USC lost to the worst team of the 3 teams with 1 loss... Don't penalize OU because they got 2 great teams in their conference and USC don't... I think the 2 teams that got in were the 2 who deserved it
We got beat by a mediocre team at home. Did we deserve to be there? USC's loss was to a team on the road and OU's was to a team on neutral grounds. There was no way it should have been OU in the championship game simply because they did not win their conference. We should have destroyed OU in that game if it weren't for turnovers. Btw, California's record was nearly identical to Florida's.
My contention is that it did not put the two best teams of 2003 together. I think I am right in that assessment in the way OU played its last two games of the season. Therefore, you have this split NC crap because the BCS kept OU high for some reason unbeknownst to me.
I don't think so. They were 3 and 3 when they played us. They were ranked 17th however. I still don't see how the BCS helped us out by making us play OU instead of USC. It should have been a USC/LSU matchup from the beginning, with the result being that there would be no split title, and we could prove to the world that we were the best team in 2003.
Yeah, the 3-3 does sound right. Maybe i'm thinking where they ended up the year? I could have sworn Florida was ranked somewhere at the end as a lot of people were using that as justification of why USC didn't deserve what Peter Carroll claimed.
