You guys just made my point, go back and read what I wrote on page 2. Pre season polls are ridiculous, it is based on the year before. Teams have turnover after every year, sometimes you have to replace a whole offense or defense. Everything is based on pre season polls to start, the post season is ridiculous, the way its set up, makes no sense.
"It didn't do us justice. We deserved to be in that game with USC, not OU. OU didn't even win their conference." OU was the only major conference team in the regular season to go undefeated. If they were in a conference like USC, they would have been the undisputed champs. Unfortunately, they were in a tough conference like the SEC that had a championship game. They bought into their own hype, tanked it and lost. USC didn't even have to play in a championship game and already had one loss. Do you penalize OU because they were the last to lose? And OU was awesome that year. Yeah, they lost their last two, but K. State was tough and LSU was awesome. Remember, OU beat Texas 65-13, Aggies 77-0, etc. They were awesome. USC was great too. But both LSU and OU had to play an extra game and the PAC 10 was definitely weak that year. I think USC beat like one ranked opponent that year or something. LSU and OU had beaten multiple ranked opponents. And yes, the BCS did do us a favor that year. Without it, we would have NEVER played for the NC. Thanks to the BCS, we have a crystal football.
Its fairly simple. OU was not awesome that year because they ran up the score on every team they played. That same OU team beat Alabama 21-14 on a fluke fake punt, the same Alabama team that LSU massacred 27-3. LSU-USC would have been the better match-up and we would have had both titles. Buts it is a moot point. There is some anti-USC bias inherrent in LSU fans, when it should be an anti-Big 12 bias because they are the only two times that a Big 12 team got to the championship game this decade without winning its conference and both times the teams got dominated. It seems that its paradoxical for a National Champion to not have won its conference outright or even be in the NC game when they have not won their own conference. In the case of the 2001 Nebraska team it had not won its own division much less its conference yet it was still put in the NC game and blown out when a deserving Oregon team did its part and beat whoever it played in the fiesta bowl. But its seems to be the position you guys support. Perhaps there is even more of a midwest bias than a West Coast bias. My evidence. Nebraska 2001, Oklahoma 2003, Oklahoma 2004, and Texas 2005. BTW, USC did play a top ten opponent, Washington State, this same Washington State team beat Texas, in the Holiday Bowl. WSU was a ranked team. If anything OU in 2003 was overrated severely because of blowouts of overrated teams, thus leading to why they lost to the only two good teams they faced that season. It was obvious to me that USC and LSU should have been in the Sugar Bowl in 2003, leading to a unified champion, which would be us, which would stop all this USC 3-peat crap. The BCS did us no favor by keeping Oklahoma so high because they were not a championship quality team. In my last edition of this post, I will say the BCS did us no favor because we earned that championship through blood, sweat, and tears. It was not given to us by the BCS, we earned a spot in that game because we did what we were supposed to, win our conference. To say the BCS did us a favor cheapens the work that team had to go through and cheapens the championship.
im getting sick of the "bcs did us a favor". lsu would have beaten any opponent. the only team the bcs did a favor for was OU. lsu was screwed because we will forever be considered "split" champs. usc had no shot at the title and is also now considered "split" champ. michigan and miami and ohio state weren't even given a shot, even though they may have been the best team. if anything, the bcs is worse than the old way because it just delayed ever getting a real NC and, yes, if in some screwy parallel universe, i could give up an LSU win in SECGC to burn the BCS and get a playoff, i would. because the next time lsu wins a "title" its real--and it would be able to happen more than every 50 years.
