LSUoverUSC

Why Oklahoma State is more deserving than Alabama

2011-11-30T14:10:00.000-08:00

The propaganda pushers at ESPN are at it again. They are trying to quell any talk about any team besides Alabama being allowed to play LSU in the National Championship Game. ESPN, of course, doesn't tell the viewers that two of the biggest pushers for this reasoning are Rece Davis and Brad Edwards, two Alabama alumni. Nor does ESPN put a disclaimer about Herbstreit's friendship with Nick Saban. Why is ESPN so afraid to open the discussion? Why should the public and the voters not look at the cases for both teams without preseason bias? If we did, we might see that Alabama's argument is a house built on cards. Alabama's "best win" in fact is a loss at home! ESPNers and Bama homeburgers don't want you to know that Bama struggled against FCS division Georgia Southern, giving up 21 points, 300+ yards on the ground, and Bama had to throw a pass TD with 1:00 left to pad the score.

Here are just a few of the reasons Alabama should not be given a free pass to the NC Game:

1) Alabama's high ranking now is largely the result of a preseason #2 ranking. Had Oklahoma State had the hype Alabama had surrounding it, Oklahoma State, based on that hype and its performance thus far, would be #2 in the voters' eyes.

2) Alabama already lost to LSU, at home no less. Why should Alabama get a second shot when there is a team that is just as deserving, but who hasn't had the chance to play LSU?

3) Allowing the SEC two teams in the National Championship Game opens the SEC to a pseudo-monopoly. We have little to judge the strength of the Big XII to the SEC other than a narrow win by the SEC's #3 team, Arkansas, over the Big XII's #7 team, Texas A&M. By giving Alabama a free trip to the NC Game, we have no idea if the Big XII's best could have defeated the SEC's best. The SEC has earned much respect based on prior results, but the SEC should not be given a monopoly. It would be bad for the competitiveness of college football.

4) Oklahoma State is a conference champion. Alabama did not even win its division, much less its conference. If Alabama wins, what a strange world it would be in a non-playoff system for a team that did not win its own conference to be national champion when at least three teams (Oklahoma State, VA Tech, and LSU) would have equal or superior records and actually did win their conferences.

5) 2006. Save for a last second drive amongst voters to ensure Michigan did not get a rematch against Ohio State, we would have ended 2006 with the belief that the Big 10 was the best conference in the land. Imagine if Florida did not get the chance to play in the NC Game. The world would have assumed Ohio State or Michigan was far and away the best team in the land. But look how Florida destroyed undefeated Ohio State. What if Oklahoma State is capable of doing the same to LSU, but is never given that chance? Again, Alabama had its chance. Oklahoma State has earned its chance to show the world what it is capable of doing.

Correcting history

2011-06-06T20:56:00.000-07:00

Now that the truth of USC's past has come into the light of justice, it's time that the college football public begin to reassess the last decade. When Pete Carroll was hired at USC, he was a career .500 head coach. After a typical .500 season his first year at USC, Baghdad Pete's teams exploded the next seven years to a near .900 record. At the time, the media and public assumed Pete had found his niche. Few questioned how such an average coach could become the Super Coach over night. As we recently discovered, the overnight transformation of USC under an average coach came not by miracle but by cheating. USC players under Pete Carroll used steroids and were lured by the prospect of getting free money from agents, just as Reggie Bush. Now the dramatic leap from .500 is a lot more comprehensible, and the world knows that the success USC had under Pete Carroll was directly linked to a culture of corruption and an atmosphere of cheating. Cheating may pay off in the short term, but long term, truth gets the best of cheating.

Now the question becomes, Should Auburn be awarded the 2004 National Championship? Former coach, Tommy Tubberville, thinks so.

