Who recognizes USC's 2003-04 national championship?

[Corkscrew Johnson]

Quick history lesson:  LSU met Oklahoma in the 2003-04 BCS national championship game, despite (1) OU's blowout loss to Kansas St. in the Big 12 championship game and (2) the fact that USC was ranked #2 in the AP polls.  The AP voters, in an attempt to spurn the BSC system for ignoring what they thought was their rightful #1 vs. #2 matchup, voted USC its national champion and not LSU, after both teams won their bowl games. 

Additional factors to keep in mind:
a) each team had lost one game...LSU lost to Florida, OU lost to KSU, and USC lost to the Cal-Berkley Golden Bears
b) USC played a very average Michigan team in the Rose Bowl, LSU played OU.
c) this was the height of BCS madness...when the BCS annually matched up the wrong two teams.  the AP press was out to degrade and destroy the BCS system.
d) the AP did not vote co-national champions.  they voted USC the champion outright.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I think this 2003-04 USC national championship is a joke.  Do I think USC should have played LSU in the national championship game? Maybe.  I don't like that OU lost its last game, but I don't think USC deserved a spot in the Sugar Bowl just because they lost earlier in the year than OU, and to a worse team nonetheless.  I thought (and still think) that it was disrespectful for the AP press to spurn LSU's right to a sole national championship just because they wanted to show their displeasure with the BCS system.  The bottom line is that LSU was the best team.  They would have manhandled USC, just as they did to OU.

But I actually held out a small candle of respect for that national championship UNTIL the AP press screwed auburn a year later.  Similar scenario, different result...b/c this time the BCS matched up the AP's favorite two teams.  It's sad to see a group of empowered, bitter AP voters can control the landscape of college football from their cubicles.

But that's just my opinion.  What do y'all think?

[RhodeHog]

Not me.

[Hollywood_HOGan]

i consider them the champions because they were voted #1.

The team that played LSU in the sugar bowl had no business whatsoever being in that game. Oklahoma is one of the main reasons there has been changes to the BCS. 

Should have been LSU-USC in the Sugar bowl that year.

[Albert Einswine]

Quick history lesson:  LSU met Oklahoma in the 2003-04 BCS national championship game, despite (1) OU's blowout loss to Kansas St. in the Big 12 championship game and (2) the fact that USC was ranked #2 in the AP polls.  The AP voters, in an attempt to spurn the BSC system for ignoring what they thought was their rightful #1 vs. #2 matchup, voted USC its national champion and not LSU, after both teams won their bowl games. 

Additional factors to keep in mind:
a) each team had lost one game...LSU lost to Florida, OU lost to KSU, and USC lost to the Cal-Berkley Golden Bears
b) USC played a very average Michigan team in the Rose Bowl, LSU played OU.
c) this was the height of BCS madness...when the BCS annually matched up the wrong two teams.  the AP press was out to degrade and destroy the BCS system.
d) the AP did not vote co-national champions.  they voted USC the champion outright.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I think this 2003-04 USC national championship is a joke.  Do I think USC should have played LSU in the national championship game? Maybe.  I don't like that OU lost its last game, but I don't think USC deserved a spot in the Sugar Bowl just because they lost earlier in the year than OU, and to a worse team nonetheless.  I thought (and still think) that it was disrespectful for the AP press to spurn LSU's right to a sole national championship just because they wanted to show their displeasure with the BCS system.  The bottom line is that LSU was the best team.  They would have manhandled USC, just as they did to OU.

But I actually held out a small candle of respect for that national championship UNTIL the AP press screwed auburn a year later.  Similar scenario, different result...b/c this time the BCS matched up the AP's favorite two teams.  It's sad to see a group of empowered, bitter AP voters can control the landscape of college football from their cubicles.

But that's just my opinion.  What do y'all think?

I think that in both instances Oklahoma was not better than the team that was spurned and left out of the BCS title game.

[bigred7987]

No team that doesn't win their own conference title should be allowed to play in the National title, Oklahoma didn't deserve to be there, especially after a 28 point shalacking.  USC was the best team in the country that year IMO

[mbgrulz]

not I.

