Posted on 01/03/2006 8:36:04 PM PST by BurbankKarl
Edited on 01/04/2006 2:22:49 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
On January 4, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. (PST) the Rose Bowl Game will host the BCS National Championship, between USC and Texas once again showcasing the best of collegiate football in "The Granddaddy of Them All."® The Rose Bowl will be broadcast exclusively on ABC and on ESPN radio.
Regarding the offenses, I guess I think the PAC 10 offenses are a little better than you think. (and that's cool to disagree about it). I know that defense take second place around the PAC-10. Will be interesting to see what Stoops does at Arizona.
National Champions
2003: LSU
2004: USC
2005: UT
my math says one for each.
"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.
With UF already playing Tennesee, Georiga, LSU and FSU every year. There are also talks of renewing the Miami game. Forty percent of the time the schedule also includes Alabama or Auburn.
With that schedule adding a big name out of conference game would be suicide. Teams in weaker conferences can do it because many of them only have 1 or 2 tough conference games a year anyway.
Also, UF has no need to recruit in other areas. The talent in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana is enough to power any top ranked team.
Everyone already knows about UF and they already get players for other parts of the country anyway. For example, Deshon Wynn was a top ranked rb out of Ohio.
Good for your math. Tell that to every major newspaper and sportswriter that referred to USC as back to back national champs.
See post 3620. By your logic, Oklahoma was going for back to back championships in 2004.
That's true. And most SEC teams don't have two other in-state rivals out of conference like Florida does. UGA and South Carolina are the only others, that come to mind.
But still, a little variety would be nice.
"Good for your math. Tell that to every major newspaper and sportswriter that referred to USC as back to back national champs."
Every newspaper and sportwriter that referred to USC as back to back national champs was dead wrong. Just like when they predicted USC would win last night. Now their collective sexual fondling of SC makes them look like the whores they are, and USC like the LOSERS they are. HAHAHAHAHAHA WE WON WE WON WE WON WE WON.
You rely on the media to get their facts straight? Next time some one says that George Bush isn't an idiot, I'll just say that it has to be true since most of the media thinks he is.
In previous BCS games, the topped ranked team has is only about 2-7 I think. This shows that the media have no idea who the best team is.
How hard is it to understand that USC signed on to the BCS system where the national champion is to be determined by the BCS championship game?
How will you know how strong your conference is if you don't play outside it?
Oh puhleeze! Because Berryman, whatever that is, said so? Everyone acknowledges the AP poll and you know it. There have , traditionally, been 2 major polls and, occasionally, they split. When they split, both teams are recognized. Every press account under the sun has referred to them as back-to-back national champs. The fact that you don't like what is commonly acknowledged by every major paper doesn't mean it isn't true.
I do NOT disagree with you about the PAC-10 offenses. I wish the SEC (particularly Alabama) could get an offensive coordinator from the PAC-10. The last really good offensive coordinator at Alabama was Homer Smith from the PAC-10.
Here was Alabama this year with the 2nd ranked defense in the nation, and couldn't score (after Protho went down) if someone held a gun to their heads.
Neither does any other team in the country. What is their excuse for not scheduling 5 or 6 top 25 teams every year?
When your conference schedule already includes 4 or 5 top 20 teams, it doesn't make much since to add more when teams from other conferences only have one or two hard games a year.
Bobby Bowden was offered the Alabama job after Bill Curry left and he turned it down saying that he felt it was almost impossible to go unbeaten in the SEC.
"How hard is it to understand that USC signed on to the BCS system where the national champion is to be determined by the BCS championship game?" How hard is it for you to admit that the AP awarded the national championship to USC and that everyone from ESPN to Sports Illustrated acknowledged them as such?
That was a nasty injury. The kid's a real great receiver.
fine Texas day in Southern California ping-to-self.
"How will you know how strong your conference is if you don't play outside it?" Well, we know that when LSU did play a PAC 10 team this year, it had a much lower margin of victory that USC had against the same team.........So much for the great SEC!
The AP WAS was the poll before the implemtation of the BCS. If the 2003 situation had occurred before the PAC-10 and Rose Bowl joined the BCS then you'd have a point.
For example, when USC and Alabama split the AP and UPI in 1978 or 1979, both teams had a valid case to consider themselves national champions. The same with Washington/Miami, Ga Tech/Colarado and Penn State/Nebraska. Those were all pre-BCS.
At that time was just a component of the BCS just like the Sagarin poll and several others.
Look, if Div-1 developed a full fledged playoff system, would you consider the AP poll winner the champion or other winner of the playoff? The BCS certainly isn't perfect but it is the playoff system that everyone, including USC and Auburn, agreed to.
As long as a football team can win a national championship using the same system that ice skaters are crowned, then it doesn't really mean squat. I think the BCS is ridiculous, but it uses some type of methodology beyond whether or not the AP voter got hammered at the game the night before voting.
I don't believe the system is accurate (Auburn, etc) but it's better than the AP. So many great teams that had tougher schedules, played in a stronger conference or were in a small media market have gotten downplayed by the AP.
Let the AP crown ice skaters and gymnasts. For me I say "There is no substitue for victory"
PS. I can't believe I just supported the BCS -- now I will have to go take a shower. Bring on the playoffs!
Look, the AP continues to award a national championship despite the BCS. And every gives it equal weight. Sports Illustrated even came up with 2 different national championship issues -- one featuring USC, the other LSU. Virtually EVERYONE acknowledged USC as at least a share of the national championship in 2004 and virtually EVERYONE referred to them as back-to-back champions in 2005. If you don't want to acknowledge it, so be it. But those are the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.