I thought I was just biased... or even a little paranoid. But it is confirmed. I'm not. I know ESPN loves the west coast, more specifically USC. But I just can't understand why they still, to this day, refuse to recognize LSU as the 2003 BCS National Champs. That year there was a lot of controversy over the AP vs. the BCS championships. ESPN proclaimed USC as the champs that year and every since have blatantly ignored the fact that LSU held up the crystal trophy that glorious night. At first I thought it would blow over as recent memory would fade and they could give credit were it is due. But ever since I have payed close attention to how, and exactly what they say about LSU and there history. I can remember the following year (2004) when USC was playing for a National Championship, ESPN kept saying how they would be repeat champs. Now I know that sparks more interest in the game, but then during the LSU bowl game that same year, they intentionally left out the fact that LSU had won the BCS the year before. It was mentioned once by a broadcaster and you could hear the dead silence in the booth. It was obvious to me they were instructed before the game not to mention this at all. Again I thought it would blow over. Every oppurtunity since then ESPN has simply refused to acknowledge LSu's accomplishment. And believe me, I have been watching. Last night put me over the top. I don't know if anyone else caught it but when they listed LSu's recent Bowl history, they listed 2003 as a Sugar Bowl win. WTH!!! There is no doubt about it, LSU held up that trophy, earned the right to be called National Champs, and it is a damn shame that ESPN won't give them that hard earned honor. If not for the fans, but for the players/ coaches that worked their tails off to deserve it......
Uhhh.... It was a Sugar Bowl win. As they were saying it, they also had an image up of c'est bon holding up the crystal.
I really don't mean to sound like a smart-aleck here, but who cares what ESPN thinks/says about that season? They can proclaim USC a 20-time national champ for all I care, we're the only ones with the 2003 crystal football, and that's all that counts. Furthermore, what the AP says matters even less now that they have no affiliation with the BCS whatsoever. It's extremely annoying coming from the "worldwide leader", I'll grant you that, but they can't undo history and take away our championship, so ESPN can kiss my rear end.
this is a subject that needs to die. the bcs is what all the coaches and universities bought into as being the national championship system, the ap awarded USC a national championship, its a sportswriters national championship which is why ESPN recognizes it because they are taking care of their own. The proof is in the trophy case. 2003 :crystal:
Just get tired of the bias. As you said, I don't really care what ESPN thinks but to re-write history to exclude an obvios fact seems to be the norm these days. Not to mention the millions of people that watch their broadcast, including the highschool players choosing which school to play for. Might be stretching it a bit, but perception and name recognition matter.
Actually it's rather simple. There are two polls. USA Today Coaches Poll, and the AP Media Poll. LSU won the BCS National Title Game in 2003, which is the USA Today Coaches Poll. USC won the AP Media Poll, and guess which one ESPN is closer to? ESPN is more aligned with the AP as they are a media outlet not named USA Today. I believe that someone at ESPN might have an AP vote as well (I'm pretty sure SI does). So by the coaches standards, you are the National Champs of 03 because you won the BCS title game (it's automatic). USC won the media poll because they were ranked #1 in both polls, got passed over for the title game by computers, and did enough in their game that not enough people felt comfortable downgrading USC after a huge bowl victory. If it makes you feel better, Washington's only official National Championship (I say official because we count 1960 since Championships were crowned before the bowl games, and Washington thrashed Minnesota (that years NC) in the Rose Bowl and finished 10-1 to their 8-2) came in 1991 and was a split national championship with Miami. Coaches voted Washington, AP voted Miami (the East Coast Bias you often hear west coasters talking about). That was the defense led by Steve Emtman. This would eventually lead to a series of games between the two furthest Division 1-A schools in the continental US, and a game known famously as the Whammy in Miami. So yes, your Washington Brethren feel your pain at the so called split national championship, especially when everyone who watched college football at the time could tell which team was better
Not so fast my friend. Several coaches violated the terms of their BCS agreement in 2003 and in fact, did not vote LSU national champs in favor of USC. One of whom is now an, um, esteemed analyst at ESPN by the name of Lou Holtz. I think it's a somewhat different situation. The BCS was explicitly intended to eliminate the possibility of major media organizations recognizing different "national champions" by establishing a national championship game, and yet it still happened. From the perspective of LSU fans, we played by the rules and won, yet another team still gets a piece of the pie in no small part because they were/are a media darling. Think of it this way: in 2003, LSU was Tarvaris Jackson/Sage Rosenfels and USC was Brett Favre. Even today with the AP out of the BCS picture, there's still nothing to prevent another split NC. The NCAA still does not recognize the BCSCG winner as the official Div. I-A "NCAA national champion", they will only be the BCS NC, and if the AP agrees, also the winner of the AP NC.
That year there was absolutely NO question that LSU belonged in the title game. USC's beef about not being in was very real...it's just that their beef should have been with Oklahoma who leapfrogged USC to get in as number one despite the fact that they lost their conference championship game. Oklahoma screwed USC...not LSU (in my opinion). Too bad USC wasn't in the game because that day...the way LSU was playing...we'd have beaten USC too !!!!!
Yes, but at the same time, how often has the BCS actually paired the two best teams in the country against eachother? It's been a rare occurance. What's even more inexcusable is that Oklahoma jumped not very long after another team was put in a game that didn't even play in its conference title game. In 2001, the #1 and #2 teams were Miami and Oregon. Nebraska, who didn't even win their own conference, went to the BCS game, and Colorado faced off against Oregon. Oregon and Miami crushed their opponents, never setting up the game that should have been. Obviously USC was ranked #1 in both major polls to end the season, and the computers still ranked Oklahoma higher. In 2000, Oklahoma was the only undefeated team, no question they were in. But their opponent was endlessly argued. Florida State got into the game, even though Miami beat them head to head. Bob Stoops, Oklahoma's coach said months after the game that he didn't understand what the argument between Miami and Florida state was about, what about Washington, which beat Miami which beat Florida State? FSU lost, which lead to Oklahoma #1, Miami #2, Washington #3, Oregon State (team UW beat) #5, and Oregon (only team to beat UW) #7. So even the NC winning coach said they played the wrong team. The SEC is at both an advantage and a disadvantage for the NC game. An undefeated SEC team will get into the NC game 95% of the time. But if you have a situation like Michigan and Ohio State had a few years ago with the 1-2 punch that let LSU in the door, with lets say LSU and Florida some year, the winner of that game is in, the loser, even if they are the second best team in the country, has no shot. When you think about it, the only NC game in recent memory that everything was infallable in was the 05 Texas-USC Vince Young Bowl. As for the coaches who went out of their way to vote against the rules, you can't blame their logic. In their mind, LSU beat the #3 team in the country while being the number 2 team in the country, which means nothing if no one knows how you'd do against #1... Sure, in college football there may not be as much of a difference, but we need a real playoff to prove it. Some other sports that do have playoffs, it's a lot more noticable. (Great example, anybody watch the Softball National Championship between the Gators and the Huskies?)
