LSU: USC's National Champion
Steve Jaros
USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
The AP is historically the most prestigious poll, but in the BCS era, it's
better to get the crystal football. It's a real championship recognized by
the 6 conferences + notre dame, not a mythical one.
Of course, the BCS is a stupid system, and USC should have had a chance to
prove themselves best in a playoff, but that's another issue.
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "Steve Jaros" esteb...@covxrtyv.com
>Newsgroups:
Jaros...I am so damn sick of this same crap from you over and over and over and
over.
Shut the fuck up already. Christ. You said this exact same crap two weeks ago.
Repeating it over and over again doesnt make it any more true.
Steve Jaros
> You said this exact same crap two weeks ago.
> Repeating it over and over again doesnt make it any more true.
I bet you can't identify which part isn't true.
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "Steve Jaros" esteb...@covxrtyv.com
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.footba
>I bet you can't identify which part isn't true.
Sure I can..the idiotic refrain of "BCS Champion=National Champion".
It aint true. Its just as mythical as it ever was.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <20040105025152...@mb-m10.aol.com>):
Don't mind Steve. He's just pissed off because *everyone* is his champion.
Steve is to the rest of humanity as the 1989 New Mexico State team is to
college football.
--
Daniel Seriff
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: LSU is the BCS champion, and since USC is a member of the BCS, they are
: USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
: neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
: It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
Bwoik bwoik bwoik bwoik bwoik. Bwoik bwoik bwoik, bwoik bwoik
bwoik bwoik bwoik. Bwoik!
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Jessie Nunez
many times alrady - the people reading will decide whether they agree
or not.
Shut the hell up already.
jn
"Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote in message news:<gU7Kb.21923$WQ3.4379@lakeread05>...
Bryan S. Slick
[5 Jan 2004 02:08:09 -0800]
:I'm with ConnMoore on this one.
. ^^^^^^^^^
You misplet "all of RSFC".
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
marty mcmahone
"Bryan S. Slick" <bry...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6327ee9...@news.supernews.com...
> [Jessie Nunez (jessie...@hotmail.com)]
> [5 Jan 2004 02:08:09 -0800]
>
> :I'm with ConnMoore on this one.
> . ^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misplet "all of RSFC".
Very true.
Steve Jaros
> Sure I can..the idiotic refrain of "BCS Champion=National Champion".
BCS National Champion = BCS National Champion.
That is, the Champion of all 6 conferences + Notre Dame. Not mythical, but
actual champion.
Does that clear it up for you?
Steve Jaros
news:741b494b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> I'm with ConnMoore on this one. Everyone heard your arguments way too
> many times alrady - the people reading will decide whether they agree
> or not.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. But one that apparently
hasn't sunk in with all. I'll have to re-post this afternoon.
Cheers!
Scotty
"Steve Jaros" wrote in message
From the NCAA website:
The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football
and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) operated jointly by the ACC, Southeastern, Big 12,
Big East, Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences uses a ranking system to
determine the number one and number two teams at the end of the season.
These two teams play each other in a post-season bowl game for the BCS
national championship. Below is a year-by-year history of Division I-A
football national champions as determined by various organizations:
Sorry, still as mythical as griffins.
Scott
Steve Jaros
news:C0oKb.22030$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Only if you think the 6 major conferences and ND are mythical organizations.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <AzoKb.22026$WQ3.1188@lakeread05>):
It's just too bad for you that you're quite literally the only person on the
planet who thinks that's even remotely relevant.
--
Daniel Seriff
Every night before I go to bed, I pray for Ohio State to lose.
Charles Beauchamp
Hey dumnass....USC is a member of the Pacific Ten conference. The Pac Ten
champion is contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl. They
did...they won. They are #1. They are National Champions. The BCS is just
newfangled trash. It not only did not feature the #1 team in the
nation...it featured two teams that look like easy fodder for the Trojans.
v/r Beau
Bill Pilgrim
LSU looked better than USC, but . . .
By Skip Bayless
Mercury News Staff Columnist
Cancel the coronation. Hold the Hollywood hype. Put the Trojan Horse
back in the barn.
The Team Nobody Knew just rained on USC's parade. That team, Louisiana
State, narrowly held off another team that looked slightly stronger
than the Trojans -- Oklahoma -- 21-14 in Sunday night's Sugar Bowl.
Two more firsts for the most screwed-up sport in the history of the
world: 1) A bandwagonful of analysts and columnists who despise the
BCS system gleefully proclaimed USC a no-doubt No. 1 three days before
the official championship game; and 2) America's least publicized
one-loss team, LSU, looked suspiciously Sunday night like America's
best.
What a glorious joke college football's postseason again proved to be.
The punch line: We're probably no closer to the only solution -- a
playoff tournament of four or (preferably) eight teams.
