Started By
Message
re: USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:46 pm to xiv
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:46 pm to xiv
quote:
I used a 13-game season to determine that OU was #1. So did quite a few meticulously-developed mathematical formulas.
You used a single game to suggest that OU was not #1.
Interesting debate.
If 12 teams want to get together and have an 8-game season and call it a "conference," fine. But the BCS counts all games equally; labelling something a conference championship game still gives you a single win or a single loss, and no more.
Look at all the games played and tell me how OU didn't belong in the Sugar Bowl. Feel free to show me some numbers. Some criteria you might want to explore might be winning %, opponents' winning %, opponents' opponents' winning %, quality wins, and scoring margin, and OU has a decisive advantage over LSU and USC in all those categories.
The debate was LSU or USC, and it was a good debate. LSU likely had the better season, and many people crunched many numbers to suggest so, and I agree with those numbers (and I provided my own back in the day).
LSU/OU may not have looked right, but all things considered, it was the right championship game.
How about these numbers? 35-7.
I remember 2003. I remember OU being promoted, drooled over, and worshipped as the greatest team of all time.
Then I remember them losing in their conference championship game and staying number 1. And not just losing, but getting their backsides handed to them. They lost the right to be called the greatest team ever when they lost by 28 points to a mediocre Kansas State team. Conversely, LSU and USC's margins of defeat in their only losses were 12 and 3 points, respectively.
And surely one cannot argue that late losses are not more detrimental. A conference championship loss to LSU in 2001 cost Tennessee a BCS game while Florida, who Tennessee beat, got to go instead. Why? Because Tennessee lost later than UF did.
Yet Oklahoma lost their final game before the national championship and remained number 1 in the BCS standings.
USC deserved to be in that title game. They won their conference. OU, on the other hand, was embarrassed and showed in the Big 12 title game that they were clearly not the best team ever. They weren't even the best team in their conference.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 3:48 pm
1
Posted on 7/16/08 at 4:28 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
quote:
Bama's cheating arguably cost Auburn a title shot. frick Alabama.
Never thought of it that way, but thanks.
Bama again.
alabama was on pete carrolls payroll...reggie bush said so in new orleans...they did not want auburn to do well and u.s.c. hates auburn after that 2001 friday night game which auburn did so well in....that is why they hurt cadillac's ankle in the second quarter on purpose also
Posted on 7/16/08 at 4:54 pm to LSUstudent4life
quote:I disagree. Why aren't we playing Texas Tech anytime soon? Why isn't Notre Dame playing Rutgers? There's always somebody the likes of Oregon State available, but for some strange reason we see Middle Tennessee.
you're looking at it the wrong way. teams don't want to come to TS to play us, espcially at night. like in 2003 VaTech was supposed to play in TS. they cancelled and pushed it back to 07. we all saw how that played out
Posted on 7/16/08 at 4:55 pm to Chimlim
USC was undefeated in regular time that year.... 
The BCS needs a rule that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be allowed to play in the BCS title game. It's basically common sense. If you can't win your conference, you're not the best team in the country, but we've seen it happen a number of times. The most blatenant was probably Nebraska not even winning their division and getting in over Oregon which was a travesty.
The BCS needs a rule that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be allowed to play in the BCS title game. It's basically common sense. If you can't win your conference, you're not the best team in the country, but we've seen it happen a number of times. The most blatenant was probably Nebraska not even winning their division and getting in over Oregon which was a travesty.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:01 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:Great job. You've gone from using 1/13 of the regular season to using 1/13 of the regular season.
How about these numbers? 35-7.
quote:Sure. For some reason you're not discussing how dominant Oklahoma was during the first 12 games of the season. In fact, they were so dominant that they had clinched a spot in the Sugar Bowl before the BXIICG.
And surely one cannot argue that late losses are not more detrimental.
Once again, when you consider all games played (which you aren't doing), you'll see what I'm talking about.
quote:That's 8 wins. You're now accounting for 2/3 of USC's season. You're getting there.
