at the Sugar Bowl.

USC simply stayed atop the AP polls to win the AP title. Nothing more, nothing less.

There never was some grand scheme to breach the BCS contract.

 
At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the analogy seems appropriate. A team who doesn't make it to the championship game is voted champion by some onlookers. That's exactly what happened in 2003.

By claiming a title in 2003, USC breached its contract with the BCS, a contract that states there is one national championship game and the winner of that game is the national champion. Now you are deducing from a contract only what it does not say. The spirit of that contract is that the AP/Coaches polls are relevant only in that they will be components of the formula to decide which two teams will play in the national championship game. If you were to bring the contract to a judge, he would say that.

 
At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BCS determines who plays in the BCS championship game. Period. It does not, and I'll say it again, it does not foreclose another organization from awarding nor prohibit an institution from accepting a national championship. In fact, using contract law, the parties clearly agree to this: The BCS and coaches did not file an injunction against USC and the AP nor did any ahtletic directors complain. In fact, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the BCS website recognizes the split. If they didn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned or, at the least, it would have noted that it was improper or illegitimate. The way the parties approach the agreement is an important part of the contract process and no affirmative move was made to eliminate the AP title, before or after. Really, where's the injunction? I don't think you would get too many athletic directors on that legal bandwagon. In fact, if Chris has so much time, why doesn't he do a survey of all 119 Div.I AD's to find out. At the least, he could see if there is a movement to eliminate the AP in the future. (It won't happen.)

 
At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In legal terms it is called the "intent of the parties" when a contract is entered into. There is no extrinsic evidence which would indicate that the AP was to be disregarded as a national championship selector. The analysis of the previous post is correct. He (she) is also right when looking to the actions of the parties during the contract.

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger loveandtheft said...

The pickup basketball game analogy is invalid in that every team in the round robin lost, not just the team that "looks good". There were no undefeated teams in '03.

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at the World Cup group pairings. Some times two teams have the same record, but only one advances to a playoff. That's what happened to USC. They had the same record as OU (LSU had a better record) and because USC lost to unranked six loss Cal, they got left out.

USC, only champions to 40 media voters

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I would say the "intent of the parties" was to enter into a system to determine the national champion. The purpose was to move away from the using subjective polls to crown a champion. So yes, there is evidence that would suggest the AP poll was to be disregarded as a national championship selector.

 
At 12:19 AM, Blogger loveandtheft said...

True, USC was only champs to the media via the AP title, but they never made any claim otherwise.

USC never boycotted the Rose Bowl, they never petitioned to have the crystal ball sawed in half.

Where is the breach in contract?

If "Reader's Digest" magazine or "Butterfly Collector's Quarterly" decided to vote USC national champs that year, is that a breach in the BCS contract?

Same goes for the AP.

If you personally think the AP title is meaningless, and as valid as Butterfly Quarterly, so be it.

USC never once tried to lay claim to any part of the BCS title.

LSU won the crystal ball, and USC never tried to take any part of it away, so really, what is the big deal?

If you honestly believe the AP to be worth squat, then why not let USC be content with their squat title?

It is to be disregarded isn't it? So why even the existence of this blog?

 
At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's even more laughable is that if the AP was so troublesome why didn't LSU immediately file an injunction or cease and desist order to stop any other claim? That would have gone over real well.
Do you also remember when the AP refused to have their votes for champion automatically go to the BCS championship game winner? At that time, the possibility of a split was noted and the AP was not removed from the equation, allowing them to vote as they saw fit. Never did the BCS or anyone else say that the AP was to be disregarded. Please don't try to revise history. If the BCS was to be the only champion they would have told the AP at that time that they were no longer to be considered, yet the discussion at the time suggested the possibility (

 
At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(just finishing) of a split, although highly unlikely (but we now know better).

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous MannyWright said...

Everyone knew the Championship Game was to be seen as a one game playoff. If you didn't make it there, you couldn't champion. Even USC saw this:

"The Trojans (11-1, 7-1 Pac-10) find out Sunday whether they will travel to New Orleans to play for the national title in the Sugar Bowl, or stay home and play in the Rose Bowl.

They were No. 2 in the BCS rankings this week. The top two teams in the final BCS rankings will meet in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship.

Pac-10 champion USC already had clinched at least a spot in the Rose Bowl."

Well, they ended up only going to the Rose Bowl and not the national title game in the Sugar Bowl.

It's bad when even USC's site says what we're saying.

http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/120603aaa.html


USC signed the contract. That's all that matters.

And that's only half of the LSUoverUSC argument!

 
At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are still wrong, but obviously you didn't read (or pay attention to) the previous posts. You also only cited a part of the entire story. Look, the bottom line is that the entire rational football community outside of LA recognizes the AP. To not do so is petty and shows a terrible insecurity and inferiority. This is becoming a waste of time. It's like arguing who has the bigger desk or better office. The AP is legit so get over it. If you don't like it, as the lawyer-types have said, file an injunction! Call the athletic directors! I don't think you'll like the responses.

With that said, I think the better debate is which team was superior. That's not petty and is always a good topic. The other stuff just shows a lack of appreciation for the sport as a whole and a lack of respect for each institution. There's a lot of wasted anger over a situation which has already been settled.

 
At 11:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's pretty clear that the who was better debate is strongly on LSU's side.

 
At 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmm. Not a flame, but I remember College Football News (a notorious USC basher) had USC by a touchdown over LSU after the dust had settled. Does anybody remember that or have the article from the site? I do not know their reasoning and would like to see if it could be un-earthed from 2004. (C'mon Chris...you've got it somewhere!) Thanks

 
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Picture of the scoreboard after LSU won the National Championship.

Well, I'm convinced! What does it take the win the National Championship? Well, I guess that you'd first of all have to actually play in the National Championship game [LSU - CHECK! / USC - Nope]. Then I suppose you'd have to then WIN that game [Again, LSU - CHECK! / USC - Nowhere close]. Well, since the inflated west-coast egos of USC would be too sorely hurt if they lost their hopes and aspirations for a national title to LSU, who actually won, I guess that we'll just soften the blow and the schools can SHARE the title! That way everyone wins! :(

Well, USC needs to get used to playing college football or play flag football in PE where both teams get to win and everyone goes out for ice cream afterward. Besides, if USC is so fervently attracted to the idea of this pansy-ass sharing of the title when we don't want to hurt the feelings of those who can't handle the spirit of competition, then they should also split their 2004 win with Auburn. BUT THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS! Two teams play the game, one wins and the other loses. Some third team that didn't even have the opportunity to play shouldn't just be considered as the winners as well. It's football, not rocket science. :P You have winners and losers. I can't believe that there's even a debate about this!

 
At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

God. The debate was about the AP. If you don't like it, fine. The moon's also made out of green cheese and the sun's LSU purple. I've had eough and probably should get back to work. Good luck everyone!!!

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm one of the "lawyer-types" and I think I'll take my cue from the previous post and check out. I believe I've contributed all I can at this point so my "services" are no longer needed. I had a blast and I hope that the animosity between USC and LSU will die down, at least until they have the chance to play in the future.

 
At 4:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't Vegas say OU would beat LSU by 8?

NFL scouts said LSU was better than USC.

LSU, the only champ in 2003

Dont cry USC. You got your first and only title in 28 years in 2004.

 
At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, and your only two were split. Go Iowa!!!

 
At 5:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iowa doesn't even claim the 58 one.

That's right. According to USC, they have 11. Including 39. LOL.

LSU, 2 undisputed national championships.

USC only has 4!

How you like DEM apples?!

 
At 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, 5 undisputed, 6 split. When we get done, Iowa will get theirs and you'll be really happy for them, won't you?

By the way, anyone objectively notice the quality of the USC posts versus those of LSU? Agree or not, most of USC's are intelligent and well-thought out while the LSU ones are childish rants for the most part. I think that says a lot.

 
At 6:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must not have been here long. The immature USC fans get deleted. I've seen tens of them.

Still no USC argument.

USC: 5 undisputed championships.

LSU: 2 undisputed championships.

Not all that far ahead now, are you?

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's 11 to 2. Pretty far ahead I would think. No catching up in our lifetimes. And yes, splits do count. Frankly, no one cares what you have to say. Go to any major source such as Sporting News Almanac, Wikipedia, Rauzulu's Street, NCAA web site, etc. You can have two and think you'll take away all you want from us if it makes you feel better. It's spitting in the wind and proves nothing other than you are angry and bitter that you don't have more.

 
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous tOSU said...

2003 - USC doesn't earn a spot in the national championship game. So Pete Carroll complains, proclaims the Rose Bowl as the real national champoinship game, and Matt CokeLineArt wears an "F the BCS tshirt."

2004 - Undefeated Auburn, with a tremendous SEC schedule, is excluded from the national championship game. Pete Carroll and company say BCS worked fine.

Can't have it both ways.

USC either has two halves, or just one.

Based on the contracts, I m more inclined to say that they have nothing from 2003, and one from 2004.

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You people are just too stupid to read. The contract discussion above makes it clear. And Auburn was ranked no. 3 going in, not No. 1 as was USC. Big difference but one you conveniently overlook. You are really humiliating yourselves. I guess you'll have to resort to personal attacks to win like most of you have been doing.

