AP crowns USC (mythical) national champs (Final Poll is out)

espn ^ | 1/5/03 | AP

[Diddle E. Squat]

RANK TEAM RECORD PTS PVS

1. USC (48) 12-1 1,608 1 Last game: Def. Michigan 28-14 (Jan. 1)

2. LSU (17) 13-1 1,576 2 Last game: Def. Oklahoma 21-14 (Jan. 4) Next game: vs. Oklahoma (Jan. 4)

3. Oklahoma 12-2 1,476 3 Last game: Lost to LSU 21-14 (Jan. 4) Next game: vs. LSU (Jan. 4)

4. Ohio State 11-2 1,411 7 Last game: Def. Kansas State 35-28 (Jan. 2)

5. Miami 11-2 1,329 10 Last game: Def. Florida State 16-14 (Jan. 1)

6. Michigan 10-3 1,281 4 Last game: Lost to USC 28-14 (Jan. 1)

7. Georgia 11-3 1,255 11 Last game: Def. Purdue 34-27 (Jan. 1)

8. Iowa 10-3 1,107 13 Last game: Def. Florida 37-17 (Jan. 1)

9. Washington State 10-3 1,060 15 Last game: Def. Texas 28-20 (Dec. 30)

10. Miami (OHIO) 13-1 932 14 Last game: Def. Louisville 49-28 (Dec. 18)

11. Florida State 10-3 905 9 Last game: Lost to Miami 16-14 (Jan. 1)

12. Texas 10-3 887 5 Last game: Lost to Washington State 28-20 (Dec. 30)

13. Mississippi 10-3 845 16 Last game: Def. Oklahoma State 31-28 (Jan. 2)

14. Kansas State 11-4 833 8 Last game: Lost to Ohio State 35-28 (Jan. 2)

15. Tennessee 10-3 695 6 Last game: Lost to Clemson 27-14 (Jan. 2)

16. Boise State 13-1 645 18 Last game: Def. TCU 34-31 (Dec. 23)

17. Maryland 10-3 564 23 Last game: Def. West Virginia 41-7 (Jan. 1)

18. Purdue 9-4 526 12 Last game: Lost to Georgia 34-27 (Jan. 1)

19. Nebraska 10-3 520 22 Last game: Def. Michigan State 17-3 (Dec. 29)

20. Minnesota 10-3 368 24 Last game: Def. Oregon 31-30 (Dec. 31)

21. Utah 10-2 308 25 Last game: Def. Southern Miss 17-0 (Dec. 31)

22. Clemson 9-4 230 NR Last game: Def. Tennessee 27-14 (Jan. 2)

23. Bowling Green 11-3 189 NR Last game: Def. Northwestern 28-24 (Dec. 26)

24. Florida 8-5 165 17 Last game: Lost to Iowa 37-17 (Jan. 1)

25. TCU 11-2 126 19 Last game: Lost to Boise State 34-31 (Dec. 23)

OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES Oklahoma State 109, Arkansas 73, Virginia 36, Northern Illinois 30, Auburn 8, Oregon State 8, Pittsburgh 7, N.C. State 7, West Virginia 4, Connecticut 2.

DROPPED FROM RANKINGS West Virginia 20, Oklahoma State 21.

[AmishDude]

I went to Rutgers. Believe me, 1902 is recent college football history.

[Joe_October]

...Of course the BSC made an error. ...

If they made an error, it was made eight months ago before the season started when they agreed to the rules. But, since all agreed to the rules, they can't be in error. At that time, they INTENTIONALLY chose to waive order of losses and margin. Again, no error.

To change it after the fact would have been an error.

The BCS calculated the standings by the rules agreed. There was no error at that time.

So, your choice is to do what you agreed to or violating it to match what you want.

The championship is awarded by the rules. To pick and choose is chaos. It would just be a different set of people perceiving error if the match-ups had been altered.

[AmishDude]

Note that the Rose Bowl wasn't a sell-out event until 1947. The Orange and Sugar bowls emerged in 1935. But your point is valid. I just don't think the bowls got such attention until the television era, they were exhibitions, a fun vacation for northern teams.