USC deserved to be in that title game. They won their conference.
Selective statistics don't make for good arguments.
quote:Actually, their record vs. Big XII teams that year suggests otherwise. They were 8-1 vs. the conference that year, which clearly was better than any other team could boast. "Best team" and "champion" are not the same thing.
They weren't even the best team in their conference.
The BCS is out to get the two best teams, not necessarily two champions of a selective, arbitrary, regional two thirds of a season.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:02 pm to xiv
quote:
"Best team" and "champion" are not the same thing.
Sounds like a Georgia argument
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:03 pm to usc6158
quote:Flawed logic. When a team plays 12 games, you can't determine whether or not they're the best in the country based on the eight labeled "conference games."
The BCS needs a rule that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be allowed to play in the BCS title game. It's basically common sense. If you can't win your conference, you're not the best team in the country,
Conference affiliation cannot be a factor if all teams are not in conferences.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:04 pm to cvdo06
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:25 pm to xiv
quote:
Sure. For some reason you're not discussing how dominant Oklahoma was during the first 12 games of the season. In fact, they were so dominant that they had clinched a spot in the Sugar Bowl before the BXIICG.
Once again, when you consider all games played (which you aren't doing), you'll see what I'm talking about.
No, I don't see what you're talking about. I don't care that Oklahoma beat Texas 65-13 or Texas A&M 77-0. Running up the score to impress the media does not impress me.
Because when it came right down to it, they couldn't even beat Kansas State. Hell, they barely scored on Kansas State.
And you're right, they had the spot in the BCS Championship locked up before they played in their conference championship. That was a major problem and does nothing to back up your argument -- rather, it only points out one of the many, many flaws with the BCS.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:33 pm to Coon
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;
It's just his opinion, much like tiger fans here who opinionate that LSU wold have beat USC.
Does not change the following: LSU Coaches Poll NC, USC AP NC
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:35 pm to Mr. Shankly
quote:
I love this angle. The only reason UM was in that game was b/c of the Big 10 affliation w/ the Rose bowl.
They were also #4. USC was #1 in both polls. Anytime #1 wins its bowl, it stays #1, at least in the AP poll.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:37 pm to LST
quote:
What pisses me off most about the whole deal is that noboy ever brings up Auburn to give them even a little respect for the 04 season.
B/C AU onl,y has the Gold Digest NC from that year and the inaugural one at that.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:53 pm to LSUTANGERINE
aaww man, that's fricked up 
Posted on 7/16/08 at 5:56 pm to tubucoco
all this stuff will never go according to plan, unless top 4 face off at the end of the year in a bowl format, but the powers that be won't go for it because of their own personal agendas.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 6:11 pm to spslayto
Crstal ball nuff said!!! 
Posted on 7/16/08 at 6:50 pm to cajunjj
LSU would have been a bad matchup for SC in '03. Unlike their other opponents, LSU had the speed to stay with SC and more. Besides, SC would not have been able to handle LSU's D with its blitzes. Palmer hadn't seen pressure like LSU would have brought. Their D was only average that year and would not have been able to handle LSU's power running game. LSU wins comfortably.
Now, what's next?
Now, what's next?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:20 pm to cvdo06
the pac 10 is a weak conference and LSU got robbed that year.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:35 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
B/C AU onl,y has the Gold Digest NC from that year and the inaugural one at that.
Yeah and you just keep being happy that you never found out just how good you were that year by playing AU.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:57 pm to kclsufan
quote:
LSU wins comfortably.
USC wins 37-3
Posted on 7/16/08 at 8:59 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Yeah and you just keep being happy that you never found out just how good you were that year by playing AU.
I am pretty sure AU had just about enough of USC by that time (i.e., getting manhandled in two consecutive seasons with one being a shut out at Jordan-Hare)
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 9:00 pm
Page 3 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News