- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
re: Regarding 2003 National Title and USC
Posted on 8/26/24 at 6:17 pm to LSBoosie
Posted on 8/26/24 at 6:17 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
And there are actually people on here that believe the BCS system was better than a playoff…
doesn't matter. It was what all colleges agreed upon to decide the national championship. End of discussion.
0
Posted on 8/26/24 at 7:21 pm to JCPegasus
quote:
AP was upset that their favorite team didn’t make the title game and gave them some “press / media” votes.
This is such bull shite coping nonsense. USC was #1 in the AP going into the bowls and won, why would they drop? There have been multiple split titles over the years, no one bitches about it like LSU fans, it’s be 21 years, it doesn’t diminish LAUs accomplishment that year, time to get over it.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 7:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
The BCS not pairing LSU and USC in 2003 was the biggest blunder I've ever seen in college football. As an aside, it was annoying how Oklahoma always got into the BCS title/playoff no matter the scenario.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 7:34 pm to Mandtgr47
quote:
LSU was the BCS National Champion, which all colleges had agreed to let decide the national championship.
It was an agreement amongst the bowls to allow conference champions who were #1 and #2 in the BCS standings to go to the bowl designated as the BCS championship instead of keeping them to their conference bowl tie-ins. There was also an agreement with the Coaches’ Poll to name the BCS champion their champion and present their trophy to the winner. Let that sink in. The legitimacy of the BCS champion was still tied to the poll system. It wasn’t an attempt to make the polls obsolete or they wouldn’t have needed the Coaches’ Poll,
That’s all it was. There was no agreement to ignore the AP poll and accept only the Coaches’ Poll. There was no authority to do so anyway. It wasn’t an NCAA sanctioned championship and the NCAA still lists USC as one of the champions of a major selector.
Why do so many of you care? No one holds LSU’s title in lesser esteem because the AP poll chose USC. A title is a title.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 7:37 pm to H-Town Tiger
Looking back, LSU didn’t have any national media voice to vouch for them. The whole narrative was how much a travesty it was that USC was left out. And it was a travesty. LSU fans don’t deny that, they were just pissed at the national media automatically proclaiming USC the champion. The SEC didn’t have the respect and the national media coverage like they do now. These days we have Spears, Booger, Ryan Clark, Peter Burns, and pretty much the entire SEC Network would be pushing for LSU if a similar circumstance happened.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 8:01 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
Why do so many of you care? No one holds LSU’s title in lesser esteem because the AP poll chose USC. A title is a title.
I’m 38. In 2003 I was in high school. In 1998 I was ~12. I’m sure most people my age were too young to remember or care about champions being crowned by voters.
My pee wee league had a championship game. The winner was the champion.
High School had a championship game. Winner was the champion.
College football in 2003 had a championship game. No one cares about AP or Coaches championships by vote. LSU won the championship game.
Media tried to diminish LSUs accomplishments that year because their favorite team was left out.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 8:41 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:USC was not screwed out of the game. Both OU and LSU had better record vs better SOS. What criteria would have made USC more deserving of OU and LSU?
USC was screwed out of the game.
quote:Honestly they don't. LSU played 7 of 14 games against THE AP RANKED TEAMS. USC played 3 of 13 games against THE AP RANKED TEAMS and lost to a team that did not get ONE SINGLE VOTE from the AP voters. Seems to me the AP VOTERS IGNORED THEIR VERY OWN POLL to crown their champion.
They have every right to claim the AP title.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 8:50 pm to cbree88
quote:
Sorry but USC’s 2003 title is legitimate
quote:
cbree88
This is why nobody likes you
Posted on 8/26/24 at 8:58 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Maybe if the AP voters RESPECTED their own poll, then they could of USED their poll and chose their champion based on the team that played 7 AP ranked teams and beat 6 AP ranked teams instead of giving it to a team that played 3 AP ranked teams and lost to a NON RANKED team. They SERIOUSLY IGNORED THEIR POLL
This is such bull shite coping nonsense. USC was #1 in the AP going into the bowls and won, why would they drop?
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:01 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:Not even close. OU and LSU both had better records vs better SOS. What criteria would have allowed USC to jump either one of those teams?
The BCS not pairing LSU and USC in 2003 was the biggest blunder I've ever seen in college football.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:02 pm to Victry4LSU
I have the feeling that a lot of people in this thread don’t remember how much of an annoying media darling USC was during this time
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:04 pm to Victry4LSU
Oklahoma lost to K-State 35-7. USC was peaking in December and had a fluke loss to Cal in September. It was just a ridiculous outcome.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:22 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:1) OU 12-1 had a better record than USC 11-1
Oklahoma lost to K-State 35-7. USC was peaking in December and had a fluke loss to Cal in September. It was just a ridiculous outcome.