Finally Official: USC's 2004 NC Vacated

2011-05-25T16:54:00.000-07:00

U$C, with their hubris and arrogance, appealed to the NCAA last Fall, stating that the NCAA sanctions, which included post-season bans, massive scholarship reductions, and forfeiture of wins during 2004 and 2005, including the 2004 NC, were excessive. The NCAA laughed at USC. After years of allowing players to receive money from agents and boosters, and more recently, years of stonewalling the NCAA investigation, justice has come for the U$Cheaters. It is OFFICIAL! All sanctions were upheld, and U$C will be forced to vacate its only National Championship since the 1970s! 3 Pete? No. 2 Pete? No. 1 Pete? NO PETE!!!!

Read all about it in the LA Times! And if you please, here is the official NCAA announcment.

I guess Baghdad Pete da Cheat, who promised USC faithful that the NCAA would find nothing when the investigation began five years ago, made a pretty good choice when he bolted for the NFL just weeks before the NCAA sanctions hit.

Saddened by 2010, the worst year in CFB history

2010-11-14T14:14:00.000-08:00

Besides those years U$C blemished by playing paid players, steroided players and Frostee Rucker.

Look at the top 4

1. Auburn - playing a paid player. Playing cheap shots who deserve to be executed for their dirty play.

2. Oregon - played only 2 teams with a winning record all season. Needed PAC 10 refs against a 5 loss Cal to negate an obvious good FG that would have won the game for Cal.

3. Boise State - their 2nd most "impressive" victory is against a terrible, terrible Oregon State team

4. TCU - played absolutely no one. Blew out a terrible UTAH that got blown out by a terrible ND team yesterday.

If any one of these four teams plays in the NC Game, it is officially the most pathetic year of CFB EVER!

Yahoo! Sports for all your sporting news

2010-07-31T00:23:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! Sports is the site for your sporting news and message boards.

Justice is late but soon to arrive for USC

2010-05-30T19:55:00.000-07:00

According to several sources, the NCAA will punish USC for being the most corrupt program in recent NCAA history come this Friday. Rumors swirl as to what the punishment will be, but our sources tell us it will be severe. I believe USC will lose five or six scholarships for the next four years, be bowl ineligible for two years, and be forced to forfeit all games from November 2004 to January 2006. That would mean USC is forced to forfeit 18 games, 17 of which were victories, all as a result of cheating. USC's final composite record during the 2000s decade would be 85-42, for a 67% winning percentage.

The BCS has already written new rules to accommodate the corruption at USC, writing in 2007 a provision that allows the BCS to vacate a national championship if a winning team has been proved to have major NCAA violations. It's clear that USC will soon be the first to experience this justice.

The end result is leaving USC as a program in shambles that hasn't won a national championship since Jimmy Carter was president.

Barateria

V Day: LSU acknowledged as only 2003 Champ

2006-11-30T09:11:00.000-08:00

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.

USC's Dirty Legacy

2006-11-26T12:32:00.000-08:00

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?

The LSUoverUSC Argument

2006-10-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

**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 each year, there will be a National Champion Game between the two most worthy teams, based upon a pre-agreed system. The National Championship Game will determine the National Champion. USC agreed to this contract by agreeing to be in the PAC 10. For years, USC fans used the BCS webpage, which intimated a "split." But now if you go to the BCS Webpage, it upholds the BCS contract and clearly states that LSU is the one and only 2003 National Champion. The reason for the change was legal pressure arising from not honoring its own contract.

The winner of the National Championship Game is the National 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. When you win the National Championship, you may or you may not be voted as a winner of various other titles, such as the AP or the Coaches, or Golfer’s Digest. But that is besides the point. The National Champion is the National Champion.

The winner of every National Championship Game 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 National Championship Trophy (and Championship) has already been earned and 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 the AP voted USC as its #1 team in 2003 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.

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. But that is not so. The BCS stands over and independent of the Coaches Poll. The winner of the NCG would be the National Champion regardless of how the Coaches Poll ended.

Let us then go to the official NCAA CFB Championship page:

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

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. Notice also that the NCAA is now only listing the winner of the BCS.

