How about choice #4--- I feel that USC has no claim to the National title. They played a cupcake schedule all season, lost to an unranked team, played a weaker than usual 2 loss Michigan at home in a Bowl, didn't have to play an xtra game for a conference championship ,should be ranked no higher than 3rd and would have at LEAST 3 losses if they played in the SEC. When you add that choice put a check mark by it for me but until then you have an inadequate poll.
The real issue here is that we would NEVER have BEEN in USC's position. The sympathy exhibited towards USC's exclusion from the Sugar Bowl and the subsequent coronation of the Rose Bowl as the game to decide "the people's champion" would not have been thrown in LSU's direction. The media had their minds made up by the beginning of November that they wanted a USC/OU Sugar Bowl. Then, OU punked out on them in the B12CG, and they had to eat crow. The media then decided to downgrade OU and take up the USC torch. Just imagine if OU hadn't lost to KSU, and we (of course) overtook USC in the BCS. There STILL would've been a split poll going to USC, but we'd have also been haruanged for the entire month leading up to the SB.
I disagree, Stacey. LSU could have EASILY been in USC's position. Had LSU lost before USC and then been ranked ahead of USC, they would have stayed ahead of USC in the polls. That's how the stupid polls work - he loses last is lost! If certain games of opponent's opponents had gone the other way, like Notre Dame and Syracuse, it could have then been LSU finishing third in the BCS by a fraction, rather than USC. But, I'm far from a BCS expert, and I will admit that I don't know exactly what else would have to have happened, since LSU made up for the one point difference in the human polls anyway. Imagine this one: What if the season played out exactly as it did, except that Oklahoma beat K State in the Big XII championship game and Notre Dame beat Syracuse, which then gave USC a narrow margin for #2 in the BCS? Then, say USC had beaten Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl and LSU had dominated another team in their bowl game (either Michigan in the Rose or Ohio State in the Fiesta), meaning that USC, Okahoma, and LSU all finished up with one loss. Say then that LSU ended up #2 in both polls. I think that some of these same LSU posters complaining about USC right now would have been crying that LSU got shafted and deserved at least a share of the MNC! I know I would be! And, what if LSU, in that scenario, finished #3 behind Oklahoma? Holy Sh!t! I can just imagine the outcry from the LSU fans! And rightfully so! Three one loss teams, and some polls, in essence, would have arbitrarily determined which was champion and how the three were ranked??? IT'S INSANITY!!!!!!! Hey, I was simply posting a hypothetical, to see if the LSU fans here could look deep into their hearts and determine how they think they would have felt. I'm pretty sure that I would feel as if LSU got shafted, that they didn't get to prove their worth in the title game, and that they deserve a share of the MNC. The poll that I posted is for those who can accept a hypothetical proposition, consider it, and determine how they would feel. It is strictly hypothetical. Okay, that makes three times that I used the word hypothetical, and I underlined it each time. I hope that makes my point. And, don't get me wrong - I am a huge LSU fan and have no allegiance to USC at all. In fact, I have never liked USC. I am extremely elated that LSU was able to get into the BCS championship game and win it. But, the system that we have for determining a national champion sucks! It is still a mythical national championship and, as such, there is room for debate and split championships. It's unfortunate, but true. I wish that I could say with certainty that LSU had a better team than USC, but I can't. No one can. I THINK that LSU would likely beat USC if they played, but I cannot know that unless they did play. No one can. That is a fact. As far as your contention that the media wanted USC and OU, well so what? So OU lost and you believe that the media took up the USC torch. Why? Because they just love USC? Some have contended that the media simply wanted the controversy, in which case there may have been a lot of talking heads going off about how LSU is the best team in the country, the people's choice, etc., if the roles had been reversed! I have so despised the stupid BCS system ever since it was implemented, that I have rooted for controversy each year myself, when LSU was not in the mix. This is addressing your response, as well, twisted - Many posters here spoke at length coming down the home stretch of the season that LSU could not help what their schedule was. When it looked as if LSU could win out and finish third in the BCS, due to a weak OOC schedule, there was much handwringing. "We scheduled Arizona when they were top 5... Marshall backed out..., etc.," were the cries heard here. I just don't think that we should now be hypocritical with contentions that USC is undeserving because of the schedule that they played. They played the hand dealt to them, just as LSU did. So, LSU had a tougher road. I don't think anyone can dispute that. But that doesn't, in itself prove that LSU had a better team than USC. Again, I think LSU does have a better team than USC. Defense wins games and, particularly, championships. LSU had one of the all-time greatest defenses this year. USC had a great offense. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see how well LSU's defense could shut down USC's offense. Nor did we get to see how many points LSU could roll up on USC. That is because of the stupid system that is in place. In summary, and at the risk of repeating myself, I cannot blame USC for claiming a share of the MNC. I'd do the same thing had the roles been reversed. As far as the media goes, I don't have any problems with those who say "IN MY OPINION, USC would beat LSU, but we'll never know because they don't get to play." I DO, however, have a problem with those who proclaim such, but don't make it clear that it's just their opinion (even though it obviously is) and don't include the part about not knowing for certain unless they do, actually, play. Whew! PS: I believe the five of you who have, thus far, voted for choice 2 are full of it and are lying to yourself and/or the board.