 
At 10:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to throw my two cents into this argument. First of all I am an LSU grad. Some LSU fans feel very strongly about the split title but really this billboard thing is all in good fun. It's college football rivalry gone mad. Plus, it is very fun to debate. As I see it, here is the main issue involved here: "In the BCS era, does the #1 team in the final AP poll have a valid claim to the national championsip based solely upon their ranking in that poll?"

It is my belief that the #1 team in the final AP poll does not have a valid claim to the national championship based solely upon that ranking. Of course this is only true for the BCS era. If they did however, I would say that it is certainly less of an "official" campionship. If we were to go back, before the 2003 controversy erupted, and ask any college football fan how we crowned a national champion, they would say that the winner of the BCS would be the champion. Nobody would have said either the BCS winner OR the AP poll winner.
While it is true that a BCS title game may not bring us a controversy free champion, it is the system we have in place. It may not be a playoff but it is certainly better than the old system. Basically, the argument I hear from those who say USC had a valid share of the 2003 title is that since the AP never agreed to the BCS, that they are free to name their own champion. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I hear. They would be right in their argument as well, but whether the AP agreed to anything or not does not matter. What matters is what the participants of college football, the conferences, agreed to. After all if you are going to play a game you establish the rules with the other players, not the spectators. So the AP can name their own champion but it is not the one the conferences have officially recognized. The difference between the BCS system and every poll that has ever existed is that the BCS was the first and only system that all the major conferences ever collectively and officially agreed to recognize as a national champion selector. That does not make the BCS perfect, it does not make it a playoff, but it does make it something more "official" than any other system we have had.
Further, there are those that would argue that the contract between the BCS and the conferences never specifically excluded the AP poll as a selector, therefore it is valid. I personally think this is the type of argument that is made on playgrounds throughout our country. That is saying, well, since we never said we couldn't do it, it makes it ok. Besides that though, to say that the AP poll is still valid as a national champion selector because it was never specifically excluded is an illogical argument. This is because the nature of a "champion" is a singular nature. The inclusion of one selector (BCS) necessarilly excludes any and all others (AP). The idea of a split title runs counter to the concept of a "champion." The term co-champion is really an oxymoron. When the conferences signed up with the BCS, all other national champion selectors became invalid. Logically you do not need nor can you have multiple ways to select a national champion. That is why the agreement did not need to specifically exclude the AP and it also did not need to declare the BCS the "only" selector. Please let me know if I am wrong.

 
At 2:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LSUOverUSC

Brief
First, I am a Trojan fan. Figured I should clear that up. Second, I completely support LSU in their 2003 BCS NC, which is the most prestigious NC awarding poll today. The media decided to hype up USC by calling them potential back-to-back NCs for the purpose of ratings increases for the 2004 Orange Bowl NC Game. However, I stand firm when I say USC should be recognized as split-champions for the 2003 season, as the AP, a long respected poll, awarded USC their NC.

Fact: The AP (Associated Press) has been around since the 1930s, and has maintained NC recognition power.

Fact: LSU won the AP national championship in 1958. If you deny the AP credibility today, then admit that LSU's AP NC in 1958 is worth nothing. The AP is an established and well-respected ranking system in the world of sports. Yes, the BCS retains current power in recognizing NCs. However, the AP is an independent poll which still has the prestige to recognize NCs (obviously).

Fact: The BCS is a computer poll. The AP is a human poll. A flaw in the BCS let an undeserving OU team into the NC game in 2003. OU lost 35-7 to KSU in their CCG. The CCG is a regular season game. This loss should have pushed them back in the rankings, but the BCS kept them at #1 due to game statistics (margin of victory etc).

Fact: The Pac-10 does not require a CCG as it harbors 10 teams. The Big 12 harbors 12 teams. OU played 8 Big 12 teams in 2003. OU did not play 3 other Big 12 teams, one of them being KSU. KSU won 35-7, and claimed the CC. USC beat the Pac-10 runner-up WSU during the season. USC did not play Oregon. There was no need for a CCG as Oregon finished behind WSU, and USC beat WSU. That won them the CC.

Fact: Going into the bowl season, USC was ranked number one in both the AP and Coaches Polls. By contract, the Coaches are OBLIGATED to vote the BCS NC winner number one. Had they not been obligated by contract, they would have voted USC #1 as USC had no problem defeating Michigan in the Rose Bowl, whereas LSU struggled against OU. The AP is not obligated to vote the BCS NC winner number one. They voted USC #1, and as a result crowned them 2003 National Champions. They felt USC was the better team. This is a human poll which proved more reliable in 2003 than the BCS due to a major flaw in regards to OU's NC entrance. Any claim that the AP does not matter anymore is invalid and a pathetic argument. You used AP rankings to justify LSU's SOS in 2003, but denied the AP credibility as NC recognizers. Admit to that loss. Not everything can be perfect, sorry. You use words such as 'relatively' and 'approximation' in your argument countering the person who brought this issue upon you. If the AP/Coaches are only "relatively accurate," then you shouldn't use them in your argument of SOS as they are not legit. Illegitimate sources make arguments seem invalid and unaccepted. You claimed they are "usually accurate." They just weren't accurate in this case because LSU wasn't voted number one, correct? That is an extremely biased response to a legitimate argument. Going back to your claim that the AP only matter before 1998. Seems to me it only mattered because LSU received an NC from them in 1958. Biased.

Fact: The game should have been LSU vs. USC. a BCS flaw prevented this match-up. If you use margin of victory in your arguments, then margin of loss should be accepted as well. USC had a MOL consisting of 3 points. OU had 28. LSU had 12.

Fact: Since the match-up discussed did not occur, USC is recognized as a NC of 2003 due to illegitimate denied access to the NC game.

If you cannot accept, review, and respond to this argument with legitimate and unbiased arguments, then I will view your entire argument as childish, selfish, and anger-fueled.

Dynasty:

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations

Family/Group - USC Football Team
control of power - 54 of 64 games won since Pete Carroll joined the USC Football Staff. 3 Heismans in his 5 year reign. 4 BCS Bowl Bids in his 5 year reign, 3 wins. Two recognized AP National Championships, one BCS Championship.
generations - 2003, 2004, 2005


Regards,

Trojans0950 on espn.com

Your welcome to review my posting history if you need some firepower and what not. If it is not necessary then forget it. Please, don't post anything unrelated to this topic. Ex: I recently posted a message requesting information on car accidents related to the use of marijuana in 2004 for the state of Georgia. If you respond with something like, "Your just a drug-addict pot-head," or something along the lines of that, then you are proving yourself defeated due to the irrelevance. Grammatical erros within my reponse are another example. I'm sure you will get the concept. Anything else? Oh yea, my number of posts on espn.com is not appealing. Forgive me for not spending my life on there. Well, I guess it doesn't really matter as the majority of your posts are the same argument. Just a copy-paste method, eh? I just don't want you using post count for credibility reasons. I think that's about it.

Well, good job and keep up the good work. Hope to see that billboard in no-time. It'll just give the team a little motivation, which is always appreciated.
Peace. <--- California hippy remark?

 
At 7:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LSUOverUSC ...

I came back just to add a couple more closing remarks.

Fact: How does LSU claim to be NCs if they didn't play the number one team in 2003? Again, you used AP rankings in your arguments to justify LSU's SOS. USC was ranked #1 in this same ranking system going into Bowl Season. Michigan did not beat USC. Hence, they remained the number one team in the ranking system you use for comparison. This ultimately summarizes my argument.

Fact: The BCS webpage recognizes USC as national champions. You respond to this fact by saying a "sidepage" doesn't count. That sidepage was authorized and cleared by the BCS organization. How is it worthless? I won't bother posting the link as you have seen it several times.

Fact: The NCAA recognizes USC as NCs, AS WELL AS LSU. Note: In my arguments, I am in no way discrediting LSU of a NC in 2003. I am crediting USC of a share of the 2003 NC due to a major BCS flaw and public vote (AP/Coaches [would have voted USC #1 had they not been forced to vote LSU 1 due to BCS contract obligations, as USC was 1 going into Bowl Season and beat opponent Michigan without much of a fight. I believe 4 coaches violated the contract and voted USC 1.]) selecting USC as the number one team.

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

 
At 7:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LSUOverUSC ...

More:

Fact: I put fact down because you did in your original argument. Someone on espn.com hassled me because all of the material I post isn't necessarily factual, but neither is yours in the same sense. It starts out as fact them becomes opinionated, which is completely understandable as you as just trying to justify your arguments with emotion. I can list examples if you wish. I won't bother now as that is not my main interest currently.

Fact: You bring up the point that USC and the Pac-10 agreed to a BCS contract stating that there is only one national championship game. One point you fail to confront is the fact that it isn't just USC claiming the NC. It is the AP crowning USC the NC, and USC using that crown as a backbone to support their NC. If you don't like it, you need to contact the Associated Press about the situation and pitch them your essay. USC is not going to give up their well-earned AP title until the AP says otherwise.

