They are going for a three-peat AP NC. Everyone agreed to the BCS, so USC's first "NC" isn't legit, but it sounds good on the front page of the paper. USC was deserving of playing for the NC, however, and the system we have is flawed. It's a joke, but less of a joke than the previous system. Why did the NCAA create the BCS if they didn't want to crown a NC? And if they want to crown a NC, why did they stop at the BCS?
Alas, the point is a little too complex for some people. The PAC ten agreed to the process, so you live with the result. The fact that the AP decided to throw a temper tantrum is irrelevant. The "national champion" in 2003 was LSU because that's the system, like it or not. You can't rewrite history, selectively, when you don't like the outcome. Change the system, or live with it. That goes for USC and the AP.
How many crystal footballs does USC have? One. So USC finished the 2003 season as #1 in the AP, big deal. LSU finished #1 in nine of the 11 polls and rankings. But since the institution of the BCS championship game, the polls don't mean squat. The National Champion is the team that wins the National Championship game. How the Hell could USC be the National Champion in 2003 when they were not even in the game? They can't. You have to repeat before you can threepeat.
Great article; I came here to post it and it looks like someody beat me to it. When you contractually agree to a system, then ignore it because you beat the #4 team in the country, and somebody (could have been anybody) gives you the NC nod, is that the same as winning it through the system you agreed to when you put pen to paper on that contract?
The only reason the myth of the USC national championship continues is because the AP (read: MEDIA) felt scorned. There is a consistent sense in the media that only they are qualified experts on sports, and when the AGREED UPON system went the other way, they just can't let it go. And since they cover reporting, by definition, this paper championship will not go away.
Then ****ing say that. Don't say they are going for a three-peat...that implies a BCS NC in those years
Just watch the Rose Bowl and see how many times the cameras pan over to the AP (or any other polls') trophy. It's all about the crystal football. We don't have to defend our 2003 NC. It's in the trophy case. Until USC can point to 3 of those, they will not have 3 NCs.
You're all right, but I think not having a playoff is much more rediculous than USC claiming to be playing for a threepeat; if nothing else they were worthy of playing for a NC 3x, and actually 4 because they were good in '02 as well. I do agree it's a little weak for them to claim a NC in '03, but I'm closer to their side (and Auburn's last year) of the fence than the BCS's. Considering USC's outspoken attitude, I would hope they are leaders in the quest for a playoff. If they favor the BCS or remain quiet about it, then they are full of it.
