Hello, fellow Nat'l Champ Tigers! Found this board a few days ago and have been lurking; figured I'd share an Email I've sent to most of the major college football writers. Sorry about the length. GO TIGERS! BBD An Open Letter To Those On The USC Bandwagon Gentlemen, With all due respect to you and your journalistic colleagues, I think you have all missed the point in spectacular fashion. I continue to see article after article, from writer after writer, selecting his or her choice as national champion. The articles, without exception, delve into the question: Who would win a USC-LSU matchup? And each time, my first thought is the same: What difference does it make? A national championship can not, and should not, hinge on fictional games which will never be played; it is won (or lost) in real time, on real fields. Rules are set, systems are implemented, and those systems create matchups between teams and arrive at a result. Let's say, for example, there's a super-impressive, mind-boggling, Phi-Slamma-Jamma-plus-Michael-Jordan-plus-Shaquille-O'Neal-plus-Tracy-McGrady team in college basketball this season. Let's say they romp through their season undefeated, set records for margin of victory, enter the NCAA tournament as the overall No. 1 seed, and arrive at the Final Four, where, in a stunning upset exceeding even Buster Douglas proportions, they lose in the semifinals to a team with eight losses. Then the conqueror of the super team, exhausted and suffering a letdown in the final, loses the championship game to a team with six losses. Who would the national champion then be? Even though every writer from sea to shining sea confirms that the super team would beat/be favored over/dominate the tournament champion, and would beat them 99,999 times out of 100,000, the super team is still not the champion. The team which won it on the court is, and remains so even though they themselves did not conquer the super team. And although a power poll conducted by writers would anoint the super team as No. 1, perhaps even unanimously, perhaps even stating that they could beat the San Antonio Spurs by 50, they STILL do not earn the championship. And even if they have a front line which averages 9'-2", 475 lbs., all of whom possess a 56" vertical leap, coupled with two guards who each make 97% of their three-point attempts, and all five starters make 100% of their free throws - they are not NCAA champions. So, when it comes to championships, what difference do fantasy comparisons make? Who cares what various writers see in their crystal balls (pun intended), as they view a fictional game which will never take place? There is a system, agreed to by all of the major conferences, the Pac-10 included. The system is wedded closely enough to the NCAA to be able to create matchups, to specify after the regular season that Team A should play Team B for the title, and make it happen. The system awards a trophy, a trophy which is present at the championship game and is awarded immediately after to the victor. Someone doesn't like the system? OK, lobby to change it for next season. Or don't agree to play under it. But as for THIS season, it is the system that all have agreed to. And if the writers want to type endlessly about who would win an imaginary matchup and why, that's fine. They can even call USC the best team in the country if they like; not a problem. But this much is clear, from all the articles flooding the net from college football writers, virtually all of whom eventually get around to predicting the outcome of an imaginary game: LSU is the National Champion of the season that was just played; this is why they were awarded their trophy immediately after their Sugar Bowl victory. USC is the National Champion only when, in addition to the season, you consider an imaginary game, a game that was never and will never be played. This is why they were awarded their trophy four days after the conclusion of their game, allowing time for the writers to consult their crystal balls, tarot card readers, séance leaders, dream interpreters, email inboxes, bosses' preferences, etc. Put simply: LSU is the champion based on FACT. USC is the champion based on fact, coupled with generous helping of FICTION; this is evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see an article claiming the championship for USC without speaking of that imaginary game. And even if it were true that USC is the stronger team (a theory I do not subscribe to), that makes absolutely no difference. Even if it were true that USC is stronger than the New England Patriots, it STILL makes absolutely no difference. The stronger body of real work this season was turned in by LSU - better record (undisputed), earned in a stronger conference (also undisputed), a win over a motivated, one-loss OU (remember that crystal football on the sideline), two wins over a motivated UGA (once at the Georgia Dome), a win over a motivated Ole Miss in Oxford (when they stood at the brink of the SEC Championship Game for the first time ever), etc., coupled with not having lost to any teams which failed to finish in the agreed-upon system's Top 25 standings. And they nosed out USC in the agreed-upon system's standings despite the fact that they were forced to demolish their own quality-win bonus by handing a top team a second defeat. USC defeated an UN-motivated, two-loss Michigan team (who knew going in that, were they to win the Rose, the national championship in full would be awarded to the one-loss team to emerge from the Sugar), and defeated Washington State in a mid-season game. None of the Trojans' other opponents finished in the final BCS top 25, including the one to whom they lost. Quite a difference in accomplishments, that. My friends, as much respect as I usually have for your columns and opinions, you are all guilty of adding that imagined, it-didn't-actually-happen game to the season, and basing your choice of champion on what you perceive might have been the result. This is why they play the games, rather than just handing the title to the team perceived to be best equipped to win the games. Can I imagine that Steve Bartman didn't interfere with that foul ball, and the Cubs are actually, really and truthfully, the World Series champions? Can the Cubs get World Series rings after all? Nah. Didn't think so. Wish to heck I could, but it just isn't reality. Neither is a 2003 college football national championship awarded to USC.
Love the comparison of LSU's accomplishments over BCS top-25 teams to USC's lack of the same. Of course, the part about the fictional super basketball team that ends up losing in a tournament could be grist for the sportswriters' mill, since many who've trashed the BCS say it should be replaced by a playoff system.