LSU owns that one IMO.

is SC not the MOST overrated so called "dynasty" ever? i mean seriously they won ONE NC. im not sure the great nebraska teams of the 90's got this much love.

[HoopS]

They robbed us from that LSU USC game.  I've said this before, but to put OU in the title game after losing by 4 tds was unbelievable.  I will never, ever be convinced that a team that not only loses it's own conf championship, but loses so decisively deserves a chance to be the national champion. 

I consider USC as much a champion that year as Auburn was a couple years ago.

[LZH]

LSU and Auburn each deserved serious consideration as consensus NC's.  USC very well may have blown thru the SEC each of those years, but I'd like to have seen it.

[Corkscrew Johnson]

im not arguing that OU deserved to be in that game...i just think that USC should never have been handed a national championship as a parting gift.  they played a weak schedule, lost to a weak team, and played an average team in their bowl game.  they did nothing to prove themselves, whereas LSU had to play a national championship game every other weekend that year.

[mossfan3]

I really thought that situation would lead to some drastic changes in the current championship system.  Boy, that was wishful thinking.

[LAHOGG]

I'm pretty sure everybody knows who would have won between USC and LSU.  The LSU vs OU game was a challenge.  USC won its game easy and then the very next year beat the very same OU team ,from top to bottom, like they were [CENSORED].  I hate USC just like everybody else here.  I just don't let it ruin my judgement. 

[Corkscrew Johnson]

I'm pretty sure everybody knows who would have won between USC and LSU.  The LSU vs OU game was a challenge.  USC won its game easy and then the very next year beat the very same OU team ,from top to bottom, like they were [CENSORED].  I hate USC just like everybody else here.  I just don't let it ruin my judgement. 

no, USC beat a very mediocre Michigan team only 28-14, and they did not look dominant in doing so.  the LSU-OU game was not close, even though OU scored late to make the final outcome respectable. and you can't bring the 2004-05 teams into question...different teams, different players, different results.

[bigred7987]

and when USC beat the exact same Oklahoma team the next year?

[mossfan3]

I agree, USC was dominant.  They did have a slip up to a talented Cal team that was lead by a 1st round QB I believe.  USC was the best team it's just a shame that it wasn't proven on the field.  USC is the champion of that year in my book.

[bigred7987]

and that game was in 3 OT I Believe

[LAHOGG]

If I remember correctly LSU's defense did dominate OU.  As did USC's the next year.  I just don't remember LSU's offense looking impressive.  Matter of fact I remember OU having several turnovers.  That night it just looked like the better team didn't come to play.

[HoopS]

I hate to admit this, but a fellow Arkansan turned the worm in the SC OU game.  Bradley's botched punt return changed that game dramatically.  SC would have won anyway, imo.  Auburn was dang salty that year too.

[Albert Einswine]

LSU was your BCS Champion and USC was your AP Champion.  Just like it was many times before the BCS farce came onto the scene.  In years past there were many split championships.

[hamsam]

IMO, USC has one champioship out of the past three. I believe the BCS champion is the only one recognized by the NCAA. However, if it were Arkansas in USC's position, I am quite sure my opinion would change:)

[Corkscrew Johnson]

If you disavow USC's title from that year, how do you justify saying Arkansas won one in 1964?

Both teams have legit claims to titles, because they were voted into that position.

equity vs. politics.  arkansas was voted as 1964 national champions b/c after the bowl games, we were the only team worthy of the title after alabama lost.  USC was voted 2003-04 national champions b/c after the bowl games, the AP voters wanted to distinguish themselves from the BCS.  here is another reason why i think so:

i would have given USC's national championship more credence if they had been voted co-national champions with LSU.  but the fact that LSU, who had the same record, played a tougher schedule, lost to a better team during the season, and faced a more challenging bowl game, was given ZERO repect by the AP voters by not giving them co-national championship status totally undermines the AP's credibility.  why should USC just be handed a national championship?  because when they lost to an average Cal team, it was in 3 OT's?  because in 2004-05 the trojans beat OU worse than LSU beat OU in 2003-04?  buehler, buehler...

[edmo]

LSU ownes that one.

[Hawgz4Life]

I thought I recognized it once in Little Rock...but it was another National Championship....boy, was I ever embarrased at the awkwardness of the moment.

