"The only clear fluke was OU. LSU played good football last year. Just because one team wins the Championship doesn't mean they should have won it prior years." No.......but if that team were ranked #1 in the prior year and still denied the opportunity to play for the championship, we can certainly draw that conclusion. No one expected LSU to repeat, but they totally fell apart this year. If they were truly THAT good last year, they would have had a good season this year, if not a perfect one.
"If Hasslett leads the Saints to the superbowl next year it doesn't mean they deserved to go to the playoffs this year." Not the same scenario. You know very well that the NFL is different --- there is a playoff system, which leaves little doubt. Now I happen to prefer the college system, but you can't use the Superbowl -- where every half decent team gets a shot at the big game --- to the NCAA.
How good would USC be if all their top talent left and they didn't have good backups? 1st and second string wins football games. Not the third and forth. But when you lose your first you have to fall on them.
'Not the same scenario. You know very well that the NFL is different --- there is a playoff system'
Well if we're comparing the quality of two teams across seperate years then it's irrelevant to they system used. No matter how great USC does this year or how it does next year has any bearing on 2003. None. USC deserved a shot but didn't get it. Get over it.
Championship titles aren't awarded to the best programs. They're awarded to the team that plays the best that year. Last year per the BCS LSU was the best. Per the sportswriter poll USC was most well liked.
Arguing that USC is a better program and deserves the title is logically incorrect.