Fact: Wouldn't you admit some of your "facts" are misleading and irrelevant? The one about Pete Carroll being a worse coach than Saban because of his NFL record? Pardon? By the way, PC didn't do that bad. He did make the playoffs. The fact about LSU having more NFL players that year than USC. How is that relevant? That decides the outcome of the USC vs. LSU game or who deserved to be the NC? Games are decided on the field, not on paper. I haven't checked if this is valid as it just came to mind, but I believe USC has more players going to the NFL this year than Texas? Texas beat USC in the NC. Just kind of seems like you are trying to juice your argument with secondary information about the teams. Like the part where you said LSU played 400% more ranked teams than USC. Yeah, we are all mathematically advanced to the point where we can calculate simple percentages.

Fact: You said LSU did better against Arizona and Auburn than USC did. USC shutout both Arizona and Auburn. What are you basing this idea off of? An article from players saying LSU was better? Good for them. That is their personal opinion and they are entitled to that opinion. How does that determine the outcome of USC vs. LSU?

This is becoming rather fun. I might keep researching the topic.

Regards,
Trojans0950

 
At 8:50 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

Fact: USC, through the PAC 10, signed onto the BCS. The intention was to ally itself with a governing body whose goal was to determine the top two teams in the nation based on both human and computer components. Those two teams would then play in the national championship game. The winner of that game would be crowned the national champion on the field, and not by voters.

Fact: When all the major conferences agreed to the BCS in 1998, the AP was relegated to at best ancillary significance in the national championship picture. The only significane it had, in reality, was being part of the BCS system in determining who would play in the national championship game.

Fact: The BCS is a combination of computer and human polls. In 2003 it was 50/50. It was developed because coaches and university presidents saw that the human polls consistently did not always vote the best or most deserving team #1. It also did not factor in margin of victory in 2003.

Fact: The PAC 10 won neither a conference championship game or the national championship game in 2003.

Fact: LSU won the national championship game.

Fact: Had USC not lost to a six loss, unranked team and beat some real competition (one top 25 opponent doesn't cut it), the objective components of the BCS formula might have shown USC some more love and boosted them into the championship game. But reality was USC played no one and lost to a no one.

Fact: USC was voted #1 by a slight majority of media members. Legitimate? I think not.

USC is a dynasty in that they had a nice streak and won 3 of the past 4 Heismans (was Reggie Bush better than Vince Young?). Miami a couple years before 2003 had a nice and comparable streak. 34 straight wins. One national championship and a loss in their second national championship game. But to call a team that has won only one national championship in the past 28 years a dynasty in the sense in which it was being used is uncalled for.

LSU is the national champion (does not need to "claim it" because we won the national championship on the field in the national championship game that paired the top two teams in the poll that mattered, in the poll that both LSU, OU, and USC agreed would be the poll. Also, if you read the entire argument, you will see why I use AP/Coaches rankings in the part of the comparison of the two teams. It is for convenience, not out of necessity. Should I say "Ole Miss who was 10-3 with a SOS at #21" or the #13 team in the nation? BTW, based on just objective factors, Ole Miss is comparable to Michigan. In other words, LSU's 4th toughest opponent is comparable to USC's toughest.

The BCS webpage really doesn't matter because it is not the BCS contract which both teams agreed to. Of course, whoever posted that blurb on the BCS page wrote it back at the end of 2003 when the AP was threatening to pull out of the BCS and was writting a host of anti-BCS articles. The guy writing the article must have thought throw a bone to the AP to appease them. Either way, the signed contract is binding. A webpage is not.

Fact: The NCAA does not recognize any national champion for DI CFB. That is why the BCS was formed. It was so that, even though the NCAA doesn't recognize a leg champ, the major players in the race would.
Mentioning coaches voting USC #1 shoots down your argument about Coaches having to vote LSU #1. Because 3 coaches voted USC #1, it is obvious that they didn't have to as you say they did. Either way, regardless of how the coaches or press voted, LSU was awarded the trophy. It was awarded before the vote of the coaches or press. It was awarded on the field of the national championship game.

The only nonfactual information in the little segment "fact, fiction, opinion" is about talent and coaching. The rest, however, is pure, unadulterated fact. I only mentioned talent because that was the only USC argument in 2003. We kept hearing how USC was so much talented than LSU. So you must understand that the talent part was conditioned based on circumstances of when it was written. The fact was that USC was not more talented than LSU, and as for when the championship game took place, it would be hard to argue based on NFL draft results that in 2003, LSU had more mature talent than USC. At least that's what NFL scouts who scouted both teams said.

My segment about Arizona and Auburn says all that needs to be said about it. LSU could have beaten Auburn 50-0 had we kept our starters in the entire game, as USC was forced to do. Arizona results were a wash.

Thank you for you questions and pleasant attitude.

 
At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, the AP only became irrelevant in 1998 because you personally wanted it to be. Never, never, never was the AP relegated as you claim. Go back to what happened before the bowls in 2003 and you'll find article after article discussing the possibility of a split. You also conveniently ignore the argument raised before that if there was a breach of contract it would have been raised. LSU didn't do so and no one else did. NO claim of breach, NO actual breach. I agree with the previous post before yours, contact AP or better yet, contact LSU and demand suit be filed for breach of contract. If the schools recognize it, it's gold.

I hope the USC poster does some more research. As someone also noted way back in this thread, the Division I athletic directors and conference comissioners should be contacted. They are the parties to the BCS agreement and if they say AP is OK then you have your answer, like it or not.

 
At 10:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They mean nothing with regards to the national championship picture. Pre-1998 is a different story. Before then there was no officially recognized champion selector. However, with the BCS, all the major conferences collectively and officially agreed to recognize the BCS as a champion selector. The BCS is the only champion selection process that that has been done for. You cannot say that about the AP. The reason that the AP is discredited as a national champion selector with the inclusion of the BCS is because logic implies it. If you agree on one way to pick a champion you necessarilly exclude all others. If not, then you would be left with the possibility of a split championship. A split championship is a contradiction of terms, therefore the possibility cannot be left open. That is why if you want to agree on a way to crown a champion, you pick one way and necessarilly exclude all others. It is implied.

 
At 1:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best quote from 2004: "USC is the National Champion like Al Gore is President"

 
At 6:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Trojan fan in Lower Alabama here.

History will show that Al Gore wasn't elected President by the AP poll. History will show that the AP poll crowned USC it's Champion for 2003-2004 season. It's a split NC, and always will be. All the relevant points have been brought up, and yet the facts do not change. LSU won the BCS championship in '03-04, and USC won the AP championship in '03-04 end of story.

You might not like it, but apart from spouting rhetoric, what can you do? Erect? $10,000 worth of USC "bulletin board" material? It may not bear the fruit it's LSU alum progenitor intends it to. I'm guessing the '06 Trojans won't bow and weep should they happen to see it, but rather be inspired to excellence on the football field fueled by this silly anachronism of a debate.

If you still feel so strongly about it, why not take legal action to get the AP to rescind USC's championship that year?

Better yet, lobby LSU's AD to drop Tulane or MTSU from your schedule, and pencil in USC. Throw the gauntlet publicly, and we'll see what Mike Garrett says. I'm guessing no Trojan AD would back away from a home and home with LSU.

Anyway, good luck in '06 and I hope you'll quit looking in the rearview mirror long enough to enjoy what looks to be a pretty good LSU football team next season.
Fight On!
Lower Alabama Trojan

 
At 7:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Al Gore analogy is good, just as the basketball analogy above.

Al Gore won the peoples' vote (read, AP).
But the peoples' vote isn't what matters.
Everyone already agreed to the electoral college (read, BCS).
Al Gore (read USC) did not win the electoral college.

Therefore Al Gore is not President.

It actually is a better analogy than the basketball one.

 
At 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, no one, implicitly or otherwise discredited the AP at any time (until LSU does now). Check with the conferences and see if they recognize AP....But even more importantly, the schools themselves recognize their own NCs. The only limitation is to "self-police" which means that no school would accept the so-called dinner club trophy which would otherwise subject them to ridicule. No one outside of LSU seriously discredits the AP and in fact, USC has been pretty circumspect in accepting its NCs--they all come from the major selectors whic include AP, UPI, BCS, and Dickenson with one pre-1936 consensus title. No "dinner-club" in the bunch.

Also, you cannot discredit the BCS's own recognition of the split. The blog's author tries to slough it off by noting it was done to "throw a bone" to AP. Well, it is irrelevant as to why--it is there as an official proclamation by the BCS and anything else is speculation and irrelevant. In fact, the idea that a bone was thrown to them bolsters the fact that the wished to curry favor with the AP and keep them around! Otherwise, they should have gotten rid of them, but no: They were allowed to stay and not have their voet restricted.

Finally, two or more champions have happened so many times in the past it is silly to argue whether or not it is possible. In politics this would not be possible so the analogy must fail.

I believe the author knows full well that the AP is not going anywhere and certainly will not be retroactively revoked. Instead, this is a campaign to diminish what USC has accomplished and seems to be more than just a spirited rivalry--it is bordering on the malicious. I hope not.

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of USC signing the BCS contract don't you understand? Don't sign the contract if you don't want to follow the rules when they don't work in your favor.

This is the BCS era. AP titles mattered before then. Now the AP is the same as the Dunkel or what have you title.

Bet you don't have a argument of logic for why USC deserved to be #1 on anyone's ballot.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We understand the terms of the contract as you have so well pointed out on several ocassions. However, the AP is not a part of USC or the Pac-10. The AP is crowning USC based on their decision. USC is not claiming or threatening for the recognition. Nowhere does USC violate the terms of the contract. If the AP had signed the contract, then the AP would be violating the terms. The AP is an independent organization from the BCS, and has had a well-respected reputation as ranking teams since the 30s.

