National Title Game: 1.USC vs. 2.Oklahoma

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

As for attending the Rutger games, it was just nice to bond somewhere outside of the gross anatomy lab with friends.

Well at the very least you could have a section for yourself .

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well at the very least you could have a section for yourself .

We did always get free tickets. Was that the same for all students? I never knew, but assumed that all students got free tickets. I thought it was a great deal as I had to pay about 70-80 dollars/season for USC student tickets.

[SunDancer]

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ISiddiqui]

No quit in this team... and Caroll's USC has been great in these big time bowl games. They blew out Michigan last year and took OU behind the woodshed this time!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

We did always get free tickets. Was that the same for all students? I never knew, but assumed that all students got free tickets. I thought it was a great deal as I had to pay about 70-80 dollars/season for USC student tickets.

Yep... totally free. But I was on College Avenue, which meant I had to take the bus to Busch campus and if it was a 1 o'clock game that hindered my plans to sleep until 4 every weekend .

[ISiddiqui]

It's funny on College Gameday EVERY commentator picked Oklahoma, EXCEPT Lee Corso, who put on the Trojan hat in the Oklahoma stands. Man, Corso is great .

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep... totally free. But I was on College Avenue, which meant I had to take the bus to Busch campus and if it was a 1 o'clock game that hindered my plans to sleep until 4 every weekend .

Hehe.. I could see how that would be a problem.

We are the Champions! I love hearing that in the background.

[ISiddiqui]

But I literally did go to 2 Rutgers games. The game against Army my frosh year (we won, and then stormed the field.. yay!) and the game against Cal my senior year (were Cal won its only game that year... and now, won 10 wins).

Btw, I hate this crap of the network doing the presenting the trophy, so they have to interview everyone. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't remember this 10 years ago or whatever.

[ISiddiqui]

WOW... The ABC people just said Pete Carroll has won 42 games in 4 years and 2 National Championships (yes, they and I consider the AP championship last year as an NC). What a Hell of a run!

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

WOW... The ABC people just said Pete Carroll has won 42 games in 4 years and 2 National Championships (yes, they and I consider the AP championship last year as an NC). What a Hell of a run!

He's a damn fine coach. I wonder when other big time colleges start hiring former NFL coaches, instead of the other way around?

Hey, Martz to Missouri! I bet Brad Smith would love that...hahah...


Todd

[ISiddiqui]

Well Groh went to Virginia . Wannstedt has gone to Pittsburgh as well.

Anyway, I just realized, can you IMAGINE this USC offense if Mike Williams was allowed to play for them this year?

[Bomber]

Anyone want to argue that the BCS didn't work?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Today OU proves no team in the Pac-10 deserves to go to the BCS.

Originally Posted by Bomber

Ball game over. USC wins. You heard it here first

That didn't take long.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

That didn't take long.

As I said earlier I didn't care who won. I have no interest in college football, outside of TCY that is. I'm a college basketball fan thus my hatred for the overrated conference that is Pac-10 basketball.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Cringer

They beat Seattle twice this year, I give them a hell of a lot better chance then Iwould the Trojans.

Then again what do you know? You bet on the OU tonight.



I know this is really belated, and probably duplicated, but I couldn't resist.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Then again what do you know? You bet on the OU tonight.



I know this is really belated, and probably duplicated, but I couldn't resist.

somewhat duplicated, but thats ok.


and you get the same answer, I was rooting for USC because I do not like Oklahoma that much. Ok, not relly the same answer but close....

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bomber

As I said earlier I didn't care who won. I have no interest in college football, outside of TCY that is. I'm a college basketball fan thus my hatred for the overrated conference that is Pac-10 basketball.

Wow, you just don't know when to stop putting your foot in your mouth do you?

[MrBug708]

Next you'll try to reason how Kentucky has a better history then UCLA?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Yes, I went there from 92 to 96 and graduated with a BS in Biological Sciences (was Pre-Med.) I had a great 4 years there (including this Amazing Party thrown by Keyshawn Johnson my Senior year, as well as many other good memories.

