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

Left withOut Links Leaves Our Lout speechless?

 

I think his intended meaning is, "Loving On Leinart".

 

Part of your failed logic is that USC did NOT have to play a conf. championship game. If they did, maybe they get blown out like OU, or maybe they win, and catapult themselves into the championship game like LSU did, on the field and in a poll. Part of Red's correct argument takes in account the timing of those championship games. I, like you, felt OUs blow out would have dropped them further, and allow USC to jump them, but it didn't because the PAC10 did NOT have a championship game like the other stronger conferences. That boosted OUs overall accomplishments that year, and hampered USCs. Bottomline, based on biased polls and records, LSU and OU played in the recognized BCS title game, and LSU beat them. Had USC played a conference championship game, they may have played themselves into that game, but they did not. Had the Big 12 NOT had a championship game, like the PAC 10, we may still be talking about OU being the "best team ever", as multiple national pundits had subjectively labeled them, which also effected their ranking, and who they played in the BCSCG may have been different, or the outcome may have different, or maybe LSU crushes them like KSU did. We'll never know, b/c the PAC 10 did not have a CG, and that rightly effected whether they played in the BCSCG.

 

USC is a member of the PAC12. The PAC12 signed on to the BCS with those rules in effect. Those rules stated that the teams ranked #1 and #2 would play for the BCS championship, and the winner of that game would be champion. Everyone recognized and accepted that the BCS was the determinant of who would be the national champion.

Just because USC doesn’t like the outcome, even if they believe they were screwed, doesn’t mean they have a legitimate argument to make. LSU was screwed for sure on Peterson’s interception against Auburn, but the rules state the ref’s make the decision, and we accept it; doesn’t mean we have to like it, but we accept it.

In sum, USC knew the rules and agreed to abide by them. They can’t go back and change the rules because they don’t like the outcome.

 

USC played everybody in their conference round robin, right? If so, can't get more impressive than that

 

Don't think so. Don't think they played Oregon

 

It was a 10 team, PAC, and they played eight conference games that season. Oregon wasn't that great that season, 8-5, but they didn't have to play the Trojans in '03 or '04.

 

This has been a point of mine throughout this thread. Their administration appears to have changed their minds after the AP decided it would award USC their title.

I try to put myself in their shoes and that attempt leaves me asking "can you blame them?"

I realize they aren't abiding by their previous commitment—a commonplace occurrence in college football.

The PAC did play the same weekend the SEC had their championship game. USC closed their regular season the 6th of December against Oregon State—it was a regular conference game though.

The Big12 is doing the same thing now. Texas closes it regular season against Baylor the 7th of December in an effort to remove that "extra weekend of play in front of the eyes of the voters" bump. I certainly don't believe it carried the same weight then, or now.

 

So USC didn't play 8-5 Oregon, while OU didn't play 10-3 Nebraska? Shame on USC, right?