re: Switching most hated SEC team...

quote:

---

The AP has been around much longer than the BCS and it will exist long after the BCS has fallen apart; in the future, BCS titles will probably be less respectable than old UPI titles.

---

The AP was a part of the BCS equation; therefore, it is worth less than the overall BCS system. A part can not be greater than the part. If the AP didn't like it to begin with they should have never allowed it. They didn't pull out until they got pissy about the system not agreeing with them.

The bottom line is the BCS takes into account the opinion of hopefully informed credible voters and an a hopefully unbiased objective ranking(computer). It is the best we will get without having a playoff; however, most people's playoff ideas aren't necessarily better than the current system.


As far as the 2007 NC the amount of losses LSU had does not matter. They were the best team that year. No other major program had less than two at the end of the year. We can make the assumption that year was more competitive top to bottom than most years. That is exactly what everyone was saying the entire damn 2007 season(fans and the media). Only people that are jealous of LSU and wanting to attack Miles want to bring it up. I don't hear everyone unanimously claiming the 2004 Auburn team the best SEC team of the decade. It is the same damn argument in regards to 2007 LSU.

quote:

---

Furthermore, whether you like it or not, the rest of the country knows that USC would have absolutely obliterated LSU had the two met for the national championship in '03.

---

Well it is a fricking opinion. If LSU would have lost to Florida before USC lost to Cal you probably wouldn't be saying this. If Auburn would have started '04 in the Top 2 they would have played for the NC. Your argument is useless because you are ignoring the luck. Obviously by the turnout of the game Oklahoma was ranked one and didn't deserve to be in the game as LSU won.