[soccermom]

"I realize that - just don't claim that USC was the coaches champion - LSU was." No -- you claimed that only USC fans and the sports media recognized USC as national champs in '04. I pointed out that the coaches did, too. The fact is, most people did.

"No one but the most adamant fanboys would claim LSU as national champions if they just won the AP poll but USC won the BCS title game." And yet most everyone did claim USC as the national champ in that situation. I guess that tells you what they thought of LSU.

"I think Auburn was the best team last year, but USC won the BCS game so they are national champs. That is the system that everyone agreed to." 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.

[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?

[JeffAtlanta]

I pointed out that the coaches did, too. The fact is, most people did.

Three coaches total.

Look, many journalists at the time felt that St Louis was better than New England after the Patriots won the superbowl and that it was a fluke.

That didn't change the fact that New England was still the champion. The BCS championship game winner is the agreed upon champion by all of the member schools. That is the system that everyone signed onto.

Some journalists don't change the agreement that USC and every other Div-1 team signed onto.

[Flightdeck]

National Champions
2003: LSU
2004: USC
2005: UT

my math says one for each.