This is just classic....I love it!

[wide-e-wide]

http://www.onepeat.com/

Please make this happen...can you imagine the looks on their faces when they see that?

[Sicemhorns09]

http://www.onepeat.com/

Please make this happen...can you imagine the looks on their faces when they see that?

Here is another great one... http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=onepete5nr.jpg

[farmerfan]

That is why the AP has taken themselves out of the BCS. Both the AP and Coaches poll had USC ranked number 1 going into the BCS. When USC defeated Michigan they were still ranked 1 in both polls. It was the computers that had LSU ranked higher than USC. The coaches were forced to vote the winner of the BCS championship game as their national champion. Since many Texas fans are willing to take that championship away from USC and give it to LSU, does that mean yall should take 1970 off your title history? you know the one where yall lost the Cotton Bowl but still say you were national champions?

[wide-e-wide]

That is why the AP has taken themselves out of the BCS. Both the AP and Coaches poll had USC ranked number 1 going into the BCS. When USC defeated Michigan they were still ranked 1 in both polls. It was the computers that had LSU ranked higher than USC. The coaches were forced to vote the winner of the BCS championship game as their national champion. Since many Texas fans are willing to take that championship away from USC and give it to LSU, does that mean yall should take 1970 off your title history? you know the one where yall lost the Cotton Bowl but still say you were national champions?


Hey...UT fans were not the ones claiming a dynasty...or a possible three-peat...that is the point...

For all of the hoopla and lovefest for USC...in the end. Their "dynasty" has exactly the same amount of trophies as Texas and LSU over that time period.

[farmerfan]

Hey...UT fans were not the ones claiming a dynasty...or a possible three-peat...that is the point...

For all of the hoopla and lovefest for USC...in the end. Their "dynasty" has exactly the same amount of trophies as Texas and LSU over that time period.

That is true. I think when you win 34 straight and have 2 championships (1AP, 1 BCS) it is quite a accomplishment and somewhat of a dynasty. It's a shame that USC and LSU could not have met in 2003, had they met who knows who would have won, it was strictly the computers that kept them from meeting because both the coaches and media had USC and LSU at 1 and 2 at the end of that year. I also think this billboard would be more effective if they put it in Briston, Connecticut rather than Southern California.

[jtk1519]

Since many Texas fans are willing to take that championship away from USC and give it to LSU, does that mean yall should take 1970 off your title history? you know the one where yall lost the Cotton Bowl but still say you were national champions?

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Back then, there was no unified national champion. Hence the term "mythical" national championship. That is why the BCS was created.

The only poll recognized as proclaiming a national champion now is the BCS. That is what was agreed upon when all these conferences (including the Pac 10) got together and formed the BCS. That is what the polls (including the AP) agreed to when they became a part of the BCS formula. The land thieves were actually voted national champions that year (2003) by the Berryman poll. Does that mean they won the NC that year? Of course not. That is why it is no longer called a "mythical" national championship. The job of the BCS is to put the two best teams against each other in a national championship game using a formula of human polls and computer polls. Like it or not, USC did not even play in that game so it is ludicrous to say they won a national championship that year. How can you win a national championship when you didn't even play in the championship game? You can't.

In the end, all that matters is who is in possession of this...

http://www.afca.com/Graphics/0104ADTTrophy.jpg

For the 2003 season, that trophy resides in Baton Rouge, LA.

[farmerfan]

Like it or not the term mythical will still exists today. Until a playoff or a + 1 game is added that term will remain in effect. As far as having the trophy, it is hard to argue with taht statement. I just find it hard to believe and buy into when LSU had not been ranked number 1 at all. That year LSU lost to a 5 loss Florida team at home while USC lost to a 6 loss Cal team on the road in 3ot. The humans had USC as number 1 and I would trust them over some computers when determining a national champion. Going into the BCS selection show that sunday, over half the coaches and half the media had USC as number 1. They earned the rights just as much as LSU did to call themselves national champions in 2003. So until we get some kind of plus 1 game or a playoff the national championship will always have the "mythical" behind it.