[VoR]

If you disavow USC's title from that year, how do you justify saying Arkansas won one in 1964?

Both teams have legit claims to titles, because they were voted into that position.

equity vs. politics.  arkansas was voted as 1964 national champions b/c after the bowl games, we were the only team worthy of the title after alabama lost.  USC was voted 2003-04 national champions b/c after the bowl games, the AP voters wanted to distinguish themselves from the BCS.  here is another reason why i think so:

i would have given USC's national championship more credence if they had been voted co-national champions with LSU.  but the fact that LSU, who had the same record, played a tougher schedule, lost to a better team during the season, and faced a more challenging bowl game, was given ZERO respect by the AP voters by not giving them co-national championship status totally undermines the AP's credibility.  why should USC just be handed a national championship?  because when they lost to an average Cal team, it was in 3 OT's?  because in 2004-05 the trojans beat OU worse than LSU beat OU in 2003-04?  buehler, buehler...

I recognize them both as national champs that year, I would put more credence in your comment about AP voting for USC except for the fact that the BCS required it's voters to vote for the winner of the said BCS championship, that the AP has been naming it's national champion a whole lot longer then the BCS has, and in fact if the NCAA truly wishes to name a NC, even if they won't have the decency to run a playoff because it would hurt the student athlete  (I guess the student athlete's only matter in D1), at least play an add 1 game.

[Tejano Jawg]

OU is definitely favored by the polling gods. The next year, it should have been Auburn playing USC for the title...not Oklahoma.

[Pork Twain]

The BCS was created so there would only be one NC each year.  THey picked OK and LSU and that is that.  I don't think OU should have been there in place of USC or Auburn but that is the system we are stuck with.

[Blyboy205]

OU is definitely favored by the polling gods. The next year, it should have been Auburn playing USC for the title...not Oklahoma.

I still dont see how Auburn got left out of that game after going undefeated in the SEC. Not saying they would have beaten USC but they would have had a lot better chance than OU.

[EastexHawg]

USC's 2003 national championship is just as legitimate as LSU's.  They won it the same way LSU won theirs, and the same way Bear Bryant's Alabama teams...Tom Osborne's Nebraska teams...and Darrell Royal's Texas teams won theirs.  They were voted #1 in a poll.

It's not like LSU fought their way through some sort of playoff system to reach the BCS title game.  They were SELECTED to play in the game the same way teams have always been chosen to play in bowl games...in what amounts to a popularity contest.  Sure, computers were used...but who programmed the computers and determined the subjective criteria that would be used to determine the outcome?  Humans.

The outrage at USC's 2003 national championship baffles me.  The AP poll has been around much longer than the BCS, and I think its means of determining a champion makes just as much sense as the BCS.  In fact, the BCS is a farce.  BCS stands for "Bowl Championship Series".

So where is the series?

There is no series, there is a one bowl game involving two hand-picked teams supposedly playing for the championship.  And how are the participants chosen?  For the most part, by POLLS. 

IMO, the BCS is a marketing ploy to make college football fans somehow think there is some sort of well-conceived process in place to ensure a true national champion...when in fact it is nothing more than the same ol' same ol'...yet another beauty pageant under a different name.

The main purpose of the BCS is an attempt to derail calls for the only method of choosing a champion that makes any sense at all...a true playoff.

[Amityvillehogger]

i sure don't...you got to be in the championship game to be champions...doesn't matter if it wasn't fair that you didn't get in, life isn't fair.  If we are gonna use the bcs, we should deal with the consequences even if they don't go our way.

[VoR]

The BCS was created so there would only be one NC each year.  THey picked OK and LSU and that is that.  I don't think OU should have been there in place of USC or Auburn but that is the system we are stuck with.

No, it was created so that the Fiesta Bowl could no longer raid what the Sugar, Orange, and Cotton Bowls felt were rightfully theirs. The Sugar was tied to the SEC, the Orange was tied to the Big 12, and as we all know, the Cotton was tied to the SWC, at the time it happened the SWC was on it's last leg and hopelessly in decline, hence it's red-headed stepchild status now. At the time it was cussed and discussed the Rose bowl still had their noses stuck in the air, and until the year (I think it was Mich, not sure though) their team got snubbed they had no interest at all sharing their precious TV revenue at all with the other bowls, and that was when the alliance was created, that was also when the UP/ESPN/USA Today/Coaches poll decided that they would require the coaches to vote for whomever won their mythical national championship game, only 1 problem, they forgot that only once in a blue moon do only 2 teams end up undefeated, and that there would almost always be 2 or more teams with only 1 defeat.