Another point:
Using the AP rankings which you use in your arguments about SOS, USC was ranked number one in these same rankings at the end of the season. Therefore, the best team in the nation. LSU has no record of beating the number one team in 2003. How can they claim being unanimous national champions without beating the number one team?

 
At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Deserving" is not part of this argument as that is entirely subjective and NCs will always be dabated on that issue after the fact. I'll save that for another time. If you read the contract argument back in this thread you will see that the AP was never taken out of the equation and there was no exclusionary language. Use of the AP as a national champion selector was not prohibited. The system was created for the BCS championship game and the BCS champion. THE BCS. Period. No one agreed to eliminate the AP which continues to vote AFTER the bowls and in fact, the treatment of the AP by the parties shows no intent to eliminate it. For the last time, contact the conferences and the athletic directors and see what the have to say. No one has the guts to do so on your side as you know exactly what the response will be.

 
At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, the drafters of the BCS-conference agreement weren't dumb. Knowing the history of splits in the annals of college football, this future possiblity could have been foreclosed after the AP refused to restrict its voters by simply adding a clause along the lines of "No additional or split titles shall be recognized by the signatories to this agreement." It wasn't done despite the lingering possibility of a split in the future. The BCS knew full well that it could happen although their goal was to minimize that possibility.

 
At 2:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LSUOverUSC

Trojans0950 checking in again. I just want to say I really respect your work and I admire the dedication you have put forth to LSU. However, I am still convinced, and will always be convinced, USC deserves recognition as a split champion due to BCS flaws. I have started working on an essay to voice both facts and my opinions. My intent is not to be a jackass or whatever, but rather understand the situation even furthermore. Sorry if I made asshole remarks in my first comment, but I wasn't sure about your debate style. I can conclude you are not about trolling in the sense that you don't resort to outside factors like grammar and discrimination. I will continue to research material in an attempt to let you understand the situation better. The situation in my eyes. I admit I have learned a lot from your research, and some of my thoughts and views have changed. In addition, there are some things I have learned have no meaning and purpose. I will check back in some time to update my research.

 
At 9:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2004 has no meaning to 2003. LSU lost all of its team and USC struggled against weak competition again, getting dominated by Cal.

Face it, USC fok: LSU over USC has owned you like a slave.

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If USC wins the NCAA basketball tournament, but another school finishes first in the final AP poll, is it a "split" national championship? Even if it is, which one is more significant?

 
At 5:15 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

Don't spam the site with 10 of the same messages if you want your message to stay up.

The analogy of basketball isn't the argument. It is an analogy, and all arguments based on analogy have weaknesses and can be picked apart until nothing remains. That is why THE argument on the front page rests heavily on what is not analogy.

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I apologized for the duplication--didn't you see it? My computer glitched and repeated 4 or 5 times. Not spam, just an accident. But aren't you doing what you claim I'm doing, picking apart every argument? If you live by the sword, etc. I'm outta here if that's how you're gonna react.

 
At 5:35 PM, Blogger LSUoverUSC said...

The argument I present, however, is not an argument of analogy. It is one of legitimacy and merit. In the argument of legitimacy I briefly include a mention of the Final Four, but the argument does not rest on that analogy. Rather, it uses the analogy as a possible, not concrete, example.

 
At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing more need be said. I was only responding to the split basketball analogy of the prior post. My opinion, like so many others, is that the AP is legit and merit is not relevant at that point. See Ya.

 
At 10:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a die-hard, living-in-Baton Rouge LSU fan. I made the Al Gore post and asked the NCAA basketball questions. However, the above poster's comments (now deleted) regarding the NCAA not declaring an official football champion made a lot of sense. Instead of a USC billboard, I suggest the money would be better spent with a billboard in front of the NCAA headquarters asking "Why doesn't the NCAA declare an official national football champion?"

Doing this would get a lot of media attention, focus everyone on the real problem, and maybe get the NCAA to do something about it. Money well spent IMHO.

 
At 11:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm an SC fan and I agree with the previous poster. I happened to see the deleted posts--I think the blog treated that person badly as there were no flames and he wasn't being an a-hole. If I remember, he thought the basketball question brought up a good point and was complementary about it. And the previous poster is right on the money as the NCAA shuld take care of the problem once and for all with a declared champ. Even if there are no playoffs, at least designate the BCS or the AP or whatever as official and recognized by the NCAA. I would prefer an eight-team playoff but I don't think we'll live that long to see it!

 
At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt every team start the year off with the cyrstal trophy as the goal?

USC agreed to the BCS.

BCS didn't work out the way USC wanted it to.

USC criticizes the BCS.

Year later, BCS doesn't work out for a more worthy team, but does work out for USC.

USC praises the BCS.

Class.

 
At 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just brilliant.

 
At 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the message two posts ago:

Correct. USC agreed to the BCS. However, the AP did not give up their ability to crown a NC. It is the AP you should be angry at as they crowned USC NCs as an independent organization from the BCS. USC simply accepted that honor. No contract violations.

Haha more worthy. VT's receiver drops a ball wide open in the endzone. Catch = win. Auburn struggles against a 10-2 VT, wins by 3, and attempts to claim NC, not being ranked 1 in BCS, Coaches, or AP. USC 12-0 beats OU 12-0 55-19 with ease. Auburn = more worthy.

 
At 10:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny that often USC fans bring up the official NCAA National Champions page:

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

Failing to realize that they put in BOLD the BCS and ONLY the BCS!

Makes you go HMMMMMMMM.....

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read the entire page, it explains that the NCAA is not involved in picking a national champion. If the BCS is in bold, fine. It doesn't mean it's even recognized as "official" as that does not exist, no matter how hard you try to make it so. You are now grasping at straws as your "legitimacy" argument is weaker than an Enron pension plan.

 
At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, on the same NCAA website at a different location (history) there is a list of BCS champs and then "consensus" champs. USC and LSU are separated. However, under "consensus" champs, LSU and Iowa are BOTH listed for 1958. I would tread very carefully if asserting that the NCAA "oficially" recognizes football national champs.

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey LSU--you are an abject liar. On the USCDynasty site you claim there have been no USC arguments. This proves once and for all that you don't want debate but you want to shove your half-baked agenda down other poeple's throats. You don't have the guts to call the conferences as was suggested by others and you don't want to listen to reasonable dialogue. No one outside of "Red Stick" gives a crap about your LSU whining and all you are doing is making your fellow LSU fans and students look petty. Get a life and stop lowering this non-issue to the bottom of the pond.

 
At 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but as an outside observer I agree with the LSU fans. Theyy've gott a really intersting and persuasive argumentt. USC fans seem onoly tot ohave stupid hick jokes. No argument.

 
At 10:54 PM, Blogger Beaker said...

I keep reading about the contract. Where is this contract? Where is the language that states the BCS is the only national champion?

You base a lot of your argument on this contract, so it's time to back it up. Let's see it.

The purpose of the BCS was NEVER to declare the sole National Champion, and I challenge you to show me otherweise. The purpose was to eliminate the conference tie ins to the bowl games that prevented matchups like Nebraska and Penn State in 1994 or Nebraska and Michigan in 1997. It was to pave teh way to make sure the top two teams could play each other. What it never did was take into consideration situations like 2001, 2003, and 2004 where there wasn't a clear cut #1 and #2 team.

 
At 8:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lsuover looks like he's at least read and analyzed the bcs contract. just look at what and how he writes. obviously there's something behind his words. the usc fans reallly dont have that. it's pretty obvious they have never read the bcs contract and have no desire to. i guess the reason is that they can benefit nothing from reading the contract, but it is possible that they lose any claim of the 2003 championship.

but hey, if you don't make the championship game, how can you be champion?

 
At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Hookem said...

Team Goals: Since the BCS was introduced.

LSU=BCS National Championship
Texas=BCS National Championship
Oklahoma=BCS National Championship
ND=BCS National Championship
And all the others=BCS National Championship (excluding USC)
USC=please fill in your answer

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger Beaker said...

anonymous:

Well, if he's read and analyzed the contract, and if there is something behind his words, I'm sure he'll be glad to produce it so we can see the language that states the BCS is the sole authority for declaring a national championship.

 
At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical insecure LSU fan. You won the game. Be happy. You got your share of the championship.

 
At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You all have WAY too much time on your hands!

The NCAA does NOT recognise a champion in division 1A football, you can all talk and argue until you are blue in the face, BCS, AP UPI, yadda yadda, it still doesn't get around the fact that there is NOT and has NEVER been a NCAA 1A football champion, its all "mythical"... not discuss amongst yourselves!!

ps.. get a life!!

 
At 6:11 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

“shouldn’t folks from Louisiana be putting their money towards Katrina recovery?!?”

we already have. millions of dollars and untold hours of voluteer relief.


“Most ‘folks from Louisiana’ don’t give two cents about the people who were affected by the hurricane”

not according to the hundreds of shelters run by volunteers for months after the hurricane.


“trust me, the people putting up the billboard are not the ones still trying to get FEMA trailers so they can start rebuilding.”

what does that have to do with this issue? the people putting up the billboard live in dallas. dallas didn’t get hit by katrina.


