No Cupcakes

[Coffeeman]

USC and Washington are two of just seven NCAA Division I-A programs that have never faced a non-Division I-A opponent since the current division setup was established in 1978. The others that have yet to play a non-Division I-A opponent since the advent of the current format are Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State and UCLA.

That's three Pac-10 schools and four Big Ten schools for those keeping score.

 

(And here's one typical comment from a P-10 homer):

 

"The SEC hogs them all. There is not enough 1-AA to go around after the hillbillies play them all."

 

Gotta love it....

 

Edit: Oops, another comment, under the FYI heading:

 

"That score will change next year as Ohio State is scheduled to play D-1AA Youngstown State."

 

Why would OSU need to do this? Anyone?

Edited October 3, 2006 by Coffeeman

[giggity]

USC and Washington are two of just seven NCAA Division I-A programs that have never faced a non-Division I-A opponent since the current division setup was established in 1978. The others that have yet to play a non-Division I-A opponent since the advent of the current format are Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State and UCLA.

That's three Pac-10 schools and four Big Ten schools for those keeping score.

 

(And here's one typical comment from a P-10 homer):

 

"The SEC hogs them all. There is not enough 1-AA to go around after the hillbillies play them all."

 

Gotta love it....

 

Edit: Oops, another comment, under the FYI heading:

 

"That score will change next year as Ohio State is scheduled to play D-1AA Youngstown State."

 

Why would OSU need to do this? Anyone?

 

 

That is Tressel's old school where he won a couple D-1AA national championships. He is probably just throwing his old school a bone. That's the only thing I could think.

[theeohiostate]

Exactly, Tressel is giving his old school some pub.

 

 

I think it's warrented as he made his mark in coaching there. I won't be excited about it, but i completely understand why they put them on schedule, just surprised it took this long to get it done.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Exactly, Tressel is giving his old school some pub.

I think it's warrented as he made his mark in coaching there. I won't be excited about it, but i completely understand why they put them on schedule, just surprised it took this long to get it done.

 

 

 

Just wait till they knock off OSU, you certainly wont be happy about that

[Rockerbraves]

That's why they need to place more emphasis on strength of schedule like the BCS use to until LSU earned the right over USC to play for the national championship in 2003. All the cry babies at USC couldn't handle it, so they got it changed.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

There is no such thing as strength of schedule. There is no way to truly judge it. That's why it was taken out. And everyone thought USC god jobbed, the coaches, the media, that's why they were CONSENSUS #1, and the only reason LSU got a piece of the title, was because of a loophole that says the coaches HAD to vote for them. It's called a contract. If the coaches had there choice in the matter, you think LSU jumps USC in the poll? And you do realize that it is still the coaches voting on the champion right? Granted they have to vote for the winner of the "National Championship" game, but they are the ones that still decide it.

[Rockerbraves]

There is no such thing as strength of schedule. There is no way to truly judge it. That's why it was taken out. And everyone thought USC god jobbed, the coaches, the media, that's why they were CONSENSUS #1, and the only reason LSU got a piece of the title, was because of a loophole that says the coaches HAD to vote for them. It's called a contract. If the coaches had there choice in the matter, you think LSU jumps USC in the poll? And you do realize that it is still the coaches voting on the champion right? Granted they have to vote for the winner of the "National Championship" game, but they are the ones that still decide it.

 

 

Sounds like a spoiled little Frat boy form the Pac 10. FYI In 2003 Oklahoma was ranked #1 in one poll and #3 in another while USC was #3 in one and 1st in the other . LSU was the consensus #2 in both polls that year. So the real question that year was who should play LSU. But remember polls can be bias. In my opinion Vegas odds are a much better gauge since someone is willing to put their money where there mouth is. Prior to announcement of who would play in the BCS Championship game Vegas came out with odds. It had Oklahoma favored over LSU by 8 and Oklahoma favored over USC by 10 that year. So we should all agree that Oklahoma obviously was considered the #1 team at that time and whoever voted for USC #1 in the other poll was obviously bias. Could you imagine a #1 ranked team USC being an underdog by 10 points? lol... What's really sad is that everyone agreed to abide by the rules of the BCS prior to the season beginning. Yet when things didn't go some people's way they simply wanted to change the rules. That reminds me never to wager with a USC graduate on the golf course... Hook em horns

Edited October 5, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

For the record, the ncaa recognizes USC and LSU both as national champions. And secondly, no, after Oklahoma got killed in the Big 12 championship game, USC was #1 in both polls. And thirdly, no vegas odds shouldn't have anything to do with how a team is viewed. And finally, no I'm not a USC frat boy, more just an unbiased fan with a realistic view of the 2003 season. And I want to add, that I am in no way saying that LSU didn't deserve a share of the national title. I think under the current system, a split title was par for the course in that situation. And like I said... the NCAA recognizes both as national champions. Only whiny LSU fans, and USC haters say otherwise.

 

December 7, 2003

 

Coaches

 

1. USC

2. LSU

3. Oklahoma

4. Michigan

5. Texas

 

 

AP

 

1. USC

2. LSU

3. Oklahoma

4. Michigan

5. Texas

 

Those were the last polls before the bowls were played. USC was consensus #1. The computers saved Oklahoma because the computers only look at raw numbers, and saw that Oklahoma murdered every opponent they faced, save Kansas State. They didn't take into account that maybe the teams they murdered weren't that good. They can't. They only look at raw data. At least with the human element there is SOME objectivity. It certainly isn't perfect, but I would take human polls over computers any day of the week. Look the bottom line, is 2003 was a prime example of exactly why the NCAA needs a playoff.

[Rockerbraves]

<The computers saved Oklahoma because the computers only look at raw numbers, and saw that Oklahoma murdered every opponent they faced, save Kansas State. They didn't take into account that maybe the teams they murdered weren't that good. They can't. They only look at raw data. At least with the human element there is SOME objectivity>

 

 

Don't want to beat a dead horse here, BUT let me address a couple of things you threw out.

 

First <They didn't take into account that maybe the teams they murdered weren't that good.>

 

Second <At least with the human element there is SOME objectivity>

 

After the 2003 controversy in which the top team in the human polls, the University of Southern California (USC) was denied a place in the title game, the formula was revamped. Schedule strength, losses, and quality wins were no longer to be considered as distinct components in the formula, though of course the human voters remain free to consider whatever factors they WISH. Does this sound objective! In 2004 Texas Coach, Mack Brown, had made a public effort to lobby for his team to be moved higher in the ranking. When the human polls were released, Texas remained behind Cal, but it had closed the gap enough so that the BCS Poll (which determines placement) placed Texas above Cal, angering both Cal and it's conference, the Pac-10.

[Coffeeman]

As long as there is no playoff the NC winner is still a myth, voted on by different groups of people. My father in law still wears his ring from his JC team that called itself the NC for JC schools back in the late 80's. (He was the trainer, not a coach, but he was considered key enough to get a ring.) I'm sure there are a few other schools around the country sporting rings for the same year, and I don't care.

 

If it must be shared, then share it - what on earth is so wrong with 2 groups of people basking in the glow of a NC, after working so hard to get there? As a USC fan, let me clarify - we were upset that the Sooners got in with a huge loss at the end of the season, not LSU. LSU & USC both lost close ones earlier in the year. Until the Sooner loss, yes, we were concerned about getting aced out by the Tigers, but that's not how it ended up.

 

The game the nation was robbed from seeing was LSU v. USC that year. Too bad for the Sooners - they could've come out to Pasadena and won a share instead of the Trojans, assuming everyone thinks LSU would've won anyway. But I think USC would've won, of course. Auburn was robbed of its fair share of a NC recently also. I would have no problem with them sharing it.

 

But I'd still like to see a playoff, and guess what - we'll still have plenty to discuss here! The controversy will simply shift to who gets into the tournament (8 or 16 teams) and how the 'brackets' are set. And after the final game is played the controversy would be over, for that year at least.....

Edited October 5, 2006 by Coffeeman

[GWPFFL BrianW]

And further, the points are all moot, because the NCAA RECOGNIZES BOTH AS CHAMPIONS.

[theprofessor]

There is no such thing as strength of schedule. There is no way to truly judge it. That's why it was taken out. And everyone thought USC god jobbed, the coaches, the media, that's why they were CONSENSUS #1, and the only reason LSU got a piece of the title, was because of a loophole that says the coaches HAD to vote for them. It's called a contract. If the coaches had there choice in the matter, you think LSU jumps USC in the poll? And you do realize that it is still the coaches voting on the champion right? Granted they have to vote for the winner of the "National Championship" game, but they are the ones that still decide it.

 

 

What he said

[SaintsFanUnfortunately]

There is no such thing as strength of schedule. There is no way to truly judge it. That's why it was taken out. And everyone thought USC god jobbed, the coaches, the media, that's why they were CONSENSUS #1, and the only reason LSU got a piece of the title, was because of a loophole that says the coaches HAD to vote for them. It's called a contract. If the coaches had there choice in the matter, you think LSU jumps USC in the poll? And you do realize that it is still the coaches voting on the champion right? Granted they have to vote for the winner of the "National Championship" game, but they are the ones that still decide it.

 

 

Get over it! That was 3 years ago. LSU won the BCS National Title by the rules in place at the time, period.

[Chavez]

USC, Washington, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State and UCLA.

That's three Pac-10 schools and four Big Ten schools for those keeping score.

 

 

Uh, 3 Big Ten, 3 Pac 10, 1 independent. Though most years ND plays enough Big Ten schools to virtually qualify as at least an associate Big Ten team.

[godtomsatan]

You people who propogate this stuff are complete dolts who take away from the enjoyment of watching college football.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Get over it! That was 3 years ago. LSU won the BCS National Title by the rules in place at the time, period.

 

 

 

What do i need to "get over"? Everything I stated was factual. The NCAA recognizes both USC and LSU as national champions. That's a fact, look it up. My only point was, all you LSU crybabies and USC haters, say USC got a piece of YOUR title. Well the only reason you got a title was because of a contract that TELLS coaches they HAVE to vote for the team that wins the designated BCS "Championship" game. My only point was, that if they were given a choice, USC would have still been #1. It's all irrelevant, LSU won the Coaches Poll, USC won the AP, therefore you have a split title, WHICH, the NCAA recognizes.

Edited October 8, 2006 by GWPFFL BrianW

[Rockerbraves]

In short, USC finished 1st place in the mythical national championship while LSU won the Official National Championship.

 

Couple of definitions found;

 

*Mythical place: a place that exists only in imagination; a place said to exist in fictional or religious writings

 

*Mythical place: A place that does not really exist but is accepted folk lore or speculation that it might exist or might have existed in earlier times but its actual location is now lost. Unlike fictional places, which are only used in fictional writings, mythical places are often considered un(re)discovered places in the real world.

 

Mythical number is a number used and accepted as deriving from scientific investigation and/or careful selection, but whose origin is unknown and whose basis is unsubstantiated.

[madman34698]

Brian You come across as a usc homer, how do you know that the coaches would have voted for usc if they had a true option to vote for whom they wanted. Did you all forget that Auburn went undefeated 13-0 and got nothing to show for it that year. This was all because they started the year outside the top 20. For those Ohio St fans maybe this week it wasnt a 1-aa team, but Bowling Green hardly a powerhouse, does Stanford qualify as 1-aa this yearG

[Big John]

Brian You come across as a usc homer,

 

He is an Iowa homer.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

In short, USC finished 1st place in the mythical national championship while LSU won the Official National Championship.

 

Couple of definitions found;

 

*Mythical place: a place that exists only in imagination; a place said to exist in fictional or religious writings

 

*Mythical place: A place that does not really exist but is accepted folk lore or speculation that it might exist or might have existed in earlier times but its actual location is now lost. Unlike fictional places, which are only used in fictional writings, mythical places are often considered un(re)discovered places in the real world.

 

Mythical number is a number used and accepted as deriving from scientific investigation and/or careful selection, but whose origin is unknown and whose basis is unsubstantiated.

 

 

 

 

Like I said, I'm not the one who votes on anything, merely a fan with a realistic view of the 2003 season. If the NCAA recognizes both teams as National Champions, then that's good enough for me. madman, I'm really not sure what your point is, but I agree, Auburn was undefeated at the end of the 2004 season, and shoulda got the same treatment USC did, unfortunately for them, the national championship is still something that is voted on. LSU might have overtaken USC in the coaches poll given the choice, but both polls basically viewed the Sugar Bowl as a match up between 2 and 3. 2 beat 3, but they didn't beat 1, who beat the Big Ten Champions by double digits in the Rose Bowl. Where as LSU went down to the wire with an Oklahoma team whose spirit was virtually lost after getting destroyed in the Big 12 title game. Notice I said DESTROYED. As coffeman stated, it wasn't LSU that he felt jobbed them out of being there, it was Oklahoma, and rightfully so. USC was consensus #1. So while its possible LSU might have jumped them in the coaches poll if given the true right to vote, but highly unlikely.

 

FACT: USC was consensus #1 going into the Bowls

FACT: Oklahoma fell to #3 after getting creamed in there Conference Title game over USC

FACT: THE NCAA RECOGNIZES USC AND LSU AS NATIONAL CHAMPIONS -- what don't you get about that?

[Rockerbraves]

Like I said, I'm not the one who votes on anything, merely a fan with a realistic view of the 2003 season. If the NCAA recognizes both teams as National Champions, then that's good enough for me. madman, I'm really not sure what your point is, but I agree, Auburn was undefeated at the end of the 2004 season, and shoulda got the same treatment USC did, unfortunately for them, the national championship is still something that is voted on. LSU might have overtaken USC in the coaches poll given the choice, but both polls basically viewed the Sugar Bowl as a match up between 2 and 3. 2 beat 3, but they didn't beat 1, who beat the Big Ten Champions by double digits in the Rose Bowl. Where as LSU went down to the wire with an Oklahoma team whose spirit was virtually lost after getting destroyed in the Big 12 title game. Notice I said DESTROYED. As coffeman stated, it wasn't LSU that he felt jobbed them out of being there, it was Oklahoma, and rightfully so. USC was consensus #1. So while its possible LSU might have jumped them in the coaches poll if given the true right to vote, but highly unlikely.

 

FACT: USC was consensus #1 going into the Bowls

FACT: Oklahoma fell to #3 after getting creamed in there Conference Title game over USC

FACT: THE NCAA RECOGNIZES USC AND LSU AS NATIONAL CHAMPIONS -- what don't you get about that?

 

 

Brian, Brian, Brian...

 

Why do you continue to state personal opinions and claim them to be FACTS: A consensus as defined in the dictionary implies that debate has taken place, the solution is generally accepted rather than a grudging compromise, and that agreement is deep-rooted enough that it can stand for some time without need to revisit the issue.

 

This is obviously not the case here since the issue continues to be revisited. AKA This thread and the FACT that USC did not play in that Championship Game.

 

In competitive sports rules are constantly evolving to improve the games, however what angers most competitors is when someone trys to change the rules in the middle of the game. The BCS ranking was specifically created and agreed upon by all the major conference commissioners including the Pac 10, SEC and Big 12 to determine which two teams play for the National Championship. The ranking system used that year by BCS was a composition of several ranking systems. So if USC was indeed the consensus #1 going into the Bowls as you claim as FACT, there is no question they would have played that year. Granted some may have felt the system was flawed at the time, but all the major conference agreed to abide by the rules prior to that season aka Auburn/SEC. What really ticked off alot of true football fans is when USC starting talking about a three peat prior to the loss to last year's National Champion Texas Longhorns.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[Coffeeman]

Hey Rocker, are you dense? Until a playoff system replaces voting as the main component of who gets into the big game, it will be possible to have two recognized champions each year, unless both polls agree who the #1 team is.

 

Case closed - you can defend the BCS all you want, but at its core it is a vote. Like Olympic diving, figure skating, gymnastics, etc. - but at least they're smart enough to have one voting panel, so its not usually disputed. Unless you count the cheating amongst judges a few years ago in the skating thing, leading to...guess what...two gold medals being awarded.

 

I rest my case, your honor....

[Sgt. Ryan]

Can't we all just get along.....

[GWPFFL BrianW]

What I meant by Consensus #1, was that they were #1 in both the AP and Coaches Poll. Those are facts are they not?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Sarge has turned over a new leaf I believe.