The Advocate: LSU to go 9-3, "Bama’s biggest obstacle is Bama"

LSU owns 100 percent of the crystal (Coaches trophy), USC owns 100 of AP trophy. Equally recognized as National Champs by NCAA. Footnote that won't be in NCAA record book: had coaches poll not agreed beforehand to give their trophy to winner of BCS, they would have likely voted to give the crystal to USC (who went undefeated in regulation, only had a triple-OT loss on road to Aaron Rodgers and Cal, while LSU lost at home to Zook...and, Coaches had USC #1 going into the "title game," so hard to believe they would have dropped them to #2 if they hadn't contractually agreed to name BCS game winner their #1, as USC blew out Michigan, while LSU didn't even beat OU as bad as K State beat OU the game before)

 

FWIW, the UPI poll is the Coaches Poll. The UPI designation was who sponsored the poll for its first 40 years of existence. I believe it's been through four sponsorships with the USA Today being its fourth and current sponsor. ESPN had their name associated with it up until 2004 I believe—USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll. ESPN took those rights from CNN who, along with the USA Today, took over UPI's sponsorship just before the divisional split of the SEC.

Just a small personal observation to add. The BCS has worked each and every year. It's goal was to put the #1 and #2 teams against each other and it's done that each year. The controversy has been who was ranked, not if the intent and goal of the BCS was attained.

It's my opinion that's not going to change with the playoffs. The only difference is the discontent on who is number two is now going to be centered on who is number four.

Perhaps you are just being casual with the use of the word gimmick?

 

It's actually a fact.

 

Already proved it to you, play dumb as much as you want

 

In 2003, the BCS didn't pit #1 vs #2, but instead #2 v #3, so no, it didn't work each and every year. In fact, in response to the 2003 BCS castrophy, they had to weigh the computers down so much that it would never take away the human #1 v #2 again. Idiocracy that the coaches poll signed on to it in the first place while the AP and NCAA never did

 

In 2003 it did pit #1 versus #2 according to that years BCS standings.

Here's the link to every week and how the standings ended up for that season.

Yes, it was adjusted after the 2003 season due to the controversy created by the AP's vote. It was one of several tweaks to the system throughout the years. Hell, if I recall correctly there were changes after year one.

The point remains the same though. The BCS rankings at the end of the season had OU and LSU as the top two teams in the nation.

If I recall correctly, the reason USC found themselves ranked as low as 4th in the BCS standings had to do with two components in the standings. One, strength of schedule and two, quality wins. They only had one of the later in the regular season.

I'd readily agree with you if you called the BCS system convoluted. Personally, I haven't had any problems with the system and how it chose teams. It's certainly created some great conversations!

Side note: A lot point to the 2004 season as a year when the BCS screwed up. I look at that season and say Auburn shouldn't have scheduled The Citadel.