[jtk1519]

The term "mythical" was eliminated when the conferences got together and created the BCS as a way of once and for all deciding a true national champion by putting #1 vs. #2 in a game for all the marbles. Sure, the AP or any other poll can proclaim another team national champions (like in '03), but the conferences all agreed that the final say was the BCS and it was the only national chamionship that would be recognized. No, it is not as good as a playoff system, but that is what the conferences chose to do. The Pac 10 was one of the founding members of the BCS (as were the Big 10, Big XII, etc.). Along with all the good things and success that comes from finally crowning a true champion, comes the controversy when that system doesn't work.

It seems somewhat ridiculous and even contradictory for USC to proudly claim their 2004 BCS national championship while ignoring the 2003 BCS national championship. Sure, USC was screwed in 2003, but when you create a system like the BCS, you have to abide by it... like it or not. Perhaps USC and the Pac 10 should focus less energy on pretend trophies for 2003 and use that energy to overhaul a flawed system that they helped to put in place.

[pack0808]

I thought it was obvious that USC was the better then LSU in 2003. I also thought they could have easily played for and won the national championship in 2002. My Iowa Hawks had the honor of that Orange Bowl beat down and Iowa was very very good that year. I love ya wide but 34 wins in a row is a legit dynasty. It is not their fault that college football has such a wack system. It used to be a lot worse. Remember Penn St not too long ago. Undefeated and probably better then Nebraska but they gave it to Nebraska. At least they would have played in the BCS game and settled it in this day and age. It was even more messed up then. USC was a legit dynasty. The other college dynasty's had question marks in many of their years also. As long as they do not have a playoff there usually will be questions. This year was the exception. It was crystal clear this year.

[farmerfan]

The term "mythical" was eliminated when the conferences got together and created the BCS as a way of once and for all deciding a true national champion by putting #1 vs. #2 in a game for all the marbles. Sure, the AP or any other poll can proclaim another team national champions (like in '03), but the conferences all agreed that the final say was the BCS and it was the only national chamionship that would be recognized. No, it is not as good as a playoff system, but that is what the conferences chose to do. The Pac 10 was one of the founding members of the BCS (as were the Big 10, Big XII, etc.). Along with all the good things and success that comes from finally crowning a true champion, comes the controversy when that system doesn't work.

It seems somewhat ridiculous and even contradictory for USC to proudly claim their 2004 BCS national championship while ignoring the 2003 BCS national championship. Sure, USC was screwed in 2003, but when you create a system like the BCS, you have to abide by it... like it or not. Perhaps USC and the Pac 10 should focus less energy on pretend trophies for 2003 and use that energy to overhaul a flawed system that they helped to put in place.

How can you say accurately that #1 AND #2 have been put in every BCS championship game?
If the BCS was the way to end all discussion of mythical then they would not need to tweak their system so much in the off seasons. There have been at least 4 times the BCS has changed their system up due to not getting it right. Starting in 98 then in 2000 then in 2001 followed by 2003 and even 2004 with the USC/OU/Auburn/Utah debacle.
I understand what you are saying by having the trophy, it just seems odd to not give credit to a team who was ranked number 1 in the two major polls and a computer was the determining factor of who played for the national championship. USC claiming the 2003 national championship is the same as Michigan and Nebraska claiming national titles in 97.

[farmerfan]

I thought it was obvious that USC was the better then LSU in 2003. I also thought they could have easily played for and won the national championship in 2002. My Iowa Hawks had the honor of that Orange Bowl beat down and Iowa was very very good that year. I love ya wide but 34 wins in a row is a legit dynasty. It is not their fault that college football has such a wack system. It used to be a lot worse. Remember Penn St not too long ago. Undefeated and probably better then Nebraska but they gave it to Nebraska. At least they would have played in the BCS game and settled it in this day and age. It was even more messed up then. USC was a legit dynasty. The other college dynasty's had question marks in many of their years also. As long as they do not have a playoff there usually will be questions. This year was the exception. It was crystal clear this year.


