Way to duck the question. Sure I'm one of the ones that believe we should have played them instead of OU. And I also believe we would have beaten them. Here's some additional food for thought. Unlike you guys that year, we didn't play SC H2H, but we did have 2 common opponents (AZ and AU). We beat AZ 59-13. They beat them 45-0. Our margin of victory was 46, there's 45. We beat AU 31-7. They beat AU 23-0. Our margin of victory was 24, there's was 23. With this being the only real measuring stick, logic dictates that, had we played, we would've beaten them by 1pt. :grin:
There are some threads where I can't help but assume the TC is drunk when creating it and posting in it. This isn't the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last I feel this way.
LSU and Oklahoma risked their record in conference championship games. USC did not play in a championship game and risked nothing. Of course their SoS took a hit because they played one less game than Oklahoma and LSU who played contenders. So they came in THIRD, where they belonged. Those are the rules.
You make it sound like LSU and OU could have opted out of their respective conference championship games and still played for a national title. USC won their conference, OU didn't. What if OU would have won, then you would have had a national champion that couldn't even win their own league, that sh!t only works in the Pro's where they have playoffs.
Based on how the rules were back then, obviously USC wound up #3. I do wonder what the results would have been under the current BCS rules. Regardless, the BCS idiots could have fixed this by mandating that to be in the eligible for the championship game, a team has to win their conference. My biggest issue with it is that, to me, the conference championship game should effectively be the "play-in" game to the championship game.
Well actually USC got a cool AP NC trophy and Oklahoma got some lovely parting gifts and thanks for coming. I'll take THIRD.
You make it sound like winning a conference championship had anything to do with the BCS formula. It didn't. End of story. Who cares? All three teams had the same record, so they chose the two who had the best BCS ranking based on criteria everyone understood. USC came in 3rd. Live with it.
I don't care one way or the other because the real trophy is where it should be, in Baton Rouge. But... winning a conference championship has alot to do with it. Had we not won our conference championship, we wouldn't have played in the Sugar that year. It took that and a win by Hawaii i think, to catapult us to number 2. It is over, you have a point, and i am not denying that, it really doesn't matter, but do you think a team should be allowed to play for a championship if they don't win their conference? This is without playoffs.