The BCS was created and legitimized when all the major conference university presidents and athletic directors came together to form a more fair system than the hairy fairy opinion polls. Therefore, the final BCS Poll, taken before the National Championship Game, is the ONLY poll that isn’t self-appointed. It is the ONLY poll that grounds and draws its legitimacy from all the conferences and their teams that agreed to its contract. That includes USC.

The National Championship Game is the ONLY championship that is decided on the field. It is the only Championship that matters. It is the only championship that is legitimated by the schools themselves. It is the only championship that is based on on the field merit. The AP, Dunkel, etc. titles are nothing but beauty peagants.

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. Or even in 2003, when one AP voter voted LSU #3 in his last poll! The two teams ahead of LSU? USC and Michigan! 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 in the BCS Poll shows just how weak USC’s results during the season were. Even with the pro-USC crusade, the legitimate system could not be fooled. USC was that far behind 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. LSU's body of work was vastly superior to USC's. 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 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: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3475396/
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: 19 of LSU’s 22 starters from 2003’s team are currently on NFL rosters. The 3 that are not are still on the LSU team. USC only has 15 starters from its 2003 team on NFL rosters.

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 middle of 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.

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.

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
1 LSU……………..13-1….1.00……1……2…..1.5…..1.2…..0.52…..2.82
2 USC……………..12-1….1.83……2……1…..1.5…..0.4….0.80……4.73
3 Ohio State…….11-2….4.33……4……4…..4.0…..0.2….0.56…..10.29
4 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 14th
and USC finished 20th. LSU was mere fractions away from actually
finishing 10th. Remove the Western Illinois game, which should have
never 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: Maryland #3……hmmmmmm….makes you wonder about this poll)

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 polling
for 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.

Perhaps most importantly, 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 they 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, much less win the title.

LOL

2006-09-15T07:13:00.000-07:00

What more needs to be said? By now, the college football world is waking to the news that those of us at the LSUoverUSC Blog have been reporting for the past 8 months. Namely, that USC is filled with to the brim with corruption.

Congratulations and appreciation are in order for Yahoo! Sports for their outstanding and courageous coverage of this story. Meanwhile, other big college football reporting outlets and their enormous staffs have done nothing in helping keep the CFB world informed of unfair practices at cashcow U$C. Justice shall be served, and that right soon!

After reading all of the links to these stories, you'll find that nothing is left to be said. Bravo, Yahoo!!

Yahoo! Story "Cash and carry"

"Take back the title"

"Timeline of events"

"Cast of characters"

Quotes

NCAA regulations broken

Steroid USCandal Style

2006-08-02T01:08:00.000-07:00

U$C has been known as the Barry Bonds of college football for some time now thanks to a string of scandals. But it now comes to pass that there may be a connection between USC players and the steroid investigation with Barry Bonds.

Last week USC Brandon Ting and his brother Ryan both said they were quiting the team to focus on academics. Today the LA Times has followed the LSUoverUSC Blog and revealed that USC starter Brandon Ting tested positive for steroids last January. Their father, Dr. Arthur Ting, is a prominent Bay Area physician who treated Barry Bonds for his knee injury in 2005. This could have huge implications in the Barry Bonds case, as it shows that the Ting family had access to and used steroids. What the trickle down shall be for baseball remains to be seen. How many other USC players took the drugs and have gone undetected or unpublished is also unknown at this point.

So this leaves the average college football fan left to wonder just how deep and how wide is the corruption at USC? It has gone beyond the point of a couple of minor incidents, and now certainly shows that there has been zero institutional control in the program for the past four years. .

Scandal after scandal, Baghdad Pete continues to pronounce innocence. Baghdad Pete isn't the only one saying this. One USC alum has also been defending the practices of the program:

And the scandals at U$C keep coming.

Yet another U$Candal

2006-06-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

For the 11th time in three years, a U$C player has been arrested and charged with a serious offense. It is reported that U$C defensive lineman Frostee Rucker allegedly seriously beat his girlfriend twice and then defaced her apartment.