Great point on Penn State in 94. Would have been a whale of a game had they played Nebraska.

I also agree about USC 2002. I said this on a another thread a while back. I feel at the end of the 2002 season USC was the best team in the country. Had they played tOSU or Miami in the Fiesta bowl that year they would have beat both of those teams. If you take the USC teams of the last 4 years, the 2002 USC team was playing better at the end of the year than any of the previous 3 USC teams were. It's just to bad we dont have a playoff. I feel that had we had a playoff that Miami would have been champs in 2000.
This year Texas proved it was the best by going on the road to beat tOSU and USC.

[wide-e-wide]

Hey Pack08...so if SFA ran off 34 in a row...they would be a dynasty?

34 in a row is impressive....but only one trophy to show for it??...that's not a dynasty.

If Texas rattles off 10 or 11 more wins next year...and then loses the Big XII championship...will they be a dynasty?
Will ESPN worship them and compare them to the greatest teams ever? I seriously doubt it.

[jtk1519]

How can you say accurately that #1 AND #2 have been put in every BCS championship game?
If the BCS was the way to end all discussion of mythical then they would not need to tweak their system so much in the off seasons. There have been at least 4 times the BCS has changed their system up due to not getting it right. Starting in 98 then in 2000 then in 2001 followed by 2003 and even 2004 with the USC/OU/Auburn/Utah debacle.
I understand what you are saying by having the trophy, it just seems odd to not give credit to a team who was ranked number 1 in the two major polls and a computer was the determining factor of who played for the national championship.


#1 and #2 did meet in 2003 and USC was not one of them. I understand what you are saying about the other polls, but what you have to understand is that those other polls, by themselves, do not matter. They do not determine who plays for the national championship. They do not determine bowl placements. They are nothing more than one of many components of a much larger poll... the BCS.

The BCS rankings, like them or not, are all that matter... period. When the final BCS ranking came out in December of 2003... the rankings that would determine the national championship game... Oklahoma was ranked #1, LSU was ranked #2 and USC was ranked #3... that is all that matters. I don't like the way the BCS came up with those rankings and you may not like them either, but the job of the BCS is to put #1 vs. #2 for the NC and that is what it did.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/jtk1519/BCS2003.jpg
http://www.bcsfootball.org/files/bcs-2003.pdf

The 2003 race came down to one thing and one thing alone... strength of schedule. All three teams had just one loss so it there had to be a "tie-breaker". #1 Oklahoma's SOS was ranked #11 in the nation. #2 LSU's was ranked #29. #3 USC's was ranked #37. That, and that alone, is why USC was on the outside looking in. Back then, strength of schedule was a large part of the formula the BCS used. After that year, the formula was changed and SOS was not given the importance it once was. Was it fair? No. Does the system suck? Yes. However, a school like USC just can't go off and do their own thing when they don't get their way. I feel bad for USC... I really do. Oklahoma was not deserving of a top 2 ranking, but that is the system in place. You deal with it or you fix it. You don't adopt your own rules when it doesn't go your way.

USC claiming the 2003 national championship is the same as Michigan and Nebraska claiming national titles in 97.

Not even close to the same thing because there was no BCS in '97. That was back when different teams could be claimed national champions by different polls. Instances like '97 are the reason the BCS was created in the first place.

[dragonfootballfan]

How can you say accurately that #1 AND #2 have been put in every BCS championship game?
If the BCS was the way to end all discussion of mythical then they would not need to tweak their system so much in the off seasons. There have been at least 4 times the BCS has changed their system up due to not getting it right. Starting in 98 then in 2000 then in 2001 followed by 2003 and even 2004 with the USC/OU/Auburn/Utah debacle.
I understand what you are saying by having the trophy, it just seems odd to not give credit to a team who was ranked number 1 in the two major polls and a computer was the determining factor of who played for the national championship. USC claiming the 2003 national championship is the same as Michigan and Nebraska claiming national titles in 97.
The BCS #1 and #2 have all met in the national championship game at the end of the season, and like it or not the winner of that game wins the BCS national champion.