“It turns out that onepeat.com now needs more money. First, they had promised that 10K were needed to erect the sign and that the money in excess would be donated to victims of Hurricane Katrina. According to their sign they now need $13,150.00″

incorrect. check the website. get your facts straight.


“USC finished No. 3 in the 2003 BCS rankings but was voted National Champions by the Associated Press media poll, thus sharing the National Championship with LSU.”

that’s the point. USC didn’t share the title. they were ranked first in one of two polls. they weren’t first in quality wins nor were they first in the computer polls. that makes LSU #1 for that season.


“You might think that the underlying message offends USC”

it’s aimed at the misperception caused by the media.


“the underlying message also offends other teams that have shared a National Championship in the past years.”

ridiculous. since the inception of the BCS, no one has tried to share the title except the people from USC because they are slaves to the media. if that’s the case, auburn was co-champs for the 2004 season.


“They don’t set the record straight because no one will be convinced by this billboard.”

#1. not true.
#2. it does in deed set the record straight.


“I suggest they try raising money for youth sports or literacy or any of a long list of things they wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell their parents about.”

lots of people DO raise money for those worthwhile causes. this is a diversion. it is a fallacy to state that the raising of money for this issue precludes the raising of money for any other issues.

ncaasports.com DOES NOT recognize USC as the national champion. if you go to the list, you will see only one team on the 2003 line, LSU.

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

Billingsley’s National Champions at the college football resource center DOES NOT recognize two teams as champion. only one is listed, LSU.

http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/NC_Year_2004.htm

the link for the college football data warehouse provided by USCRoger does not provide a list of champions by year, nor is the site authoritative in any way.

the media links provided by USCRoger are, of course, the very heart of the issue. they are not authoritative in determining a championship (heck, they don’t even get to decide who plays).

any comments made by president bush regarding college football are not representative of the government as a whole nor or they without fault.

last, the link that USCRoger provides for bscfootball.org is NOT the official site of the BSC which means it’s not authoritative. it’s just another media site.

in all, NONE of what USCRoger claims is accurate or authoritative. the only authoritative sources he provided, ncaasports.com and ncaa.org, refute the entire USC claim. they both unequivocably list LSU as the undisputed BCS champion for 2003.

 
At 6:29 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

i realize most of my previous comments aren't directly in response to posts here, but i know some people here have read uscroger's comments. i wanted to clear up his misconceptions and this board has a lot of readers.

no matter how the issue is analyzed, LSU is the #1 team from 2003.

LSU ended first in all the important BCS categories and yes, the BCS is the ONLY determining factor for a champion in 2003. the AP poll is just one component. ending first in that poll does not make a national champion. it merely means that team ended first in that component of the system. it doesn't matter that the AP poll has been around since the primordial goop. everyone, including USC, agreed in advance to acknowledge the BCS.

 
At 8:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just stop lying!!! The AP numbers were utilized by the BCS, nothing more, nothing less. The AP was and is independent of the BCS. You people just don't get it. Even if God came down and said USC was a split champ you wouldn't accept it. You are all so full of jealous, bitter, angry crap.

 
At 5:53 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

"The AP numbers were utilized by the BCS, nothing more, nothing less."
what is that supposed to mean? it does nothing to address the points i made.

"The AP was and is independent of the BCS."
so what? it's just one component of the BCS. being ranked first by that poll doesn't make a team the national champion. being ranked first in the BCS after having played in the BCS championship game does determine a NC. period. end of story. keep in mind, USC agreed in advance to acknowledge the BCS system. you should be asking them why they changed their position.

"You people just don't get it."
let me get this straight: i post several critical facts, you don't even respond to them, but i don't get it. that doesn't make any sense.

"You are all so full of jealous, bitter, angry crap."
looking at this thread, it looks to me like the LSU case is reasonable and the USC fans have no substantial response to it. that would seem to indicate that the USC fans are the ones who are in denial.

 
At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You obviously DID NOT read the legal discussion above. Also, ALL of the parties have agreed that the AP counts. Where's the outcry from the coaches' association? How about the LSU AD? It wasn't stopped at the time and no injuction was filed. ALL of the ADs and schools recognize the AP and it has never been de-certified. Is that too hard to understand? Call the LSU athletic department. Call the BCS. Go to afca.com to see what Grant Teaff said on Dec. 8, 2003. You cannot make an argument beginning with a false premise. By the way, there is no "official" NCAA Div. football champ. Never has been and one is not recognized at this time. You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that USC won nothing. Fine, but that doesn't play outside of Baton Rouge.

 
At 9:47 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

You obviously DID NOT read the legal discussion above.
actually, i did. i saw how you never answered the point that legally, the BCS never stipulated any kind of split NC.

second, you made the comment "Fact: The BCS is a computer poll.". that is false. computer polls are ONE component of the BCS. the AP poll is another component. stating that USC was the NC in 2003 is like saying that an arm is the equivalent of a human. no, an arm is one PART of a human. it doesn't matter what the arm can do or how great it is.


Also, ALL of the parties have agreed that the AP counts.
sure it counts, as a PART of the BCS.


Where's the outcry from the coaches' association?
why should they cry out? they don't think of the AP as the end-all, be-all like USC does. they recognize that the media was doing what they always do, be biased.


How about the LSU AD? It wasn't stopped at the time and no injuction was filed.
first, not filing an injunction does not necessitate acquiescence. second, ditto the above point ragarding the coach's assc. who knew then that the media was going to take it as far as they did?


ALL of the ADs and schools recognize the AP and it has never been de-certified.
you are completely missing the point. no one is arguing that the AP isn't valuable. it just doesn't fill the role that USC, led by the media, would like for it fill.


Call the LSU athletic department. Call the BCS. Go to afca.com to see what Grant Teaff said on Dec. 8, 2003.
grant teaff is not the ultimate authority in this matter despite your attempt to set him up as such.


You cannot make an argument beginning with a false premise.
in that case, USC has no claim to the 2003 NC.


By the way, there is no "official" NCAA Div. football champ. Never has been and one is not recognized at this time. You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that USC won nothing.
you are trying to create a strawman by saying LSU is claiming USC won "nothing". that is not the case that is being made. once again, the case being made is that USC was not the true NC. they were first in the AP poll which is one component of the BCS.

if you think that the BCS champion is NOT recognized as the NC, then you are mistaken. when i go to the NCAA website, i see an "official" NC on the 2003 line and it says LSU. perhaps you could further clarify what you mean.


Fine, but that doesn't play outside of Baton Rouge.
i am certain that you are unable to quantify this remark. it would require you to poll every single person outside of BR and i'm sure you have not done so nor are you capable of doing so. this seems to be a typical tactic of the USC arguments.

 
At 10:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not going to waste my time further as your argument is mere sophistry. However, the NCAA website does indeed recognize USC as a "consensus" champion--as it does with Iowa in 1958. (We've contacted some people in Ames and Des Moines to push this one to the limit.) Also, Grant Teaff was the spokesman and president for the Coaches Association. If they say it is, it is. They are the main party involved and they have said that the AP counts and have treated it thusly. Instead, you wish to slough off ANY type of evidence or comment that disagrees with your position, no matter how clear-cut or obvious. There was no "media conspiracy" as the possibility of a split was recognized long before 2003. You are creating an issue out of thin air and you are just wrong. By the way, why is it such a big deal to you? You had a team that never got past No, 2 and I think that really bugs you. How petty and classless! nm

 
At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. Just got a call from an Iowa friend in Iowa City. They're gung ho for doing whatever it takes for recognition of the 1958 Hawkeye national champs.

 
At 2:27 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

I'm not going to waste my time further as your argument is mere sophistry.
and yet you continue on to make further arguments. you don't seem to keep your word.

is this the best response you have to all of the points i have been making? to blithely claim "sophistry" without even showing HOW it is sophistry?


However, the NCAA website does indeed recognize USC as a "consensus" champion
you are incorrect. here it is straight from the source:

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

2003
LSU: BCS, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Massey, NFF, Sagarin, Seattle Times, USA/ESPN
Oklahoma: Berryman
Southern California: AP, Eck, Matthews, NY Times

notice that everything underneath BCS is a component of the BCS. the BCS encompasses all of the criteria that follow it. if USC can claim to be NC, then so can oklahoma because they ended first in the berryman poll which is recognized by the nation as a source that ranks teams.

you claim that my argument is sophistry but i directly cite the actual organization itself, more than once. furthermore, you don't have a refutation, you just disagree and don't cite any authoritative sources.

Also, Grant Teaff was the spokesman and president for the Coaches Association. If they say it is, it is.
this has become typical of your tactics. being president of the CA doesn't necessarily make someone the final authority in this matter. furthermore, you don't show how he is authoritative, you just state that he is. i guess you expect us to take you at your word, "if they say it is, it is". now why should we take you at your word?

They are the main party involved
no they are not. if you think they are, then prove your point.


and they have said that the AP counts and have treated it thusly.
and LSU fans agree that the AP poll counts. you, and your USC claque, are confused as to what it counts for.