Frostee practices his moves on the field for game time at home

Those who follow the corrupt program may already be thinking Rucker is no longer a U$C player. While that is true, these incidents all occurred in August 2005.

In other news, the dirty recruiting department recently sent a letter to recruits stating that they will no longer be able to provide student athletes with one million dollar houses, free meals at one Greek restaurant, 5 karat diamond earrings, or be able to pay off parental debt. Nor will U$C boosters be allowed to pay the rent on $100,000/year luxury apartments. The letter mentions that increased scrutiny and an investigation by the NCAA have prompted these changes. Nonetheless, the letter does state that in honor of Frostee Rucker, recruits and players will receive a lifetime supply of Wendy's Frosty drinks.

Baghdad Pete tells USC fans not to worry

2006-05-01T22:28:00.000-07:00

In a shocking new development, it appears a full 24 hour period went by yesterday without one new allegation of impropriety regarding the Southern Cal football team. USC still managed to make the news, however. Pete Carroll, from this point on aka "Baghdad Pete" has said, "I'm not concerned" about what the NCAA will find at USC. Baghdad Pete continued, "There are no NCAA infidels in Los Angeles. Never! I blame Al-Yahoo! Sports -- they are marketing for the USC haters! And no I am not scared, and neither should you be! Be assured. USC is safe, protected! I triple guarantee you, there are no NCAA soldiers at USC."

Thanks for that reassurance, Pete. But reality check for just a sec. In the past week, your star running back has been accused of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in money from an agent, which would make him ineligible for the 2004 and 2005 seasons. Your star wide receiver, whose eligibility for this coming year is at stake, has taken over $10,000 from a USC booster for his apartment rent. Your projected starting quarterback has been arrested for sexual assault. Your star offensive lineman for the past two season, the one who was previously arrested for solicitation of prostitution and threatening a fellow student with a deadly weapon, is also implicated in taking money from an agent. The bad news, Pete, is that the NCAA hasn't even begun to peel the surface on this corruption. The cancer of this program is not from without; it is from within, with a coach that puts the P-A-Y in players' coach. It is from a coach that thinks it is funny to scare his players by having one player pretend to quit the team and commit suicide by jumping off a building. A coach that teaches his players not to abide by contracts and rules (cf. the BCS in 2003). A coach that is happy to invite known drug dealer and gang member Snoop Dogg to his sidelines for practices and games. Pete, this falls at your door. You have lost institutional control of your program.

Apartmentgate: Do you have 10 grand to spare?

2006-04-30T06:21:00.000-07:00

In USC's scandal du jour, The L.A. Times reports that USC receiver Dwayne Jarrett received benefits from a USC booster (Matt Lienart's father) in the amount of $1300 each and every month for the past year. The money supposedly went to pay for a super-luxurious apartment in Los Angeles.

Unlike Reggie's parents, Matt's dad has the "checks and money orders to prove it." At least the NCAA won't have to waste its resources looking.

Needless to say, USC fans are already defending this situation, saying that it's ordinary for a parent to give his son's friends over $10,000. The LSUoverUSC Blog team is sympathetic to these excuses. After all, it is California, where security guards can afford to live in $800,000 houses.

"Dwayne, My dad says, 'Shake it like a piggy bank.'"

Letter alludes that USC knew about $100,000 payments

2006-04-29T07:11:00.000-07:00

The lawyer of Michael Michaels released a letter written in February to David Cornwell, Reggie Bush's lawyer. A segment of this letter reads: "Please advise if it is your intention to involve the University in these settlement negotiations. We would not object to their participation as we understand their wanting to be involved due to the fact this matter was ongoing during their championship season of 2004 as well as the entire season of 2005, and any lawsuit filed might have an adverse effect on them." USC has refused comment.

It would seem now much more likely that USC had a sure awareness of this situation and did nothing about it. The payments themselves are the NCAA violation that could forfeit USC of its 2004 and 2005 seasons. The knowledge of the payments by USC could lead to future penalties, including probation or even the unlikely death penalty.

