USC dynasty?

[Smitjel]

This guy doesn't think so....I kinda agree. :D

http://www.onepeat.com

[Gfunk4life]

i agree but dont agree. they won 2 championships,even if their should be 1 champion. and a dynasty is more then 2 championships, if they won that rose bowl they would be a dynasty but they didnt so their not a dynasty.

[AJerman]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH. Oh man. I WISH that was real billboard. I'd pitch in money to get it made. It's so true too. They won 1 national championship, declared themselves the winner of another, and downright lost the third. So much for being amazing. :laugh:

*sets as background*

[Gfunk4life]

declared themselves the winner of another

:angry: if im not wrong but it was offical by the NCAA so they are back to back champion get over it they won back to back and lost the past one its fact, the NCAA call them back to back winners.

[AJerman]

Well, I hate to say it, but you are wrong. The truth is, there is no official NCAA winner. The BCS decides the national champions, and the BCS named LSU national champions. It's really that easy. Maybe they were better than one or both of the other teams, but you know, life isn't fair. They can't all have a chance to win a national championship. USC didn't get a chance that year, but because they came out ahead in a poll, they declared themselves winners. And it's extremely unfortunate to me to hear commentators and people who have influence in the sport calling them National Champions of 2003 when they just weren't, simple as that.

[Hupp]

so true, they kept saying "three peat" on espn and it got on my damn nerves... to be back to back you have to win outright and they didn't

[method]

Well, I hate to say it, but you are wrong. The truth is, there is no official NCAA winner. The BCS decides the national champions, and the BCS named LSU national champions. It's really that easy. Maybe they were better than one or both of the other teams, but you know, life isn't fair. They can't all have a chance to win a national championship. USC didn't get a chance that year, but because they came out ahead in a poll, they declared themselves winners. And it's extremely unfortunate to me to hear commentators and people who have influence in the sport calling them National Champions of 2003 when they just weren't, simple as that.

You are partly right. There has never been an official NCAA champion like every other sport. The national championships in the past have always been decided by some poll, either the AP, UPI, coach's/usatoday, AWA. The number 1 in either of those polls has always claimed a share of national title. This leads us to the whole USC/LSU battle. USC was number one in both polls going into the bowls. Under the BCS agreement, the winner of the BCS title game would automatically be voted number one in the Coaches Poll. The AP was not bound by this agreement. So, they kept USC number one in their poll. So technically USC is 2 time AP champs and just a one time BCS champion. These discussions will continue until they have some sort of playoff

[AJerman]

True, and it can go forever. For that matter, Oklahoma got a vote for National Champions in one poll in 2003, so I could just as easily say they are national champions and I bet you USC would have a fit. On the NCAA sports website they refer to the BCS to provide the winner of the National Championship. It's rare that only one team gets a #1 vote, but since the introduction of the BCS, it's been accepted that the team that wins the BCS is the national champion.

This from ncaasports.com:

The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has conducted a contest between it's two top-ranked teams to determine a national champion. More information on the BCS is available at their Web site.

2003:

2003

LSU: BCS, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Massey, NFF, Sagarin, Seattle Times, USA/ESPN

Oklahoma: Berryman

Southern California: AP, Eck, Matthews, NY Times

So I mean, yeah, they claim they are winners because of the AP poll. However, as said before, it's always been accepted that the winner of the BCS is the winner of the National Championship. They just decided to change that in their favor that year. Like I said, I could just as easily say that OU was national champs in 2003 if we're doning it that way. :pinch:

It's a horribly screwed up system and relying on polls needs to go. There needs to be one unified poll, or combine all previous polls and use averages to create a final official tally. A Playoff system would be nice as well. I really don't care, they just need to do something because this could happen again next year and the next. We can't have teams that declare themselves winners when they aren't according to the accepted rules. And I hate to see that so many people have rolled over and let USC do it. That just shows how big the school is and what their influence is.

[method]

The difference is that the AP rankings have been more recognized and as a national championship title for years . It was also part of the BCS at the time, so that lends some creedence to their claim as national champs.

I think that a game matching up the two highest ranked teams after the bowls are played would solve most of the problems in college football. Has there ever been more than 3 or 4 teams that could claim a share of the title.

