December 07, 2003

USC gets ripped off: Despite finishing at Number One in both the AP and USA Today polls, the Trojans will at best be able to win a split of the national college football title. Will we see a repeat of 2001's Miami-Nebraska fiasco where a team that couldn't even win its conference snuck in and got blasted while a more deserving squad can only sit and watch?

posted by billsaysthis to football at 05:02 PM - 23 comments

Sorry if this is a little partisan but I'm feeling really, REALLY pissed off right now.

posted by billsaysthis at 05:02 PM on December 07

You should be pissed, because this is total crap, and is why we need a playoff in college football. USC, LSU, and Oklahoma all deserve an equal shot, and the only way to do this is if there is a playoff.

posted by jbou at 05:22 PM on December 07

Don't take this the wrong way, but BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. This is another glorious knife wound in the chest of the BCS. You could tell it was when an exasperated sigh was one of the first things to come out of that BCS commissar guy's mouth when (was it) John Saunders (I've already forgotten) asked him what the hell had happened. I'm so looking forward to watching USC spank Michigan in Pasadena and win the AP poll.

posted by taupe at 05:42 PM on December 07

I'm so looking forward to watching USC spank Michigan in Pasadena and win the AP poll. From your lips...

posted by billsaysthis at 05:46 PM on December 07

Let all three play a round robin home and home to figure it out. That would be sweet. USC's #1 ranking in the polls is an artifact of when each team lost - it reflects the events of last week, not the events of the entire season. I can't wait to hear all the idiots on sports talk radio this week.

posted by mbd1 at 06:17 PM on December 07

USC played a weak schedule. They couldn't help it, but I can see why Oklahoma and LSU are ahead of them. They both played much tougher schedules.

posted by gyc at 07:54 PM on December 07

Go, LSU!

posted by rushmc at 08:16 PM on December 07

Both Washingtons, Arizonas, Oregons, Notre Dame and UCLA is a weak schedule? Okay, a bad loss to Cal but I think it was more of a yearlong test than Oklahoma's. I agree that LSU should be in the Sugar Bowl.

posted by billsaysthis at 10:03 PM on December 07

Your final: Michigan 31, USC 27.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:12 PM on December 07

Bill, the Arizonas were a combined 7-17 this season. Notre Dame was freaking horrible. UCLA is a .500 team. The Trojans beat a terrible Auburn team, Hawaii and BYU to start the season. True quality wins? They beat Wash State (lost to Notre Dame) and Oregon State (lost to Fresno State and barely outlasted big bad Boise State?!?) while ducking Oregon, the only other solid team in a terrible year for the PAC-10. And for GOD'S SAKE, they lost to CAL!!! Oklahoma fought through a tougher conference shedule (Texas, Colorado, Missouri) and lambasted everyone they played save Alabama. Yes, the Sooners lost the last game of the season, but that loss should count the same as an early loss if you are trying to judge the best team over the course of the yea. As much as it pains me to say it and as much as I want a playoff system, the BCS is right. This game should be OU and LSU.

posted by wfrazerjr at 01:45 AM on December 08

Thanks K-State for screwing all this up. And I mean that. The last thing we need are clear-cut winners and losers in college ball. We have the NFL for that (sort-of -- someone always will be left saying "only if"). The landscape of college football will never allow for clear-cut champions. What would everyone have left to argue about at this time of year? How to raise their kids? Politics? Everyone knows that won't fly. (This coming from a northeasterner-midwesterner who has always wondered why people even bothered playing football in California. :-)

posted by Dick Paris at 06:59 AM on December 08

It would be very nice if we could decide who the best team in college football was by discussing it in this forum. Since that won't work, let's see what we can put together for a National Championship Series. I propose... Oklahoma vs UM --- Dec 27th, 4pm --- Rose Bowl LSU vs USC --- Dec 27th, 7pm --- Orange Bowl Winners face in the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl (whoever's turn it is) on January 4th for the National Championship. I'd watch that. I'd even watch the projected UM vs USC consolation game on the 3rd of January (if they'd play in it). That isn't needed, but it would be fun. Oh, and sorry to Ohio State, but being 5th gets you nowhere. (It's easier to tell them that... Than say, tell USC you have to sit this one out.

posted by 86 at 07:36 AM on December 08

i really don't see what the big deal is. from what i gather, the only concensus between the 3 polls is that LSU should be playing in the 'title' game. if the shoe was on the other foot and oklahoma was on the outside looking in, i think that you'd be hearing the same argument that USC is putting up. as suggested by mbd1 earlier, USC being number 1 in the two polls is more of a reflection of the last week of play than a representation of the whole season. i still haven't heard the best way to handle these situations. i really don't think there is a way. the schools aren't going to budge and add more games to the schedule for a playoffs (which is ironic, considering the reason they cite is interferrence with end of semester finals....ha!) the seasons is too short and when there's not one or two undefeated teams left standing there's going to be a bunch of teams with one loss and no way to solve the problem. these three teams could play eachother 10 times each and the result probably would split 50/50....there's no science to picking who the 2 best teams are, any system is going to have its flaws.