Did you ever beat UCLA or ND?

[Senator]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It appears that way, but not quite in the direction you first thought...

Show where I said it was going to be a blowout by OK.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

WOW... The ABC people just said Pete Carroll has won 42 games in 4 years and 2 National Championships (yes, they and I consider the AP championship last year as an NC). What a Hell of a run!

Of course they do. USC has been the media darling all year long. But this is USC's first national championship under Carroll. Last year they finished first in the AP poll, one component of the BCS championship formula. The media will rewrite history, but nothing changes the fact that USC did not win the national chamionship last year. They did not get the crystal footaball And based on Carroll's comments two nights ago about the BCS title, it is the system in use and should be respected, so that is how we judge national champions.

And, btw, nothing against this year's USC team. They are w/o doubt the best team in the country this year and deserve all the accolades they are getting, for this season. Too bad they couldn't have played the second best team in the country though.

And too bad USC didn't get to play LSU for the national title last year, which is the position I argued last year at this time.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Anyone want to argue that the BCS didn't work?

It did produce a definitive champion, but it did so through 2 shitty end of the year bowl games. It worked in a 90's Super Bowl kinda way, I guess...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Noop

This reminds me of Florida-Nebraska... I wonder can USC score 60+...

Hey I made that observation 4-5 pages ago.

Surely this beating was the payback for holding FSU's offense scoreless in 2000. If you split the difference, FSU and USC should have had 28 points apiece against OU. It's just too bad we didn't have an offensive coordinator who was as undesirable as a head coach as Norm Chow. We had to have Richt.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Anyone want to argue that the BCS didn't work?

Yes.

Auburn - Undefeated
USC - Undefeated
Utah - Undefeated

Tell me one is better than another.

Utah, 2004 National Champions!

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Hey I made that observation 4-5 pages ago.

Surely this beating was the payback for holding FSU's offense scoreless in 2000. If you split the difference, FSU and USC should have had 28 points apiece against OU. It's just too bad we didn't have an offensive coordinator who was as undesirable as a head coach as Norm Chow. We had to have Richt.

Very true. Atleast we have George Henshaw he should add some NFL type plays for the Seminoles.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yes.

Auburn - Undefeated
USC - Undefeated
Utah - Undefeated

Tell me one is better than another.

OK, USC is better than both

The Trojans had the tougher schedule (by an metric you choose) and looked impressive in their toughest game of the season. While it would be nice to have some sort of playoff, there is no reasonable argument that can be made to state Auburn or Utah was a better team than USC.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, USC is better than both

The Trojans had the tougher schedule (by an metric you choose) and looked impressive in their toughest game of the season. While it would be nice to have some sort of playoff, there is no reasonable argument that can be made to state Auburn or Utah was a better team than USC.

Auburn went undefeated in the SEC. USC went undefeated in the Pac-TWO. That is the difference. I think USC is the better team, and Auburn played a weak OOC schedule, but USC did not have to play a strong conference schedule, no matter what Sagarin says.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

nothing changes the fact that USC did not win the national chamionship last year

Yes they did. Just because the Coaches Poll (BCS) didn't vote for them as national champions doesn't change anything (and yes, the Coaches Poll is locked in with the BCS championship because the schools realized that the polls confer national championships, not their unholy concoction). Are we going to take away national championships from other teams who split the crown because the 'proper' poll said they didn't win?

I've always considered the AP poll to be the better measure, but a team that finishes #1 in the Coaches Poll also deserves to be national champion.

USC definitely won a split the national championship last, even though the BCS/Coaches Poll didn't put them on top.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by JW

Auburn went undefeated in the SEC. USC went undefeated in the Pac-TWO. That is the difference. I think USC is the better team, and Auburn played a weak OOC schedule, but USC did not have to play a strong conference schedule, no matter what Sagarin says.

