costanza007 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 well Hmmm... if USC claims 2 national championships because they won the Rose Bowl in 03 and the Orange Bowl last year... then why couldn't Texas say they have now won 2 straight? I mean, they won the Rose Bowl in 04 and then the National Championship game this year. Helloooooo? USC couldn't have won the championship in 03 because they didn't *play* for the championship in 03. If Michigan had won that game, would they have been champs? Nope. Simply put, they agreed to play in that system and when it didn't turn out the way they wanted (same with Auburn last year) they had to just make a big fuss about it. The BCS system produces perfect results... it does what its designed to do. Its just that those results aren't satisfactory to all of the rest of us a lot of times (me included, I think a team that doesnt win its conference shouldn't play for the championship). Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587050018 Share on other sites More sharing options...
method Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Just winning the Rose didn't give USC a share of the title. They were voted number one in the AP poll. See the links in my last post. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587051103 Share on other sites More sharing options...
costanza007 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 yes, i definitely 100% agree. i was making a point, based on the USC logic. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587051640 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroChaos Veteran Posted January 11, 2006 Veteran Share Posted January 11, 2006 the NCAA doesn't recognize ANY football national championships, and don't count them in a schools total. from the links you use, they say "Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has conducted a contest between it's two top-ranked teams to determine a national champion." Thats all that matters right there. the AP is meaningless now. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587052466 Share on other sites More sharing options...
method Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 It also says that the national championship was split that year. Does it not say that? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587052472 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfunk4life Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 you sound like someone who has been convinced by USC that they were winnersif USC claims 2 national championships then why couldn't Texas say they have now won 2 straight well, it wasnt so much USC claiming 2 time national championship, as the NCAA calling them Consensus National Champions. so they can keep the bowl games their are 4 groups. Retroactive Poll Champions 1869-1935 AP National Champions 1936-1949 Consensus National Champions 1950-1997(2003) Bowl Championship Series 1998-now to say that USC isnt Chapmpion would be wrong. just because their are 2 chapions doesnt mean one isnt one(of the chapions). to take away USC's chapionship is like taking away Michigan, Florida and Nebraska national chapionships. or taking away a chapionship from Michigan or Nebraska chapionship in 97 or Washington, Miami (Fla.) in 91 or Colorado, Georgia Techin 90 Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587052502 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroChaos Veteran Posted January 12, 2006 Veteran Share Posted January 12, 2006 everything through 97 was different. there were 2 highly recognized polls. it wouldn't make sense to take away a championship from any of those teams. however, since 98, there is only 1 recognized champion, and everyone agreed to it. to turn around and say, "you know what, even though we agreed that only the BCS counts, the AP gave us the crown, so we're gonna say that they still count." you just can't do that. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587055867 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuJu Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 No USC Dynasty bc tehy didnt wint eh ROSE BOWL :no: :crazy: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587083388 Share on other sites More sharing options...
saotome6 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 No USC Dynasty bc tehy didnt wint eh ROSE BOWL :no: :crazy: GuJu are you sure your a ps3 owner? By the way usc is a dynasty. :yes: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587111359 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hupp Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sorry USC is not a Dynasty... the last dynasty was the Huskers of 92-97... a 5 year span of playing for the national title 4 of 5 years and winning it 3 almost 4. If USC can play for it the next few years then yes, I will lump them in that select group. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587111394 Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted January 25, 2006 Veteran Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sorry USC is not a Dynasty... the last dynasty was the Huskers of 92-97... a 5 year span of playing for the national title 4 of 5 years and winning it 3 almost 4. If USC can play for it the next few years then yes, I will lump them in that select group. Now that's what you call a dynasty. USC was close to a dynasty and can still achieve it depending on what they do in the next two or so years, Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/418687-usc-dynasty/page/2/#findComment-587112146 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts