re: Which year was the biggest BCS mess?

quote:

---

USC was destroyed by a terrible Cal team

---

They lost in 3OT 34-31

and finished the season ranked.

The loss to a six loss, unranked Cal team was more embarrassing than a loss to a ranked Florida team.

But that's just looking at the losses. Look at whom LSU beat and then look at whom USC beat. It's not even close. OU and LSU were clearly the top, most deserving two teams in 2003.

quote:

---

Nebraska getting blown out by CU and not winning the Big 12.

---

Nebraska didn't win their division, let alone the league. They sat at home while others continued to play and reaped the rewards.

Miami (who would have beaten anyone) blew the doors off Nebraska and that one loss Oregon destroyed the CU team that destroyed Nebraska. Tennessee was also ready to go but lost to LSU in the SEC CG.

quote:

---

Very good Florida team that got Croomed and started a freshman at QB?

---

Croom wasn't at MSU in 2003, and Florida didn't play them that year. Florida lost to Miami, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Florida State, and Iowa in the Outback.

They finished ranked 24/25

I hate injustice, and in 2003, USC was the beneficiary of injustice.

USC, like all the major conference teams that signed on to the BCS, knew before the season started that the goal was to get to the Sugar Bowl. When USC failed to earn a trip there, they reveled in the stupidity and agenda of the media, who had the want to discredit the BCS because the BCS has shouldered its way, thanks to the major conferences, as the sole source of a legitimate national championship. The media wanted back a piece of that pie, and what better way than to use its own medium, the press, to argue an absurd case that a team that played just one ranked team all season and still lost to an unranked, six loss team had any business in the national championship discussion.

quote:

---

2004. auburn utah usc oklahoma all undefeated and another team i cant recall.

---

It was Boise State, which lost in its bowl game to a Louisville team that nearly went undefeated, but lost to Miami by 3 points earlier in the season.

"Clearly" is subjective. Objectively using the current BCS system USC would have been in the championship game. The system was revised in large part because no one had expected the human vote to be discounted the way that it was. And further revised because no one thought that Oklahoma should have been there after losing their conference championship. Those two revisions speak for themselves.

quote:

---

USC was destroyed by a terrible Cal team the week before a very good Florida team beat LSU.

---

It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure 1 uf wasn't very good that year, they were ok. And 2 USC definitely was not "destroyed" by call.

The computer component of the BCS system before 2004 was an important step to making the BCS a non-voter determined system. I prefer having the computers have a 50% weight because computers have a better grip on results than voters. Voters get stuck in their own opinions. I am glad, however, that the AP, which had its own reasons to try to discredit the BCS even while the AP was a participant in the BCS system, is no longer part of the only legitimate source of the national championship.

USC's only win all season over a ranked team was against a pedestrian Washington State team. LSU and OU each had 5 wins over ranked opponents.