2) OU's SOS was better than USC's.
3) OU's lost was to a RANNKED CONFERENCE CHAMPION. USC lost to an UNRANKED team.
What criteria would allow USC over OU?
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:29 pm to Victry4LSU
Oklahoma's loss to K State was so shockingly bad, it should have eliminated the Sooners. Surely a committee would have paired LSU and USC.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:42 pm to Victry4LSU
quote:
team that played 7 AP ranked teams and beat 6 AP ranked teams
LSU played 5 games against AP ranked opponents (only 4 based on ranking at game time). I’m not sure where you are coming up with 7. I agree 100% that LSU played a tougher schedule and should have been ranked higher, but you are exaggerating the strength of their schedule. Playing a tougher schedule in and of itself does not make a team better if the other team is more dominant. That wasn’t the case here, but the writers clearly thought it was. They didn’t factor in the fact that LSU regularly shut things down in the 3rd quarter once the game was out of reach knowing their defense would shut the other team down. They were too enamored with USC’s offensive displays that were often necessitated by having a lesser defense.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 9:44 pm to Mandtgr47
quote:
we were #1. It was between OU and USC to play us.
LSU was #2 in both polls, #2 in the computers, and #2 in the final BCS standings.
Posted on 8/26/24 at 11:28 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
LSU played 5 games against AP ranked opponents (only 4 based on ranking at game time). I’m not sure where you are coming up with 7.
For some reason, I had Auburn ranked, so i gave both LSU and USC extra credit for each playing an extra ranked team. LSU played 6 games against the final AP ranked teams (5 based on ranking at game time) and USC played only 2 games against the final AP ranked teams (2 based on ranking at game time). These corrected adjustments even favors LSU more now.
quote:
I agree 100% that LSU played a tougher schedule and should have been ranked higher, but you are exaggerating the strength of their schedule.
How am I exaggerating, Every poll including the AP and every computer model along with the BCS formula suggested that LSU's SOS was better.
quote:
Playing a tougher schedule in and of itself does not make a team better if the other team is more dominant.
In what universe was USC more dominant? LSU's record was better, LSU's SOS was better, LSU's loss was better losing to a team that the AP ranked in their final AP poll as opposed to USC losing to a team that didn't receive even ONE vote from any AP voter. Both teams had 2 common opponents in which LSU beat both teams by a larger margin. So how was USC more dominant when USC has NO argument suggesting they were better?
Posted on 8/26/24 at 11:46 pm to Victry4LSU
quote:
LSU played 6 games against the final AP ranked teams
They played Oklahoma, Georgia 2x, Ole Miss, and Florida. That’s 5. If you go by game rank, you just swap Florida and Auburn.
quote:
How am I exaggerating
By claiming they played 7 games against ranked opponents when they only played 5.
quote:
In what universe was USC more dominant?
They weren’t and I dedicated an entire paragraph discussing that that you overlooked. My point was twofold. One, saying LSU had the tougher schedule in and of itself is not the proof of inconsistency on the pollsters’ part you claimed without also speaking to who dominated their schedule more. I agree LSU was at least as dominant and probably more so, which I already stated. Two, the pollsters did consider USC more dominant because they focused too much on offense and not enough on the ways LSU took their foot off the gas in the 3rd quarter with regularity. We agree they were wrong in that evaluation, but it wasn’t inconsistency or a conspiracy.
quote:
Both teams had 2 common opponents in which LSU beat both teams by a larger margin.
LSU beat both teams by exactly 1 more point than USC, but they also got Auburn at home while USC faced them on the road. That’s hardly a differentiator.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 12:29 am to LSBoosie
quote:
And there are actually people on here that believe the BCS system was better than a playoff…
Posted on 8/27/24 at 1:48 am to MikeTheTiger71
quote:I did confuse Florida and Auburn's ranking at respected times. I still stand by my argument if you may that one team played one hell of a lot of AP ranked teams than the other, 4 to 1 before the bowls or 5 to 2 after the bowls.
They played Oklahoma, Georgia 2x, Ole Miss, and Florida. That’s 5. If you go by game rank, you just swap Florida and Auburn.
quote:Playing ranked opponents at a 4 to 1 or 5 to 2 ratio is not exaggerating sos.
How am I exaggerating
By claiming they played 7 games against ranked opponents when they only played 5.
quote:
We agree they were wrong in that evaluation, but it wasn’t inconsistency or a conspiracy.
I remember hearing the Kansas City sports writer on ESPN claiming LSU was better but voting for USC. I still don't get where one team has NO argument, 11-1 vs 12-1 before bowl or 12-1 vs 13-1 after bowl, or SOS(BCS), SOS(polls), or worst loss, or common opponents, etc. The team that can't win any of these arguments was chosen over the team that wins everyone of these arguments.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News