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

espn ^ | 1/5/03 | AP

[SoCal Pubbie]

By the way, did you know that the very newspaper that publishes the coaches poll recognizes a split champion?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Coaches recommend tweaks to BCS format
By Jack Carey, USA TODAY

After a season of controversy in which the No. 1 team in the final regular-season polls was left out of the Bowl Championship Series' title game, Division I-A football coaches Wednesday recommended the BCS modify its system to give more weight to the human element of the BCS formula.

Meeting as part of the American Football Coaches Association convention in Orlando, they also said they want the current bowl system kept intact and voted against recommending a playoff or a post-bowl one-game championship. The coaches also recommended that more access to BCS bowls be given to leagues that are not currently among the six BCS conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern, Pacific-10 and Big East).

All 77 I-A coaches present (out of a total of 117) recommended the BCS make the "human" polls count more. Southern California was first at the end of the regular season in the USA TODAY/ESPN Coaches Poll and Associated Press media rankings but finished third in the BCS formula, which equally incorporates the polls, computer ratings, a team's strength of schedule and record.

Thirty-seven coaches who vote in the poll ranked the Trojans No. 1 on Dec. 6, but the AFCA is mandated to award its national championship to the winner of the BCS title game.

Three coaches still voted for USC in the final poll, and the snafu left the coaches in an uncomfortable position. Ideally, the coaches want to see the No. 1 team guaranteed a spot in the BCS title game.

"Never, ever, as long I live do we want to go through that (again)," said AFCA executive director Grant Teaff.

USC won the Rose Bowl and took the AP's national title; LSU won the BCS version in the Nokia Sugar Bowl.

Teaff said the recommendations will be discussed with BCS officials in the next two months.

Should all these coaches resign too?

[Joe_October]

The LIBERAL writers slant the news to read what they prefer. They do it in EVERYTHING (except this according to you). The writers want their opinion to count more than it should.

Again, would you argue so strongly if the position was reversed. You would not.

[Joe_October]

Let me translate this for you.

After a season of controversy in which the No. 1 team in the final regular-season polls was left out of the Bowl Championship Series' title game, Division I-A football coaches Wednesday recommended the BCS modify its system to give more weight to the human element of the BCS formula.

equals: Coaches and writers think their opinion should count more NEXT year.

Why would they argue for less?

[LibertarianInExile]

RE: your second paragraph, the 64 is a postseason playoff, a fact you ignore entirely. The rest of your tome is blah blah blah, same thing, different post. You don't want to listen, and I am tired of listening to you blather on in a quest to whine your way into a USC championship.

You'll only get proven wrong when the playoffs arrive, so enjoy your whining and imagining now. I'm sure you'll always think USC was the best, but you're wrong, and you'll never be able to demonstrate otherwise to me--or to posterity, because 50 years from now, the BCS winner will still be considered the champion. Guess that sucks for you. Just like the playoffs, when they come, will suck for you and the PAC.

[raptor29]

Regarding Pac-10 versus SEC conference strength, well, get your gyroscope ready, as you'll have to start spinning again. You refused to care that the Pac-10 has won 6 of the last 7 head-to-head meetings between the conferences. Well, how about this if the Pac-10 is such a 'wuss' conference:

In a study by the NFLPA of the top 36 college football programs producing NFL players from 1998-2002, EIGHT of the top 36 colleges were Pac-10 schools, and SIX were SEC schools. The Pac-10's EIGHT teams was the MOST of any conference in the top 36. Here are the numbers for you to attempt spinning:

Pac-10: # of players in the NFL, 1998-2002:

USC - 157 players, 73 starters
Washington - 154 players, 70 starters
Cal - 133 players, 59 starters
UCLA - 131 players, 58 starters
Arizona State - 129 players, 53 starters
Stanford - 94 players, 36 starters
Arizona - 93 players, 27 starters
Washington State - 82 players, 31 starters

SEC:

Tennessee - 181 players, 76 starters
Florida - 169 players, 73 starters
Georgia - 144 players, 81 starters
Auburn - 128 players, 55 starters
LSU - 126 players, 42 starters
Alabama - 66 players, 32 starters

Check the drop-off to Alabama, and God knows where the rest of this stud conference registers.

Also, the Big 10 has 7 teams in the top 36, the Big East has 6, the ACC and the Big 12 have four each, and Notre Dame is the one independent. So, AHEM, the Pac-10 had the MOST teams among the top 36 colleges in sending players to the NFL. That would be, THE MOST teams of any conference. As in, MOST. But of course, the NFL just loves to stock their team rosters with players from 'wuss' conferences. You should be paying me for this education. You can win a lot of bets at that Bayou Hooters with this stuff.