[AJerman]

Yes and no. That sounds like the voice of a person who has been convinced by USC that they are national champions. Yes, the AP rankings are known as fairly credible. Nevertheless, the BCS is recognized as the winner now, no matter what happened in the past. The trophy goes to the winner of the national championship game, and it's as simple as that for me. Like I said in another discussion, they can't just change how things work for their own gain. Life isn't always fair, maybe an NFL team's best player gets hurt and they don't get to the Super Bowl because he... I dunno, how about even better, he's just sick. Well, they may be the best team in the NFL, they may be the best team in the history of the NFL, but if they don't play in the superbowl, they can't win it, and they can't be the champions. Not fair? Maybe not, but that's how it works and Adults in the NFL are old enough to understand that and accept that. It's the younger college group that's unable to just abide by the rules and accept that they didn't win. Not only did LSU get the vote that mattered, they also got voted as the winner by 11 polls, compared to USC's 4. Oh, and plenty of LSU's were credible.

Either way, there NEEDS to be a change in the BCS, and if it's not going to happen, heads need to start rolling at the BCS (and no... I don't mean literally kill people lol, I mean just fire some people) and get someone in place who can recognize how bad the BCS is.

BUT... until that happens, we will continue to accept the rules. The winner of the BCS wins the National Championship. Just expect to have quite a bit of conflict though.

[method]

Yes and no. That sounds like the voice of a person who has been convinced by USC that they are national champions. Yes, the AP rankings are known as fairly credible. Nevertheless, the BCS is recognized as the winner now, no matter what happened in the past. The trophy goes to the winner of the national championship game, and it's as simple as that for me. Like I said in another discussion, they can't just change how things work for their own gain. Life isn't always fair, maybe an NFL team's best player gets hurt and they don't get to the Super Bowl because he... I dunno, how about even better, he's just sick. Well, they may be the best team in the NFL, they may be the best team in the history of the NFL, but if they don't play in the superbowl, they can't win it, and they can't be the champions. Not fair? Maybe not, but that's how it works and Adults in the NFL are old enough to understand that and accept that. It's the younger college group that's unable to just abide by the rules and accept that they didn't win. Not only did LSU get the vote that mattered, they also got voted as the winner by 11 polls, compared to USC's 4. Oh, and plenty of LSU's were credible.

Either way, there NEEDS to be a change in the BCS, and if it's not going to happen, heads need to start rolling at the BCS (and no... I don't mean literally kill people lol, I mean just fire some people) and get someone in place who can recognize how bad the BCS is.

BUT... until that happens, we will continue to accept the rules. The winner of the BCS wins the National Championship. Just expect to have quite a bit of conflict though.

Is that the new insult for college football? Until there is a championship that is won on the field, I still consider the AP just as valid as the BCS champion. Until then all champions are just paper champions. If the others had the lineage of the AP, then you would have a point, but they aren't. USC title in 2003 is just as valid as USC's title in 1978. The NFL analogy doesn't really work since the title is won on the field. If Auburn had won the AP title last year, I would say the same thing, so don't think of me as some USC homer.

[BroChaos Veteran]

since 1998, there is only one recognized national championship. the AP and coaches poll are not recognized championships anymore. ALL the major conferences agreed to the BCS, including USC. USC cannot pick and choose which championships they want to recognize. USC won ONE national championship, and is in no way shape or form anywhere even close to a dynasty.

[AJerman]

Is that the new insult for college football? Until there is a championship that is won on the field, I still consider the AP just as valid as the BCS champion. Until then all champions are just paper champions. If the others had the lineage of the AP, then you would have a point, but they aren't. USC title in 2003 is just as valid as USC's title in 1978. The NFL analogy doesn't really work since the title is won on the field. If Auburn had won the AP title last year, I would say the same thing, so don't think of me as some USC homer.

Not sure what part of my post you were refering to as the new insult for college football. From how I look at it, there is a national champion won on the field, it's the winner of the National Championship BCS game. That's the team that gets the trophy and is declared National Champions. If you look at my quote from the ncaasports.com page, they say that the BCS decides the national champion, which means that the NCAA accepts them as the definative winner.