Instead, you wish to slough off ANY type of evidence or comment
what in the world are you talking about? i have responded to your every point. you have presented no "evidence" of any kind.


that disagrees with your position,
i think you are confused. this isn't "my position". it is a fact and i have presented facts that you have not refuted. i understand that you disagree with the facts, but your agreement is not a requisite for the facts being true. additionally, it's not that your position "disagrees" with mine. your position is false because you haven't, nor are you able to, support it adequately enough to refute the BCS position.


no matter how clear-cut or obvious.
if you presented this type of case, i sure missed it. perhaps you could restate it.


There was no "media conspiracy" as the possibility of a split was recognized long before 2003.
it was? could you cite your source for this information?


You had a team that never got past No, 2
you're right. at the end of the season, LSU was #1. LSU never fell from that position. USC should really have a beef with oklahoma being in the NC game, not LSU.


and I think that really bugs you. How petty and classless!
now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks which is usually the sign of someone who is out of debate ammunition. petty and classless is calling someone that when you yourself haven't even presented a coherent rebuttal but claim to have done so and expect people to take you at your word.

 
At 4:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Author,

I admire your hard work in telling the truth. Can I tell you what I Do not like about you? You are not on television. This needs to be on Real Sports or Behind the Lines.

I am a Penn State fan. LSU won the National Championship in 2003-2004, NOT USC. USC represents college football's version of America's Team.

USC has some many notbale Alumni especially in the NFL. Is it an accident Marcus Allen, Charles White, Palmer, Pete Carroll and others have ties to the NFL?

USC is located near ABC studios, television city, etc. Of course USC can get away with a co-championship. It has the television and print media to support its claim and notable NFL alumni to defend it!

My name is Jonathan. My email is tightmadness@yahoo.com I would like for you to email me on moe facts concerning this crime.

I am going to forward this site to all of my fellow sports fanatics. This article should be inn the New York times.

Didn't USC agree to the BCS BEFORE the 2003-2004 started? How can you change your mind after your team isn't ranked number one.

LSU won the 2003-2004 NCAA I College Football National Championship.


USC won the 2003-2004 NCAA College Football television title.

 
At 5:37 PM, Anonymous SChot said...

Go to www.ncaasports.com and go to the history section for its list of national champs. That other guy was absolutely correct that USC was a "consensus" champ. Sorry, USC and LSU split no matter how much you run off at the mouth. Really, dude, call the LSU athletic department and see what they say. You're just too much of a coward like those who threatened to burn down the house of the uscdynasty guy.

 
At 7:13 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

Go to www.ncaasports.com and go to the history section for its list of national champs. That other guy was absolutely correct that USC was a "consensus" champ.
you are presenting a half-truth. on the right of that line, the selecting organization says "ap, fwaa" (football writers). those are COMPONENTS of the BCS. being first in ONE component of the BCS does not a NC make. if you will look a little above that list, you will see a list of BCS champions. that list has LSU on the 2003 line. there is a link to an article that denotes LSU as the champ and there is no mention of USC.


Sorry, USC and LSU split no matter how much you run off at the mouth.
you are incorrect as i have shown on multiple occasions now. i cited the ncaa itself. there is one team on the BCS 2003 line, LSU. there is no argument that any person can put forth that will ever change that fact.

Really, dude, call the LSU athletic department and see what they say.
why? that won't change what's on the ncaa website.


You're just too much of a coward like those who threatened to burn down the house of the uscdynasty guy.
cowardice is the fact that certain people here won't address my point that the ncaa recognized ONE NC from 2003 and it's not USC.

cowardice is resorting to ad hominem attacks.

cowardice is artifically associating me with some other knuckleheads without actually knowing that i am.

cowardice is insinuating that louisiana is more prone to violence than a place like L.A.

 
At 10:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is my last comment, too. The NCAA does not recognize a 1-A college champ. Thant's not to hard to understand. If you insist, USC is a "consensus" champ in their site. (Also, LSU is co-champs with Iowa in 1958.) But beyond that, whenever anyone on this site cites a source you use the Fox News technique of going after the messenger like Grant Teaff or the LSU athletic dept. I see now that we were all baited into this "argument": even if the BCS itself makes a pronouncement (they have) you will criticize the source by saying it is questionable or not official or doesn't mean much or whatever. We can see that no matter who is cited it won't be good enough in your book as you would rather ignore reality and the actual treatment of the situation by the parties. Why do you think the AP refused to allow its voters to be bound to vote for the BCS game winner? So they could vote for their choice for NC. Very simple. Out.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

The NCAA does not recognize a 1-A college champ. Thant's not to hard to understand.
this is more half-truth. the ncaa does indeed recognize champions. it's site, that i have quoted multiple times, claims that LSU is the BCS champion. being the AP champ is just one component of the BCS.


But beyond that, whenever anyone on this site cites a source you use the Fox News technique of going after the messenger like Grant Teaff or the LSU athletic dept.
that's because you have yet to explain to us WHY those people are authoritative other than because "you say so". none of those sources you use can dislodge LSU from being the BCS champ. the BCS did not consult grant teaff to decide who should be the champ.


I see now that we were all baited into this "argument": even if the BCS itself makes a pronouncement (they have) you will criticize the source by saying it is questionable or not official or doesn't mean much or whatever.
and what "pronouncement" are you referring to?


We can see that no matter who is cited it won't be good enough in your book as you would rather ignore reality and the actual treatment of the situation by the parties.
reality is that you have yet to show that UCS is anthing more than AP #1 in 2003. that's great. kudos to USC. they're not NC's. the BCS champ is the NC.


Why do you think the AP refused to allow its voters to be bound to vote for the BCS game winner? So they could vote for their choice for NC. Very simple. Out.
good for them. it's still just a component of the BCS.

 
At 5:54 PM, Anonymous schot said...

Anonymous was right. You refuse to accept any source. Go do the research prior to 2003 and you'll see lots of stuff regarding the possibility of a split. But the Fox analogy is right on. Is the mayor the spokesman for the city? But even so, the NCAA recognizes USC as NC (albeit unofficial as they also recognize Iowa in 1958). And the BCS on its website noted a split. You don't want to accept that and you make excuses about the "source" but it's their "voice." What would you like them to do? If it said "no split" you'd be all over it. Admit it. And the parties all agree that the AP counts no matter what you say. No exclusivity contract like you have with some boxing organizations. It was never de-certified except in your mind. No actuall written or oral provision to that effect. You can't find one 'cause it doesn't exist. I guess even if the BCS agrees and every school agrees that's not good enough for you. LOL You are just SAYING that USC isn't NC which is a bigger joke than your baseless argument and clearly makes the point that you are just wrong. But you are a very small minority opinion and a clearly wrong one at that.

 
At 8:32 PM, Anonymous troy11 said...

bfniii you are so wrong. Check the heismanpundit.com or uscdynasty sites for better explanations but your intellectual dishonesty shines through in your last comment. The AP was only a component because the BCS used it--using the weather report or the Dow Jones doesn't have an effect on those two institutions. The AP remained apart as a separate entity with its own national championship award: It's called the Bear Bryant NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP trophy. It is certainly NOT a part of the BCS as you claim but instead the stats from the writers' votes were utilized in a Frankensteinian mongrel which proved embarrassing to the BCS (much like your crusade). The AP retained its integrity by naming its own champ. The AP champ was universally recognized except for a few dark-agers such as yourself and. An ad hom attack? Not really as it's the truth.

 
At 5:30 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

You refuse to accept any source.
sigh. i have cited the ncaa itself several times. obviously, you are incorrect about this point.


Go do the research prior to 2003 and you'll see lots of stuff regarding the possibility of a split.
what for? there was no split in 2003.


But even so, the NCAA recognizes USC as NC (albeit unofficial as they also recognize Iowa in 1958).
no, it does not. the ncaa website that i have cited multiple times notes UCS as the AP champ. there is a difference.


And the BCS on its website noted a split. You don't want to accept that and you make excuses about the "source" but it's their "voice."
and what website would that be?


LOL You are just SAYING that USC isn't NC which is a bigger joke than your baseless argument and clearly makes the point that you are just wrong.
no, i have cited the most authoritative source in the country on the issue. it's not "my argument". it's straight from the only governing body of college football.

look, i have said it before. kudos to USC for being first in the AP poll and accepting a "trophy" from them. USC has had a great run the last few years. unequivocably, one of the best programs in the country.


But you are a very small minority opinion and a clearly wrong one at that.
how would you know if the LSU case is the minority case? have you polled everyone in america? i doubt it.

the whole point behind the onepeat campaign is to raise awareness to the general public that the media is misrepresenting the actual truth. the media does not represent the majority.

 
At 5:55 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

bfniii you are so wrong. Check the heismanpundit.com or uscdynasty sites for better explanations
what argument do they put forward that contradicts LSU being the BCS champ in 2003?

i have already seen all the explanation i need, the ncaa website.


but your intellectual dishonesty shines through in your last comment.
i have cited the ncaa website itself. how is that dishonest? dishonest is trying to make the AP poll out to be something that it is not. dishonest is agreeing in advance to the BCS system, and then doing an about face like a spoiled child when you don't get your way. dishonest is then two years later trying to retroactively make yourself out to be something you are not.


The AP was only a component because the BCS used it--using the weather report or the Dow Jones doesn't have an effect on those two institutions. The AP remained apart as a separate entity with its own national championship award: It's called the Bear Bryant NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP trophy.
that's great. which would you rather be, "best in class" or "best in show"? if you're a smart USC grad, you'll say "best in show". but you haven't been saying that. you've been saying "best in class" is equal to "best in show". well, that's false and dishonest.


