USC - one time BCS national champions

[SpidermanTuba]

 

[5stringJeff]

I thought USC won in 2003...?

 

[dilloduck]

I thought USC won in 2003...?

Depends on who you ask-----some had em Co-Champs.

 

[insein]

They would have smoked LSU. This is the nonsense you get when a poll decides who the national champion is.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How is LSU doing these days, anyways?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I thought USC won in 2003...?

USC did not play in a national championship game in 2003.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They would have smoked LSU. This is the nonsense you get when a poll decides who the national champion is.

A poll did not decide that LSU was the champion. LSU played in THE national championship game and won.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Depends on who you ask-----some had em Co-Champs.

Co-Champs of what? They didn't play in a single championship game that year, let alone a national championship game.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How is LSU doing these days, anyways?

We went 11-2 this year.


We lost to Tennessee. We had to play them on a Monday because the game was delayed due to Hurricane Rita. The players were on average 7 lbs lighter than normal, due to their volunteer activities in the month beforehand. But I'll stop making excuses, that would be a very USC thing to do.


We went on to beat Florida, Auburn, and Alabama (who at the time was 9-0), as well be beat Arizona St. in a game that was rescheduled to be an away game instead of home right after Hurricane Katrina. Plus we beat the usual conference patsies.


Then Georgia blew us out in the SEC championship game. Not quite sure what happened there.


But it was all made much better in the Peach Bowl after we dealt the storied Miami team its worse loss in over a decade - 40-3! They fired almost their entire assistant coaching staff off of that one, literally.

It was made more satisfying when Georgia lost to West Virginia, a weaker opponent than Miami, but only by 3 points - not so much as to embarass the SEC.


Then the final happiness of the season was when USC lost to Texas. Did anyone see that game? It was the most awesome non-LSU game I've ever seen!


LSU had some thrilling victories this year. We beat Arizona off of a 4th and 10 touchdown pass in the final 2 minutes. We beat Auburn (23-20?) in overtime when their kicker missed his 5th field goal of the night by hitting the uprights ("CLUNK" the sound of victory!) and we beat the then undefeated Alabama team (16-10) in overtime, with a thrilling 20 yard touchdown pass. We beat Arkansas 19-17, and Florida 21-17.

I love close games. Gives you a reason to watch. Of course, I only love them if we win. Tennesee came back to beat us in overtime after we had gone up 28-0 in the 2nd quarter.






Next season looks good for the tigers. Matt Flynn, who was put in to QB for the Peach Bowl, after Russel was injured in the SEC championship game, was spectacular in the Peach Bowl. Not as physical as Russel - but far more intelligent in his decisions. Knows exactly when to pass, when to throw it away, when to take a sack, and when to scramble. And unlike Russell, all his passes are right on the money. I was saying all season he was the better QB. I think we'll be starting him next year and he will only be a junior.


Even numbered years are typically the worst - due to the way the SEC schedule is made up our toughest games are mostly away in even numbered years. Next year will be a building year. Les Miles needs to get comfortable with what he's doing, get in the groove. 11-2 is a great way for him to start though.

But come 2007 you better watch out for dem TIgers! We're going all the way!

 

[dilloduck]

Co-Champs of what? They didn't play in a single championship game that year, let alone a national championship game.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2003_archive_bcs.html

College football has no official championship game

there are lots of polls

 

[SpidermanTuba]

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2003_archive_bcs.html

College football has no official championship game

there are lots of polls

College football has one national championship game. And it is the only national championship agreed upon by the colleges themselves. I don't see how you could get more official than that.

 

[dilloduck]

College football has one national championship game. And it is the only national championship agreed upon by the colleges themselves. I don't see how you could get more official than that.

Division I-A football is the only NCAA sport which doesn't decide its champion with a playoff. In the past, the unofficial national champion was determined by various polls, such as the Associated Press Poll, CNN/USA Today Coaches Poll, and the United Press International Poll. This system was problematic, as two polls often named different champions.

Since 1998, the National Championship has been determined by the Bowl Championship Series. This formula, incorporating numerous computer rankings and human polls, is used to determine the top two teams in the country. The two teams compete for the championship in one of the four BCS bowls. This system is not without controversy. Some critics argue that the system unfairly favors teams from large conferences, and that the process used to select the teams can be just as ambiguous as the earlier poll system. Also, to add to the controversy, the Bowl Championship Series champion has not always been the undisputed national champion; for example, in 2003, the Associated Press and Bowl Championship Series chose different champions, which is precisely what the system was designed to prevent.

http://www.answers.com/topic/college-football

 

[insein]

A poll did not decide that LSU was the champion. LSU played in THE national championship game and won.

Against the 3rd best team eventually. You see when they do the poll its supposed to be 1 and 2 stay 1 and 2. You actually played the 3rd best team that year according to the polls.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

http://www.answers.com/topic/college-football

The entire article is suspect.

The system was not designed to prevent the BCS and AP from choosing different champions. That would be absurd. Why would you create an entire new system for determining a champion for the purpose of insuring that that system does not conflict with the old one? Why not just not think up a new system?


If the purpose of the BCS was to pit the AP #1 and #2 teams against each other in a championship game, it would use the AP as its ranking system. Apparently, the BCS creators figured that maybe we don't want to let subjectively thinking sportswriters have the final word.