As far as lineage, I'd give that to Billingsley since it has been used as a measure of national champions for as far back as the ncaasports.com page for the history of winners goes (1869). AP first appears in 1936.

And perhaps most important to my side of the argument... the BCS USED the AP as a part of it's ranking system until this past year. So the AP's vote throughout the 2003 season had a weight upon the BCS's decisions. They got overrulled by the other majority of polls and calculations.

Anyway, I'm just stating how I see it. Imagine if Auburn HAD gotten a #1 vote from the AP and declared themselves National Champions last year. USC would be ****ting a brick and going absolutely nuts telling Auburn how much BS that is and how they aren't National Champions unless they win the big game. You know it would be happening. I stick by my opinion though. If OU were in the same situation, it would suck, I might be annoyed, but I wouldn't think we were national champs.

Also, allowing multiple people and polls have a somewhat official say as to two is ranked where makes it even worse. The NCAA needs to adopt a system that takes a SINGLE poll or system to rank and decide champions, and let it have the 100% official decision in the matter so that you will no longer have disagreement between multiple polls (or at least they wont matter because they won't be official polls.

I think the only thing that everyone can agree on with the situation is that something needs to be done to change the BCS system, and I'm gonna leave it at that for this discussion. We could get everyone in here and go back and forth all day but the bottom line is that none of us have any say in it, so we're just really wasting our time.

[method]

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

They are listed as past consensus camps.

[BroChaos Veteran]

it doesn't matter what they are listed as. they didn't play in or win the national championship game. if USC gets to count that one, then you have to give Auburn a split last year. the AP only used USC to make a point about the system. it's a shame USC fans actually believe they should be champs that year.

[method]

it doesn't matter what they are listed as. they didn't play in or win the national championship game. if USC gets to count that one, then you have to give Auburn a split last year. the AP only used USC to make a point about the system. it's a shame USC fans actually believe they should be champs that year.

I'm not following you on the Auburn angle. In the year USC won the AP title, they were voted by the AP as the number one team in their poll. In my mind, that gives USC part of the title. Auburn last year was not voted as a number one team in the AP or another poll. If the AP wanted to make a point about the BCS why didn't they also vote Auburn number one to further their agenda?

It's a shame that someone feels insulted that someone disagrees with them.

Not sure what part of my post you were refering to as the new insult for college football.

I took offense to you insinuating that I was a USC fan, just because I think that the 2003 title was shared.

From how I look at it, there is a national champion won on the field, it's the winner of the National Championship BCS game. That's the team that gets the trophy and is declared National Champions. If you look at my quote from the ncaasports.com page, they say that the BCS decides the national champion, which means that the NCAA accepts them as the definative winner.

See this is where we have our disagreement. In college, in my mind a true national championship can't be won on the field unless the two top teams are in the field. This year it was easy because there were only two undefeated teams in the nation. Since there were three teams with just one loss, one would be left out. Leaving any one of those three teams out of national discussion because there are only two spots cheapens any team's claim that they are the sole national champion that year. There is a flaw that was exposed in the BCS because of that. They never took into consideration the possibility of one the polls not voting for the BCS champion.

As the link I posted, it doesn't use the words national champion to refer to the winner of the BCS game.

And perhaps most important to my side of the argument... the BCS USED the AP as a part of it's ranking system until this past year. So the AP's vote throughout the 2003 season had a weight upon the BCS's decisions. They got overrulled by the other majority of polls and calculations.

That is just this year that the AP is not part of the BCS. If something similar had happend this year with the AP, I would recognize that champion.

Anyway, I'm just stating how I see it. Imagine if Auburn HAD gotten a #1 vote from the AP and declared themselves National Champions last year. USC would be ****ting a brick and going absolutely nuts telling Auburn how much BS that is and how they aren't National Champions unless they win the big game. You know it would be happening. I stick by my opinion though. If OU were in the same situation, it would suck, I might be annoyed, but I wouldn't think we were national champs.

I'm not trying to jump down your throat or anything. That is how LSU feels, too. We are just arguing our own interpertations of this whole convulted mess.