posted by oliver_crunk at 08:02 AM on December 08

Ah, this is the only place on the web that I've found that agrees with me. Listen, I hate the BCS. But I think this year it got it right. The whole point of the computers is to correct human error - they started this because they didn't trust the polls. Setting aside the fact that it's amazing that the east coast biased press has USC in first to begin with (which is a good thing, or would be if they deserved it anyway), the BCS ranked them according to strength of schedule and did not take into effect timing of the loss. Basically in the human polls, if you lose, you drop, and when you win, you jump over those ahead of you that lost. USC lost first, dropped down, then slowly ascended as each other team lost and dropped below them. LSU lost next, dropped below them, and the two eventually rose to 2 and 3. Without a USC loss there was almost no hope of LSU hopping over them, even though they've clearly played a tougher schedule - which was obvious even before SU beat Notre Dame (woohoo!). Oklahomo lost and dropped to 3, because that's how things work. But ask those who ranked them third who they'd favor in the bowl game and I bet 75% of them would still pick Oklahomo. There's the error in the rankings right there. The feeling that OK doesn't deserve #1 because of their recent non-showing. Oklahoma is far and away the best team here. As it turns out, each of these teams took one week off, OK at least did it against a top 10 BCS team. LSU did it against #15 (I think - regardless, the best 4 loss team in recent memory). USC lost to Cal. Cal is better, but they're not good. They'll most likely get killed in their bowl game. So I hate to say it, but the BCS got it right this time. But, I am still quite excited to see this lead to its demise. 86, I like everything about your idea except the dates - I want the new years bowl games intact. In fact they'd make even more money out of it if they just added another game the week after, calling it the national championship or something else non-bowl related. The bowls would get their good games and their money, and they'd get some extra cash by holding another game. The slight decrease in interest in the non-final bowl games would be more than compensated by the huge fuss that would be made over the new game. Glad to see I'm not alone here in thinking that we're better off this way (plus, UM-USC is going to be the best game anyway)

posted by Bernreuther at 08:06 AM on December 08

I have to disagree--we're not better off this way, it's just a different kind of goofy. No 16-team playoffs means no way of establishing a champion and the I-A NCAA football National Championship is as mythical as ever. It does allow you to pick your own champion, though; I'm going with Miami of Ohio. Nice to see the MAC champion getting the SHAFT! again...

posted by Justin Slotman at 10:15 AM on December 08

Dick Paris, Completely agree with you about a college playoff-- what's the purpose? Football fans have the NFL; the college bowl controversies are fun. BTW, I read a biography of Jackie Robinson (the baseball pioneer), and apparently football was very big in Southern California in the 1930s.

posted by cg1001a at 10:38 AM on December 08

And for GOD'S SAKE, they lost to CAL!!! Yes, in TRIPLE FECKING OVERTIME!!! If the BCS hadn't thrown out margin of victory in the most recent formula adjustment, USC would probably have at least a .4 better/lower score than LSU.

posted by billsaysthis at 01:38 PM on December 08

One strike against OU is that they lost the conference championship. Should a team be ranked number 1 if they can't win their conference? Is losing the conference championship more or less important than losing to a weak team? Red wine or white wine? My favorite quote is from this article:

"I learned a little about life in general," Poole said. "You can't let a computer make decisions for you. Computers are going to take over. The next thing you know, everybody is going to be out of a job. Computers are going to play football. If you let computers run the world, what are humans going to do?"
Please, let's get to a real playoff system before the BCS become self-aware.

posted by dirigibleman at 01:39 PM on December 08

TrojanFan has quickly become WantsToFightGuy.

posted by lilnemo at 03:52 PM on December 08

They really don't want a playoff. All this bitching ensures interest, and there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? Besides, head to head and the way they are going right now, Michigan wins that 4 team scenario posted earlier. As it is, Oklahoma is mighty pissed and probably rolls LSU, Michigan beats USC to end all controversies. YMMV

posted by pivo at 01:04 AM on December 10

Wayne Rooney is qual

posted by Kershia at 04:48 AM on June 25

owen is fit

posted by Kershia at 04:49 AM on June 25

The bottom line to this controversy is this and it is plain and simple.....The BCS screwed up PERIOD!!! I completely agree with a comment earlier and that is if you cannot win your conference championship not only should you not be ranked #1 in any poll, but you should not be playing for any national title. What kills me about the BCS is when LSU and USC lost earlier in the season respectively, they both fell several positions down in the poll. And that is a given to any team who loses within there system. So when OU get there butts handed to them in there conference championship game they are still ranked #1?? What a joke!!!! And it showed in both bowl games who should have played each other for the national title (should have been USC vs. LSU). If any team deserved to be there the most it was LSU who had to play Georgia in there own state (Georgia) to win the SEC conference title. OU lost theres and the PAC ten doesn't have one (that in itself is a joke). And when OU played LSU in the Sugar Bowl it also showed who had the better defense in the country (LSU by a landslide). My personal belief was that they matched OU vs. LSU because they figured OU would kill LSU and show the BCS was right about keeping OU #1. So when LSU dominated the so called best team in the country it was almost a double backfire to the BCS system. The BCS is screwed up, as we have all seen now, but it was a system that the NCAA and coaches agreed to abide by so good or bad that should make LSU the undisputed national champion.

posted by billybass1965 at 10:08 AM on July 13

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.