It is certainly NOT a part of the BCS
yes it is.


as you claim
no, that's how it is. i am only repeating the fact.


but instead the stats from the writers' votes were utilized in a Frankensteinian mongrel which proved embarrassing to the BCS (much like your crusade).
wait. the BCS proved embarassing to the BCS? i'm not following that.

this is so hypocritical. you love the system when it works to your advantage. but in 2003, oh only the AP knew what they were doing. oh yeah, don't forget that USC agreed in advance that the BCS was THE system. why aren't you upset with USC officials/coaches for changing their stance like spineless jellyfish once the system they agreed to didn't work out how they would have liked for it to? USC should be upset that OK got in the NC game, not that LSU won.


The AP retained its integrity by naming its own champ.
HA! you keep telling yourself that. the whole reason why the BCS was created is because of the obvious flaws in the polls. would you like to discuss all of the flaws with college football ranking prior to the BCS? i agree the BCS isn't perfect. i favor a playoff. but it's infinitely better than just having flawed polls to rely on.


The AP champ was universally recognized except for a few dark-agers such as yourself and.
i have never said anything of the kind. i have said that the AP poll is recognized for what it is, a poll, a part of the BCS. only people like you, who let the media tell them what to think, are trying to make it out to be something that it is not.

 
At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go to ncaasports.com and click on "fall sports" then "football" then "history." It's there. If you're so hot about the NCAA recognizing football champions, it recognizes LSU as the BCS champ and one section below USC as a consensus national champ. You can't have it both ways. The NCAA is either unofficial (it is and says so) or you accept its recognition.

 
At 4:16 PM, Anonymous troy11 said...

I've just been contacted by a friend that you have cited the NCAA page on another site. Your problem is that you didn't read the whole thing but instead you stopped after the BCS section. Shame on you....you cite only half of a source. That's misleading and undercuts any credibility you had (which wasn't much to begin with). The last Anonymous was right.

 
At 7:32 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

Go to ncaasports.com and click on "fall sports" then "football" then "history." It's there. If you're so hot about the NCAA recognizing football champions, it recognizes LSU as the BCS champ and one section below USC as a consensus national champ.
i'll ask again; which would you rather be, "best in show" or "best in class"? i'll lay it out for you. USC was "best in class" in 2003. good for them. fight on. LSU was "best in show". LSU was ranked higher in more categories than USC. LSU played in the big game and won.


You can't have it both ways. The NCAA is either unofficial (it is and says so) or you accept its recognition.
it takes several iterations to get through to USC grads. the ncaa website i have referred to lists USC as the AP champ. however, that does not equate to the unequivocal national champs. it doesn't equate to a split. LSU was the BCS champ and the BCS takes into account more factors than the flawed AP poll.

 
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

I've just been contacted by a friend that you have cited the NCAA page on another site. Your problem is that you didn't read the whole thing but instead you stopped after the BCS section. Shame on you....you cite only half of a source. That's misleading and undercuts any credibility you had (which wasn't much to begin with). The last Anonymous was right.
good grief. is there something in the water that you people are drinking? how many times does it have to be repeated? here goes another one; i have never said that the ncaa doesn't recognize USC as the AP champ. that's great for them. shame on you for building a strawman. what i have said is that USC people are trying to make out the AP poll like it is some equivalent to the BCS. here's a hint; IT ISN'T. it's just a poll. one that was so flawed, it caused people to conceive the BCS. LSU was the BCS champ. that means there is no other "champ" and there is no split, no matter how active the media's imagination is.

listen, this is a simple issue. the media got mad that their little flawed poll didn't turn out to produce the true champ. what did they do? they went into denial and acted like they were the sole authority on earth that decided a champ. that is what the whole onepeat campaign is about. it's not about USC. it's about the media.

 
At 10:37 AM, Anonymous schot said...

You're still wrong--the BCS is even more flawed. But at the very least I like your passion. No offense intended previously as I did not mean to lump you in with those hooliguns threatening violence. That's not what this should be about. MY opinion is to read the Doonesberry strip for March 5, 2006, and add "LSU's claims" in there! Geaux Tigers (really! your team's OK) and Fight On!

 
At 2:45 PM, Anonymous troy11 said...

Come on schot--you're letting him wiggle off the hook. What's with this "best in class and show"--is this a dog show (unless this is a reference to many of the classless LSU fans out there-- LOL). Since you appear to be an LSU grad I'LL keep it simple: The AP is a SEPARATE entity that votes after the bowl games. The Coaches are a SEPARATE entity that also votes after the bowl games but is restricted as to whom they can vote number one, except for a few gutty coaches who disagreeed with the restriction. Each entity selects their champ as they see fit. The Coaches utilized the AP standings for their formula but the AP remained separate and apart and chose as they saw fit. This is why the AP DEMANDED that the Coaches cease and desist from using their stats. Remember? You might not agree that the AP is equal to the BCS but you can think anything you want. Wishing doesn't make it so. If you don't like the AP, please tell the schools and conferences to do something about it. Instead, the "onepete" idea is not only lame but insulting to both schools as is the stupid billboard which is being laughed at.

 
At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's always that damned "liberal" media that should be blamed. Especially when they report the facts and you don't like 'em.

 
At 9:14 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

What's with this "best in class and show"--is this a dog show (unless this is a reference to many of the classless LSU fans out there-- LOL).
it's called an analogy.

i guess i need to explain it again. the votes of sports media are the basis of the AP poll. the votes of coaches are the basis of the coach's poll. the bcs not only takes into account those two factors, but several others as well. therefore, the two polls are inferior to the bcs. the bcs incorporates more criteria into it's rankings than any one component by itself. i am not saying it is infallible. i am not saying it is the best system. i am saying it is better than just a couple of flawed polls.


Each entity selects their champ as they see fit. The Coaches utilized the AP standings for their formula but the AP remained separate and apart and chose as they saw fit.
good for them. they are still inferior to the bcs. would you rather be the champ in one poll or be the champ of a system that incorporates much more than that one flawed poll? obviously, the latter is more desirable.


You might not agree that the AP is equal to the BCS but you can think anything you want. Wishing doesn't make it so.
no matter how you state it, the AP is in no way equal to the bcs.


If you don't like the AP, please tell the schools and conferences to do something about it.
why? it's one component of a system. the more, the better. but by itself, yes, it is quite flawed. that's why the bcs was created. there's no way sports media can justifiably compare teams that don't play each other. if they could, there would never be a need for playoffs. there are other flaws with the AP poll as well. here's one:

the AP poll of 11/23/2003 illustrates one of the biggest problems with polls of that nature. USC beat UCLA 47-22 that weekend. LSU beat #15, 8 win, ole miss on the road. at that point, LSU SHOULD HAVE PASSED USC IN THE POLL. UCLA was 6-5 at the time and the game was a "home" game for USC. it was clear at that point that LSU had the tougher schedule and had beaten better teams. LSU not passing USC on that week is a testament to the poll's weakness in that if a team wins, they don't fall for any reason. stupid.

what's even funnier is USC fans now acting like the AP is the most reputable source for football. that should be an indicator of USC's lack of credibility in this matter.


Instead, the "onepete" idea is not only lame
based on what standard?


but insulting to both schools
preposterous. according to whom?

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous bfniii said...

Yeah, it's always that damned "liberal" media that should be blamed.
i never said always and i didn't use the word liberal.


Especially when they report the facts and you don't like 'em.
i think that's the whole point of contention. they aren't reporting the "facts".

what you should be disappointed in is how USC fans are acting. USC agreed in advance to the BCS system, but then changed their tune when it didn't work out for them. why aren't any USC fans owning up to that? why do USC fans keep trying to deflect and obfuscate by drawing attention to the AP poll's alleged "integrity"?

 
At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using your "logic", WHO says the AP is not equal to the BCS? WHO says the onepete joke is a "great" idea? WHO says USC fans have changed their tune from before? WHO says onepete is not insulting (except LSU fans)? WHO says the AP
method for selecting champs is not appropriate? WHO says the BCS system is even better? I know you do. But please cite all of your sources or as you stated previously, where's the poll of everyone? YOU are the one who needs to do the research to back up your claims. Preposterous.

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone who followed 2003 knows that everyone started with one goal that year: to make it to the national championship game in New Orleans. Just look at that link the argument that shows all the USC fans wearing sugar bags on their heads right before their game against Oregon State, right before LSU moved past them after beating #5 Georgia by 3 TDs.

 
At 1:42 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

WHO says the AP is not equal to the BCS?
1. the BCS takes into account more factors than the AP poll. therefore, the BCS is superior in rankings.
2. the very existence of the BCS means that there are people who acknowledge that the AP poll is insufficient. otherwise, the BCS would never have been created. so, anyone who has ever had anything to do with the creation of the BCS thinks that the AP poll is not equal.
3. even the media acknowledges that the AP is not equal to the BCS. if that weren't the case, every single rating system would yield an equal NC. this is obviously not the case. the media doesn't acknowledge all of those champions every year. that is the hypocrisy of the 2003 situation.


WHO says the onepete joke is a "great" idea?
i guess the people who created it, the owner of this blog, LSU fans, UT fans, UCLA fans.


