Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:05 am to StopRobot
quote:
Says the AP
They also say 2003.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:06 am to piggidyphish
quote:
I might have a problem with how they arrived at 1 and 2 to play in that game...but it happened. I think it was a raw deal, but we should absolutely not claim that title...ever.
agreed
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:06 am to All4Qtrs
Go for it. USC claims the 03 title based on the AP poll. Other publications named Auburn the 2004 national champions.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:08 am to wartiger2004
quote:bullshite! The outrage and uproar of LSU vs Bama in the BCSNC game is what cemented this playoff system. Which BTW, will cause even more outrage and uproar once the "playoff committee" decides which teams will compete in the 4 team playoff.
Because of us and what happened in 04 we are getting the playoff system which is good enough for me.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:09 am to parkjas2001
quote:
They also say 2003.
Yeah....and?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:09 am to All4Qtrs
We shouldnt but no worse than some of bamas
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:09 am to StopRobot
quote:
Yeah....and?
They didnt.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:09 am to RT1941
quote:
Which BTW, will cause even more outrage and uproar once the "playoff committee" decides which teams will compete in the 4 team playoff.
at the risk of threadjack.....why?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:11 am to parkjas2001
quote:
They didnt.
they didn't what? You asked who says USC are the natty champs for 2004 and I said AP. What difference does 2003 make?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:12 am to craigbiggio
USC
VaTEch 24-13
COst 49-0
BYU 42-10
ND 41-10
OU
BowlGrn 40-24
Houston 63-13
Oregon 31-7
Colorado 42-3
AU
ULM 31-0
Citadel 33-3
LaTech 52-7
Dont get me wrong based on OoC Opp those 2 definitely deserved to be there
VaTEch 24-13
COst 49-0
BYU 42-10
ND 41-10
OU
BowlGrn 40-24
Houston 63-13
Oregon 31-7
Colorado 42-3
AU
ULM 31-0
Citadel 33-3
LaTech 52-7
Dont get me wrong based on OoC Opp those 2 definitely deserved to be there
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:12 am to StopRobot
2004 champions:
AP- USC
BCS- vacated
Auburn has no claim. USC still retained the AP title.
AP- USC
BCS- vacated
Auburn has no claim. USC still retained the AP title.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:13 am to StopRobot
quote:
What difference does 2003 make?
If multiple publications can give titles in 2003, why cant they in 1983 or 1993?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:13 am to StopRobot
quote:fans bitch now when well over a hundred voters in two different polls "don't get it right", then computers are also used in the previous formula. Making it very; hard for a handful of bias voters to change anything.
why?
Now a few people will be voting which means each one will carry much more influence.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:13 am to StopRobot
quote:
Which BTW, will cause even more outrage and uproar once the "playoff committee" decides which teams will compete in the 4 team playoff.
quote:Because the committee is made up of human beings with personal opinions and preferences and they will be deciding which four teams play. Rankings and unbiased computers will be out. Fans will bitch about paying off committee members, biased voters, etc.
at the risk of threadjack.....why?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:14 am to All4Qtrs
If y'all can claim the 2004 title then we can claim the 2010 Sugar Bowl
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:15 am to The_Joker
quote:
we can claim the 2010 Sugar Bowl
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:15 am to All4Qtrs
quote:
with USC vacated that only leaves AU at the top.
No, it doesn't
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:15 am to parkjas2001
Exactly. That's how fricking stupid this thread is.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:15 am to The_Joker
quote:
If y'all can claim the 2004 title then we can claim the 2010 Sugar Bowl
GTFO!
Page 3 of 16
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News