BCS head says revoking 2004 Championship possible

2006-04-28T21:21:00.000-07:00

As the LSUoverUSC Blog team was the first to report, it is very much possible that USC will lose its only national championship since 1978. BCS administrator Mike Hancock was reported as saying, "This is the type of thing the BCS might have to look into if other governing bodies, the conference and the NCAA, take action."

Our first report centered on Housegate. Specifically, that Reggie Bush's family negotiated with agent Michael Michaels to move into a $757,000 house in San Diego owned by Michaels. Now, ProFootballTalk.com is reporting that Michaels gave $28,000 to Griffin to "clear up some debt."

So where has head coach Pete Carroll been for all of this? Finally, we were able to get a comment from him. "This process is like, 'You're guilty until proven innocent' " Carroll said, "because it goes to the media and it's splashed…. It surely gives everybody the impression, 'Oh no, it happened.' You'd think the facts would come out first."

Still, like Reggie on an ESPN interview, he doesn't answer the question. To quote philter, does he mean Reggie, Sanchez, or the 2003 season when the media gave a paper title to USC?

It keeps getting worse for USC.
3Pete? No.
RePete? No.
1Pete? Ummm, yes?
NoPete? Quite possible.

We will stay with all the stories. If you've enjoyed, or even hated, reading these reports, pass the site on to a friend.

NoPete USC: 2004 Championship to be stripped?

2006-04-28T06:55:00.000-07:00

Kiss that Heisman goodbye. That's for sure. People had been wondering why Reggie's mom didn't provide those canceled checks for renting the $757,000 house. Lo and behold, shocking news broke today. Despite desperate USC attempts to show that Reggie's mom, a security guard, could and did afford living in the luxurious San Diego home, it has come out today through Yahoo! Sports that Reggie owes $54,000 for rent and another $250,000 for other gifts. Bush continues to deny all wrong doing, saying, "I know for a fact that everything is fine and this is all blown out of proportion."

The biggest part of this story, however, is that the lawyer of agent Michael Michaels alleges that Michaels became involved with the Bush family after LaMar Griffin and Lloyd Lake sought to establish New Era Sports & Entertainment – with Reggie Bush as a future client – in November 2004, prior to the Trojans winning that season's national championship. If true it would be probable that the NCAA strips USC of its only national championship since 1978. If that happens Auburn, Oklahoma, or no team could be named the 2004 champion.

Did agent Michael Michaels help pay for the crystal, Pete?

In other news, ESPN continues to portray Reggie as the victim throughout this story. If you have followed this story, ESPN has gone from failing to report the story for an entire day, giving Reggie a free pass on an interview, and continually stating that USC had no connection to this. Today, ESPN has come out with vicious language against the man who says Reggie and family stole tens of thousands of dollars from him. Instead of using language like "Man wants payment for his goods" ESPN ran the headline "Sources: Agent Attempts to Extort Reggie Bush." They have used the NFL's term and said Reggie is the "victim of threats." We all know why the NFL and ESPN are defending Reggie and attacking the possible real victims here: Reggie will make them lots more money with a clean image than with a dirty one.

USC ID Scandal?

2006-04-27T20:51:00.000-07:00

The LA Times reported the fake Arizona ID of 19 year old Mark Sanchez to get into an over 21 bar had the name Jordan Uttal on it. Interestingly enough, that same name was found on another USC player's MySpace account. The account belongs to current NFL player and former USC player Matt Grootegoed. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to enter the"The Jordan Uttal Fan Club."

One wonders how deep this ID scandal will run. The LSUoverUSC Blog team will keep you informed.

Trouble on the USC fan front

2006-04-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

Long time USC homer and ABC broadcaster Keith Jackson officially retired today. Reasons for his retirement were senility, inability to translate action into words, and slurred speech. But we at the LSUoverUSC Blog have to question this move. It seems rather more than coincidental that this would happen amidst one of the largest college football program scandals of all-time. Could it be that Keith could no longer tolerate watching his beloved Trojan$ self destruct? First Housegate and now Dirty Sanchez.

