- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: SPLIT TITLE: Will our Opinion on 2003 change?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 8:58 am to Navytiger74
Posted on 12/5/11 at 8:58 am to Navytiger74
quote:I didn't say they wouldn't accept it. I said they'd probably be the first if they didn't.
The admin will accept the title
ie, I dont think a single school HASN'T claimed an AP title
1
Posted on 12/5/11 at 8:59 am to Navytiger74
quote:
The admin will accept the title. I won't give two shits about it, but you're crazy if you think it won't be claimed.
It won't be offered much less claimed. If Bama beats LSU in the title game they will pass LSU in the AP poll.
Plus - just my personal opinion - even if the AP awarded it's championship to LSU it doesn't mean anything. There is only one championship. After all, to whom does the AP award its college basketball championship?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 8:59 am to theunknownknight
Nope. AP poll is completely meaningless IMO
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:00 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
I didn't say they wouldn't accept it. I said they'd probably be the first if they didn't.
ie, I dont think a single school HASN'T claimed an AP title
Read you too quickly. I'm tracking.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:04 am to Frankie Knuckles
well this is a very different case than 2003. If we lose, we will have already beat the gumps and have a better resume. USC played cupcakes in 2003 and just got half the title based off of their name and media love. They didnt earn anything. this lsu team would have earned half in my opinion. that said, we should win and this point will be mute.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:05 am to Navytiger74
You mean after we beat Bama and they get the AP. No that's exactly what I'd expect from the AP.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:11 am to theunknownknight
quote:
SPLIT TITLE: Will our Opinion on 2003 change?
your message title proves how f'ed up the system still is. eight years down the road and college football is still held hostage by enron accounting formulas, human prejudice and the narrow agenda of bowl committees. it is pathetic that one of the planets greatest sports is reduced to a hypocritical sham by the money grubbing asshats and the media pukes that run it.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:13 am to theunknownknight
No. I do not want the AP title. It's not a real championship
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:13 am to Navytiger74
No such thing as a split title.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:17 am to theunknownknight
Mine won't.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:17 am to theunknownknight
Nope, my opinion would not change and I would most certainly claim the title, as I have said USC won a title in 03 as well.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:17 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Will our Opinion on 2003 change?
MY opinion on 2003 has always been, USC had as much a right to play for the BCS as Oklahoma and it never really bothered me if they wanted to see the AP "National Championship" as meaning something.
We won the BCS. Made me happy. What they "claim" didn't diminish my happiness one iota.
I won't as be happy if we lose to Bama, no matter what consolation we get awarded. Although, Bama will have to live with knowing their win will come with something of a "consolation" regardless.
They ain't beating us this year, though (ETA, nor in early 2012). So, it's all really moot.
This post was edited on 12/5/11 at 9:18 am
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:18 am to theunknownknight
Your question is insulting.
(1) In 2003, USC did NOT beat LSU.
(2) In 2003, USC did NOT beat everyone it played.
(3) Alabama has ZERO. CHANCE. IN. HELL.
p.s. You will not see our head coach shamelessly lowering himself by suggesting that we can win the MNC without playing the game.
(1) In 2003, USC did NOT beat LSU.
(2) In 2003, USC did NOT beat everyone it played.
(3) Alabama has ZERO. CHANCE. IN. HELL.
p.s. You will not see our head coach shamelessly lowering himself by suggesting that we can win the MNC without playing the game.
This post was edited on 12/5/11 at 9:21 am
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:20 am to theunknownknight
No. Because in 2003, USC didn't even play in the NC game. USC won the AP championship even though at the time the AP ranking was part of the BCS formula.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:28 am to theunknownknight
In 2003 USC got a split title. They happen in College football and its not a big deal. I sorta understood some of the anger at the time since it was LSU's first in so long, but with the success that the program has had since then everybody needs to let it go. There were 2 legitimate champions that year. It's too bad we didn't get to play each other.
If we lose this game we won't be national champions and we shouldn't be.
So no my opinion of USC's valid title won't change no matter what happens. My opinion of the AP and its voters would be diminished much more by them awarding LSU a title than it was when they awarded their pre-bowl #1 team a title for winning the Rose Bowl.
If we lose this game we won't be national champions and we shouldn't be.
So no my opinion of USC's valid title won't change no matter what happens. My opinion of the AP and its voters would be diminished much more by them awarding LSU a title than it was when they awarded their pre-bowl #1 team a title for winning the Rose Bowl.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:29 am to theunknownknight
Just want to be on the record. NO split title imo.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:32 am to LSUnowhas2
quote:
No. Because in 2003, USC didn't even play in the NC game. USC won the AP championship even though at the time the AP ranking was part of the BCS formula.
The sad situation that allowed an Oklahoma team that didn't win its conference (curbstomped like a bunch of Kansas City maggots by KSU) and was STILL propelled into the BCSCG, was the catalyst for the AP to secede from the BCS.
They wanted no part of that system, and who can blame them. It obviously didn't work. They've tweaked it and it's gotten better, but this BCSCG shows once again that the BCS relies too much on subjective criteria.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:32 am to LSUnowhas2
quote:
No. Because in 2003, USC didn't even play in the NC game. USC won the AP championship even though at the time the AP ranking was part of the BCS formula.
Wouldnt the flip side of the argument be USC won the AP partly because they didn't lose in the championship game?
In other words, sure we beat BAMA but if we lose in the BCS we would have lost on the biggest stage IN the championship game. USC, luckily, escaped the embarrassment.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:33 am to theunknownknight
The AP was a bonded slave in 2003 because they were used in calculating the 2003 BCS champion. Therefore, in 2003 it was not a legitimate championship.
In 2011, the AP is free from the BCS and is independent from any BCS calculations, therefore it is a legitimate championship in 2011.
In 2011, the AP is free from the BCS and is independent from any BCS calculations, therefore it is a legitimate championship in 2011.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:35 am to theunknownknight
In 2003, the BCS worked as it was intended to work: the two best and most deserving teams in the nation played.
In 2004, the BCS formula was changed to allow voters more sway, thanks to the campaign the media went on to say a better team had been left out.
In 2011, the BCS did not work. A team with a weaker resume was awarded for losing its conference, not playing a conference championship game, and having a high preseason ranking. Alabama's preseason ranking is the only reason Alabama is in the NC Game. Of course, the preseason ranking is partly the result of name recognition. Nonetheless, the spirit in which the BCS was created was to put an end to favoritism based on name. That did not happen in 2011, and college football is much poorer for it.
In 2004, the BCS formula was changed to allow voters more sway, thanks to the campaign the media went on to say a better team had been left out.
In 2011, the BCS did not work. A team with a weaker resume was awarded for losing its conference, not playing a conference championship game, and having a high preseason ranking. Alabama's preseason ranking is the only reason Alabama is in the NC Game. Of course, the preseason ranking is partly the result of name recognition. Nonetheless, the spirit in which the BCS was created was to put an end to favoritism based on name. That did not happen in 2011, and college football is much poorer for it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News