I'm in definate agreement with you on the last part. I'm just getting annoyed with the whole only USC fans believe they were national champions in 2003.

it doesn't matter what they are listed as. they didn't play in or win the national championship game. if USC gets to count that one, then you have to give Auburn a split last year. the AP only used USC to make a point about the system. it's a shame USC fans actually believe they should be champs that year.

I'm not following you on the Auburn angle. In the year USC won the AP title, they were voted by the AP as the number one team in their poll. In my mind, that gives USC part of the title. Auburn last year was not voted as a number one team in the AP or another poll. If the AP wanted to make a point about the BCS why didn't they also vote Auburn number one to further their agenda?

It's a shame that someone feels insulted that someone disagrees with them.

Not sure what part of my post you were refering to as the new insult for college football.

I took offense to you insinuating that I was a USC fan, just because I think that the 2003 title was shared.

From how I look at it, there is a national champion won on the field, it's the winner of the National Championship BCS game. That's the team that gets the trophy and is declared National Champions. If you look at my quote from the ncaasports.com page, they say that the BCS decides the national champion, which means that the NCAA accepts them as the definative winner.

See this is where we have our disagreement. In college, in my mind a true national championship can't be won on the field unless the two top teams are in the field. This year it was easy because there were only two undefeated teams in the nation. Since there were three teams with just one loss, one would be left out. Leaving any one of those three teams out of national discussion because there are only two spots cheapens any team's claim that they are the sole national champion that year. There is a flaw that was exposed in the BCS because of that. They never took into consideration the possibility of one the polls not voting for the BCS champion.

As the link I posted, it doesn't use the words national champion to refer to the winner of the BCS game.

And perhaps most important to my side of the argument... the BCS USED the AP as a part of it's ranking system until this past year. So the AP's vote throughout the 2003 season had a weight upon the BCS's decisions. They got overrulled by the other majority of polls and calculations.

That is just this year that the AP is not part of the BCS. If something similar had happend this year with the AP, I would recognize that champion.

Anyway, I'm just stating how I see it. Imagine if Auburn HAD gotten a #1 vote from the AP and declared themselves National Champions last year. USC would be ****ting a brick and going absolutely nuts telling Auburn how much BS that is and how they aren't National Champions unless they win the big game. You know it would be happening. I stick by my opinion though. If OU were in the same situation, it would suck, I might be annoyed, but I wouldn't think we were national champs.

I'm not trying to jump down your throat or anything. That is how LSU feels, too. We are just arguing our own interpertations of this whole convulted mess.

I'm in definate agreement with you on the last part. I'm just getting annoyed with the whole only USC fans believe they were national champions in 2003.

[AJerman]

I'm not saying you're a USC fan. I just said you sound like someone who has been convinced by USC that they were winners. After talking to you more, I see you have an actual reason for it, and are not just agreeing because they've said it so much like so many other people have. If you have a reason, then great please do express it in the form of a debate like we have, that's good. I'm just tired of people who say USC was the national champions just because it's said so much.

[Smitjel]

It's not that USC wasn't a very good team during their undefeated run. I think the point that this guy with the billboard thing is trying to make is that ABC/ESPN tried to shove it down everybody's throat for the past 3 years that USC is THE team in the NCAA. ESPN has way too much influence on the college game.

Personally, I was glad to see USC lose after soooo many close wins and 2 Heismans....enough is enough.

Go Horns! (Y)

[Snipe]

GEAUX TIGERS!!!

HOOK 'EM!!!

:punk:

[BroChaos Veteran]

not gonna quote your post cuz it's just gonna get too long. but how can you stand by what you say, and stand by the AP. in 2003, there were 3 teams with 1 loss. the bcs (which treats EVERY team the same) picked the best 2. it is NOT the bcs's fault for not picking USC. if USC wanted to be in that game, all they had to do was beat a crappy unranked cal team. they didn't do it. they have no leg to stand on. the AP just proves their bias and lack of knowledge by voting USC #1. you mention that there's only a championship when the best 2 teams play.

so bring on 2004.

how can you say auburn is not a split champion this year? the 2 best teams did not play in the championship game, right? now don't say that it's because the AP poll didn't vote them the champs. the human polls are crap. this was proven when the coaches poll showed who voted where. humans are biased, humans have agendas. humans have favorites. i have no problem telling a 1-loss team "look, if you wanted to be here, you shoulda won your game. end of story." now how do you turn around and tell auburn "hey look, if you wanted to be in this game you shoulda won all your games. oh wait, you did. ok...." What else could auburn have done? (which also leads to my argument about preseason polls meaning more than they should)

how can you disagree with this fact: USC agreed to the BCS. the BCS declares the national champion. the BCS declared LSU.

there's really no way to argue against it. the AP and coaches poll are irrelevant as of 1998. polls in college football change, it's part of the game.

