I'm glad we won. we looked pretty bad in the second half but pulled it out. man our defense looked tired. i wish we could of played usc. it would of been a good game. at least we get the national championship trophy. the trophy all coaches and teams agree is the real national championship trophy.
nick saban, the highest paid coach in college football. he has to stay now right? LSU is the national champions. I feel bad for USC but college football should either play another game between LSU and USC or make LSU the unanimous national champions. it sucks the bcs let college football down this year but fans, coaches, and ap voters should name LSU the champions this year.
My vote would go to LSU. Even though USC beat up on Michigan I think LSU is the better team. Besides, how could you have a national champ who lost to a team who isn't even in the top 60 in the nation like USC's loss to Cal? Just thank goodness OU didn't win because then we would have had a national champ that didn't win their conference.
[b][color=blue]Owner of Absolutely Fabulous:[/b][/color]Miami Redhawks Defending League Champions, 10 team 2 keeper money league.
AF wrote:My vote would go to LSU. Even though USC beat up on Michigan I think LSU is the better team. Besides, how could you have a national champ who lost to a team who isn't even in the top 60 in the nation like USC's loss to Cal? Just thank goodness OU didn't win because then we would have had a national champ that didn't win their conference.
The AP poll was idiotic. How can you give the vast majority of votes to USC? I think most people would agree, between OU, USC, LSU and Michigan, Michigan is far and away the weakest team out of the four. LSU lost to a ranked team, OU lost to a ranked team, USC lost to... Cal. Michigan had two losses. By my guess, the two weakest teams of the 4 played each other in the Rose Bowl.
LSU clearly had the tougher opponent and they won convincingly. They deserve to have the nat'l title unshared. Polls is the idiotic system we were trying to get away from in the first place. Like it or not, the Sugar Bowl was between OU and LSU. LSU won it, they are the champions, screw all the sentimental voting BS.
Does anyone else think that the media reporting that OU would make the Sugar Bowl whether or not they beat K State had an effect on their performance?
the coaches picked the bcs champion as their national champion. who cares what a bunch of sports writers think. if usc did not agree with the system before the season then they would have a complaint. its too late to change their mind now and say the system sucks since it did not go their way.
Right on. The choice was clear really, I don't see what all the fuss is about. USC lost to a weaker team than the other two, and beat weaker teams than the other two. THEY ONLY PLAYED ONE TEAM IN THE REGULAR SEASON WITH LESS THAN 5 LOSSES, THAT'S ABSURD. They're a good team, but they didn't have impressive wins during the season, and don't say they got screwed by their easy schedule, because when you have a schedule that easy and lose a game, you're not a national champion.
It all comes down to this. The BCS has been said to take "when" you lose out of the equation, and this just proves that.
Let's look at the facts:
USC lost to the easiest team of the 3 teams three losses.
USC had the easiest schedule of the 3 teams.
USC was #3 in the BCS.
USC was the FIRST team to lose of the three.
USC was #1 in the AP poll.
Pretty much proves it to me. All that matters to sportswriters is WHEN you lost. I've said it a million times, if OU had lost to KSU early, and throttled Texas by 50 in the last game, they would've been #1. If USC had lost to Cal a few games later, they would've been #3.
While I'm here, I wanna touch on this "additional game" thing that people are talking about. People keep saying "one more game," and that USC should play LSU now, and that's how they think the system should work.
Well sure, that would work out nicely THIS year. It worked out in the perfect way so that there were split nat'l champs and that an extra game would decide it THIS year. How long has the BCS been around? And it took this long for it to happen, what's that, 1 in 8 years?
The bottom line is that "extra game" wouldn't work right every year, and in most instances it would do more harm than good.
What if OU had won the Big 12 title game and beat LSU, and Mich had beaten USC? Then we would have 13-0 OU against 11-2 Mich, so say Mich beats OU in the "extra game," now weve got 12-2 Michigan as #1 and 13-1 OU as #2.
More times than not, there's either 1 undefeated team left at the end of the year, or one 1 loss team left at the end of the year, is it fair to them that they would have to play an extra game against someone with a worse record?
Again, two years ago Miami beats Nebraska in the nat'l title game to finish 12-0. The #3 team ithat year was my beloved Gators at 11-2, would matching those two up be fair to the canes? No. Even if you did some kind of seeding where #1 played #4 and #2 played #3 first, then if UF won, we would still have 12-0 UM against 11-2 UF for the national title?
What about last year? OSU beats Miami, then who do they play? Who was #3 last year? If I can't even remember, do they deserve a shot at the national championship against a team that just went 13-0 and knocked off the only other undefeated team? Everyone was saying USC was the hottest team in the country last year and that they could've beaten anyone, but they were #6 going into bowl week, so an extra game wouldn't have helped them.
Sure, an extra game would've been nice this year. But this happening once in 8 years doesn't mean should screw up the other 7.