Started By
Message
re: USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:04 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:04 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I am pretty sure AU had just about enough of USC by that time (i.e., getting manhandled two in consecutive seasons with one being a shut out at Jordan-Hare)
Not so fast there lil fella. We have covered this too many times, but the '04 AU was nothing like the '03 team for several reasons. The OC we had in '03 was not ready to be an OC and his gameplan in '03 against USC was the worst ever. Campbell came into his own in '04 as did Ronnie and our o-line. As far as proof, AU played a very good top 5 or 10 UGA team. Lost by about 17 in '03 won by about 17 in '04. So since you want to go down that road USC would have absolutely gotten it shoved up their arse if they had played AU in 2004.
And by the way, USC was getting it shoved up their arse by an inferior AU team in LA in 2002 until you bastards hurt caddy's knee and ankle because you sure as hell were not slowing him down in the first half.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 9:06 pm
2
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:15 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
your giving Ga. way too much credit, you guys barely beat the tigers in '04, last minute heroics by Campbell.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:30 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Not so fast there lil fella. We have covered this too many times, but the '04 AU was nothing like the '03 team for several reasons. The OC we had in '03 was not ready to be an OC and his gameplan in '03 against USC was the worst ever. Campbell came into his own in '04 as did Ronnie and our o-line. As far as proof, AU played a very good top 5 or 10 UGA team. Lost by about 17 in '03 won by about 17 in '04. So since you want to go down that road USC would have absolutely gotten it shoved up their arse if they had played AU in 2004.
And USC's 2004 team was nothig like the 02 and 03 team. Cherish your Gold Digest NC.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:34 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Didn't want to read this whole thread b/c it has been hashed and rehashed until i could puke frickin coathangers.
I just wanted to add this sounds like an article written by Bill Plaschke, whatever the frick that communist pac-10 homer's name is spelled. Can't stand that guy. Biggest pac-10 homer of them all. Sounds like Bill and this guy need to get together for some drinks.
I just wanted to add this sounds like an article written by Bill Plaschke, whatever the frick that communist pac-10 homer's name is spelled. Can't stand that guy. Biggest pac-10 homer of them all. Sounds like Bill and this guy need to get together for some drinks.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:38 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Surely you can admit, in retrospect, that Auburn would have been a much worthier opponent than OU?
USC was very good in 2004. But they were not the unstoppable behemoth they were made out to be. The media was just fawning over them, quite obnoxiously I might add.
I truly think AU would've beaten USC that year.
USC was very good in 2004. But they were not the unstoppable behemoth they were made out to be. The media was just fawning over them, quite obnoxiously I might add.
I truly think AU would've beaten USC that year.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:52 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
Surely you can admit, in retrospect, that Auburn would have been a much worthier opponent than OU?
With USC winning 55-19, probably. But who would not have been more worthy? With USC playing like they did that night, I seriously doubt AU would have won or even been close. But could AU have won? Sure. Could USC have won 67-18? Sure.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 9:54 pm to GoBigOrange86
I seriously doubt that, SC was a scoring machine that year, they destroyed the Sooners, Auburn may not have given up as many points, but nevertheless they would have still got beat.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 10:13 pm to tubucoco
Who knows who would have won, but it WOULD have been a hell of a game. AU would NOT have gotten run off the field, on the flip side USC would have probably given AU a better game than anyone in the SEC considering AU mahandled the entire league that year except LSU who was the defending BCS champ and had a hell of a team. AU had an awesome offense and one of the best defenses in the SEC in the past 15 years. It was a very complete team. And as has been pointed out many times the NFL sure as hell thought so taking 3 of our players with the first 10 picks in the draft and 4 in the first round that year (and I think 6 overall in the '05 draft alone).
Posted on 7/16/08 at 11:49 pm to cvdo06
USC beat a lower ranked opponent - Michigan, than LSU's opponent - #1 Oklahoma.
USC did not have to play and win a conference championship game.
The only reason that USC was ranked ahead of LSU in the AP poll was because they lost to Cal EARLIER than LSU lost to Florida. USC was ranked BELOW LSU prior up until LSU lost to Fla
LSU beat #5 Georgia in the SEC Championship Game 'IN' Atlanta - the SECOND time we played Georgia in 9 games !!!!!
What if USC had been required to beat the PAC 10 runner-up twice?
LSU won "TWO" Championship games that year - #5 Georgia in the SECCG, and #1 Oklahoma in the Sugar/NCG.
USC beat #4 Michigan.
USC did not have to play and win a conference championship game.
