This is a response to a Dennis Dodd article on CBSSportsline that said USC would have a 3/4ths claim on the national title and where he called LSU fans who emailed AP writers "shameless"... "Sorry Dennis, but you have this all wrong. USC sits atop the AP and coaches polls for one reason and one reason only-timing. They lost their one game before LSU and OU lost theirs. By losing initially they dropped but then when LSU lost USC had already started to re-ascend. Then when OU lost both USC and LSU were in there re-ascents. That is it in a nutshell...no reason to debate further. If USC had lost to CAL this weekend instead of near the beginning of the year, they would be everyone's #3 right now instead of OU. It's all about timing, not who is really the best team. Once a team acheives a certain rank, the humans refuse to vote to relinquish it, no matter how good another team behind them performs. Perhaps because doing so would be admitting that they had made a mistake in ranking them initially. A perfect example of this would be Ohio State who was unimpressive the entire year but held their rank almost as if it was their birth-rite until finally they were pummelled by Michigan. One other honorable mention though is that a small market team like LSU does not get the respect they deserve from the AP writers and the rest of the media. Writers do not do their homework or else they would have known way before now the caliber of our LSU team down here. Despite its flaws...and there are many, the BCS has this right this time...even if by pure luck!" Comments anyone?
Yeah, I still don't think that OU should have gotten in because they got whacked in the CCG, etc., etc. BCS did get the LSU part right, though.
Very true. The AP voters have it set in their minds that you don't drop a team when they win a game big. Even though LSU's big win over UGA was more impressive that a win over Oregon St, it doesn't matter. They have that mindset ingrained.
USC giving up 550 yards of offense to OSU...I mean can any rational person not think that LSU is better when they only gave up 240 yards to the #5 team in the country???!!!???!!!
Dennis Dodd has been quite positive towards LSU all year...I can't believe he'd make statements like that for any other reason than because he and his 'journalistic brethren' didn't get the team they WANTED into the BCS... I think it's funny that you guys don't see what happened... The media got rooked by the computers, so they're naturally offended that a bunch of computers basically told them and their machinations and biases and archaic "unwritten rules" regarding voting in a dynamic manner, rather than by a "time sensitive" manner, which chooselsu explains in his initial post on this subject. The BCS PC polls weigh RECENT performance more heavily than long term consistency. It's also a known fact that USC would have won on margin of victory standpoints, but that was thrown out because of alleged biases and undue influences to "run up the score" and take sportsmanship out of game in order to play your way into the Championship game. The media didn't get it's dolls. They're now going to whine. All I can ask is this... Would ESPN, ABC, CBS, or anyone else be making this big of a deal out of the situation had LSU not been involved in the BCS Title Game? Had everything happened just the same, and perhaps a Notre Dame had won along with Hawaii last night...Would anyone be crying the same foul notes? Of course not...The familiar refrain would have been, "Well, the system worked. It gave us the Top 2 teams to play for all the marbles." I submit that the Syracuse/Boise State wins told us nothing more about USC's current worthiness as a national title contender than did Louisiana Tech/Bama vs. Hawaii/UF vs. FSU did to tell us LSU's current worthiness. This system was going to punish ONE of the three teams at the top of this messy heap. Had it been the one that wears purple and gold, I am willing to bet against every single ounce of gold in Fort Knox that there would be no cries of anguish and torment, and no statements that the BCS game which we participated in would be a de facto college football championship game... No...The audacity of the writers, their chosen teams, and those that believe the vitriolic and toxic, nauseous fumes they spew out when they don't get their way allows USC to do what they're doing. USC isn't just deciding on it's own that the Rose Bowl is for all their marbles, and for a title shot. They have to have enablers to allow them to say and do those things... The media are enablers in this flophouse farce of a fictitious figment in some USC fans' imaginations...
Read this one. This guy has it right. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/stewart_mandel/12/07/mandel.bcs/index.html
Soap he's got it right...based on what has happened on the field LSU should be a consensus #1 in both polls right now.
Something to add? Even though USC had twice as many first place votes, the EEKED it out. 15 points in that poll is considered miniscule. So what that means is there are MANY sportswriters NOT sold on USC. They had to have a very high number of humans (now all of sudden the best measure???) ranking them 3rd. LSU was either one or two across the board.
My 2 cents that I sent to that jerk off: ------------------------------------------------ You are all wrong Denny boy. LSU is the only team that was ranked either 1 or 2 in every single poll that makes up the BCS. 9 polls make up this thing, and not a ONE had LSU below 2nd. Don't you dare try to downplay our season. The trojans "soaring" to the top of both polls? Hardly. 1595 to 1580. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 1542 to 1516?? Phew, look at them soar!! USC had almost twice as many 1st place votes, and they barely pulled it out. What does that tell you? That MANY of your colleagues are not sold on USC, and many had to have them 3rd. But this is plasphemy? So the people's champ will have lost to Cal and played exactly 2 top 20 teams. Wow. So go ahead and enjoy writing about this over the course of the month. Michigan is going to make you look foolish come Jan. 1
I don't necessarily agree that the "timing of the loss" is the ONLY reason. To me, the MAIN reason is what I'd refer to as the "Notre Dame Factor". We have all seen instances where Notre Dame has defeated a winless Army team by ONE point and then rose 5 spots in the polls. Many make fun of this "phenomenon" but it EXISTS. And, it happens for a NUMBER of teams - although none as great as Notre Dame. You can look at the polls almost every year and you'll see, that among those teams with equal number of losses, Notre Dame will be the highest ranked. Next is, ALMOST ALWAYS (like this year), Michigan. Then, you have the USC's, Texas's, etc. But, the top 3 seems to be N.D., Michigan and USC - in that order. WHY - They are the "Media Darlings". I'd ask this question of Mr. Dodd - WHO has USC beaten that would merit their outpolling LSU for the #1 spot by a 2 to 1 margin? And, who did both of those teams lose to which would merit USC being so far ahead of LSU in the polls? One of the purposes of the BCS is to try to take SOME of the human element out of it this year. This year, 6 of the 7 polls have USC at number 3. All all of these computer polls BIASED??? Can they be BIASED? On the other hand, are the human polls BIASED??? Can they be BIASED??? In short, the BCS worked this year because they were able to take the B.S. out of the HUMAN polls. There is CLEARLY an inherent bias in a HUMAN poll that has USC SO FAR AHEAD of LSU (in terms of #1 votes) when USC has beaten NO ONE that would merit their #1 status. In many ways, USC is much like the 1998 Tulane team - HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE AS GOOD AS THEIR RECORD when they haven't played anyone to merit consideration?