WHO says onepete is not insulting (except LSU fans)?
i asked you on what standard you based that comment. do you not have an answer?


WHO says the AP method for selecting champs is not appropriate?
no one is saying it's not appropriate. it's just not equal to the BCS.


WHO says the BCS system is even better?
do you know of someone who actually thinks that having ONLY two subjective, flawed polls is better than the BCS? clearly, anyone who was involved in the creation of the BCS thinks it is better. clearly, the media thinks it's better (except for 2003, which is hypocritical), or else they would acknowledge every single champion of every rating system. why do they get to pick and choose?


But please cite all of your sources or as you stated previously, where's the poll of everyone?
my sources are the ncaa and the BCS, both of which i have already cited previously. the facts that they present necessitate that there are people who agree that the AP is not sufficient. if that weren't the case, the BCS would never have been created.


YOU are the one who needs to do the research to back up your claims. Preposterous.
i've already done that all along, multiple times.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have cited both the BCS and NCAA which recognize the split. The BCS website says so (no matter how you try to minimize it) and the NCAA website notes the split as well, although it's unofficial since as we all know there is no actual Div. 1 college football national champ. I've actually cakked the NCAA office and they insist that this is still the case. By the way, since you cite part of the NCAA website, do you accept the part which splits 1958 with Iowa? As a Hawkeye fan I certainly do.

 
At 2:54 PM, Anonymous schot said...

This won't end. My comment is a bit off track. You will never convince me or, I am sure, troy11, or the various "anonymi" just as you will never be convinced. If you wonder why there is so much anger I can at least tell you this much: When LSU went to the Sugar Bowl in 2004, I know most of my USC friends and I cheered for LSU. Nothing against Oklahoma but we liked the story of LSU. We were happy about what we accomplished and happy for LSU. Then, some time after, the racist and homophobic attacks started coming on the various message boards. Frankly, a lot of the LSU "fans" did not comport themselves very well. (I am NOT lumping you in this group as I noted before.) Being called a "fag" for just expressing an opinion doesn't sit well for a lot of reasons as if it has any bearing at all. The USC board had to be monitored on an around-the-clock basis. After USC won in 2004, it re-ignited. USC said they were going for three titles but we all understood the three were AP but the attacks continued, culminating in the billboard and the uscdynasty guy and his family being threatened with a home burning with them inside. I know this is a small minority of fans but it became disgusting. Where there was little animosity and actually a lot of good will and respect turned into absolute hatred and anger. This stuff just makes it worse as it's gone beyond a healthy college rivalry. Not that anyone in Baton Rouge cares but I doubt I could ever again root for LSU. This is in stark contrast to the Texas people who have made a ton of friends and fans out here with their grace and class.

In closing, we never discounted LSU's accomplishments and respected them. We're actually sorry it came to this.

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

You have cited both the BCS and NCAA which recognize the split.
if there is a section of the ncaa website that acknowledges a split, i have not seen it. the part that i cited recognizes no such split.


it's unofficial since as we all know there is no actual Div. 1 college football national champ.
i agree from the standpoint that there is no playoff. but as the system stands, the bcs champ is the only official champ.


I've actually cakked the NCAA office and they insist that this is still the case.
did you ask them why their website doesn't list a split? did you ask them why the media doesn't acknowledge any of the other ranking systems as having their own NC? why does the media get to pick and choose who is the "champ"?


By the way, since you cite part of the NCAA website,
i cited the pertinent part, the part that lists the national champions. USC isn't on that list. there is only one team on the 2003 line.


do you accept the part which splits 1958 with Iowa? As a Hawkeye fan I certainly do.
don't really care

that's it for me. we need a playoff so we don't have to have stupid discussions like this.

 
At 4:51 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

Then, some time after, the racist and homophobic attacks started coming on the various message boards. Frankly, a lot of the LSU "fans" did not comport themselves very well.
my experience has been the same with USC fans.


In closing, we never discounted LSU's accomplishments and respected them. We're actually sorry it came to this.
what i don't understand is why the media has made this such a big deal. what should have been the big deal was OK getting into the NC game instead of USC. i think the media were upset that the computer polls put OK there instead of USC so the media decided to retaliate by making up their own NC.

 
At 5:48 PM, Anonymous schot said...

My last comment: I don't know about the USC fans being racist and homophobic. If they were, it's not right and they should be ashamed, especially coming from sunny California. NO ONE should act that way. As for the NCAA web you cited, it really does notate both LSU and USC as national champs. There are actually two sites--onesite lists BCS champs and follows that with a section for "consensus" national champs. USC is listed for 2003 and then there is a gap which resumes with the last non-BCS champ. LSU is listed as BCS champ. It says right there that this is a list of national champs. There is no other purpose for this list except to denote NATIONAL CHAMPS. The other "official" NCAA website lists every "recognized" (as the NCAA puts it) national champ. There are many beyond the traditional AP, UPI, BCS and Dickenson, most of which are not counted by the schools themselves. Anyway, I hope you're not doing this out of spite or anger as life's too short as we've all seen, and frankly, I don't want to get dragged down any further. Fight On!

 
At 2:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please! Three years later and almost everyone recognizes the split. Let it die. NO MAS!

 
At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Split? LOL

The NCAA puts the BCS in bold for a reason.

Almost every year is a "split" because it's not an unanimous decision. But all authority says LSU is 2003's champ. Case closed.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ALL authority? Like the other guy keeps harping regarding sources, would you like to name them ALL? Maybe the Baton Rouge papers. LOL!!!
Ultimately, his argument comes down to three things:
1.) The NCAA recognizes the BCS nat. champ.. But they recognize USC too.
2.) The BCS has more bells and whistles. Big deal. Use the tide charts. If the AP adds fifty more voters I guess it would then be OK.
3.) It's the media's fault. However, every time an actual source is cited it's blown off by that guy as meaningless. Do you know of any authoratative sources that have DENIED the split? Any spokesperson from the BCS say "no"? Any rep from the conferences say no to the AP? Nope, there aren't any. THAT'S the most telling argument of all. Get over it! You're fighting a losing battle.

 
At 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

P,S: If this is such a "stupid" argument, why did you pick the fight in the first place? BTW, I'm told you're not even an LSU fan but a Bruin. Nice.

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BUSH WAS AN ILLEGAL PLAYER. HAHA. TEMPLE IS BETTER THAN USC. NO PETE.

 
At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dynasty? No.

3pete? No.

Repete? No.

1pete? Right now, yes.

Nopete? We will see!

 
At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sad that you have to ride USC's coattails to keep your shitty football program and school in the limelight. Have fun getting the shit beat out of you by Georgia for the third year in a row.

 
At 6:08 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

There are actually two sites--onesite lists BCS champs and follows that with a section for "consensus" national champs.
once again, the AP champ is just that, champ voted on by media. you can call it national champ or monkeybutt, but it's not the national champ. that's reserved for the team that won the bcs title game. get over it.

 
At 6:19 PM, Anonymous bfniii said...

Ultimately, his argument comes down to three things:
1.) The NCAA recognizes the BCS nat. champ.. But they recognize USC too.

boy, USC people are slow. USC is recognized as the AP champ. it is a subjective poll voted on by subjective people. it is but one small part of the bcs process.


2.) The BCS has more bells and whistles. Big deal.
your denial is apparent and predictable. the bcs does not suffer from the vagaries of subjective human voters. it has marginalized that flaw in the system, which is correct. unfortuanately, this was "overcorrected" the next year and subjectivity was increased thus returning the system to a more flawed state.


If the AP adds fifty more voters I guess it would then be OK.
no. it would still be subjective and flawed.


3.) It's the media's fault. However, every time an actual source is cited it's blown off by that guy as meaningless.
here, you completely misrepresent my posts. i have not once "blown it off as meaningless". i have said it is what it is. one of them means less than the other. i'm sorry it is taking you so long to understand that.


Do you know of any authoratative sources that have DENIED the split?
there is what is called a split, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. that's the problem. you are brainwashed by the media and that is what LSU fans are fighting; to restore the proper meaning to the situation. USC was the AP champs. good for them. they weren't NCs in any sense of the word. they didn't play in the title game. at best, they could have been given a shot to play LSU for the championship. that's all USC can say.


You're fighting a losing battle.
i now clearly understand that educating USC fans is a losing battle.

 
At 8:03 PM, Anonymous Chris Kirkland said...

Does anyone have any hard proof that the BCS champion is the only national champion? This LSU guy keeps talking about the BCS contract so why doesnt he produce the wording for us, because that would clear this all up. All he'd need to point out is where it says the BCS champion is the one and only chamion and the rest of the stuff wouldnt even matter.

 
At 7:43 AM, Anonymous a source said...

please never give up. You are so close. call the man back from the first time.

 
At 5:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LSU won the BCS national championship game, therefore they won the 2003 national title. Peteus and the condom nation are wrong!!!

 
At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No matter how many free gifts Reggie Bush received from boosters... LSU is the one and only 2003 national champ!!!

 
At 1:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last time I checked both LSU and USC played in BCS conferences, not AP conferences. Logically to be champions you'd have to be the BCS champion. If not maybe USC and the PAC 10 should secede from the BCS and join the AP. What's that? No AP conferences? Hmmmm...then that would logically be problematic...no?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home