And the College Football season begins!!!

[drothgery]

Yeah, two undeafeated teams should never have been in that game over a one loss USC team.

You know I meant the split national championship 2002 season (major bowls played in 2003), right?

I'm pretty convinced that Carson Palmer's Trojans would have won a playoff the year before (they lost early and so weren't in the title game picture, but anyone who follows college football closely and thinks they weren't the best team at the end of the year is a pretty devoted Ohio State fan), but there was nothing wrong with keeping them out of the BCS title game in '02.

 

[Crothian]

Anyone catch the 1-AA Championship game? What a game!!! Northwest Missouri State came 5 yards from a huge upset. Two plays earlier, they dropped the title-winning TD catch. Bounced right off the guy's chest.

Impressive game.

Ya, that was a good game. I like to watch actually football playoff games when I can.

 

[fett527]

You know I meant the split national championship 2002 season (major bowls played in 2003), right?

I'm pretty convinced that Carson Palmer's Trojans would have won a playoff the year before (they lost early and so weren't in the title game picture, but anyone who follows college football closely and thinks they weren't the best team at the end of the year is a pretty devoted Ohio State fan), but there was nothing wrong with keeping them out of the BCS title game in '02.

Sorry, you said 3 years ago and I counted back from 05. :\

 

[fett527]

Anyone catch the 1-AA Championship game? What a game!!! Northwest Missouri State came 5 yards from a huge upset. Two plays earlier, they dropped the title-winning TD catch. Bounced right off the guy's chest.

Impressive game.

Very impressive and fun to watch. It was the Division II championship actually so we still have the I-AA to championship game to come

 

[Dimwhit]

Very impressive and fun to watch. It was the Division II championship actually so we still have the I-AA to championship game to come

Huh, I didn't realize that. I though it was the 1-AA. Sweet, that means even more football!

 

[Krieg]

I'm pretty convinced that Carson Palmer's Trojans would have won a playoff the year before (they lost early and so weren't in the title game picture, but anyone who follows college football closely and thinks they weren't the best team at the end of the year is a pretty devoted Ohio State fan), but there was nothing wrong with keeping them out of the BCS title game in '02.

Oh please, maybe if USC wanted more respect they should have beaten a Washington St team that the Bucks dismantled. USC "playing the beat at the end of the year" bandwagon is definitely a case of rewriting history. No one was saying that before the Fiesta Bowl, they were too caught up in how the Miami juggernaut was unstoppable and would blow out the poor slow northern Buckeyes.

The bottom line is that USC is the flavor of the moment. They are not playing for a "three peat", if they beat Texas then this will be (arguably) their second in a row. LSU was the BCS champ in 03-04, the AP poll no longer matters...as evidenced by the fact that the poll itself has removed itself from the equation. Not to mention that the fact that the Trojans dodged the best team in the country in 04-05...Auburn would have brought the immovable object (as would the Bucks in '02) that USC's unstoppable offense hasn't had to face (and as history has shown time and time again would not be able to overcome).

USC's "greatest team of all time" label is little more than media hype...how soon we forget that just a few short years ago the media outlets were fawning all over the Canes in the exact same matter.

USC is a damn good team...but their path to glory has been has been eased considerably by not having to face any actual obstacles.

Now if you'd like to talk about rampant homerism, we can discuss whether South Florida would have been in contention for a conference championship in the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC or PAC 10...

Sorry, you said 3 years ago and I counted back from 05. :\

Actually he's advocating that a TWO loss USC team should have played for the national title over two undefeated teams.

 

[drothgery]

Oh please, maybe if USC wanted more respect they should have beaten a Washington St team that the Bucks dismantled. USC "playing the beat at the end of the year" bandwagon is definitely a case of rewriting history. No one was saying that before the Fiesta Bowl, they were too caught up in how the Miami juggernaut was unstoppable and would blow out the poor slow northern Buckeyes.

No it's not. They didn't finish #3 in the polls for nothing, the Iowa team they blew out in the Orange Bowl rolled through the Big Ten just as easily as the Buckeyes did (one of ESPN's talking heads insisted until after the BCS title game that the Hawkeyes were better than the Buckeyes, and that Ohio State was lucky not to play them), and they clearly turned it up a notch late in the season; at midseason no one was giving Palmer serious Heisman consideration. The WSU point is spurious; WSU lost to the Buckeyes at the Horseshoe, and beat USC (by a field goal) in Pullman; I don't put too much stock in the results of regular-season games where you had to fly cross-country, as the home-field advantage is seriously magnified.

