[JeffAtlanta]

And yet the AP and the coaches didn't go out of their way to grant a share of the national championship to Auburn the way they did with USC the previous year. That should tell you something.

You've mentioned this several times but it still doesn't make any sense.

What does Auburn in 2004 have to do with LSU in 2003?

[soccermom]

"What does Auburn in 2004 have to do with LSU in 2003?" Nothing. You are claiming the BCS is the only way one is recognized as a national champion. I pointed out that, even though USC didn't play in the BCS, MOST people including the writers and the coaches recognized USC as at least sharing the national title. The following year, when USC won the BCS and Auburn wasn't able to play in the game, those same writers, coaches etc. DID NOT award a share of the title to Auburn. There was no split in the national championship. The point is, USC was recognized as a national champ,even without winning the BCS title. No such distinction was made for Auburn. Thus, USC's claim to the national championship for the 2003 is legitimate and acknowledged by most everyone but petty SEC fans.