The only reason that USC was ranked ahead of LSU in the AP poll was because they lost to Cal EARLIER than LSU lost to Florida. USC was ranked BELOW LSU prior up until LSU lost to Fla
LSU beat #5 Georgia in the SEC Championship Game 'IN' Atlanta - the SECOND time we played Georgia in 9 games !!!!!
What if USC had been required to beat the PAC 10 runner-up twice?
LSU won "TWO" Championship games that year - #5 Georgia in the SECCG, and #1 Oklahoma in the Sugar/NCG.
USC beat #4 Michigan.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 11:56 pm to cvdo06
quote:
The author claims that USC was the nation best team that year.
That's an opinion, not an indefensible one, but I disagree. I do think USC was the best team in 2005, I know New England was the best team in the NFL last year. Being the best team does not automatically translate into champion (see Super Bowl XLII).
Its (for the time being anyway) a free country, he's entitled to his opinion.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 11:57 pm to MetryTyger
quote:
The only reason that USC was ranked ahead of LSU in the AP poll was because they lost to Cal EARLIER than LSU lost to Florida. USC was ranked BELOW LSU prior up until LSU lost to Fla
I 100% agree, I wish more LSU fans would realize this is how the polls always went.
Posted on 7/17/08 at 12:40 am to GoBigOrange86
quote:Actually, when it came down to it, Oklahoma was 12-1 vs. one of the top 5 schedules in the country. That, when compared to the resumes of the other teams, put them in the #1 spot.
Because when it came right down to it, they couldn't even beat Kansas State. Hell, they barely scored on Kansas State.
When it came down to it, on December 7, 2003, Oklahoma was #1, and they had earned it.
Posted on 7/17/08 at 12:45 am to xiv
Alot of good their SOS did in the Sugar Bowl.
Posted on 7/17/08 at 4:34 am to GoBigOrange86
I think LSU and USC were the two best teams in college football in '03. It would be silly to say one or the other would have won the BCSCG if they'd played, and each set of fans is biased towards it's own team.
I do believe USC was better than Oklahoma, and we'd have had a fighting man's chance to beat LSU, even in New Orleans.
Oh, and we were undefeated in regulation.
I do believe USC was better than Oklahoma, and we'd have had a fighting man's chance to beat LSU, even in New Orleans.
Oh, and we were undefeated in regulation.
Posted on 7/17/08 at 6:10 am to MetryTyger
quote:
What if USC had been required to beat the PAC 10 runner-up twice?
What if LSU had to play every team in the SEC?
Posted on 7/17/08 at 8:01 am to cvdo06
wow
that was almost 5 years ago and he's writing an article on it?
i mean if there is some new statistical measure, and he wants to go over all the "controversy" years (which is only 2003 and 2004), that's one thing. what the hell? nice sham to get people to look at your shitty blog
that was almost 5 years ago and he's writing an article on it?
i mean if there is some new statistical measure, and he wants to go over all the "controversy" years (which is only 2003 and 2004), that's one thing. what the hell? nice sham to get people to look at your shitty blog
Posted on 7/17/08 at 8:35 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
quote:
LSU wins comfortably.
USC wins 37-3
USC's recievers were that good! What would have sophmore Lienerts fate been however? USC would have had to strike early without failure. Hill & Spears were huge men and LSU was hungry & in New Orleans. If USC were on em very early then yes a blowout mabey but if not LSU would have waltzed away with it. IMO
Posted on 7/17/08 at 8:51 am to Old Times
no blowout, just a closely contested game, LSU's defense that year was superb, Oklahoma had a explosive offense and they held them in check, they would have done the same against a inexperienced Lienart, a tunover could have decided this game.
Posted on 7/17/08 at 9:07 am to xiv
quote:
There is absolutely no question that Oklahoma belonged in the 2004 Sugar Bowl.
Kansas St. belonged there before Oklahoma....they were the champ from the Big XII
Posted on 7/17/08 at 9:56 am to jmath27
quote:
The Trojans were the nation's best team in 2003-04.
And they have been since then.
Best team in 2003 because beating #4 automatically means that they will beat the shite out of #1, #2, #3 and even the God himself.
They were the best team after the loss to Texas in the 2005 title game (If not for the freak named Vince Young! He was not human).
They were the best team in 2006 when UCLA blanked them in quarters 3 and 4. Now, since that can't happen to the best team, UCLA prolly used some voodo shite on them..
They were the best team after the loss to Stanford (If not for Booty's pinky!).
So, it goes on...always the best team in their small minds!
Page 4 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News