[Hupp]

all that matters is who holds up the BCS crystal ball , aka what used to be the sears trophy... the good one.. not the ugly p.o.s wood one

[kak]

..nevermind.. i'm a retard

[method]

not gonna quote your post cuz it's just gonna get too long. but how can you stand by what you say, and stand by the AP. in 2003, there were 3 teams with 1 loss. the bcs (which treats EVERY team the same) picked the best 2. it is NOT the bcs's fault for not picking USC. if USC wanted to be in that game, all they had to do was beat a crappy unranked cal team. they didn't do it. they have no leg to stand on. the AP just proves their bias and lack of knowledge by voting USC #1. you mention that there's only a championship when the best 2 teams play.

so bring on 2004.

how can you say auburn is not a split champion this year? the 2 best teams did not play in the championship game, right? now don't say that it's because the AP poll didn't vote them the champs. the human polls are crap. this was proven when the coaches poll showed who voted where. humans are biased, humans have agendas. humans have favorites. i have no problem telling a 1-loss team "look, if you wanted to be here, you shoulda won your game. end of story." now how do you turn around and tell auburn "hey look, if you wanted to be in this game you shoulda won all your games. oh wait, you did. ok...." What else could auburn have done? (which also leads to my argument about preseason polls meaning more than they should)

how can you disagree with this fact: USC agreed to the BCS. the BCS declares the national champion. the BCS declared LSU.

there's really no way to argue against it. the AP and coaches poll are irrelevant as of 1998. polls in college football change, it's part of the game.

Because I can. Actually you can blame the BCS for the problems it created. By there convoluted formula, it allowed Oklahoma to get into the title game even after they lost their conference championship. That strikes me as being as bad of a loss as USC to Cal that year, which went into triple overtime. I would like to point out that Oklahoma was demolished in their loss to KSU by the tune of 35-7. Hardly a convincing claim that you are better than the other two teams. LSU's lose was to a 4 loss Florida team. Cal was also a 4 loss team that year. KSU was a two loss team that year.

Which team really deserved to go. It is the same thing if three teams are undefeated, which happend in 2004. The difference is that Auburn was not named a number one team in any poll. If they would have I would consider them in the same place as I do USC in 2003. I really wish they were since I am an SEC homer, but that is not the point.

Now you are really being obtuse. How does voting USC prove their lack of knowledge? The coaches' poll and AP both had USC number one before the bowl games.

Technically the PAC-10 agreed to the BCS. If the Coaches' Poll is irrevelant why is that the coaches are contractually obligated to vote for the winner of the BCS title game?

If the BCS title is the only one that matters why does the NCAA recognize the AP title USC won?

Here is something from the BCS.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=timeline

For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl.

Oh yeah about the trophy handed out after the BCS title game. This is taken from SI.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ.../mailbag/1.html

you may also be unaware that the crystal trophy handed out at the end of each year's BCS title game is not technically bestowed for winning the game but rather for finishing No. 1 in the coaches' poll (which, conveniently, is required to vote the winner of the game No. 1). So, unless for some reason you think the coaches' poll is somehow more legitimate than the AP poll -- and, as far as I know, they've been considered pretty much equals for about 70 years --

Edited January 11, 2006 by method

[AlucardX]

usc 2 time BCS champion, and that guy who wants that billboard can dream all he wants, He is just probably a stupid bruins fan who is jelous of usc.

[b mitchell]

usc 2 time BCS champion, and that guy who wants that billboard can dream all he wants, He is just probably a stupid bruins fan who is jelous of usc.

At best, 1.5 times. Nothing more.