Good article by retired Advocate writer. The week in LSU Football photos and videos. Home Page Main Sports LSU Sports Photo Galleries Scores Schedule Rankings Standings Statistics Roster Depth Chart Commitments Scores Schedules Rankings Statistics Standings Roster Baseball Women's BB Soccer Softball Track & Field Volleyball Scoreboard King: Two champions are great, but LSU still the best By SAM KING Special to The Advocate Judging from all the reams of copy written, the hours of trivial discussion on television and radio and the never-ending-bull over coffee tables and bars, you would think having two national champions in football is the worst thing that could happen to college football. What's the matter with everyone? Would you rather have two fishing reels -- or just one? How about two girlfriends -- or only one? Do you prefer two cars for your family, or only one? You lucky suckers, here you have two national champions and now you want to throw one away. College football has gotten so great it has two national champions, naturally THE best of the two is LSU. The other, Under Scheduled Champion (USC), is not a bad champion -- considering it is a team that played fewer games, won fewer games and had no playoff for its conference championship -- much less win it. Not bad -- for an Under Scheduled Champion, even though it lost to the Berkley Bugeaters ... ooops, sorry. That was the nickname for Nebraska in the really old days. But, for a team that lost to California, running the rest of the board is pretty good for an Under Scheduled Champion, although it is on a lower level than the real champion, LSU. Don't blame Under Scheduled Champion Trojans, however, for being misled about this No. 1 business. They are national champions -- legitimate national champions -- for teams that played only 13 games. They are No. 1 ONLY in the eyes of The Associated Press Poll voters, who, I might add, should never make another joke about the poor confused residents of Florida who obviously couldn't tell a chad mark from a chicken scratch in the last presidential election. Just because Under Scheduled Champion doesn't have as good a football team as LSU is no reason to belittle said Under Scheduled Champion's ranking by the AP writers, some of whom have been accused of not knowing a football from a foosball. In these wacky times we have people trying to make us believe that (1) writers know more about football than do football coaches and (2) coaches know more about writing than writers. Not so. But, go ahead and let Under Scheduled Champion believe it's No. 1. But, best in the land? Better than LSU? You're joking. You have a better chance of selling the University California gift certificates for a week of sun tan than getting the Bears to believe Under Scheduled Champion is better than LSU. Ask Auburn which team is best. Ask Arizona the same question. Please quit laughing at Under Scheduled Champ. It is a champ and, as a matter of fact, having two No. 1's is a pretty good idea. Think of the great financial impact it will have on the country with two national champions, meaning twice as much National Champion paraphernalia will be sold, another department which will be led by LSU despite Under Scheduled Champion having 10 times as many possible customers. If it would somehow impact the stock market solidly, I'd be ready to vote for four or five national champions. Heck, I bet you Nick Saban is happy there is an Under Scheduled Champion -- and he probably hopes the coach gets a raise to $3 million a year, plus coffee money, naturally. All the rambling and ranting about split champions is a little ridiculous. The championship is not split -- LSU is national champion and Under Scheduled Champion is No. 1 among the teams that have played fewer games. From the hours and hours of time wasted and endless tons of worthless copy (such as this) penned about it, you would think this is the first time there has been a split national championship in football. Not quite. In fact, since 1954, there have been 11 occasions in which The Associated Press sportswriters and college football coaches differed on their selection of the national champion. What's absolutely amazing is that for almost 40 years coaches and writers have agreed on something, on anything. After Michigan and Nebraska were voted champions in 1997 by the writers and coaches, respectively, the Bowl Championship Series was adopted. For the first time in six years, the team winning the BCS title game wasn't the team voted best in the land by writers. After all, even you know we writers aren't right all the time. It just seems like it. However, both champions have seemed to survive such a holocaust. In the early '90s, it was Colorado and Georgia Tech who were named champs by the AP and coaches respectively. Miami and Washington were voted champions a year later by the same people. Under Scheduled Champion should know about this co-champion, split champion or double champion stuff, since they were the coaches choice as champs in 1974 and 1978, when the writers tabbed Oklahoma and Alabama as the best in the land. Other years in which different No.1's were named, respectively, by the writers and the coaches are: 1954-Ohio State and UCLA, 1957-Auburn and Ohio State, 1965-Alabama and Michigan State, 1970-Nebraska and Texas and 1973-Notre Dame and Alabama. So, you see, having two champions has not a bad thing. There have been 11 years in which two champions were named and college football not only survived -- it flourished. It has become greater than ever. What college football really and truly needs is eight national champions. Let 'em sell the merchandise, let eight teams and fans proclaim their championship -- and then we'll put them together for the Bowl Championship Series' WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. It would make a lot more folks happy. Can you imagine eight teams being national champions? Well, it would until one team, only one, was named WORLD CHAMPION. Until then, I suppose we'll just have to be happy to have one national champion and occasionally two, although we will always know which team, like LSU, is the best, and which team falls vastly short in the winning percentage department, but is still the best Under Scheduled Champion. Ahh, take a deep breath. Only a few weeks and spring practice starts. Then we want have to talk about who was the best last year, but if any team in America faces a tougher challenge than LSU when it must visit Auburn, Georgia and Florida in succession? Sam King is a former sports editor for The Advocate. He can be reached at [email protected]. Printer Friendly Version Send this story to a friend Copyright © 2003 2theAdvocate.com, The Advocate, WBRZ. All Rights Reserved.
Sam, the coaches probably would have voted USC #1 if they were allowed to vote. The fact remains that voting a champion is a silly method. The extremely limited number of people who vote are heavily influenced by such TV shows as ESPN Gameday. Coaches of other teams simply do not have the time to watch games against teams that they aren't going to play. You think Saban sits down to watch Miami's games so that he'll know where to place them on his ballot? At the same time, AP writers do not do it either. Sure, all the AP voters probably, though not positively, watched the Rose and Sugar bowls, but each was just one game. College football championships have always been rewarded by a team's results throughout the season. And you can be sure that less than 10% of the voters watched more than 4 or 5 LSU games. 90% of AP voters probably only saw two USC games (Auburn or Oregon State and Michigan). Voter bias and ignorance were precisely the reasons the BCS was instituted and agreed upon by BCS conferences. Until there is a playoff, the champion should be decided primarily by a host of computers that calculate which team deserves the championship based on how the team has earned it on the field. Secondarily, it should be decided by human voters.
