- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is the argument for USC in 2003?
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:39 pm
I understand they were awarded the AP title because the media was mad and claim it even though they agreed to the BCS before the season, I don’t know how you can claim a championship for a competition when you didn’t even play in that competition’s championship game, but setting all that aside: What’s the argument that USC deserved a share of the title? Every objective stat you want to look at, from strength of schedule to common opponents, impressive wins/least bad loss….it all favors LSU.
In 20+ years i have never once heard a reasoned, substantive argument as to why USC was deserving of a share of the 2003 title. Does anybody have one?
In 20+ years i have never once heard a reasoned, substantive argument as to why USC was deserving of a share of the 2003 title. Does anybody have one?
This post was edited on 8/28/24 at 6:40 pm
26
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:41 pm to Draconian Sanctions
There isn't one, other than 'muh AP" which holds no weight.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:44 pm to Draconian Sanctions
They were better. Every non-lsu Homer knew they were the best team.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:45 pm to Draconian Sanctions
They were flashier and a bigger brand.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:47 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
They were better.
Can you explain what this means exactly?
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:48 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Media members doing dumbass media stuff. It’s why the AP Poll was, is, and always will be the lesser of the two polls and why the CFP stuff is an abomination.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:48 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
They were better. Every non-lsu Homer knew they were the best team.
Don’t make your trolling so obvious lol
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:48 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
In 20+ years i have never once heard a reasoned, substantive argument as to why USC was deserving of a share of the 2003 title.
The only reason why there was even a split is because the voting members of the AFCA Coaches Poll were contractually obligated to vote the winner of the BCS title game #1 because the AFCA trophy was awarded to the winner of said game. Going into the bowl games, USC was #1 in both the AP and the Coaches. They beat #4 Michigan very convincingly in the Rose Bowl, and thus held onto their #1 ranking in the AP, while the Coaches voted LSU #1 by default. Despite the contractual obligations, three voting members of the Coaches Poll still threw their #1 vote behind USC.
That all being said...the argument shouldn't be about whether or not USC was deserving. The argument should be whether or not Oklahoma was deserving to be in that game after getting blown away in the Big 12 Championship Game to the tune of four touchdowns.
If we are being completely honest with ourselves, it should have been USC and LSU playing in the Sugar Bowl - not Oklahoma.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:53 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
If we are being completely honest with ourselves, it should have been USC and LSU playing in the Sugar Bowl - not Oklahoma.
This is easy to say in retrospect. Oklahoma also had a much better SOS and better wins than USC did. The one thing you can say is Oklahoma really got smacked in the Big 12 title game, but even then Kansas State was a much better team than Cal was that year, who was 6-6 and had a number of really bad losses.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:56 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
They were better. Every non-lsu Homer knew they were the best team.
Eye test at its best eh?
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:57 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 8/28/24 at 6:58 pm to Freauxzen
This is sort of the big problem is that 2003 really cemented that college football would shift away from #1 objective measurements and #2 looking at the resume and asking who deserves to be in or deserves a claim. It moved more and more to eye test because a lot of people were very mad they didn’t get the USC vs Oklahoma championship game they wanted.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:00 pm to Draconian Sanctions
it makes no sense. they didn't play for the championship during a time where two teams did. i don't acknowledge it.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The AP poll was released before the final BCS rankings on the Sunday after the conference championship games. USC vaulted to #1 which was OK at that moment because it was assumed that the Trojans would face LSU. Then the BCS rankings were revealed and it was pure chaos on ESPN. USC did nothing to lose its #1 AP ranking against Michigan and therefore won the AP title.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:02 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
Yeah that’s not what i asked. I understand the logistics of how it happened. What i’m asking is what’s the argument that they deserved it?
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:03 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
They were better. Every non-lsu Homer knew they were the best team.
they were better huh? they lost to cal right? the idea of assuming someone with a loss is better is silly. they didn't play for the championship.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
This is easy to say in retrospect.
It was being said in December 2003 after the BCS Selection Show. Oklahoma had been dominant all year, I don't think there is any doubt or question about that, but they shite the bed in their biggest game of the season so far that year and did it in an embarrassing way. Kansas State was good but no one thought they were THAT good. It would have been one thing to upset Oklahoma, but to run them off the field? Yeah, no.
There's a reason why USC was ranked #1 in both major polls the day after those games were played. Unfortunately for the Trojans, however, Oklahoma couldn't be dropped any lower than #3 because every team from #4 on down had two or more losses.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:05 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Hard to say. LSU had a bad loss to Florida at home in which it was dominated by the Gator defense. USC lost a 3OT game on the road to a decent Cal team.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:07 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
This is sort of the big problem is that 2003 really cemented that college football would shift away from #1 objective measurements and #2 looking at the resume and asking who deserves to be in or deserves a claim.
The whole reason LSU passed USC over was because Hawaii and Notre Dame lost in the last week of the season. Had either one of those teams ended up winning their game, USC would have gotten the nod over LSU.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:07 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Mike Williams.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News