Look, I hate the BCS system and I hate USC probably even more. But there's no way after watching Monday night and Tuesday night's game that USC is not the better team.

I can understand why Auburn fans are disappointed, but they got to end their season with a win. I have no doubt the way USC played they would have humiliated Auburn as well were Auburn in the Orange Bowl.

[Ksyrup]

I guess it depends on how much stock you put in being undefeated. This is why I enjoy the NFL much more than college football, because being undefeated doesn't really mean jack in the NFL, whereas in college, it's seen as some automatic right to claim a piece of the championship - even if you are not a part of the championship game determined by the system agreed to by all of the schools. I just don't see why Utah or Auburn thinks they've been wronged simply because they went undefeated. There are 117 Div. I schools of varying size and ability, split up into geographic conferences - you're bound to have several good teams dominate their conferences and claim they are the best.

By playing these "what if" games with the remaining undefeateds or even 1-loss teams, you're feeding into one of the main reasons Div. I will never have a playoff - it's good for business, both from a water cooler discussion standpoint, as well as financially for all of the conferences/bowls involved. There is no incentive to change. Hell, even the people who feel like they've been personally screwed out of a championship are gone in 3-4 years.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Wow, you just don't know when to stop putting your foot in your mouth do you?

Uh oh. I think I angered a UDub fan. Watch out bball fans. Do you really think everyone already forgot how bad west coast basketball is after last year? Stanford and Gonzaga in 2004 = Arizona, UW, and Gonzaga in 2005. They might beat up on the crap they got out there, but they can't tango with any of the other top schools when it counts.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes they did. Just because the Coaches Poll (BCS) didn't vote for them as national champions doesn't change anything (and yes, the Coaches Poll is locked in with the BCS championship because the schools realized that the polls confer national championships, not their unholy concoction). Are we going to take away national championships from other teams who split the crown because the 'proper' poll said they didn't win?

I've always considered the AP poll to be the better measure, but a team that finishes #1 in the Coaches Poll also deserves to be national champion.

USC definitely won a split the national championship last, even though the BCS/Coaches Poll didn't put them on top.

The only title recognized by the NCAA is the BCS title. Period. Even Carroll said that -- this year of course. You can say what you want about the AP poll. It is just a poll. There is one NCAA 1A football national championship. Period.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by JW

The only title recognized by the NCAA is the BCS title. Period. Even Carroll said that -- this year of course. You can say what you want about the AP poll. It is just a poll. There is one NCAA 1A football national championship. Period.

I thought the NCAA didn't officially recognize any football champion. I guess it would make sense they recognized the BCS winner though.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, USC is better than both

The Trojans had the tougher schedule (by an metric you choose) and looked impressive in their toughest game of the season. While it would be nice to have some sort of playoff, there is no reasonable argument that can be made to state Auburn or Utah was a better team than USC.

No, Utah is better than both.

By far larger margin of victory than either Auburn or USC.

See how easy it is to use a statistic to back up any side of this discussion? With 3 undefeated teams, ANY argument is reasonable as to which is the better team because none of them have lost and have had their moments all season long.

Without a playoff, there is no "National Champion". There's just the awarded victor of the Bowl Crap System.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JW

The only title recognized by the NCAA is the BCS title. Period. Even Carroll said that -- this year of course. You can say what you want about the AP poll. It is just a poll. There is one NCAA 1A football national championship. Period.

The NCAA does not recognize the BCS. There is no official Division I-A National Champion in football, in fact it is the only sport in the NCAA that does not declare a national champion.

[JW]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Look, I hate the BCS system and I hate USC probably even more. But there's no way after watching Monday night and Tuesday night's game that USC is not the better team.

I can understand why Auburn fans are disappointed, but they got to end their season with a win. I have no doubt the way USC played they would have humiliated Auburn as well were Auburn in the Orange Bowl.

I definitely think USC is the best team in the country. However, that doesn't mean they would have humiliated Auburn. Lots of funny things can happen in a football game, and the best team -- even the far better team -- doesn't always win. Too bad Auburn didn't get the opportunity.