You guys aren't catching my point. First of all, all this LSU would have gotten both titles if they had beaten USC instead of OU stuff is silly to me. When the BCS was created, the AP title really didn't mean anything. The media might have you believe it meant something, but it really didn't. The crystal football is what teams play for. When USC won their game against Michigan, they weren't pronounced National Champions at the game. LSU on the other hand was pronounced champions and awared the crystal. I promise you Matt Leinert would have given either or both of his nutz to raise that football. Remember, he wore his "F--- the BCS" tee shirt on television. Yet, the next year, he was kissing that BCS trophy and worshipping it. The BCS was created to take away the AP bias and render it less important. I don't care what anyone says, OU and USC were awesome that year. WSU beat Texas in the Holiday Bowl. Did they beat them by 50+? I could say that K. State beat Cal, therefore K. State would have beaten USC that year as well. Or I could say that OU and USC both played one common opponent (UCLA) and OU beat them considerably worse than USC did. But we know, that type of logic doesn't really mean anything. I had no bias against USC that year because I thought they were deserving, but they played in a weak conference and they had no championship game. Plus, Cal had a losing record when they played USC. It was pretty commonly known that OU could lose the Big XII championship and still make it into the BCS championship. Voters knew that if they dropped OU to #3 they would still make it in. They had no clue that their #1 USC would not make it in. If there were no BCS, those AP guys would have voted USC #1 and OU #2. That's the game they talked about the whole year. LSU would have been left in the cold without the BCS strength of schedule. It's an imperfect system either way right now. I assure you the BCS is just as legit as the AP championship. Just ask Joe Paterno who went undefeated like 3 times with no title, or ask Auburn fans. I don't care for the BCS, but I think it actually worked that year. I agree that there should be a rule that you have to win your conference to be in the NC. It would make things much easier. However, there is no rule. So, the BCS worked in a way. And by the way, if the AP was so legit, both USC and LSU would have been Co-champs in its final vote. It's an imperfect system either way. Just ask Joe Paterno who went undefeated like three times and got no AP title or share. Ask Auburn fans. I assure you the BCS is at least as legit as the AP has been. By the way, the BCS has had two years in a row where a team has gotten left out yet nothing changed. If it happens again with more teams, nothing will change again until the contract is up.
My point is that OU was overrated because they put up big points on weak opponents. USC was far better than OU and we should have played them in the Sugar Bowl. The whole point of these points is the comment that the BCS did LSU a favor, so in some wierd way LSU should owe the BCS some allegiance. The BCS did not do us a favor in making us play OU instead of USC. USC was truly gipped that year, OU was overrated severely, my point in bringing the common opponents was to show that OU was overrated. We would have not had a split title, so we wouldn't have to hear this USC 3-peat crap had we played USC and beaten them. So the BCS did us no favor by merely putting us in the game. It did us a disservice by not letting us play the other most deserving team. Forever people will talk about the BCS title of 2003 as an afterthought with the only people remembering it was the legitimate championship being fans of LSU. At least that is my fear. Thus the BCS screwed us out of any legitimacy. That is my point.
I see what your saying, but I just don't think USC was far better than OU that year. It's possible they were better, but we'll never know. USC also ran the score up on weak opponents. I just know that OU played more highly ranked opponents. And remember, although we dominated OU in an environment that had to be incredibly tough for them, they still only lost by 1 TD. Without the BCS, LSU doesn't get in. AP voters would have ranked us #3. The media can talk about 3-peat crap all they want, but they aren't 3-peat BCS champs, nor will they have the three crystal footballs. Don't worry about how people remember it because I always here t.v. personalities talk about LSU and how they won it in 2003. Some say co-champs, who cares. I was there, it was awesome, it's in the books. USC is great and is taking it to another level. P.S. - OJ is still a USC Trojan and a murderer.
I think every ranked opponent that Oklahoma faced lost its bowl game. To me it proves that Oklahoma was overrated. Oklahoma loses by at least two if Mauck doesn't turn it over.
Yep, Boise State beating Hawaii is what got us in. And, I think OU played 7 bowl teams that year. I remember at least two winning their bowls. I think two of their opponents played each other in a bowl. Also, Big XII teams were involved in tougher bowls overall. OU might have been overrated, but they were still damn good. Yeah, I know we should have beat OU by more, but we didn't. By the way, I think I remember reading a few years ago that the BCS contract was up in 2005. Hopefully it is and a better format can come after it.