Your post articulates a lot of what I have been saying all season. I hate the BCS system but they got it right this year as far as having to pick the best two teams in a year when there were 3 teams deserving to play for all the marbles. I favor a 16 team playoff but I realize that they are not likely to implement that for a long time. There are advocates for one extra game after the bowls. That would have been perfect this year and LSU would put USC in its place. Last year the only two undefeated teams, Ohio State and Miami played for the BCS Championship and there was no controversy. The year before, 2001, Nebraska, a team that didn't even qualify for its conference championship game was the beneficiary of a series of upsets that knocked Oklahoma, Texas, and the Tennessee out of the title game. In 1986 the LSU basketball team had lost 10 games but they upset Purdue in double overtime, beat Memphis with a last second shot and then upset Georgia Tech and Kentucky in the regionals. LSU had lost 3 times to Kentucky during the regular season and the SEC Tournament. Nobody said that LSU didn't deserve to be in the Final Four because the got there the old fashioned way - THEY EARNED IT! In 1983 the Phi Slamma Jamma Houston team got to the final game by beating a Georgetown team that had been ranked near the top all year in the semifinals. Everybody agreed that Houston and Georgetown were the twp best teams but North Carolina State, a bubble team with 11 losses that barely made the Big Dance beat Houston in the Title game. Nobody said that NC State didn't deserve to be the champs. They won it the old fashioned way - THEY EARNED IT. Same for the huge 1985 underdog Villanova team that beat Georgetown for the NCAA Championship. The Florida Marlins were 10-19 in May when they fired their manager and hired 72 year old Jack McKeon. The Marlins barely made the playoffs. I was pulling for the Cubs in the NLCS and for the Yankees in the World Series. Steve Bartman didn't blow it for the Cubs. The Cubs blew it for the Cubs and the Marlins did what they had to do. In the World Series McKeon utilized an overmatched pitching rotation to the max and beat the Yankees. Nobody said the Marlins didn't deserve to be the Champs. Not even George Steinbrenner. LSU won the National Championship under the rules that were in play for 2003. Even though the AP and coaches polls are a part of the BCS equation for determining the best two team the polls are only 2/ninths of the total equation. Every year since the creation of the BCS the team that has won the Bowl designated as the Championship game has been universily recognized by everybody as the undisputed National Champion. Usually the best team has won the game although in 2000 Florida State got to the title game over Miami even though Miami had the same record as Florida State and had beaten the Seminoles during the regular season. Oklahoma ended up beating Florida State but there was no pregame talk from Miami about claiming a fictional National Championship if Florida State would have won. Did Miami get screwed by the BCS even more than USC got screwed? YES! Now Miami is one of the teams that people love to hate. For some reason there is a lot of unwarranted love for USC among the media. What if USC had been the team that had beaten Florida State in the regular season? Would they have been howling before the game that since they had beaten Florida State that if FS would beat OU then USC should be the "people champion"? You know damn well they would. Being realistic and knowing that the powers that be won't implement a real playoff system soon even with 8 teams, We can only hope that they go to a 4 team playoff soon where the top 4 teams play in their bowls and the two winners meet a week or so later. This year as the BCS # 1 OU would have played # 4 Michigan and BCS # 2 would have put all this talk to rest by eliminating # 3 USC. I have no doubt whatsoever that the LSU Defense would have done the same thing to the USC offense that they did to OU's. The USC Defense would definately not have stymied the LSU Offense as well as the OU Defense did. OU has a defense nearly as good as LSU. USC has a defense that gave up 28 points to Oregon State. Vincent would have gotten over 200 yards against the USC D and Mauck, with a lot more time to throw and with Clayton and Henderson not covered nearly as well as they were by the OU D would have passed for at least 3 TDs. Assuming that USC wouldn't have blocked a punt giving them a first down on the LSU one yard line the final score would have been something like LSU 41- USC 3. IF USC had played OU, even though LSU proved that they are a better team than OU, the high powered OU offense, unhindered by an LSU style defense, would have hung a half a hundred on USC. The final score would have been something like OU 55- USC 17. Maybe even a bigger margin for both LSU and OU. Skyler Green did get one decent punt return against OU and no kickoff returns because of OU kicking off deep into the end zone. Antonio Perkins got zip for punt returns and LSU also got most of their kickoffs deep into the end zone. Either one of those guys just might have had a career day against USC. All of this is speculation, of course but the best two teams did play in the Sugar Bowl. There is no doubt in the minds of Tiger Fans and Sooner fans that LSU is the undisputed National Champions of College Football. I doubt that you will get any agurment about that from the Georgia players. Or the Alabama players who were blown out by LSU but hung tough against OU in a 20-13 loss. Auburn lost to USC by one point less than they lost to USC by but at least Auburn was in the game until the 4th quarter. The LSU- Auburn game was over by the end of the first quarter. I see where President Bush has invited the USC "National Championship Team" to the White House. I am a big supporter of Bush but I will be pissed if he dosen't also invite the LSU team to the White House. I realize that its politics and California has a lot more electorial votes than Louisiana but how many voters are swayed by the respect shown to their football team anyway. You would think that Bush, being a Texan would be glad to honor a team that beat Oklahoma. His email address is [email protected] if anybody wants to express their opinions on that. As the former owner of the Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball I'm sure that he understands that the champion is the team that wins the championship under the rules that are in play at the time of the championship game.
