re: Why is Media So Insistent That USC Won 2003 Championship

quote:

---

Yeah and the BCS sucked shite.

---

Why did the BCS suck shite?

quote:

---

For some of you - polls, votes and trophy names For some of us - winners of championship games

---

I think you are misinterpreting the arguments being made in this thread. The issue is less some grand belief in the polls and more a recognition that what you are calling a “championship game” wasn’t really one. It still relied upon the same poll system for its legitimacy. It was more theatrics than substance. The winner of the game was guaranteed the Coaches’ Poll national title, so they could go ahead and award that poll’s trophy on the field. That didn’t magically propel the Coaches’ Poll to greater legitimacy than the AP.

That doesn’t mean I think the poll system wasn’t flawed. It only means I don’t think the BCS solved much. There was almost always controversy surrounding the participants in the game. The fact that there wasn’t greater controversy surrounding the eventual national champions is somewhat an artifact of the favored time generally winning, and when they didn’t, it usually was an SEC team that did. The dominance of the SEC helped to legitimize their claim to the title.

quote:

---

I see teams winning and celebrating a championship game.

---

I see teams winning and celebrate A championship but not necessarily THE championship.

quote:

---

You can’t deny that the BCS championship was The Championship Game. “Bowl Championship” is hidden in the acronym.

---

It was A championship game. It lacked the authority or even consensus public sentiment to be THE championship game. The fact that we are still having this discussion 20 years later is proof of that. LSU won a national championship by winning the Sugar Bowl. That’s not in dispute. What is in dispute is that it precluded USC from being recognized as a national champion as well by virtue of it #1 finish in the AP poll. You are well within your rights to question the validity of USC’s claim, but there is no authority that actually de-legitimizes their claim. Most college football fans acknowledge and accept that LSU and USC were both national champions in 2003. That’s not a conspiracy. Nor should it in anyway be seen to diminish LSU’s accomplishments. No one thinks LSU’s title in 2003 is any less of a championship than any other national championship ever awarded.

quote:

---

Maybe the media shouldn’t have hyped it up as The Championship game all year before pivoting the night of the selection. Maybe they shouldn’t have given it the name BCS Championship if they didn’t want greater emphasis put on the game. Maybe they shouldn’t have put national championship on the Sugar Bowl jersey patch. Maybe they shouldn’t have been upset that USC was left out if it didn’t matter at anyway.

---

So your argument is that because the media overhyped the game and the organizers of the BCS promised something they could not deliver, we should all be obligated to believe the hype and fall for the marketing?

quote:

---

I get the limiting to two teams part, but the BCS format did not cause the dual champion thing in 03. The BCS used media/coaches polls, as well as analytics to rank the teams, thereby inserting the two top contestants into the game. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than only using human bias.

---

Nothing in anything I have argued in this thread should be interpreted as an endorsement of the poll system or human bias. I created a computer rating system of my own recognizing the limitations and flaws of the polls and poll “logic”. Adding more objective criteria into the selection process was certainly an improvement. It just wasn’t enough to overcome the inherent problem with selecting only two teams.

quote:

---

Posted by Message
TigerScorpion

Why is Media So Insistent That USC Won 2003 Championship
quote:
This thread’s very existence is evidence of problems with the BCS. Limiting participation to only 2 teams isn’t going to ensure that all teams with a legitimate claim are given a chance to prove it on the field in many, if not most, years.


I get the limiting to two teams part, but the BCS format did not cause the dual champion thing in 03. The BCS used media/coaches polls, as well as analytics to rank the teams, thereby inserting the two top contestants into the game. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than only using human bias. The better system would be the 4 team playoff, with the BCS rankings, instead of a committee picking teams or not picking teams because "they don't pass the eye test."

---

See that's the thing. LSU and Alabama were not the 'top two contestants.' It was LSU and Oklahoma State. Why? Because of all the BCS criteria!! Oklahoma State won the Big 12 title by crushing former #1 Oklahoma by 5 touchdowns. Aaaaaand they also had a MUCH stronger SOS than bama - ANOTHER 'BCS Criterium.' 3rd place SEC Alabama stayed home on the couch and watched the SECCG. Both OSU and LSU played in an extra game - their conference title games.


There were several coaches in the 'human' poll who actually DROPPED Oklahoma State below Alabama after they won the Big 12. And they didn't just drop them one spot; some dropped them to FIFTH OR SIXTH !!! WTF ????


THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS small biased segment of the BCS criteria - the 'human' coaches poll, is what enabled Alabama to jump Okie State into 2nd place in the BCS, when they should NOT have!! Now, if we're talking 'eye test' and 'who is the best team', etc., then why was 12-1 Big 12 Champion Oklahoma State, with a much stronger SOS, NOT looked on as the 'best' team??????
Why is it always f-----g alabama that is looked upon as the 'best' team - when they DIDN'T EVEN QUALIFY UNDER ALL THE BCS CRITERIA ????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Was it saban's whining and moaning and crying at halftime of one of the nationally televised conference title games that his 3rd place SEC team 'deserved' to get in OVER a conference CHAMPION, with a much stronger SOS ???? Was it just the f-------g name 'alabama.' F--------g sucks!!

quote:

---

I want LSU in it and to win it. LSU did that in 03

---

I’m not sure where you think I or anyone else has suggested otherwise.

quote:

---

Because when I say, “LSU did that in 03”… it means something different to both of us.

---

LSU played in the BCS title game in 2003 and won a national championship. Does it not mean that to you?

quote:

---

“The” vs “A”, So… No. But I think you already know that we feel differently.

---

That distinction means a lot more to you than to me. I guarantee it did nothing to dampen my enthusiasm or experience of the championship. It also has zero relevance to anyone but LSU and USC fans 20 years later. No one views LSU as a lesser champion just because the AP happened to recognize a different team as champion.

There was a process in place to determine who played in the national championship game. USC didn't cut it because their schedule was awful. I do not understand the confusion. Glad a bunch of dipshit writers decided they were the best team.