Replies

USC had a loss, came back, ran the table, won their conference, won their bowl, and were voted first by the writers, second by the coaches.

LSU had a loss, came back, ran the table, won their conference, won their bowl, and were voted first by the coaches, second by the writers.

In my opinion, that makes them both champions. In my opinion, it takes nothing away from either to say that. And since I personally did not sign on to abide by the verdict of the BCS, I'm under no legal or moral obligation to consider one less genuine than the other, as far as I'm concerned.

I'll even congratulate Oklahoma on having a good year, although not a better year than SC or LSU. I would say that in light of OU's losing both its conference championship and the Sugar Bowl (soundly) despite leading the BCS standings wire-to-wire, in addition to other incidents over the last few years, the parties to the BCS might reconsider whether it's all that useful at doing what it was supposed to do. That's a
euphemism for, "They ought to let the thing die when the contract runs out and replace it with something else." Frankly, with each attempt at "improving" the postseason, the old "unimproved" system looks better and better.

Another California guy weighs in and twists the facts again.

The corrupt AP poll voted for their choice.

The coaches and the agreed-to BCS system picked a champion.

So, who are complaining about the BCS most? The writers who can no longer crown a winner and the fans of the team that is hurt by the agreed to system.

But, they find the oddest ways to justify it. Oklahoma met a better team this evening. That's why they lost.

I didn't sign up the BCS either so I think California should be the champion. How could USC complain about that?

USC had a loss, came back, ran the table, won their conference, won their bowl, and were voted first by the writers, second by the coaches.

LSU had a loss, came back, ran the table, won their conference, won their bowl, and were voted first by the coaches, second by the writers.

True, but at least the AP got to vote according to it's own initiative. The coaches contractually had to vote the winner of the Sugar Bowl #1, essentially declaring their votes and their poll meaningless. Their #1 team, like the AP, was USC on their final "free will" ballot.

I know it was the agreed to system, but certainly not agreed to, nor desired by most fans. Either way, we have 2 national champions once again and I'm not bitter over either winning it, just ranting that we can't have something better. They are both excellent football teams, but it sucks that they leave it this way.[/end rant]