Please don't tell me it's wonderful for amateur athletics to have
co-national champs. Please don't lobby for a return to polls deciding
who's No. 1. And please don't think I'm saying: ``The BCS worked after
all.''
No, I simply said LSU looked suspiciously like the best team. I
believe LSU would be too fast and physical for USC. Ditto, OU. But I
can't know for sure. Neither can you, USC fans.
That's the problem. Neither USC nor LSU nor OU nor any other bowl team
that caught your fancy will ever get a chance to prove it's the best
in a tournament.
That's also the trap that college football fans and critics can't help
falling into.
We protest too much. The more we scream, the more we publicize an
idiotic postseason format. The more we publicize it, the more we help
preserve it by boosting the TV ratings.
I know: I'm again falling headlong into the briar patch I'm
criticizing.
But how fair is it for LSU to be penalized in the public's eye for
winning the national title game endorsed by the sport's coaches? For
getting lost all season in Louisiana's swamp fog instead of playing in
the nation's hype capital as USC did? For losing the publicity game
because too many in the media failed to recognize how powerful this
team is?
I was guilty, too. Until a month ago, I knew LSU only from a few
highlights -- none captivating or convincing. So before the Big 12 and
Southeastern Conference championship games, I called three NFL scouts
who had evaluated USC and LSU for the draft and asked which would be
the better test for Oklahoma.
At that point, of course, OU appeared invincible at 12-0 and was
projected to be a seven-point favorite over USC in the Sugar Bowl. Yet
all three scouts said LSU undoubtedly would match up better with OU.
You're kidding.
Mike Hagen, an Atlanta Falcons scout who had spent time at USC and LSU
practices, said: ``LSU has better overall team speed than USC,
especially its running backs. LSU has a better secondary. And LSU
plays in a more physical conference.''
That's what I saw Sunday night.
When I asked the pro scouts about Michigan, all three said the
Wolverines weren't in the same league with Oklahoma, LSU or USC
because quarterback John Navarre and running back Chris Perry are good
college players who won't be high draft choices. By Michigan
standards, they said, this is just a pretty good team.
That's what I saw in USC's 28-14 Rose Bowl parade. The Trojans were
sensational on offense -- against just a pretty good defense. The
Trojans often looked sensational on defense because they hid their
weakness (pass coverage) by sending cornerbacks early and often on
blitzes. Shrewd scheme by Coach Pete Carroll: Go after the
cement-footed Navarre and sack him into submission.
Nine sacks were the difference in the game.
Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat a
Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did so in a
comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its campus? No
way.
Have we conveniently forgotten that USC lost in triple overtime at Cal
when the Bears were 2-3, having lost to Colorado State and Utah? That
day, USC was 3 for 12 on third downs and was outgained 469-376. That
day, USC looked like No. 100.
That day, Cal's Adimchinobe Echemandu, who rushed for 147 yards in 34
carries, said: ``I'm not knocking Matt Leinart or their running backs,
but I don't see a whole lot of firepower from them. Mike Williams is
basically their whole offense.''
Yes, LSU lost 19-7 at home -- but to a highly talented, poorly coached
Florida. Have we forgotten that USC gave up 485 yards passing to
Oregon State in its final regular-season game at home?
I'd sure like to see USC and LSU meet on a neutral field now.
How fair was it that the nation's two best defenses, LSU's and OU's,
were forced to beat up each other in the wake of USC's ``we're No. 1''
statement? For that matter, how fair was it that OU was told all week
it could lose the Big 12 title game to Kansas State -- in Kansas City,
after the Wildcats had reeled off six wins in a row -- and still
qualify for the BCS title game? How fair was it that, after getting
leveled by Kansas State, OU was forced to play LSU an hour bus ride
from its campus, in the New Orleans Superdome?
This year sure would have been a great year for a playoff tournament,
starting in early December. LSU looked best to me. But we'll never
know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________
Friends don't let friends go to Virginia Tech
marty mcmahone
"Bill Pilgrim" <drde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8rdlvv8lel3gtqver...@4ax.com...
> LSU looked better than USC, but . . .
> By Skip Bayless
> Mercury News Staff Columnist
>
> Cancel the coronation. Hold the Hollywood hype. Put the Trojan Horse
> back in the barn.
Appealing to Skip Bayless to defend your team is less than smrat.
This just about assures that people will feel that USC is the better choice.
Marty
Jon Morse
Especially since when he was in Dallas, Skip used to gobble the Sooner
knob. Apparently he's still doing it, since he had the testes to say
"another team that looked slightly stronger than the Trojans -- Oklahoma."
--
~jon
KSU '88
Charles Beauchamp
Here is the first problem with your post. Skip Bayless is famous for being
an idiot. He is very much a Jaros.
> Cancel the coronation. Hold the Hollywood hype. Put the Trojan Horse
> back in the barn.
>
> The Team Nobody Knew just rained on USC's parade. That team, Louisiana
> State, narrowly held off another team that looked slightly stronger
> than the Trojans -- Oklahoma -- 21-14 in Sunday night's Sugar Bowl.