[LibertarianInExile]

I already told you, you just ignore the facts. This isn't conference to conference competition. The NFL isn't a long haul playoff--it's recruiting position players. And damned if the air conference that is the PAC doesn't also happen to have lots of WRs and QBs that end up in the NFL, because the NFL needs to replace them so often. They get hurt playing real football in the NFL.

Of course, it's a cinch that the PAC would end up having more players generally recruited, too, because the NFL doesn't generally recruit players that have poor injury records, and God knows, you have to be a featherweight to get hurt playing in the PAC.

But you wait until the playoffs happen, and they're on the way even sooner now that USC is whining and Gateway is helping. Spew your irrelevant statbook all you want. It'll be settled on the field, and that will be that. After you drown in your sherry for weeks over USC (or Stanford, or whatever great-PAC-hope is anointed that year) losing by the second round, your PAC buddies will sadly lead your dear sobbing Muffy away, saying, "He'll get better, he'll quit the booze, he'll be right back to his old self, when the PAC grows a pair...come to think of it, maybe you SHOULD consider a divorce."

[raptor29]

Translation:

"Once again, I am thoroughly embarrassed by the unearthing of even more information that continues to completely undermine the flawed position I so aggressively took regarding the Pac-10. But just like with a liberal, facts and undeniable objective information mean nothing to me. I will continue to hold my position, because it is not within my character to admit that I popped off to so many people and was so wrong with what I popped off about. And despite the fact that the Pac-10 produces more NFL players than the SEC, and has beaten the SEC in 6 of the last 7 meetings between the two conferences, I will continue to refer to the Pac-10 as a 'wuss' conference, and not nearly as strong as the SEC."

But what's great is the shock you must feel every time I send you another cyber-beating. Clearly, you had no idea at all about anything related to the Pac-10 as a football conference. Well, you know now. Isn't education a beautiful thing.

[Moby Grape]

Final TEAM stat rankings for 2003/2004 of the three teams that were in the running for the title:
1. OU = 15.1
2. LSU = 19
3. USC = 32.8

USC was 110th in pass defense.....

How many PAC10 teams were in MAJOR bowls (you know, not those Tiddy Bowls in mid December, but the BIG ONES? The SEC had 7 teams in bowls between 31 December and 5 January.

What conference did this year's MVP of the NFL come from?

[raptor29]

"USC was 110th in pass defense"

So let's see, USC plays in the Pac-10, generally regarded as the top passing conference in the country year after year. Then, they are beating most everybody by 20-40 points, which means the other teams are behind, which means they are going to pass a lot, which means they will get some yards because teams in that league pass well. So at the end of the game, the stat sheet shows Oregon State's QB Derek Anderson throwing the ball SIXTY times in an attempt to come back, and gaining 485 yards (he threw for 4058 yards on the year), but USC wins 52-28. Valiant effort, yes, and the guy was beat up at the end, just like Michigan's Navarre, who also played well against USC. But these yards given up mean something to you?

Also, after Oklahoma's finish, and the Big 12's tremendous showing in the bowl games, how much validity would you attach to stats earned in that league?

[Moby Grape]

Of the three teams in the running for the title, only ONE lost to an UNRANKED team: USC.

No matter how spin it..THAT loss is THE reason they were not in the big game, and calls into question any true right to the claim of national champ.

As for them beating teams by 20 to 40 points, did you not notice that Notre "Losing Record" Dame beat BYU by MORE points that USC did? USC beat, in the Rose Bowl, a Michigan team that had TWICE lost before the bowl game (to 13th ranked Iowa, and UNRANKED Oregon). Three teams scored more points against Michigan this year than did USC, including UNRANKED Minnesota and UNRANKED Oregon.

Everywhere one looks OBJECTIVELY, one will find reasons to doubt just how good USC really was this year.

The AP has a history of being wrong, often having to pick a new #1 several times over the course of the season.

But when all is said, when all the "my conference is better than your conference" rants have run their course, I am still left with ONE factor I just cannot get past when deciding if USC should be # 1.....they LOST to an UNRANKED team.

[LibertarianInExile]

You're funny. But as long as you're making up things I say, let me try it for you:

Translation of raptor's remarks:

"I have heard so many times that the PAC sucks that I glean any tidbit that might tend to support my team and my conference. I realize that my team sucks, but I cannot have that because my confidence and ego would take a mortal blow. I also refuse to acknowledge that the only route to actually proving other teams' and conferences' superiority over my own would be a playoff, since my team and its conference have had the benefit of a system geared toward wuss conferences and I prefer the amorphous nature of the current system since it preserves my confidence and ego."

Let me know WHEN you send me a 'cyberbeating,' and I'll try to feel shocked then, okay?