[farmerfan]

The BCS #1 and #2 have all met in the national championship game at the end of the season, and like it or not the winner of that game wins the BCS national champion.


I realize that the BCS #1 and #2 have met and that the winner is declared the BCS national champion. How can you say the BCS is right when in 2000 it puts a 1 loss FSU team in teh game over a 1 loss Miami team? You do know that the 1 loss FSU had was to Miami. So how can you say taht the "true" #1 and #2 met that year.
The following year Nebraska who got drilled by Colorado got to go to the national title game over Oregon. In the Fiesta Bowl that Oregon team drilled the same Colorado who had demolished the same Nebraska a month earlier. You still think the true #1 vs #2 matchup occured? I understand fully the winner of the BCS game is declared BCS champion, however it is not governed by the NCAA and it has failed many times to deliver the true matchup of #1 vs #2. Until a solution is made to where we can have a true national champion, I will always be in the thought of mind that it is mythical. This year the BCS dodged a major bullet when Michigan defeated Penn State. Had PSU gone undefeated we would still be asking who would win between Texas and PSU, just like last year when many wondered the outcome of a Auburn/USC game.

[farmerfan]

#1 and #2 did meet in 2003 and USC was not one of them. I understand what you are saying about the other polls, but what you have to understand is that those other polls, by themselves, do not matter. They do not determine who plays for the national championship. They do not determine bowl placements. They are nothing more than one of many components of a much larger poll... the BCS.

The BCS rankings, like them or not, are all that matter... period. When the final BCS ranking came out in December of 2003... the rankings that would determine the national championship game... Oklahoma was ranked #1, LSU was ranked #2 and USC was ranked #3... that is all that matters. I don't like the way the BCS came up with those rankings and you may not like them either, but the job of the BCS is to put #1 vs. #2 for the NC and that is what it did.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/jtk1519/BCS2003.jpg
http://www.bcsfootball.org/files/bcs-2003.pdf

The 2003 race came down to one thing and one thing alone... strength of schedule. All three teams had just one loss so it there had to be a "tie-breaker". #1 Oklahoma's SOS was ranked #11 in the nation. #2 LSU's was ranked #29. #3 USC's was ranked #37. That, and that alone, is why USC was on the outside looking in. Back then, strength of schedule was a large part of the formula the BCS used. After that year, the formula was changed and SOS was not given the importance it once was. Was it fair? No. Does the system suck? Yes. However, a school like USC just can't go off and do their own thing when they don't get their way. I feel bad for USC... I really do. Oklahoma was not deserving of a top 2 ranking, but that is the system in place. You deal with it or you fix it. You don't adopt your own rules when it doesn't go your way.



Not even close to the same thing because there was no BCS in '97. That was back when different teams could be claimed national champions by different polls. Instances like '97 are the reason the BCS was created in the first place.

Man i hate arguing with you :D

If the BCS was created to fix instances like 97, it has failed miserably. When we still have instances such as 2003 and 2004 with USC/Auburn, or even 2000 with FSU/Miami or 2001 with Oregon/Nebraska, it is hard to give it any credibility in determining the true national champion.

[dragonfootballfan]

I realize that the BCS #1 and #2 have met and that the winner is declared the BCS national champion. How can you say the BCS is right when in 2000 it puts a 1 loss FSU team in teh game over a 1 loss Miami team? You do know that the 1 loss FSU had was to Miami. So how can you say taht the "true" #1 and #2 met that year.
The following year Nebraska who got drilled by Colorado got to go to the national title game over Oregon. In the Fiesta Bowl that Oregon team drilled the same Colorado who had demolished the same Nebraska a month earlier. You still think the true #1 vs #2 matchup occured? I understand fully the winner of the BCS game is declared BCS champion, however it is not governed by the NCAA and it has failed many times to deliver the true matchup of #1 vs #2. Until a solution is made to where we can have a true national champion, I will always be in the thought of mind that it is mythical. This year the BCS dodged a major bullet when Michigan defeated Penn State. Had PSU gone undefeated we would still be asking who would win between Texas and PSU, just like last year when many wondered the outcome of a Auburn/USC game.
All the schools that got snubbed, agreed and signed off on the system that chooses the national champion. The colleges agreed to an imperfect system.