>
> Two more firsts for the most screwed-up sport in the history of the
> world: 1) A bandwagonful of analysts and columnists who despise the
> BCS system gleefully proclaimed USC a no-doubt No. 1 three days before
> the official championship game;
Which would be interesting except for the fact that the same media AND the
coaches didn't just say so 3 days before the Sugar Bowl...but a month ago
when they elevated USC to #1.
and 2) America's least publicized
> one-loss team, LSU, looked suspiciously Sunday night like America's
> best.
Strange. LSU is less publicized then Miami of Ohio? Skip must have just
not seen the entire CBS college football schedule this year.
>
> What a glorious joke college football's postseason again proved to be.
> The punch line: We're probably no closer to the only solution -- a
> playoff tournament of four or (preferably) eight teams.
>
> Please don't tell me it's wonderful for amateur athletics to have
> co-national champs. Please don't lobby for a return to polls deciding
> who's No. 1. And please don't think I'm saying: ``The BCS worked after
> all.''
>
> No, I simply said LSU looked suspiciously like the best team. I
> believe LSU would be too fast and physical for USC. Ditto, OU. But I
> can't know for sure. Neither can you, USC fans.
>
Anyone who watched both the Rose and Sugar bowl who thinks LSU looked like
the best team has an agenda and actually didn't see what happened on those
fields. LSU looked sloppy. Oklahoma looked amatuerish. Neither team runs
or ran particuarly innovative or complex offenses.
> That's the problem. Neither USC nor LSU nor OU nor any other bowl team
> that caught your fancy will ever get a chance to prove it's the best
> in a tournament.
>
> That's also the trap that college football fans and critics can't help
> falling into.
>
> We protest too much. The more we scream, the more we publicize an
> idiotic postseason format. The more we publicize it, the more we help
> preserve it by boosting the TV ratings.
>
> I know: I'm again falling headlong into the briar patch I'm
> criticizing.
>
> But how fair is it for LSU to be penalized in the public's eye for
> winning the national title game endorsed by the sport's coaches? For
> getting lost all season in Louisiana's swamp fog instead of playing in
> the nation's hype capital as USC did? For losing the publicity game
> because too many in the media failed to recognize how powerful this
> team is?
>
LSU won a poll that is pre-determined and ignores actual performance at the
very top. History will not regard such a farce very highly.
> I was guilty, too. Until a month ago, I knew LSU only from a few
> highlights -- none captivating or convincing. So before the Big 12 and
> Southeastern Conference championship games, I called three NFL scouts
> who had evaluated USC and LSU for the draft and asked which would be
> the better test for Oklahoma.
>
> At that point, of course, OU appeared invincible at 12-0 and was
> projected to be a seven-point favorite over USC in the Sugar Bowl. Yet
> all three scouts said LSU undoubtedly would match up better with OU.
>
> You're kidding.
>
> Mike Hagen, an Atlanta Falcons scout who had spent time at USC and LSU
> practices, said: ``LSU has better overall team speed than USC,
> especially its running backs. LSU has a better secondary. And LSU
> plays in a more physical conference.''
>
Mike Hagen is a Falcons sout and apparently is part of the reason the
Falcons suck every year. There is no way in Hell that LSU has better
overall team speed then USC. The Trojan defensive front AND DB's are all
burners compared to LSU. Hell, how fast do you really have to be to run
down a standing log like Jason White? He has all the mobility of John
Navarre. USC would sack White at least 8 times.
> That's what I saw Sunday night.
>
> When I asked the pro scouts about Michigan, all three said the
> Wolverines weren't in the same league with Oklahoma, LSU or USC
> because quarterback John Navarre and running back Chris Perry are good
> college players who won't be high draft choices. By Michigan
> standards, they said, this is just a pretty good team.
>
Another stupid statement. Jason White and Matt Mauck are both good college
quarterbacks with virtually zero NFL potential. Further neither team has a
running back the standard of Chris Perry. So what's the difference? I
further note that most of the supposed experts picked this same Michigan
group to play for the MNC in the pre-season...what...did their talent level
suddenly drop off during the season?
> That's what I saw in USC's 28-14 Rose Bowl parade. The Trojans were
> sensational on offense -- against just a pretty good defense.
LSU and Oklahoma's defenses both looked good against infantile looking
offenses Sunday night.
> The
> Trojans often looked sensational on defense because they hid their
> weakness (pass coverage) by sending cornerbacks early and often on
> blitzes. Shrewd scheme by Coach Pete Carroll: Go after the
> cement-footed Navarre and sack him into submission.
>
> Nine sacks were the difference in the game.
>
Um...USC racked up 55 sacks as a team this year. That pass rush is NOT the
weakness. Hell it practically defined this team. How did he miss that
part? Then again...this same writer knew LSU from a few highlights so he
must just not watch football very much.
> Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat a
> Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did so in a
> comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its campus? No
> way.
>
> Have we conveniently forgotten that USC lost in triple overtime at Cal
> when the Bears were 2-3, having lost to Colorado State and Utah?
How could we forget? We got reminded of it 1000 times in the last month.
Apparently the writer forgets that it was a 3 point loss on the road.
That
> day, USC was 3 for 12 on third downs and was outgained 469-376. That
> day, USC looked like No. 100.
>
Actually that day USC looked excellent and so did Cal. It was one of the
best games I've seen all year.
> That day, Cal's Adimchinobe Echemandu, who rushed for 147 yards in 34
> carries, said: ``I'm not knocking Matt Leinart or their running backs,
> but I don't see a whole lot of firepower from them. Mike Williams is
> basically their whole offense.''
>
Which would be a relevant comment if Echemandu was a defensive player.
Since he spends approximately no time defending the Trojans offensive
players his evaluation is no more valid then mine.
> Yes, LSU lost 19-7 at home -- but to a highly talented, poorly coached
> Florida.
Which is exactly a simple way of saying..not very good Florida team....one
that already had lost 3 games (2 at home). They then dominated LSU AT LSU.
A loss that curiously has been excused by the pro LSU crowd as somehow more
acceptable. Hmmmm USC loses a 3OT thriller on the road to a 3 loss
eventual bowl winner...bad bad bad....LSU get's hatted at home by a 3 loss
team that finished with 8 wins (same as Cal) and that is not bad. Bizarre.
Have we forgotten that USC gave up 485 yards passing to
> Oregon State in its final regular-season game at home?
>
I haven't. Neither have I forgotten the final score of that game.
> I'd sure like to see USC and LSU meet on a neutral field now.
>
Me too. USC by 10.
> How fair was it that the nation's two best defenses, LSU's and OU's,
> were forced to beat up each other in the wake of USC's ``we're No. 1''
> statement?
Ohio State played in the Sugar Bowl?
For that matter, how fair was it that OU was told all week
> it could lose the Big 12 title game to Kansas State -- in Kansas City,
> after the Wildcats had reeled off six wins in a row -- and still
> qualify for the BCS title game? How fair was it that, after getting
> leveled by Kansas State, OU was forced to play LSU an hour bus ride
> from its campus, in the New Orleans Superdome?
>
How fair is it that Oklahoma lost that game by 30 and somehow this loss was
not as damaging as USC's 3 point 3OT loss on the road?
> This year sure would have been a great year for a playoff tournament,
> starting in early December. LSU looked best to me. But we'll never
> know.
>
The author is blind.
v/r Beau
Steve Jaros
> > organizations.
> Hey dumnass....USC is a member of the Pacific Ten conference.
Yes, and champs of it, too.
> The Pac Ten
> champion is contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl.
No they aren't. If USC had been ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS, they would have
played in the Sugar.
> They
> did...they won.
Yes - nice win. A Rose Bowl win is always a nice thing.
> They are #1. They are National Champions.
Only to a gaggle of sportswriters. To the organization they joined to decide
the national title amongst the major conferences and ND, they are
runners-up.
That's why that USC defensive end didn't get to "have the crystal football"
he wanted.
Steve Jaros
being
> an idiot. He is very much a Jaros.
This, coming from the retard who just said the pac-10 champ is contractually
obligated to play in rose bowl, and who hasn't yet grasped the BCS?
Astonishing.
Charles Beauchamp
> > Here is the first problem with your post. Skip Bayless is famous for
> being
> > an idiot. He is very much a Jaros.
>
> This, coming from the retard who just said the pac-10 champ is
contractually
> obligated to play in rose bowl, and who hasn't yet grasped the BCS?
>
> Astonishing.
>
It is no surprise to me that you find this astonishing. Actually quite
predictable.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
> > > Only if you think the 6 major conferences and ND are mythical
> > > organizations.
>
> > Hey dumnass....USC is a member of the Pacific Ten conference.
>
> Yes, and champs of it, too.
>
> > The Pac Ten
> > champion is contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl.
>
> No they aren't. If USC had been ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS, they would have
> played in the Sugar.
>
Equally correct. What is the problem?
> > They
> > did...they won.
>
> Yes - nice win. A Rose Bowl win is always a nice thing.
>
> > They are #1. They are National Champions.
>
> Only to a gaggle of sportswriters. To the organization they joined to
decide
> the national title amongst the major conferences and ND, they are
> runners-up.
>
Actually to the vast majority of Americans they are National Champions while
LSU is being called BCS National Champions in a context of being somewhat
lesser.
> That's why that USC defensive end didn't get to "have the crystal
football"
> he wanted.
>
Oddly I haven't seen much complaining from them about that. And in the
future as folks talk about this season it will genearlly be under the idea
that the #1 team and real champion somehow was excluded from the supposed
title game. Essentially your side has basically lost this debate for
whatever that is worth.