[LisaMalia]

Wow, is Woody about to bunch that guy? Oh, no he's not wearing a Clemson uniform, is he?

Woody was an icon. You must be really smarting from your non-National Championship to be ragging on him!..:)

[Joe_October]

Because the AP is older, they are legit? (And, apparently that makes me insane.)

No, the BCS is not "officially sanctioned", but if you go the the NCAA web site, they recognize the BCS but not the AP.

Why do USC fans have to rules lawyer to make their point? The BCS was created to establish the single champion. The PAC 10 agreed to it and even helps operate it and until three weeks ago didn't have a problem with it.

What has changed? (Hint: USC fell short.)

Anyone can award a national championship, I guess. I thought it would be more difficult.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Nah, just remembering my favorite button from the energy crises of the 70's. "Save oil, burn Woody"!

[Joe_October]

I wish Rutgers would put it back together and make a serious run for the MNC.

[AmishDude]

This seems to be an excellent encapsulated early history of the bowl games. It seems none were big events until after WWII. But thank you for informing me of the history of the Rose Bowl.

I did know that the idea of the "national champion" goes back to the thirties, but people didn't pay much attention.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Really? Go to www.ncaa.org. Click on Sports & Championships. Select football. Lookie here:

2002
Ohio State: AP, BCS, Billingsley, DeVold, FACT, FW, Massey, NY Times, Sporting News, USA/ESPN
Southern California: Dunkel, Matthews, Sagarin

Ha!

[AmishDude]

I think that the two worst teams in D I-A should play in a bowl game in Alaska in the outdoors. It would be the American Standard Toilet Bowl and would be the only game Rutgers could win.

[Joe_October]

The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) operated jointly by the ACC, Southeastern, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences uses a ranking system to determine the number one and number two teams at the end of the season. These two teams play each other in a post-season bowl game for the BCS national championship.

The top of the page man. Ha.

The NCAA does not discriminate against the AP. College football choose to go with one system to find a champion.

To choose two systems guarantees no champion. Why would they do that when their objective is to find 1 champion?

[SoCal Pubbie]

The Rose Bowl dropped football game until 1916 because after Michigan's 49- 0 win over Stanford it was hard to get an opponent. The Rose Bowl ws the ONLY bowl game until the mid 1930's.

[AmishDude]

Here is the link you're talking about, which lists all national champions. Note that many of these are mathematical formulas made posthumously. The first actual national champion seems to have been made in 1927. The AP started in 1936. UP (now UPI) started in 1950.

Rutgers -- split national champs in 1869!

[Joe_October]

There was a great article on Rutgers in SI at the beginning of the year. It sounded like Rutgers has a powerful lobby inside the university that insist they not be competitive. The quote was something like Rutgers wants to be known for the experts on the meaning of Milton's letters not football.

But, the Scarlet Knights have shown some progress. If UConn can do it, so can Rutgers.

[AmishDude]

Yeah, Rutgers 1000. There is really no reason for Rutgers not to have a good football program. The state is large enough, the college is rich enough, there are enough wussy majors,...

New Jerseyans don't want to stay in New Jersey and locals don't have a lot of home team spirit, I guess. That, and who would the rivalry be with? Princeton? New York doesn't have a single state university to have a rivalry with (if they did, it'd be a doozy).

[Joe_October]

The collapse of the Big East will not be helpful to Rutgers either. I think rivalry doesn't have be local. Rivalry is who you don't like. But, to keep it viable, you have to win occaisionally. Rutgers has not been able to do that for some time.

[AmishDude]

But, to keep it viable, you have to win occaisionally. Rutgers has not been able to do that for some time.

1869, baby!

[connectthedots]

Up in WaSU, we found Bevo to be a little lean. But tasty, when prepared correctly!

Not from the Pacific NW , are you?

It's WAZZU; not WaSU.

[Joe_October]

Yeah, Rutgers 1000.

From what I read about them at first, I could almost see their point, but then I went to page 2 and realized that they just don't like the competition that football would bring to their puzzle palace.

[AmishDude]

Like any group, they have a point, but they tend to attract anti-athletic types. And, as intellectual as sports writers like to think they are, after awhile, they will get tired of some professor denigrating sports.