[Blackadar]

Dola.

I actually prefer the old Bowl system to this. Under the old system, there was a mythical National Championship as voted by the polls. But it also left some room for fun debate.

With this travesty of a system, there's still the debate, but now there's some annointed National Champion to try to give some appearance of legitimacy to the process. But it's just a smokescreen. Smoke and mirrors, baby.

Utah proved this year that without a playoff, a mid-major team will NEVER be able to earn a shot for the title. Just look at today's polls - Oklahoma, after being embarassed last night, is still ahead of an undefeated Utah team that has destroyed all its opponents by an average of almost 4 touchdowns. Think it's going to get any better with the majors now choosing in committee the participants?

[JW]

Originally Posted by Celeval

The NCAA does not recognize the BCS. There is no official Division I-A National Champion in football, in fact it is the only sport in the NCAA that does not declare a national champion.

My mistake. When I say the NCAA, I really mean the 1A football schools, including USC. They recognize the BCS title. USC agreed to the BCS arrangement. I didn't see them turning down the crystal football.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Dola.

I actually prefer the old Bowl system to this. Under the old system, there was a mythical National Championship as voted by the polls. But it also left some room for fun debate.

With this travesty of a system, there's still the debate, but now there's some annointed National Champion to try to give some appearance of legitimacy to the process. But it's just a smokescreen. Smoke and mirrors, baby.

Utah proved this year that without a playoff, a mid-major team will NEVER be able to earn a shot for the title. Just look at today's polls - Oklahoma, after being embarassed last night, is still ahead of an undefeated Utah team that has destroyed all its opponents by an average of almost 4 touchdowns. Think it's going to get any better with the majors now choosing in committee the participants?

I agree. We had the same arguments in the old days, but no anointing an 'official' champion. I wonder now about the future of the BCS. Of course the media loves it this year because they were in love with USC all year.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JW

My mistake. When I say the NCAA, I really mean the 1A football schools, including USC. They recognize the BCS title. USC agreed to the BCS arrangement. I didn't see them turning down the crystal football.

Right. Big difference, though - means that 30 years from now when the system has changed three times, looking back at a list of "National Championships", that USC will be listed as 2003 (AP) and 2004 (AP & BCS) champions - same way as both Georgia Tech (UPI) and Colorado (AP) claim 1990, Michigan (AP) and Nebraska (ESPN) claim 1997, and Michigan State (UPI) and Alabama (AP) claim 1965.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Right. Big difference, though - means that 30 years from now when the system has changed three times, looking back at a list of "National Championships", that USC will be listed as 2003 (AP) and 2004 (AP & BCS) champions - same way as both Georgia Tech (UPI) and Colorado (AP) claim 1990, Michigan (AP) and Nebraska (ESPN) claim 1997, and Michigan State (UPI) and Alabama (AP) claim 1965.

That is the way the media will portray it. However, USC agreed to a system whereby the national champion is determined by the BCS system. To bad USC did not feel like honoring its agreement last year.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Dola.

I actually prefer the old Bowl system to this. Under the old system, there was a mythical National Championship as voted by the polls. But it also left some room for fun debate.

I'm not big on defending the BCS, I'm very pro-playoffs, but the old system was definitely not better.

At least with this system, everyone agreed we pretty much had 2 of the top 3 teams playing each other (there weren't many folks saying Utah was better than OK before last night). Regardless of whether it's a legitimate championship, it's a matchup many people (who arent' looking in hindsight) wanted to see.

In the old system, USC would have played Michigan (ugh) and I doubt OK would have played Auburn (have to look that one up). So how is that better?

At least we are guaranteed a matchup of two top teams in the BCS championship. In the old days frequently none of the best teams were ever matched up in Bowls.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What Moriarty says here is interesting to me, because I at least qualify as a "wouldn't mind a bit if the old system was restored" guy but I agree with a lot of what he's saying too.