I don't think LSU has to hang their heads at all. They have a National
Title to be proud of. I think Saban is coach of the year. They were the
surprise of the season more so then USC who I figured early on would be very
powerful.
This stuck button odd argument you have with attempting to equate some
official recognition where none exists though is silly and pointless.
Besides....I like the chaos because I think the more crap like this we have
the better chance of a backlash leading to a real Championship playoff.
That is what I want. Until then...MORE SPLITS PLEASE!!!
v/r Beau
Steve Jaros
> contractually
> > obligated to play in rose bowl, and who hasn't yet grasped the BCS?
> >
> > Astonishing.
> >
>
> It is no surprise to me that you find this astonishing.
Not much surprises a retard. They don't have a clue to begin with..
Steve Jaros
> decide
> > the national title amongst the major conferences and ND, they are
> > runners-up.
> >
>
> Actually to the vast majority of Americans they are National Champions
According to who? The same jilted media?
You and i and the writers for ESPN can conduct polls and declare national
champions all we want. But there's only one organization that both LSU and
USC belong to that decided who the national champ was, and it was LSU, not
USC.
Jessie Nunez
> > "Jessie Nunez" <jessie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:741b494b.04010...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I'm with ConnMoore on this one. Everyone heard your arguments way too
> > many times alrady - the people reading will decide whether they agree
> > or not.
>
> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. But one that apparently
> hasn't sunk in with all. I'll have to re-post this afternoon.
>
> Cheers!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Go ahead and post it again.
...I wonder if this guy seriously has a life outside reading/posting
in newsgroups.
jn
Sean S
>
> Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat a
> Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did so in
> a comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its campus?
> No way.
ummm...among 4 or 5 other moronic arguments I skipped, this guy
may want to refresh just where exactly the Sugar Bowl was played.
Sean
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys
typed on a million keyboards for a million years,
eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Charles Beauchamp
> > > This, coming from the retard who just said the pac-10 champ is
> > contractually
> > > obligated to play in rose bowl, and who hasn't yet grasped the BCS?
> > >
> > > Astonishing.
> > >
> >
> > It is no surprise to me that you find this astonishing.
>
> Not much surprises a retard. They don't have a clue to begin with..
>
This is true. It is also interesting that an astonished retard may think he
is being clever while getting pasted.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
> > > Only to a gaggle of sportswriters. To the organization they joined to
> > decide
> > > the national title amongst the major conferences and ND, they are
> > > runners-up.
> > >
> >
> > Actually to the vast majority of Americans they are National Champions
>
> According to who? The same jilted media?
>
> You and i and the writers for ESPN can conduct polls and declare national
> champions all we want. But there's only one organization that both LSU and
> USC belong to that decided who the national champ was, and it was LSU, not
> USC.
>
Belong to? Last I looked they are both members of the NCAA. There is no
offical national champion. USC is a member of the Pac Ten. They won the
Rose Bowl and were voted #1 in the only poll free to elect a champion. LSU
won the Saddam version of polls...the one with a pre-determined result.
Therefor that poll is irrelevant.
As for my commentary that the vast majority of Americans consider USC as a
more valid claimant, frankly that got enough coverage proof before the game
was played Sunday night. Hell you knew that a month ago when this fiasco
happened.
v/r Beau
Wo Laris
Simple answer to everyone's question straight from the ncaa.org website...
Michael Falkner
> LSU is the BCS champion, and since USC is a member of the BCS, they are
> USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
> neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
> It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
It's also a recognized title and a part of the BCS calculations.
Not only that, but the BCS administrator all but admitted more than
once that this should never have happened.
On top of THAT, USC dominated Michigan while Oklahoma and LSU tripped
all over each other in New Orleans.
Yes, LSU is the BCS champ and deserves it, but the system _FAILED_.
It is time for a playoff.
> The AP is historically the most prestigious poll, but in the BCS era, it's
> better to get the crystal football. It's a real championship recognized by
> the 6 conferences + notre dame, not a mythical one.
You sure we even should be including the Pac Ten after the last couple
screwjobs?
And how about the Big East now that they lost both their real football
teams?
> Of course, the BCS is a stupid system, and USC should have had a chance to
> prove themselves best in a playoff, but that's another issue.
We agree this far.
Mike
Michael Falkner
> >Subject: Re: LSU: USC's National Champion
> >Path:
>
> >From: "Steve Jaros" esteb...@covxrtyv.com
> >Newsgroups: rec.sport.footba
>
> >I bet you can't identify which part isn't true.
>
>
>
> Sure I can..the idiotic refrain of "BCS Champion=National Champion".
>
>
That's part of the problem. If it is, why have the BCS?
Especially after this year, it would appear that they would be better
served dumping the entire mess and going back to what we had before if
they are so adamnant about no playoff...