In other news, life long USC supporter and friend of Pete Carroll, Snoop Dogg was arrested in London's Heathrow International Airport. First reports say that Snoop and his USC entourage hurled bottles of whisky and argued with staff at a duty free shop after being refused entry to a first-class lounge. In the end, seven London police officers were injured. Snoop, there must be another way to let off steam from your anger and disappointment at the train wreck that is the USC football program.

These are rough times for USC, but unlike ESPN and other large media outlets who have made it their business to promote USC instead of report on USC, we will keep you up to date on it all.

Play the Fall of Troy Game

2006-04-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

As reported earlier, the Fall of Troy has begun. Those of us at the LSUoverUSC Blog had no idea the fall would be so rapid, however. It was reported earlier tonight by Yahoo! Sports that USC QB Mark Sanchez was arrested for sexual assault. ESPN, aka SCPN, and other major media outlets have been able to keep such stories under wraps until the Housegate scandal.

With these stories in mind, the LSUoverUSC Blog is commissioning the first ever "Name the Fall of Troy Contest." What we are asking readers to do is make up original, funny, witty, and entertaining three words from the abbreviation "USC."

Some examples are:
Undisciplined Sociopathic Criminals
U$C
Unmarked Suitcases of Cash
University of Subpoenaed Convicts

You get the idea. Now it's your turn to add your best ideas in the comment section. Best selections will appear on the site, and the winner will win an official LSUoverUSC Prize.

Exclusive LSUoverUSC Blog photo of Mark Sanchez being arrested outside of USC's stadium. He was attempting to scratch out "more than".

Where in the world is Mrs. Griffin San Diego?

2006-04-26T20:08:00.000-07:00

One of the most interesting and entertaining elements of this story is the fact that Denise Griffin, Reggie Bush's mother, vacated the $757,000 house she was "leasing" from sports agent Michael Michaels the day after being questioned by a reporter from Yahoo! Sports. Not exactly what you would assume an innocent person does. Of course, that strange activity has given rise to many questions. One that seems not to be asked often is, Where is the world is Denise from San Diego? We ask this question because she will have all the receipts for rent that will clear the spotless names of Reggie Bush and USC. No one seems to know where she is living now. Reggie claims he tried to buy her another house, but couldn't afford it. Internet rumors about where she is have circulated. Some say she is staying in the nearest Holiday Inn Express. Others have speculated that she is staying in another secret house owned by a different sports agent.

We at the LSUoverUSC Blog find all such hearsay to be a sad commentary on the state of affairs in America. To clear things up, we sent out our top investigative team, and using the most up-to-date spy tactics, have ascertained where she is staying. As we reported on Sunday night shortly after she vacated her house, she was seen and photographed by the LSUoverUSC Blog team being picked up by an unknown man in a white Ford Bronco. While the identity of this man is as of now unknown, there were two decals on the back. One said, "USC alumni" and the other, "I didn't do it." Fortunately, our team followed the vehicle back to a house in Malibu.

We were unable to obtain from neighbors the name of the residency's owner. However, the neighbors said that there was a long-time houseguest staying there, and his name is "K." After further investigation, we have discovered that person to be none other than Kato Kaelin.

Sworn testimony doesn't jibe with Reggie

2006-04-25T13:58:00.000-07:00

Because a lot of USC fans read this blog, and they have trouble following difficult issues, I'm going to break this story down as simply as possible. Get ready to connect the dots.

On Dan Patrick's radio show today, it was revealed that there is sworn testimony that would lead one to believe Reggie Bush did know about the house in San Diego. New Era is the sports agency that casino man Michael Michaels (owner of the house Reggie's mom had been living in for the past year) and Lloyd Lake founded last year. In a trial involving Lloyd Lake, Lake was quoted as saying, "I had a sports agency that we had formed, and we had a guy in, Winston Justice, from USC. . . . Reggie Bush came into town. And at that time he was going to go out with us." You can read more specifics at ProFootball Talk.

