USC LSU debate back in 2003

Auburn had more of a claim to the 2004 national title than USC did to 2003

this seems like more of a May or June thread, than a FLORIDA WEEK thread!!!

I wonder how O feels about this topic, since he was on the staff of that USC team.

quote:

---

The NCAA recognizes the AP as an official championship.

---

This is a FALSE statement.

quote:

---

It became LSU USC because both won and split the title.

---

There was no split title. In 2003, there was only one title to win, and that was the BCS title. The AP was merely a component of that BCS system by then.

To put another way, prior to that year a team did not require winning the BCS game AND the AP title to merge both together to win a unified title. The AP simply kept giving their award even after the BCS came along, because they wanted to remain relevant.

If it did not require both organizations to agree, then it could not be split.

Feel like I need to dredge up an old Tiger Roar post for this topic...

quote:

---

SOS component was stronger back then. That’s why LSU was selected by the computers.

---

It was “stronger” because it was basically double counted. LSU was #2 in the computers it was Oklahoma that was #1

quote:

---

Today it would be USC.

---

Actually today it would have been

USC vs Michigan
LSU vs OU

USC vs LSU in the title game

If the BCS formula that was used the last 8 years of the BCS the game would have been USC v LSU
LSU was #2 in everything, computers and humans. LSU was going the controversy was over who we should have played. There’s no iteration of BCS formula that would have left LSU out

quote:

---

There was no split title. In 2003, there was only one title to win, and that was the BCS title

---

yes there was

quote:

---

Feel like I need to dredge up an old Tiger Roar post for this topic

---

dredge away, every record available shows 2 champions. The only people that don't recognize it are LSU fans

Rather than blame the AP or USC, you should realize the fault was with the powers that be in college football. Specifically the Big 10, Pac 10 and the Rose Bowl. In the 80's we had several years of 1 v 2 bowls because we had several powerhouse independents who could play in any bowl except of course the stupid Rose Bowl. In the 90's all but one of those joined a conference, so the conferences agreed to have 1 vs 2 rotate among the big bowls, aka the Bowl Alliance, so instead of Nebraska in the Orange and Florida in the Sugar they played each other in the Fiesta and ta da a "true" National Champion. If the fricking Rose Bowl mafia had just played along it would have been fine but they didn't until they got screwed in 96 and 97

Ifthe BCS had not over complicated things with the idiotic computers and SOS and big wins formula and just taken #1 and #2 in the polls, we would have zero controversies in the BCS 2003 wouldve been USC vs LSU in the Sugar Bowl and NO ONE would ever have complained. Blame the BCS for the stupid formula not the AP.

USC never understood that OK finished so far ahead in the computers that though they finished a bad 3rd in the two polls they overrode USC finishing first in the two polls. LSU finished second in all 3 things. So we were definitely #2. It was never LSU who kept USC out.

2 common opponents and LSU won by more in each game (Arizona and Auburn).

LSU defeated 5 ranked teams to their 3.

Case closed