(And of course we all know that that's because the kids would want a
slice of the money a playoff would provide...)
Mike
Michael Falkner
So until the NCAA recognizes a title, there is no real title?
Why the BCS then?
And not only _THAT_, but here's an instructive question:
The NCAA runs football title tournaments in every division up to I-AA...
Why the blazes do they NOT run a I-A tournament?
Mike
TrojanFamilyMan
Sean S <se...@nospam.honeybuckit.org> wrote:
> Bill Pilgrim <drde...@yahoo.com> laid this on me:
> >
> > Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat a
> > Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did so in
> > a comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its campus?
> > No way.
>
> ummm...among 4 or 5 other moronic arguments I skipped, this guy
> may want to refresh just where exactly the Sugar Bowl was played.
I think he was refering to the Rose Bowl here. You're right about the
other stuff being moronic though.
--
@>-'--,-- USC TROJANS: 2003 National Champs! (AP Division) --,--'-<@
TrojanFamilyMan
Jon Morse <jmo...@usenetserver.com> wrote:
"My grandfather, who had season tickets, took me to my first Oklahoma
football game when I was 5 years old. As the fight song says, I was
Sooner born and Sooner bred, and when I die I'll be Sooner dead."
-- Skip Bayless, 12/9/03
Sean S
> In article <Xns94689D022489...@216.196.97.132>,
> Sean S <se...@nospam.honeybuckit.org> wrote:
>
>> Bill Pilgrim <drde...@yahoo.com> laid this on me:
>> >
>> > Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat
>> > a Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did
>> > so in a comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its
>> > campus? No way.
>>
>> ummm...among 4 or 5 other moronic arguments I skipped,
>> this guy
>> may want to refresh just where exactly the Sugar Bowl was
>> played.
>
> I think he was refering to the Rose Bowl here. You're right about
> the other stuff being moronic though.
right. He thought SC's win was not as good because it was close to
home, while ignoring that LSU won it's game in a stadium an hour away
from their campus.
TrojanFamilyMan
Sean S <se...@nospam.honeybuckit.org> wrote:
> TrojanFamilyMan <t*f*m*@hotmail.com> laid this on me:
>
> > In article <Xns94689D022489...@216.196.97.132>,
> > Sean S <se...@nospam.honeybuckit.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Pilgrim <drde...@yahoo.com> laid this on me:
> >> >
> >> > Yet did it prove beyond debate that USC is No. 1 because it beat
> >> > a Michigan team that lost at Oregon and Iowa -- and that it did
> >> > so in a comfort zone of a stadium a half-hour bus ride from its
> >> > campus? No way.
> >>
> >> ummm...among 4 or 5 other moronic arguments I skipped,
> >> this guy
> >> may want to refresh just where exactly the Sugar Bowl was
> >> played.
> >
> > I think he was refering to the Rose Bowl here. You're right about
> > the other stuff being moronic though.
>
> right. He thought SC's win was not as good because it was close to
> home, while ignoring that LSU won it's game in a stadium an hour away
> from their campus.
Gotcha. Sorry, I'm a little slow today. ["Today?" - Ed.]
Jon Morse
Because the NCAA is governed by its member institutions, based on their
division...
And because that means that the I-A presidents would have to agree to it...
And because they won't.
--
~jon
KSU '88
Jon Morse
I R smrt.
--
~jon
KSU '88
Telemachus
Carol needs to shut his sore looser mouth up. LSU would stomp the shit
out of USC if given the chance. Oklahoma would stomp the shit out of
USC. The BCS is like democracy, it may seem like it sucks, but it's
the best system we have at the present time. What was USC doing being
rated number 2 in any poll to begin with? just because of their
record? They got beat by Cal for christ's sake. LSU lost their game
to Florida. Everyone knows Florida can beat any team on any given day.
They have talent. I think University of Miami Ohio could beat USC, no
shit. Where did their credit go? I'm so tired of politics in college
football I could shoot my self. The fact remains LSU got the 30,000$(
it's said to be priceless carved art) trophy and USC got the plastic
silver spray painted trophy that serves as a pacifier. The BCS is the
championship commitee ok chucklenuts. Who cares what the press says.
That's all politics for you sheep if that explains it better. I like
the Cubs but I'm not declaring them world series winner. Did any of
you sport watchers happen to to see the LSU defense and how they
totally shut down Heisman white? Does anyone really think USC has a
better offense than OK.? They scored 55 or more points in 7 of their
games. They are bad ass. Michagin /: any SEC team would whoop their
ass. The fact is the real championship trophy goes in our Laughton
room and that's it. We're not cutting it in half. Go Tigers and
congratulations to Lavalais on leading the LSU defense to national
glory. Saban if you don't stay we'll try to hire Spurrier he he he. I
think He's gonna needa job.
