re: Does USC's 2003 AP title carry any legitimacy?

quote:

---

LSU was the on-field and BCS champions. USC wasLSU was the on-field and BCS champions.

---

I agree that LSU deserves a half/championship but this is arse backwards.

USC was #1 in both polls and did play on the field in the Rose Bowl. Nobody in history ranked #1 in both polls and won their bowl game has EVER LOST their #1 ranking.

LSU deserves their /halftitle because they deserved to play the #1 team. (And there have been half titles throughout history so it's not a bad thing, shite, Bama claims quarter titles.)

But the public back then wasn't calling USC "the paper champion" they were calling USC the "people's champion" on the cover of The Sporting News...and LSU the "Computer Champion."

Human vote vs. Computer vote

So in essence, LSU got screwed by the computers more than USC. Because people still remember how fricked up that was and wrongfully blame LSU. LSU got cheated as much as USC. In fact, LSU fans still hate USC today because USC got more love as the National Champion because everyone saw how stupid the BCS was with how much weight was given to computers over human beings.

AP champs have existed since 1936 and they still exist today. Not going away. Everyone claims their titles.

The BCS was a failed experiment. We thought computers could decide champions. Too bad LSU and USC never played. But the #1 team in the country doesn't lose its title because some computer program says different.