So let's follow this line. Michaels and Lloyd establish a sports agency. They buy a $757,000 house in San Diego. New Era talks with Reggie (and fellow USC OL Winston Justice). Mrs. Griffin, Reggie's mom, engraves her name in the wet cement while the house is still being built (late 2004/early 2005). Lloyd testifies in a court that he had made a deal with Reggie Bush. Yahoo Sports reporter investigates the story. Reggie's mom moves out. Reggie denies knowing anything about this at all. And the rest is history. Reggie has at least one supporter outside of southern Cal.

"Reggie did not have relations with that man, Michael Michaels."

(Thanks to TTechRaider10 for editing the image of the Fall of Troy)

Today's Lucky Number: 5

2006-04-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

Five is turning up everywhere we look in the Housegate scandal.

First, where were the Big Five sports reporting agencies -- ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, The Sporting News, and city papers (like the LA Times/NY Times/SD Union-Tribune) on this story? Their job is to report the news and to investigate. Yet they have grossly failed the public. Instead, we have Yahoo! Sports break the news. If you're not familiar with sports media, Yahoo is at the bottom of the totem poll in terms of resources. Were the big 5 totally enamored with USC, so much so that they failed to see the writing on the wall? Anyone who watched ESPN's Trey Wingo interview Bush yesterday saw a "reporter" who let Bush get away with lying and switched the conversation when it was apparent that Bush wouldn't answer the questions. A true reporter would have pressed on for the truth. The sports media has a responsibility and, except for little Yahoo Sports, failed the college football public.

If the LSUoverUSC Blog Team were to get an interview with Reggie Bush, we would ask him the following five questions and would not relent until we got answers:

1. Reggie, where are the cancelled checks for the house payments? We ask this because bringing these forward will clear everything up.
2. Why did your family move out immediately after your mom was questioned by the reporter? Most people believe innocent people don't run away from their houses. Yesterday on ESPN you said that she moved out because you were buying her a new house. But then you said that house was too expensive even for you. So if she doesn't have a new house, why did she move out of this one? Where is she living now?

3. Why did you avoid answering these questions and others on the ESPN interview yesterday?
4. How did your mother, a security guard, afford to live in a $757,000 house?
5. What is your relationship with Michael Michaels?

The LSUoverUSC Blog Team is going to do something it has never done before: give helpful advice to a USC player.

Reggie, the best thing for you to do is live up to your jersey's number and do what a President did after a similar scandal.

That's right, plead Da Fiiiiiiif!

Reggie Didn't Know!

2006-04-24T19:29:00.000-07:00

According to an ESPN interview (today's video interview with Reggie blatantly lying is found here also) with Reggie Bush's lawyer, Reggie "did not know" that his mother was living in a new, $800,000 house.

To be fair to Reggie, nothing has been proved, but the fact that his mom high-tailed it out of the house like OJ in a white Ford Bronco and today's Troy Wingo interview did nothing to help his case. But like Steve Urkel, the "I didn't know/Did I do that?" defense will go no where in helping USC or his reputation. Even if Reggie did not know, USC is still culpable according to NCAA rules because if a player or player's family receives benefit, a violation has occurred.

But are we really to believe that for at least six months, Reggie had no idea where his mother was living? Did he never make the two hour trip from Los Angeles to visit his mother? Did he not send his mom a Christmas card? Did he not try to call her at the old number? Even a reporter from halfway across the nation knew where Mrs. Griffin was living.

Thanks to cracking reporting by the investigative team at The LSUoverUSC Blog, we've uncovered other things Reggie did not know.

That lateralling the ball in traffic is a bad idea.

The sporting agent Michael Michaels, the man who originally bought the San Diego house before Reggie's mom carved her name and year into the wet cement in front of the house, was covertly working for LSU. His codename was "Trojan Horse."