Telemachus
Carol needs to shut his sore looser mouth up. LSU would stomp the shit
Pat Durkin
"Telemachus" <telem...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:9a5a0949.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > And how about the Big East now that they lost both their real football
<<garbage snipped>>
Gee.
Ya liked what ya said so much ya decided to post it twice.
How nice.
Pat
Jon Morse
> Carol needs to shut his sore looser mouth up. LSU would stomp the shit
> out of USC if given the chance. Oklahoma would stomp the shit out of
> USC.
So I guess KSU would REALLY stomp the shit out of USC, huh...?
--
~jon
KSU '88
Vijay Ramanujan
> Jaros...I am so damn sick of this same crap from you over
> and over and over and over.
At what point does arguing with Jaros qualify as child abuse?
Vijay R.
jbird
Steve Jaros wrote:
>
>
> Only if you think the 6 major conferences and ND are mythical organizations.
I presume you're not counting the big XII as part of this, as surely if
a second place conference team would have won the BCS they wouldn't
consider them the champion.
PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt
TrojanFamilyMan
telem...@altavista.com (Telemachus) wrote:
Attention RFSC patrons:
Will the parent or guardian of a sockpuppet answering to the name of
"Telemachus" please report to the Bait & Tackle department immediately?!
He's causing quite a ruckus!
Thank you very much for your PROMPT attention to this matter!
bluemoon
> practices, said: ``LSU has better overall team speed than USC,
There you go, an Atlanta Falcons scout decalres LSU better than
USC...glad this little debate is finally cleared up for everyone
...now remind me again how well the Falcons are doing in the playoffs
this year???
Ralph Kennedy
> "Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote:
> > LSU is the BCS champion, and since USC is a member of the BCS, they are
> > USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
> > neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
> > It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
>
> It's also a recognized title and a part of the BCS calculations.
>
> Not only that, but the BCS administrator all but admitted more than
> once that this should never have happened.
>
> On top of THAT, USC dominated Michigan while Oklahoma and LSU tripped
> all over each other in New Orleans.
>
> Yes, LSU is the BCS champ and deserves it, but the system _FAILED_.
>
> It is time for a playoff.
Not necessarily. If the BCS had only put in the
rule that you have to win your conference (or at least
be tied for first in the case of smaller conferences
without a title game) then we all would have had the
USC vs. LSU game everyone wanted.
It doesn't make sense that a team can be the
national champion when it isn't even the champion
of its own conference, and OU's lousy performance
in the Sugar Bowl only served to further hammer that
notion home.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Telemachus
You didn't clip that from my post you fucking moron. So, don't post a
statement that shows that falacy you homo.
Telemachus
I think usc needs to play more than just Auburn in the SEC. How about
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, talking
about powerhouses.
probably so ksu vs. usc 55-0... in the first qaurter ( my egotistical
prediction) ha ha ha . . . (sigh) :/ hawaii, arizona state, arizona,
auburn, washington state, stanford, oregon state. . . really awesome
teams man. however I shouldn't dog out Auburn at least they have a
good coach. Hmmm, let's look at the Ok. schedule including: Colorado,
Texas Tech (Symons with the most passing yards in a season ever
record) Texas, texas A&M (77-0 good god bear bryant rolled over in his
grave) Oklahoma State, I'm just gonna stop because I know better than
to try and prove anything else just like the LSU tigers know better. I
must say USC has some of the best players in college football. They
can't help it their coach is no good and falsley claimed USC champs
before the Sugar had even started. Give me a break. Everybody shut up.
How did you guys like the sports illustrated cover? Number 1. number 1
(plastic trophy vs. pricless trophy) writers vs. the champioship
series that everyone agreed upon a long time ago). Let's just hope USC
can win the national championship next year. I have no doubt they have
the ability to be national championship quality again. However, this
year it belongs to the Bayou Bengals. Peace to my football realist out
there. Everyone else just keep dreaming.
TrojanFamilyMan
> I think usc needs to play more than just Auburn in the SEC. How about
> Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, talking
> about powerhouses.
>
> probably so ksu vs. usc 55-0... in the first qaurter ( my egotistical
> prediction) ha ha ha . . . (sigh) :/ hawaii, arizona state, arizona,
> auburn, washington state, stanford, oregon state. . . really awesome
> teams man. however I shouldn't dog out Auburn at least they have a
> good coach. Hmmm, let's look at the Ok. schedule including: Colorado,
> Texas Tech (Symons with the most passing yards in a season ever
> record) Texas, texas A&M (77-0 good god bear bryant rolled over in his
> grave) Oklahoma State, I'm just gonna stop because I know better than
> to try and prove anything else just like the LSU tigers know better. I
> must say USC has some of the best players in college football. They
> can't help it their coach is no good and falsley claimed USC champs
> before the Sugar had even started. Give me a break. Everybody shut up.
