Thursday, November 30, 2006

V Day: LSU acknowledged as only 2003 Champ

It is now being reported by the BCS that LSU is the only 2003 National Champion. Quoting from the page: "LSU won the national championship by beating Oklahoma in a pulsating defensive contest in the Sugar Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, had earned a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners were stunned by Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edged USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl."

For years, the entire USC argument was rooted in the BCS webpage, which said that USC split the 2003 National Championship with LSU. Not so fast, my friends! After years and years of campaigning, emailing, and writing, the LSUoverUSC Team can claim Victory! According to the BCS contract that USC signed, the winner of the National Championship Game is the one and only National Champion, at least for those who agree to the contract. USC was one such team.
Because they lost to an unranked, six loss team and only played one ranked team all season, they did not finish #1 or #2 in the final BCS (agreed upon) standings. Thus, they failed to earn a spot in the NCG, and thus, could not and did not win the National Championship in 2003. The LSUoverUSC Team has been undaunted and tireless in its campaign, and that work has been rewarded with the BCS following its own contract and naming LSU the sole 2003 National Champion.

Now that the thin, weak, and barren thread USC fans have grasped to for years is gone, will they still claim the 2003 National Championship? Probably, but USC has never been known for its integrity. They still claim 11 NCs. But if LSU counted NCs as USC does, LSU would have 6! See the Official NCAA Champions Page (notice since 1998, the BCS is listed in bold and first).

One may wonder why such a change was made. Was it because legal action was threatened against the BCS if it did not uphold its own contract with LSU? Or was it because the BCS is now linked with Fox, and not ESPN/ABC, who has a contract with USC?

The LSUoverUSC campaign is officially over. We can all rest at night knowing that truth and justice have prevailed.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

USC's Dirty Legacy

USC success intricately linked to corruption

With USC posed for a shot at its second National Championship since the 1970's, now is a good time to examine the legacy of this "dynasty" and ask how it arrived where it is today. Much is made about the recent University of Miami fight. People call them the dirtiest team in the land because of an on the field brawl. Many people have said that the fight has been the powder keg that set off the firing of Larry Coker. And while the fighting is a blemish onto the game, a worse blemish is found in Southern California. There a team is alleged to have deliberately and blatantly broken the most important NCAA regulations, and in doing so, received a huge advantage over other teams. Fighting mars the reputation of the players and teams involved. Cheating the way USC is alleged to have cheated puts the entire question of college football legitimacy in the air. If any team is allowed to cheat and gain an advantge as USC is alleged to have done for the past three years, do any of the results of college football mean a thing?

According to Yahoo! Sports, there is evidence that shows known agents given access to the USC locker room and on the sidelines of their practices. There, the agents were given free range to meet with players and recruits. And this possibly is how the agents were able to make relationships with the players and future players, relationships that would end in seeing at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts given to the players. For more, see this link.

When the vast majority of schools abide by the rules, how can they expect to compete in recruiting against USC when agents throw millions in gifts and cash at the players? The simple answer is they can't. And USC fans will respond to this by saying that cheating goes on at every school. Isn't that the excuse of every guilty criminal? "Everyone else was doing it, so why can't I?" So there is not even denial. But everyone is NOT doing it.

We also know that Barry Bonds' former doctor is the father of two former USC players, one of whom tested positive for steroids. Rather than come out with the truth, the word coming out of USC to the public was that the guilty party was "retiring to go to medical school." Fortunately for the football public, a source leaked the information and we became aware of it. But it's pretty clear that with the way USC handled it in the press, if it was up to them and all USC corruption would be swept under the carpet. See this source and then the story breaking in this link.

What about recruiting alleged criminals? Carroll recruited Colorado State lineman Frostee Rucker after he was kicked out of CSU for allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman and indecent exposure. An easily forgivable offense, right? It has been exposed that Rucker allegedly assaulted another girl, while at USC, in August of 2005. The truly shocking part of this is he did not miss one single game at USC. He kept playing for the Trojans. The story only came to light in April of 2006, after his eligiblity at USC was up. That's a remarkable coincidence, is it not?

Then there's USC's star player receiving over $18,000 in cash from a USC booster, who happened to be another player's dad. The NCAA somehow did not find fault with this and gave not a game of punishment to the player or program. All the player had to do was pay $5500 to charity by the end of this season. Where this money will come from, from a player who doesn't have a job and whose mom makes minimum wage, that's anybody's guess. What is the penalty if he doesn't pay the money to the charity? You say he could just spend some of the 18,000 he received, but he has already spent all that (and probably more unaccounted) money. What message does the NCAA's ruling send out here? Recruit rich players. Have those players parents' entice star recruits with "loans" to be repaid when they make it big in the NFL.

USC has had a great run the past 4 years. Their winning streak from 2003-2005 was 34, the same number U Miami had from 2000-2002. They won their first National Championship in 27 years in 2004, though that is now in question. 3 Heisman Trophy winners.

But does any of this matter if they cheated to achieve it? If you've cheated, have you really won anything?