That LSU won the 2003 National Championship.

The $800,000 Bush House

2006-04-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

Picture of the Bush Estate, taken just after vacating it.

Many of you have recently heard that an agent attempting to woo Reggie Bush provided his family in San Diego with an $800,000 home. The full article is found right hereYahoo Article. Apparently, the family moved in months ago, near the beginning of this past season. The house was bought and the title belonged to the agent, whom Push did not hire. The story gets interesting when a neighbor approached Push's mother. The neighbor asked her if she owned the house. The next day, the Push family had moved out of the house. All that was left in the house was an advertisement with the number 1-800-USC-ALUM and a guarantee of savings of 15% on next day moving services. Outside the house were skidmarks left by what scientists have determined was a white Ford Bronco.

The rumors circulating this story, one that ESPN refuses to delve into because of its attachment to USC and Push, could be devastating for USC. Not only might they be forced to forfeit all their 2005 games, but also the NCAA would certainly bring down justice with a mighty fist since this is as major a violation as they come. This will put the USC program back at least ten years. Furthermore, when the NCAA starts investigating, who knows what they will find. It is very possible that this loss of institutional control could extend beyond last year and carry over several years. If that is the case, USC might be forced to forfeit its only championship in the past three decades (2004).

Reggie Bush defending his mom for moving out of their house. "There was a guy asking if she owned it. She took it to mean there are aliens coming to obliterate the house. And so, she left." Notice his matching 5 carat diamond earrings, the same he wore during the Heisman awards.

Reggie's mom's wrote her name and year on the wet cement in front of her new house. It is said that World's Most Stupid Law Breakers: NCAA Edition is looking into buying this amazing artifact.

Funny USC Pictures

2006-04-10T17:59:00.001-07:00

USC fans celebrate their trip to the National Championship Game being held in the 2003 Sugar Bowl. *Correction* Because USC lost to an unranked, six loss team and played only one top 25 opponent during the entire season, they failed to earn a spot in the National Championship Game.

More Trojan tomfoolery.

Class act Matt Lienert wears on public interviews a shirt that reads "F*CK The BCS" after USC failed to earn a berth in the National Championship Game. Oddly enough, Matt would later praise the BCS when USC got a spot in the 2004 National Championship Game and undefeated SEC power Auburn was left out. The next year after losing to Texas, Matt would insist, "We're still the better team."

USC to claim NCAA Basketball Title

2006-01-26T23:15:00.000-08:00

USC coach Tim Floyd telling LSU coach John Brady that he planned to claim the title if LSU wins the Final Four. Brady thought he was joking.

Mar 23, 10:20 PM EST

USC Set to Claim Men's Basketball Title

By Michael Smith
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES. (AP) -- The USC basketball team is currently holding a press conference in which the team is unveiling a plan contingent on LSU winning the NCAA men's basketball championship. After LSU pulled off an upset over #1 ranked Duke in the Southeast Semifinal, USC supporters around the nation have pulled together to campaign for USC being named a co-champion. The basketball team has transformed that fervor into a legitimate claim of a national championship.

Tim Floyd, head coach for USC, stated,"If our bread and butter -- our football team -- can do it, we feel confident that we are able to also. We are considering the possibilities of claiming the championship outright because neither LSU nor USC signed a contract with the NCAA Tournament."

Floyd was referring to the 2003-2004 college football season when USC claimed a national title even though they did not even play in the National Championship Game to which they agreed would decide the National Champion.

"We're big LSU fans right now," said Floyd. "We didn't make the NCAA or NIT Tournaments, but really, does that matter? The press loves us, and to borrow unsubstantiated claims from the media in 2003, 'Isn't it just clearly obvious that USC is better than LSU?'"

LSU officials have not responded to calls and emails for interviews. Officials at the AP Poll have stated that if LSU wins the Tournament, USC has a very strong possibility of being ranked #1 in the poll.

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

2006-01-15T23:03:00.000-08:00

**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