Furthermore - the statement that USC did not play in a national championship game in 2003 is still correct. There is only ONE national championship GAME, or at least, there was in 2003.

A championship game requires that BOTH teams playing have a championship at stake. Had Michigcan won - they would not have been selected national champions by anyone. Hence, the 2003 Rose Bowl was not a national championship game no matter how hard Pete Carol wants to believe it is.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Against the 3rd best team eventually. You see when they do the poll its supposed to be 1 and 2 stay 1 and 2. You actually played the 3rd best team that year according to the polls.

The ranking system which all the BCS schools had agreed upon would be THE ranking system for determining who played in THE national championship game was the BCS ranking system.

Oklahoma finished #1 in that system. Rules are rules.

If USC wanted the #1 and #2 human ranked teams to play each other - they should not have agreed to the BCS system.

Oklahoma had a much tougher schedule than USC - as is reflected by the fact that the computer rankings, which are not affected by human subjectivity, picked Oklahoma #1 in 4 out of 6 rankings. USC was picked #1 in one. In fact - even a human could determine Oklahoma had a tougher schedule. It would be a big stretch of the imagination to claim USC's schedule was tougher.

You tell me. You've got two teams, team A and team B. Both have one loss. Team A played a tougher schedule than Team B - but Team B is more popular. Which team is more deserving?



And the point that Oklohoma lost their conference championship game MIGHT have some weight if USC had actually PLAYED a conference championship game AND won.







Even with your argument - why should USC get more credit for beating the #4 team than LSU does for beating the #3 ?!?

 

[archangel]

what the hell is all the arguments in here about...USC played Texas in the Rose Bowl..Texas won..what the hell does LSU have anything to do with it?

And bye the way Spidey are you a player or just a rooter? If a player what team? and why go on-and on-and on about this..Geez I played football in HS and college...but moved on to other things after growing up!

 

[insein]

what the hell is all the arguments in here about...USC played Texas in the Rose Bowl..Texas won..what the hell does LSU have anything to do with it?

And bye the way Spidey are you a player or just a rooter? If a player what team? and why go on-and on-and on about this..Geez I played football in HS and college...but moved on to other things after growing up!

3 years ago, the rankings were like this.

1. Oklahoma
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Michigan

Ok vs LSU
USC vs Mich

LSU and USC both won. The final BCS poll had LSU the #1 team. The final AP poll had USC the champ. Therefore, they were "Co-Champions."

LSU beat Okl 21-14. It was a close game throughout.
USC beat Mich 28-14. Mich got a late TD to make it closer.

So the polls said USC was #1 but the BCS title game was LSU vs Okl.

My argument is not for or against LSU or USC. Its that the whole system is retarded. Last year Auburn finished 13-0 in the hardest conference in the country, the SEC and was ranked 3rd in the nation. No co-champion. No consolation prize. They simple get known as one of the few unbeaten teams to not win a national title like Penn State of 1993.

There should be a playoff. Its so freakin obvious that its criminal that the NCAA hasnt implemented it yet due to all the money "individuals" would lose on each bowl setup.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what the hell is all the arguments in here about...USC played Texas in the Rose Bowl..Texas won..what the hell does LSU have anything to do with it?

You don't follow CF much, do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

3 years ago, the rankings were like this.

1. Oklahoma
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Michigan

Ok vs LSU
USC vs Mich

LSU and USC both won. The final BCS poll had LSU the #1 team. The final AP poll had USC the champ. Therefore, they were "Co-Champions."

LSU beat Okl 21-14. It was a close game throughout.
USC beat Mich 28-14. Mich got a late TD to make it closer.

So the polls said USC was #1 but the BCS title game was LSU vs Okl.

My argument is not for or against LSU or USC. Its that the whole system is retarded. Last year Auburn finished 13-0 in the hardest conference in the country, the SEC and was ranked 3rd in the nation. No co-champion. No consolation prize. They simple get known as one of the few unbeaten teams to not win a national title like Penn State of 1993.

There should be a playoff. Its so freakin obvious that its criminal that the NCAA hasnt implemented it yet due to all the money "individuals" would lose on each bowl setup.

A couple of points
1) USC didn't win the COaches poll that year, LSU did.
2) LSU is the only 2003 team to win a national championship by playing an actual national championship game
3) Some kid in alabama declared Auburn national champions, and they got rings and T-Shrits and a parade and everything
4) You're right - this system is so incredibly screwed up.


They tell us a playoff is bad because it would make the season too long.

BS. They just added a 12th game to the regular season for every year now.

12 + 1 conf champ + 1 bowl = 14


But if we had an 11 game season, like normal, and got rid of conference championship games, we could have a 16 team playoff, where the losers get put into the top bowl games and the final 2 play in a "national championship game" - and only 4 teams (2 finalists in the NC game and 2 semi-finalist losers in a top bowl game) would have to play 15 games. The rest would all play no more than a lot of teams are going to be playing next season. And the bowls could be somewhat preserved.

 

[5stringJeff]

But if we had an 11 game season, like normal, and got rid of conference championship games, we could have a 16 team playoff, where the losers get put into the top bowl games and the final 2 play in a "national championship game" - and only 4 teams (2 finalists in the NC game and 2 semi-finalist losers in a top bowl game) would have to play 15 games. The rest would all play no more than a lot of teams are going to be playing next season. And the bowls could be somewhat preserved.

Totally agree. The current college bowl system blows.