You can say what you will about why the BCS was created, but the bottom line was it was created it was created to keep the Fiesta Bowl from stealing their thunder each year, and then with any luck, perhaps a true National Champion.

[VoR]

i sure don't...you got to be in the championship game to be champions...doesn't matter if it wasn't fair that you didn't get in, life isn't fair.  If we are gonna use the bcs, we should deal with the consequences even if they don't go our way.

When did the AP decide the BCS was the championship game, I must of missed that 1, you can decide to call a sow's ear a silk purse, but it's still a sow's ear. If I remember correctly, the AP decided that the BCS was such a farce in the way the handled everything, that they threatened to go to court to force them to quit using their poll without permission.

[Chief Mac]

Quick history lesson:  LSU met Oklahoma in the 2003-04 BCS national championship game, despite (1) OU's blowout loss to Kansas St. in the Big 12 championship game and (2) the fact that USC was ranked #2 in the AP polls.  The AP voters, in an attempt to spurn the BSC system for ignoring what they thought was their rightful #1 vs. #2 matchup, voted USC its national champion and not LSU, after both teams won their bowl games. 

Additional factors to keep in mind:
a) each team had lost one game...LSU lost to Florida, OU lost to KSU, and USC lost to the Cal-Berkley Golden Bears
b) USC played a very average Michigan team in the Rose Bowl, LSU played OU.
c) this was the height of BCS madness...when the BCS annually matched up the wrong two teams.  the AP press was out to degrade and destroy the BCS system.
d) the AP did not vote co-national champions.  they voted USC the champion outright.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I think this 2003-04 USC national championship is a joke.  Do I think USC should have played LSU in the national championship game? Maybe.  I don't like that OU lost its last game, but I don't think USC deserved a spot in the Sugar Bowl just because they lost earlier in the year than OU, and to a worse team nonetheless.  I thought (and still think) that it was disrespectful for the AP press to spurn LSU's right to a sole national championship just because they wanted to show their displeasure with the BCS system.  The bottom line is that LSU was the best team.  They would have manhandled USC, just as they did to OU.

But I actually held out a small candle of respect for that national championship UNTIL the AP press screwed auburn a year later.  Similar scenario, different result...b/c this time the BCS matched up the AP's favorite two teams.  It's sad to see a group of empowered, bitter AP voters can control the landscape of college football from their cubicles.

But that's just my opinion.  What do y'all think?

All the major conferences agreed to the BCS.  Just because you don't like the results of something, you can't up and take your ball and go home.  USC has won ONE championship under the agreement that it's conference entered into (BCS).  I hate all this multiple championship bs.

WPS

Chris

[ste4236]

I do

[Chief Mac]

If you disavow USC's title from that year, how do you justify saying Arkansas won one in 1964?

Both teams have legit claims to titles, because they were voted into that position.

That's easy Scott.  In 1964 there wasn't a system approved by the major conferences like there is today.  Hate or love it the BCS champion is the OFFICIAL champion.  THe PAC-10 (USC) agreed to the BCS as did the other conferences.


WPS

Chris

[razorbrock]

Quick history lesson:  LSU met Oklahoma in the 2003-04 BCS national championship game, despite (1) OU's blowout loss to Kansas St. in the Big 12 championship game and (2) the fact that USC was ranked #2 in the AP polls.  The AP voters, in an attempt to spurn the BSC system for ignoring what they thought was their rightful #1 vs. #2 matchup, voted USC its national champion and not LSU, after both teams won their bowl games. 

I remember a slightly different scenario.  Before the conference championship games, OK was #1, USC #2, and LSU #3.  After OK was absolutely humiliated by K-state, USC went to #1 in the AP poll and LSU was #2 while OK remained #3.  The BCS had LSU #1, OK#2 (or OK #1--LSU #2), and USC #3 because the USC strength of schedule was not as good as the other two teams.