And at the time I said that was nonsense that Miami was heavily favored. Miami and Ohio State were very similar great-defense/run-oriented offense teams that year, the main difference being that the Buckeyes never really put anyone away, but played a tougher schedule (and Miami never played anyone with a great defense). Both could stop almost anyone most of the time. But they weren't great passing teams, USC was (and is), and no one in the Big Ten or Big East that year was.

The bottom line is that USC is the flavor of the moment. They are not playing for a "three peat", if they beat Texas then this will be (arguably) their second in a row. LSU was the BCS champ in 03-04, the AP poll no longer matters...as evidenced by the fact that the poll itself has removed itself from the equation. Not to mention that the fact that the Trojans dodged the best team in the country in 04-05...Auburn would have brought the immovable object (as would the Bucks in '02) that USC's unstoppable offense hasn't had to face (and as history has shown time and time again would not be able to overcome).

I'm calling BS on that one. USC beat Auburn 23-0 the year before (with largely the same players on both sides) at their place. And USC was #1 in both polls going into the BCS title game in the split title year; the coach's poll voters did not have free choice on their post-season ballots (they were and required to choose the BCS title game winner as #1); Oklahoma was #3. And while football isn't transitive, LSU had a lot more trouble with Oklahoma in 2003 (in a virtual home game) than USC did in 2004. Auburn might not have been destroyed like Oklahoma was, but actually winning? Well, it's possible, I suppose, but it's not likely.

Now if you'd like to talk about rampant homerism, we can discuss whether South Florida would have been in contention for a conference championship in the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC or PAC 10...

While a team that went 7-4 in the regular season won the ACC, and I'm sure South Florida could have contended in the Big 12 North (and quite possibly won it), they weren't really in contention for the Big East title (West Virginia had only slightly more difficulty winning the Big East than USC had winning the Pac 10 or Texas had winning the Big 12). South Florida's "run" at the Big East title was caused by the confluence of a freak uspet of Louisville and many of their games being moved to late in the season due to hurricanes.

Actually he's advocating that a TWO loss USC team should have played for the national title over two undefeated teams.

No, I'm advocating that a two-loss USC team should have been in the playoffs with two undefeated teams (and another thirteen teams), and contending that they probably would have won said playoff (which is not the result I would have favored; I'd've been cheering for the Buckeyes, as my Orange would not be involved). That's not the same thing.

 

[Crothian]

A lot of people did feel Iowa was the better team in 2002, but that's because the Buckeye's won "ugly". No one was realyl given them any creditin any of their games. Even people around Ohio were saying they just kept getting lucky and didn't really expect them to go undefeated. So, all the talking heads got that one wrong.

I also agree that it won't be much of a three peat for USC. Everyone is claiming that since that sounds cool, but the AP has really not been that important over all. If the polls were so good the BCS wouldn't have been needed. The BCS championship is the one that the NCAA seems to like more.

 

[drothgery]

I also agree that it won't be much of a three peat for USC. Everyone is claiming that since that sounds cool, but the AP has really not been that important over all. If the polls were so good the BCS wouldn't have been needed. The BCS championship is the one that the NCAA seems to like more.

There's no such thing as a BCS Championship. There's a Coach's Poll championship, and an AP Poll championship, with the Coach's Poll contractually bound to give its post-season #1 ranking to the winner of the BCS Championship game. There's never been a time in the history of college football when the AP poll's final #1 team wasn't considered at least co-champion. With the rules in place that force the coach's hands in their final vote, I take the AP more seriously than the coach's poll; sometimes the best team won't be playing in the BCS's title game (though the post-2003 revisions make it very difficult for anything other than #1 in the polls vs. #2 in the polls to happen), and the writers have the freedom to decide that that's the case.

 

[Crothian]

I do't care what they call the championship, only one team gets the nifty crystal football trophy...the Sears thngy. I think its a bit sad for LSU since everyone talks about USC winning that year but no mention of them.