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

Please go look at the NCAA record book, it lists the AP champs just as prominent as the Coaches/BCS champs. Why? Because this is what everybody agreed to:

NCAA - doesn't name a champ, recognizes AP and Coaches champs equally

AP - names champ like always

Coaches - names champ like always (but contractually agreed to name BCS winner their #1)

This is from ESPN:

So, before we start cussing, here's a list of the
ultimate BCS slights.
1. No. 1 and done: Computers reject top-ranked
USC The 2003 regular season ended with three
one-loss teams in BCS contention. USC was
ranked No. 1 in both the AP poll and the ESPN/
USA Today Coaches' poll, and its only defeat
came in triple-overtime at California, which
finished 8-6. LSU was No. 2 in both polls, its lone
setback a 12-point home loss against a Florida
team that went 8-5. Oklahoma, though dominant
during the regular season, tumbled to No. 3 in
both polls after getting drubbed 35-7 in the Big
12 championship game by Kansas State, which
finished 11-4. When the computers spit out an
Oklahoma-LSU title game, many neutral observers
joined Trojans fans in vehement protest, in large
part because most believed USC was the best
team. So when USC whipped No. 4 Michigan in
the Rose Bowl, it remained No. 1 in the final AP
poll. LSU beat Oklahoma 21-14 in the BCS title
game and was ranked, by contractual obligation,
No. 1 in the final coaches' poll, although three
coaches rebelled against the undemocratic
process and also voted USC No. 1.

 

You're right. The NCAA did not have a means of determining a champion in football. BUT THE CONFERENCES DID. The then PAC10, of which USC was a full and voluntary member, agreed that the BCS format was the official format to determine the champion. In the same way that LSU, as a member of the SEC, agrees to accept the rules established by the SEC, USC was bound by the rules established by the PAC10.

The NCAA is irrelevant because it had no championship, so we must then defer to the next highest authority, the conferences, all of whom agreed to the BCS format. Had this occurred before the PAC10 and the Big10 agreed to the BCS format, any school in either of those conferences would have had a legitimate argument to make, because their conferences, and by extension, their school neither agreed to nor participated in the BCS. But, that changes when the two conferences did agree to the BCS format.

Again, the NCAA is irrelevant on this issue. It was not a participant or party to the agreement.

 

I've suggested this where?

Is it too much to ask, or assume, that you keep previous comments in this thread in mind while continuing the conversation? Specifically comments and questions you posed and were answered?

Your assertion that playing a round robin schedule was equivalent to playing a conference championship was stated in the form of a question. It was answered.

If you want an opinion on regular season schedule comparisons between these two teams you need to simply scroll back a few pages where I've compared the two.

You're wrong here and contradicting yourself.

Just where in this NCAA record book do you find recognized national champions? Remember, as you've stated, the NCAA doesn't recognize national champions in football.

Of all the times not to have something to copy and paste, eh?

To put this as simply as I know how:

USC, as a member of the PAC which in turn is a member of the BCS conference alliance agreed to participate in, and abide by, the system in place. They chose, after the BCSNC, to accept the AP title. To this, there is no disputing the facts in place.

Now, my opinions on the AP title that year have been stated in this very thread. Yet, it's an easy assumption those are going to be ignored followed by an attempt to divert the subject being discussed here.

 

did Bama play in a conference championship game in 2011? seem to remember them shitting the bed at home against LSU

 

I don't see where this is recognition by the NCAA of an "official" selecting organization. Rather, this site is reporting who certain organizations have named as champion. The NCAA does not recognize an FBS football champion. Notice the difference in the way the NCAA has the "history" section of FBS football as opposed to Div. 1 baseball.

There is no doubt that the winner of the CWS is the NCAA champion. The CWS is sponsored by and organized by the NCAA. Not so with FBS football.

 

Right. Again, though, I think timing in Bama's case helped them, whereas in USC's case it hurt them. With the SEC having a strong year in 2011, and multiple conferences having CGs by then (as opposed to 2003 where a few conf's did, but most didn't, i believe), it gave Bama a chance to make up some ground and sneak back up, whereas other teams closed the gap in 2003 (i.e. LSU) and USC had no where to go but down.

 

I don't have a problem with USC claiming a split in 2003. If the shoe were on the other foot and LSU was put in the Sugar Bowl against whoever, while OU limped into a game with USC (which almost happened), I'd claim it if LSU got the AP vote.

I'm just glad that we have the cooler and more prominent title from that season.

 

Maybe its just me, but this stat tells me something...