The AP didn't vote USC #1 after they beat MI in the Rose Bowl just to show up the BCS.  The AP simply voted the same way it had before the BCS rankings were even released.  USC didn't lose, so they remained #1.  After the season, the AP withdrew their system from BCS consideration--to show them up.

Pesonally, I applaud the AP for maintaining their integrity.  They didn't change their rankings because a collection of computers didn't agree with them.  Also, OK had ZERO right to play in the Sugar Bowl against LSU.  LSU had a close early season loss to FL, USC had a close early season loss to Cal, but OK was completely demolished in their own conference championship game by a 3 or 4 loss K-state team.  Don't get me wrong, as a Razorback and SEC fan I loved seeing LSU man-handle OK--and that's just what they did; nonetheless, I was pleased that both LSU and USC were named champions in some form or fashion.  The two should've played in the Sugar Bowl.

[LSUFan]

LSU Trophy Says - National Champions

USC Trophy Says - Rose Bowl Champions



nuff said

[Albert Einswine]

LSU Trophy Says - National Champions

USC Trophy Says - Rose Bowl Champions



nuff said

Spoken like a true homer.    The AP said the USC Condoms were National Champs.  The championship has been split many times before and there was no problem with doing it in this instance.

[Pork Twain]

The BCS was created so there would only be one NC each year.  THey picked OK and LSU and that is that.  I don't think OU should have been there in place of USC or Auburn but that is the system we are stuck with.

No, it was created so that the Fiesta Bowl could no longer raid what the Sugar, Orange, and Cotton Bowls felt were rightfully theirs. The Sugar was tied to the SEC, the Orange was tied to the Big 12, and as we all know, the Cotton was tied to the SWC, at the time it happened the SWC was on it's last leg and hopelessly in decline, hence it's red-headed stepchild status now. At the time it was cussed and discussed the Rose bowl still had their noses stuck in the air, and until the year (I think it was Mich, not sure though) their team got snubbed they had no interest at all sharing their precious TV revenue at all with the other bowls, and that was when the alliance was created, that was also when the UP/ESPN/USA Today/Coaches poll decided that they would require the coaches to vote for whomever won their mythical national championship game, only 1 problem, they forgot that only once in a blue moon do only 2 teams end up undefeated, and that there would almost always be 2 or more teams with only 1 defeat.

You can say what you will about why the BCS was created, but the bottom line was it was created it was created to keep the Fiesta Bowl from stealing their thunder each year, and then with any luck, perhaps a true National Champion.

Using the SWC when talking about the BCS doesn't make any sense with me.  The SWC was LONG dead and gone when the BCS was created.  I think the BCS sucks but it is better than the good ole boy system that existed before.

i sure don't...you got to be in the championship game to be champions...doesn't matter if it wasn't fair that you didn't get in, life isn't fair.  If we are gonna use the bcs, we should deal with the consequences even if they don't go our way.

When did the AP decide the BCS was the championship game, I must of missed that 1, you can decide to call a sow's ear a silk purse, but it's still a sow's ear. If I remember correctly, the AP decided that the BCS was such a farce in the way the handled everything, that they threatened to go to court to force them to quit using their poll without permission.

As far as I know the AP doesn't get to decide what the BCS can or can't do.  The talking heads at the major conferences do.  They decided to go with the BCS so that there would be ONE NC every year.  USC is part of that.  If they do not like it then they might want to think about petitioning the Pac-10 to remove itself from the BCS.  I really doubt that will happen so they just need to accept it.  USC is a great program but holding on to this NC that they did not win makes them look like spoiled children. 

Where is Auburn's NC for the following year?  Do you think USC will want to share their trophy with Auburn???  I think not.  They want part of LSU's but they don't want to return the favor and give up part of theirs. 

[Chief Mac]

LSU Trophy Says - National Champions

USC Trophy Says - Rose Bowl Champions



nuff said

Spoken like a true homer.    The AP said the USC Condoms were National Champs.  The championship has been split many times before and there was no problem with doing it in this instance.