Trying to find a list of the former bowl tie-ins, I ran across this column
http://www.freep.com/sports/rosenber...e_20041209.htm
Detroit Free Press columnist Michael Rosenberg probably sums up a lot of my feelings at the end:
Until then, why not go back to the old system? Look what we have now: one a national championship game, which isn't even a real national championship game, overshadowing the rest. And then we have a bunch of arguments, led by anonymous dopes on the Internet, typing with their one remaining tooth.

Under the old system, we would have THREE games with an influence on the national championship, but none would claim to be something other than what they are. And then we'd have a bunch of arguments, but only among friends and patrons of the same tavern. Sounds like progress to me.

I guess where I come down on the old system is that I won't claim it was much better, but I don't think it was much worse either, just different.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Did you ever beat UCLA or ND?

When was the last time UCLA beat USC? Also when was the last time UCLA were National Champs? Hey who was the last Heisman to come out of UCLA?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I'm not big on defending the BCS, I'm very pro-playoffs, but the old system was definitely not better.

At least with this system, everyone agreed we pretty much had 2 of the top 3 teams playing each other (there weren't many folks saying Utah was better than OK before last night). Regardless of whether it's a legitimate championship, it's a matchup many people (who arent' looking in hindsight) wanted to see.

In the old system, USC would have played Michigan (ugh) and I doubt OK would have played Auburn (have to look that one up). So how is that better?

At least we are guaranteed a matchup of two top teams in the BCS championship. In the old days frequently none of the best teams were ever matched up in Bowls.

I didn't say the old system was "better". I said I prefered it. Until the best teams can prove it on the field, any "National Championship" is mythical anyway. And while we had a couple of the best teams on the field last night, at least 2 weren't playing.

I'd rather have the debate than a paper champion.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by moriarty

In the old system, USC would have played Michigan (ugh) and I doubt OK would have played Auburn (have to look that one up). So how is that better?

Old system would have been:
Rose - USC v Michigan
Sugar - Auburn v Virginia Tech
Orange - Oklahoma v Pitt
Fiesta - Cal v Texas

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

When I say the NCAA, I really mean the 1A football schools, including USC.

Um... no they didn't. They didn't decide that the BCS was going to be the end all to decide a national championship and it would be the only recognized one. The BCS's ONLY purpose is to pit #1 vs. #2. I don't think anyone signed on thinking that the AP poll is now irrelevent except as part of the formula.

If they REALLY wanted the BCS Championship as the only recognized college football championship they would have put the AP poll as contractually obligated to vote for the BCS winner as they did with the Coaches poll. They didn't so it isn't.

Simple as that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If they REALLY wanted the BCS Championship as the only recognized college football championship they would have put the AP poll as contractually obligated to vote for the BCS winner as they did with the Coaches poll. They didn't so it isn't. Simple as that.

Actually, I don't believe there's a chance in hell that AP would have agreed to such a contractual stipulation under any circumstance. So I don't know if we can really read much into "what the NCAA (et al) wanted" into the failure of such a stipulation. I would suspect that it's something that they wouldn't have minded having, but knew they couldn't get so they just didn't worry about it.

A bit of a ticky-tacky point perhaps, but I couldn't really tell from your phrasing whether you had considered that angle or not (darned internet, sometimes nuances get lost, etc).

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Uh oh. I think I angered a UDub fan. Watch out bball fans. Do you really think everyone already forgot how bad west coast basketball is after last year? Stanford and Gonzaga in 2004 = Arizona, UW, and Gonzaga in 2005. They might beat up on the crap they got out there, but they can't tango with any of the other top schools when it counts.

I don't remember an East coast team beating Gonzaga when "it counts." Unless Reno has relocated to New Jersey.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dangarion

When was the last time UCLA beat USC? Also when was the last time UCLA were National Champs? Hey who was the last Heisman to come out of UCLA?

We beat USC last year and won an National Championship in 1995. If you look at the NCAA's site, you'll not find one USC championship in any sport that matters