[farmerfan]

All the schools that got snubbed, agreed and signed off on the system that chooses the national champion. The colleges agreed to an imperfect system.


I believe its the presidents more so than it is the AD's or coaches of the school. Just look at recent comments by coaches around the country and you can see their frustration with the BCS championship process.

I also dont care if they agreed to it or not, can you honestly say that it has gotten it right every year?

[jtk1519]

I believe its the presidents more so than it is the AD's or coaches of the school. Just look at recent comments by coaches around the country and you can see their frustration with the BCS championship process.

I also dont care if they agreed to it or not, can you honestly say that it has gotten it right every year?

The coaches don't care for the system but the ADs love it because of all the money it brings in. So long as the money is there, they will put up with an imperfect system.

Right after last year's controversy involving Texas and Cal, there was a poll of ADs and school presidents asking about their support of the BCS. Even after last year, Cal's president and AD loved the BCS. Same was true of USC's AD and president despite the fact that they were screwed the year before. How in the world could these people support a system that screwed them? $$$... that's how.

[farmerfan]

The coaches don't care for the system but the ADs love it because of all the money it brings in. So long as the money is there, they will put up with an imperfect system.

Right after last year's controversy involving Texas and Cal, there was a poll of ADs and school presidents asking about their support of the BCS. Even after last year, Cal's president and AD loved the BCS. Same was true of USC's AD and president despite the fact that they were screwed the year before. How in the world could these people support a system that screwed them? $$$... that's how.


Sadly enough, you are 100% correct on that statement.
I just wish there was a way to go about having a "true" BCS where they take the top 8 teams in the BCS rankings and put them in the BCS bowl games. It's sad when Cal has to have a beef with Texas for taking their spot when in all reality it was a 2 loss Michigan team that took it not Texas. All because they win a conference title they go and Cal or Texas stays at home. I know that will never happen unless they go to a actual playoff but I would like to see the BCS stay true to its rankings and put the top 8 teams in their rankings in the actual BCS games.

[dragons08]

now that is funny..is wide trying to pay for the whole thing?

[slorch]

16 teams

4 great weekends of "lunacy"( madnessX 10)

15 bowl games( do we really need the poinsettia bowl anyway?)

more money than the ADs and conferences have ever had

yeah, I can see why someone would want the current system...:rolleyes:

[pack0808]

Hey Pack08...so if SFA ran off 34 in a row...they would be a dynasty?

34 in a row is impressive....but only one trophy to show for it??...that's not a dynasty.

If Texas rattles off 10 or 11 more wins next year...and then loses the Big XII championship...will they be a dynasty?
Will ESPN worship them and compare them to the greatest teams ever? I seriously doubt it.


Hey wide they have a right to claim 2 titles. They had 2 titles in a row (call it 1 1/2 if you want) so in college football that is considered a dynasty if you look at history. No, Texas needs to win 2 national championships and play for a third one and lose in the final seconds first. Then i will consider them a dynasty. Look, i freaking hate USC but they won 34 games in a row and won 2 titles and could have easily won 4 in a row finishing in the top 2 the other times and they won 34 in a row. That is a dynasty in college football. Go back to all the old dynasty's and they had more question marks then USC did because the system was so wacked. Back then there was no such thing as the BCS. The BCS comes a lot closer to getting right then the old system did.


By the way, you should want them to be called a dynasty?? Why?? Because your team ended the dynasty.