BCS champion is the OFFICIAL champion according to the major power conferences

[HoopS]

Here is the next step.  If we are going to keep the flawed BCS, I want to see a rule stating that if you do not win your own conference, you can't win the national championship.  Now, with that being said, all "BCS" conferences need to split into divisions and follow the S.E.C and Big 12's lead. 

Also, with 12 game schedules, we need more power conference match-ups to give these computers more data so the power ratings may be more accurate.

[hogsNbeer]

They robbed us from that LSU USC game.  I've said this before, but to put OU in the title game after losing by 4 tds was unbelievable.  I will never, ever be convinced that a team that not only loses it's own conf championship, but loses so decisively deserves a chance to be the national champion. 

I consider USC as much a champion that year as Auburn was a couple years ago.

I recognize the co champions...... Do I think it should have been USC vs LSU, yes I do...but it wasn't......Here's a better way of looking at this scenario........ Who here recognizes the HOGS as National Champion in 64?   Would you recognize the team as a co-champion if it wasn't the HOGS that were voted #1 by the FWIA(?).....Would you recognize a co champion if it were, say Arizona State in 64?  or would it have been the Crimson Tide who got the nod from the AP..... To me, it's the same scenario as put forth here........

[Chief Mac]

USC's 2003 national championship is just as legitimate as LSU's.  They won it the same way LSU won theirs, and the same way Bear Bryant's Alabama teams...Tom Osborne's Nebraska teams...and Darrell Royal's Texas teams won theirs.  They were voted #1 in a poll.

It's not like LSU fought their way through some sort of playoff system to reach the BCS title game.  They were SELECTED to play in the game the same way teams have always been chosen to play in bowl games...in what amounts to a popularity contest.  Sure, computers were used...but who programmed the computers and determined the subjective criteria that would be used to determine the outcome?  Humans.

The outrage at USC's 2003 national championship baffles me.  The AP poll has been around much longer than the BCS, and I think its means of determining a champion makes just as much sense as the BCS.  In fact, the BCS is a farce.  BCS stands for "Bowl Championship Series".

So where is the series?

There is no series, there is a one bowl game involving two hand-picked teams supposedly playing for the championship.  And how are the participants chosen?  For the most part, by POLLS. 

IMO, the BCS is a marketing ploy to make college football fans somehow think there is some sort of well-conceived process in place to ensure a true national champion...when in fact it is nothing more than the same ol' same ol'...yet another beauty pageant under a different name.

The main purpose of the BCS is an attempt to derail calls for the only method of choosing a champion that makes any sense at all...a true playoff.

Yet the PAC-10, BIG 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big East, etc all agreed that the BCS championship game would be the national champion.  It may not be fair (USC 2003 and Auburn 2004 both deserving of a chance to play for #!) but it is the system that was agreed upon.  LSU was the national champion, not USC

WPS

Chris 

[Albert Einswine]

LSU Trophy Says - National Champions

USC Trophy Says - Rose Bowl Champions



nuff said

Spoken like a true homer.    The AP said the USC Condoms were National Champs.  The championship has been split many times before and there was no problem with doing it in this instance.

BCS champion is the OFFICIAL champion according to the major power conferences

The Associated Press can declare their #1 at seasons end the National Champion like they have for decades.

It's all just a myth anyway without a playoff to determine a champion.  If the BCS makes you feel better then by all means recognize it solely.

I see the validity of both claims just like in the past.

[Chief Mac]

They robbed us from that LSU USC game.  I've said this before, but to put OU in the title game after losing by 4 tds was unbelievable.  I will never, ever be convinced that a team that not only loses it's own conf championship, but loses so decisively deserves a chance to be the national champion. 

I consider USC as much a champion that year as Auburn was a couple years ago.

I recognize the co champions...... Do I think it should have been USC vs LSU, yes I do...but it wasn't......Here's a better way of looking at this scenario........ Who here recognizes the HOGS as National Champion in 64?   Would you recognize the team as a co-champion if it wasn't the HOGS that were voted #1 by the FWIA(?).....Would you recognize a co champion if it were, say Arizona State in 64?  or would it have been the Crimson Tide who got the nod from the AP..... To me, it's the same scenario as put forth here........