> How did you guys like the sports illustrated cover? Number 1. number 1
> (plastic trophy vs. pricless trophy) writers vs. the champioship
> series that everyone agreed upon a long time ago). Let's just hope USC
> can win the national championship next year. I have no doubt they have
> the ability to be national championship quality again. However, this
> year it belongs to the Bayou Bengals. Peace to my football realist out
> there. Everyone else just keep dreaming.
This is some world-class baiting. We may be in the presence of true
geenyus here, fellow rsfckers.
Jon Morse
Yean, but... good bait shouldn't be thrown out there in one big pile
like that. It scares off the fish, and sinks to the bottom. You gotta
ease it out there.
--
~jon
KSU '88
Herndon, VA
J.
Kennedy) wrote:
>star...@yahoo.com (Michael Falkner) writes:
>> "Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote:
>> > LSU is the BCS champion, and since USC is a member of the BCS, they are
>> > USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
>> > neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
>> > It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
>>
>> It's also a recognized title and a part of the BCS calculations.
>>
>> Not only that, but the BCS administrator all but admitted more than
>> once that this should never have happened.
>>
>> On top of THAT, USC dominated Michigan while Oklahoma and LSU tripped
>> all over each other in New Orleans.
>>
>> Yes, LSU is the BCS champ and deserves it, but the system _FAILED_.
>>
>> It is time for a playoff.
>
> Not necessarily. If the BCS had only put in the
>rule that you have to win your conference (or at least
>be tied for first in the case of smaller conferences
>without a title game) then we all would have had the
>USC vs. LSU game everyone wanted.
Oh, okay, so let's put that rule in and then everything will be
perfect, right? Until two years from now when we're arguing over some
other team that got "screwed."
> It doesn't make sense that a team can be the
>national champion when it isn't even the champion
>of its own conference, and OU's lousy performance
>in the Sugar Bowl only served to further hammer that
>notion home.
And what notion did Kansas State's lousy performance in the Fiesta
Bowl serve to hammer home?
J.
-
Salad is Murder
"The hitman had already been hired; camouflaged as a
disregarded red light, faulty wiring, caramelized
animal fat." -- Tibor Fischer
Jon Morse
> And what notion did Kansas State's lousy performance in the Fiesta
> Bowl serve to hammer home?
That you shouldn't be chasing loose poon just before the bowel game,
especially if it's going to get you questioned by the local authorities?
Telemachus
yea I need to lay off the crack your mother keeps selling me. that
slut just wants some shlong. fuck ya rsfdumbfcker.
TrojanFamilyMan
Jon Morse <jmo...@usenetserver.com> wrote:
That's true. There's like probably twenty or thirty good posts in there
if he would have been a little more patient. I mean, I actually might
have bitten if he would have just posted the first paragraph.
Ralph Kennedy
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:10:54 GMT, ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph
> Kennedy) wrote:
>
> >star...@yahoo.com (Michael Falkner) writes:
> >> "Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote:
> >> > LSU is the BCS champion, and since USC is a member of the BCS, they are
> >> > USC's champion as well. On the other hand, neither are members of the AP, so
> >> > neither has to recognize the other as their champion based on an AP vote.
> >> > It's merely the collective opinion of a gaggle of sportswriters.
> >>
> >> It's also a recognized title and a part of the BCS calculations.
> >>
> >> Not only that, but the BCS administrator all but admitted more than
> >> once that this should never have happened.
> >>
> >> On top of THAT, USC dominated Michigan while Oklahoma and LSU tripped
> >> all over each other in New Orleans.
> >>
> >> Yes, LSU is the BCS champ and deserves it, but the system _FAILED_.
> >>
> >> It is time for a playoff.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If the BCS had only put in the
> >rule that you have to win your conference (or at least
> >be tied for first in the case of smaller conferences
> >without a title game) then we all would have had the
> >USC vs. LSU game everyone wanted.
>
> Oh, okay, so let's put that rule in and then everything will be
> perfect, right?
No, but a major pitfall that's already bitten
us twice will be eliminated. And seeing as to
how the college presidents are dead set against
playoffs, at least it would be a very positive
step.
> > It doesn't make sense that a team can be the
> >national champion when it isn't even the champion
> >of its own conference, and OU's lousy performance
> >in the Sugar Bowl only served to further hammer that
> >notion home.
>
> And what notion did Kansas State's lousy performance in the Fiesta
> Bowl serve to hammer home?
The same one even more so, that OU had no business
being in the Sugar Bowl.
Michael Falkner
> Carol needs to shut his sore looser mouth up. LSU would stomp the shit
> out of USC if given the chance. Oklahoma would stomp the shit out of
> USC. The BCS is like democracy, it may seem like it sucks, but it's
> the best system we have at the present time
Bullshit. I could come up with a better system given five minutes of
thought.
Of course, it would TNT the entire bowl system.
And as for your argument on LSU v. USC: You miss the point. Get them
on the damn field and settle it that way!!
Mike