Started By
Message
USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:15 pm
LINK I read this and though I would share it with you guys. The author claims that USC was the nation best team that year.
13
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:33 pm to cvdo06
crystal football
/end thread
/end thread
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:35 pm to Skeeter 79
quote:
Granted, coach Pete Carroll and the Trojans most definitely should have played against LSU that evening, and they likely would have trounced the Bayou Bengals;
WTF?????????
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:55 pm to Coon
He's obviously trying to get more people to sign up for his site. Why write an article now about that. Don't take the bate tiger fans. Ignore this fool.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 12:56 pm to Skeeter 79
quote:
crystal football
/end thread
+1
not even worthy of further discussion.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:02 pm to cvdo06
The author claims that the "real truth" is that USC was the best team in the country that year. The REAL TRUTH is that such a blatantly biased statement cannot be backed up by even a remotely objective fact.
LSU had one loss to a bad Florida team. USC had one loss to a bad Cal team. LSU won the SEC, which was and remains vastly superior to the PAC-1 or 2. There is no evidence to suggest that the Tigers would have been "trounced" by anybody.
That said, USC should have been in the national title game instead of Oklahoma. That they weren't was a testament to the ridiculousness of the BCS. But I don't think they would have won.
LSU had one loss to a bad Florida team. USC had one loss to a bad Cal team. LSU won the SEC, which was and remains vastly superior to the PAC-1 or 2. There is no evidence to suggest that the Tigers would have been "trounced" by anybody.
That said, USC should have been in the national title game instead of Oklahoma. That they weren't was a testament to the ridiculousness of the BCS. But I don't think they would have won.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:26 pm to GoBigOrange86
The only issue I still have with any of this is how Oklahoma got blasted by a cinderella type team and still made it in.
Other than that;
LSU raised a crystal football, USC raised a dull sword.
BTW, If you judge USC by all their hype the past several years, they have underacheived.
Other than that;
LSU raised a crystal football, USC raised a dull sword.
BTW, If you judge USC by all their hype the past several years, they have underacheived.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:31 pm to cvdo06
Not worth discussing.
21 teams compete for a Rose Bowl title.
120 teams compete for a BCS title.
21 teams compete for a Rose Bowl title.
120 teams compete for a BCS title.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:33 pm to Purple Spoon
quote:They had a better record than LSU (vs. 1A) and USC, and they had a tougher schedule than LSU and USC.
The only issue I still have with any of this is how Oklahoma got blasted by a cinderella type team and still made it in.
It amazes me that hardly anybody realizes that.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:34 pm to Purple Spoon
I don't understand why everyone gets heated in the debate between LSU and USC. They shouldn't focus of who was better. What they should focus on is that OU should not have been there. Why try to call out LSU when you have no idea what would have happened that year? Call out the BCS and OU and the Big12, not the team that was worthy of being in that game.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:34 pm to cvdo06
quote:
The author claims that USC was the nation best team that year
U.S.C. = can suck my goo load!
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:40 pm to jbirds1
quote:Record:
What they should focus on is that OU should not have been there.
OU 12-1
LSU 11-1 (vs. 1A)
USC 11-1
SOS:
OU top 5
LSU top 30
USC top 50
(I don't remember the exact rankings of SOS that year, but these are somewhat accurate, at least in the order given.)
There is absolutely no question that Oklahoma belonged in the 2004 Sugar Bowl.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 1:56 pm to xiv
Except that they lost their conference championship game in humiliating fashion. And to a team that was not even that good.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:00 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
Except that they lost their conference championship game in humiliating fashion. And to a team that was not even that good.
Well,don't let a little 35-7 loss spoil anything.But,sir,don't get involved too much with this guy. He thinks John Brady = John Wooden. 
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:04 pm to jbirds1
quote:
They shouldn't focus of who was better. What they should focus on is that OU should not have been there.
Focus should be on just how pathetic and retarded the system is and how often it gets it wrong. 2003 - OU not USC in title game. 2004 - OU and not AU in title game. Yeah, yeah I know the reasons why it ended up that way but at the end of the day they were the WRONG teams (though maybe right decisions at the time), the system f*cked it all up and is still in place to screw everything up every year. Until there is a playoff of at least 4 teams (+1), it is always gonna be a pathetic debacle with lots of bitching more years than not.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:09 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
By the way, LSU fans should be real pissed at the system. I don't care if you have 2 BCS championships. Both are very questionable as to whether LSU was even the best team either year. And there is no need to argue it either, because there are a couple of teams that can argue and back up a claim for 2003 or 2007 just as well as LSU.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:10 pm to jbirds1
"What they should focus on is that OU should not have been there. "
why???
before that loss to KSU, there was debate about them being the best football team of all time. so after one loss they go from being the best EVER to not being worthy of a title shot?
why???
before that loss to KSU, there was debate about them being the best football team of all time. so after one loss they go from being the best EVER to not being worthy of a title shot?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:12 pm to cvdo06
That was one of the worst sports related articles I've ever read. It could have ended with LSU was obviously the better team, and I would think the same thing. Basically, all he did was describe what happened, then ended it with a sentence of his oppinion backed by 0 facts. Welcome to 2008.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:14 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
By the way, LSU fans should be real pissed at the system. I don't care if you have 2 BCS championships. Both are very questionable as to whether LSU was even the best team either year. And there is no need to argue it either, because there are a couple of teams that can argue and back up a claim for 2003 or 2007 just as well as LSU.
What about 2004-2005?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:14 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
And there is no need to argue it either, because there are a couple of teams that can argue and back up a claim for 2003 or 2007 just as well as LSU.
What teams were more deserving then LSU in 07? Please, let us know.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News