The difference between 1964 and now is there wasn't an agreed upon system in place then as there is now.  It squashes the arguement for co-champions.  If the PAC-10 or SEC were not involved in the BCS, I would agree with you, but as it is they made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.

WPS

Chris

[Albert Einswine]

The Associated Press obviously didn't agree to it.  To declare their #1 the champion is their prerogative.

[LSUFan]

AP hates the SEC, I shouldn't have to state the obvious, so piss on anything to do with them.

[Albert Einswine]

AP hates the SEC, I shouldn't have to state the obvious, so piss on anything to do with them.

Well they sure seem to love the Alabama segment of the SEC.  Or maybe they just love the SEC East of the Mississippi.

[Pork Twain]

The Associated Press obviously didn't agree to it.  To declare their #1 the champion is their prerogative.

They can declare all they want to but when your own conference (Pac-10) recognizes and signed up with the BCS, you can't really go back and claim the AP.  The AP used to have the power to declare a NC but when the major conference powers signed on with the BCS they lost all that power.  Now the AP declaring a NC is like Hogville declaring .  We can declare all we want but it doesn't change the facts. 

In 64 the AP had the power to declare.

THE PAC-10 AND SEC SIGNED UP WITH THE BCS AND BY DOING SO SAID THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE NC THAT THEY DECLARED.  YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR MIND AFTER THE FACT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET WHAT YOU WANTED.  I HAVEN'T HEARD THE PAC-10 CLAIMING USC WON IT, JUST USC.

How hard is that to understand???

[LSUFan]

The Associated Press obviously didn't agree to it.  To declare their #1 the champion is their prerogative.

They can declare all they want to but when your own conference (Pac-10) recognizes and signed up with the BCS, you can't really go back and claim the AP.  The AP used to have the power to declare a NC but when the major conference powers signed on with the BCS they lost all that power.  Now the AP declaring a NC is like Hogville declaring .  We can declare all we want but it doesn't change the facts. 

THE PAC-10 AND SEC SIGNED UP WITH THE BCS AND BY DOING SO SAID THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE NC THAT THEY DECLARED.  YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR MND AFTER THE FACT.

How hard is that to understand???

End of Stery

[hogsNbeer]

They robbed us from that LSU USC game.  I've said this before, but to put OU in the title game after losing by 4 tds was unbelievable.  I will never, ever be convinced that a team that not only loses it's own conf championship, but loses so decisively deserves a chance to be the national champion. 

I consider USC as much a champion that year as Auburn was a couple years ago.

I recognize the co champions...... Do I think it should have been USC vs LSU, yes I do...but it wasn't......Here's a better way of looking at this scenario........ Who here recognizes the HOGS as National Champion in 64?   Would you recognize the team as a co-champion if it wasn't the HOGS that were voted #1 by the FWIA(?).....Would you recognize a co champion if it were, say Arizona State in 64?  or would it have been the Crimson Tide who got the nod from the AP..... To me, it's the same scenario as put forth here........

The difference between 1964 and now is there wasn't an agreed upon system in place then as there is now.  It squashes the arguement for co-champions.  If the PAC-10 or SEC were not involved in the BCS, I would agree with you, but as it is they made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.

WPS

Chris

True...I agree....but there's still people out there that don't agree....   Yes, and the coaches have to recognize the BCS also..... but that still doesn't mean they have to agree......  this +1 game will take care of all this craziness hopefully..........

[Albert Einswine]

The Associated Press obviously didn't agree to it.  To declare their #1 the champion is their prerogative.

They can declare all they want to but when your own conference (Pac-10) recognizes and signed up with the BCS, you can't really go back and claim the AP.  The AP used to have the power to declare a NC but when the major conference powers signed on with the BCS they lost all that power.  Now the AP declaring a NC is like Hogville declaring .  We can declare all we want but it doesn't change the facts. 

THE PAC-10 AND SEC SIGNED UP WITH THE BCS AND BY DOING SO SAID THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE NC THAT THEY DECLARED.  YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR MND AFTER THE FACT.

Sure you can.  Example:  I read most of your posts and then usually immediately change my mind about the decision and wish I hadn't. 

How hard is that to understand???

This should clear up some of the difficulty you're having.