USC or LSU, Who Is True Champion?

[Steve]

My first non soccer post and I think its deserving of customs not looking strangely and suspicsiouly at an American wearing soccer shirts upon re-entry into the states. ::

 

As a long time USC fan (student body right, student left, those were the days) and my alma mater being a rival of LSU in the Southeastern conference, I may be a little biased. But I have to go with USC and I'm being as objective as I can.

 

What this split championship really does do is scream out loud for a play-off system of sorts. All the other sports have one and Div II and III have it as well. So a second question. Why don't we have one for Division IA? Somewhere in the real answer money is bound to be the real reason.

[Guest]

Ironically, the BCS this year created the very thing it was supposed to eliminate: a split championship! Even though they didn't get the chance to prove it, in the minds of most people USC is #1. The BCS has been such a failure and just seemed such a bad idea in the first place. Each time the computers screw up and eliminate the #2 team (this year #1!!!), the BCS guys are like "yeah, that was a mistake, we'll tweak the system next year and we should have known better". This year, they are singing the same tune--the computers should account for when a team loses too. Apparently, a playoff system would bring in more money than a bowl system. I've heard some bizarre reasons for the bowls, none of which makes much sense (more teams can compete, athletes have more time for school). I could live with just an 8 deep playoff! Throw out the computers and just average the coaches and AP poll to select the top 8 and give any team with an unbeaten season an automatic bid.

[sfinkz]

100,000 votes in at ESPN and running 55-45% SC. I consider the season a success as I witnessed my revitalized Cal Bears hand the Trojans their only loss and then went on to win the best bowl game (over Va. Tech). This year, for all its flaws, marks the 9th champion in nine years. It's a controversy that was bound to catch up to the BCS as in prior years there was only one undefeated team; this year none (and two lesser-known schools (Miami-Ohio and Boise State) only lost one game each, both early-on and to good teams on the road otherwise they would be howling as well). Despite me being bowled-out and missing most of last night's game there is too much tradition wedded to the bowls. I'm not in favor of a playoff (and for SC's sake they can be thankful the Pac-10 doesn't have a conference playoff in December as do most of the other major conferences which also makes the system unfair). Rather, I'd like to see the bowl system remain as is for the most part and when the smoke clears the top two teams play the week after as when there is a controversy it only seems to involve two teams anyway, as the case this year. Gotta be a lot of bucks in that and these student-athletes, who aren't in class at this time anyway, are affected at only two schools. Seems like a win-win.

[..]

Geaux Tigers!!!

 

Cheers,

SD

[frogpatrol]

chocolat steve said:

::

As a long time USC fan (student body right, student left, those were the days) and my alma mater being a rival of LSU in the Southeastern conference, I may be a little biased. But I have to go with USC and I'm being as objective as I can.

 

As a long-time UCLA fan, I must go with LSU

[itsmedave]

From what I've seen and heard, it appears USC was seriously robbed.

 

The solution seems obvious. Keep the bowl games, but add a playoff system for the top 4, or 8 teams. Run the playoffs during the Christmas season, so that the final game stays at the end of bowl season. No loss of money, no controversy about who's number 1, and...EVEN MORE football games!!! Everybody comes out ahead.

 

As usual, I appear to know more than everybody else (at least in my eyes)

[Steve]

First, Froggo I like UCLA in basketball, So Cal for football, strange but growing up I hated Notre Dame and So Cal played them in football annually and UCLA in basketball hence the split.

 

itsmedave, from what I understand the problem are the university presidents and the political/financial power of the bowls. I don't see why they can't do what they do now and the majors (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton) rotate the champtionship and the other 3 as the playoffs. The university presidents have their thumbs up you know what and are antiquated, non sports people. Academics who have a huge control over a non academic event. Look at the antiquated NCAA rules for instance. It doesn't allow for change in sports and society.

 

USC looked phenominal though. They would have beaten both IMO as they are strong on both sides of the ball. Their defense is out of this world. LSU wouldn't score more than 10 or 14 points and the offense would be playing with a short field (3 and out then punt for LSU...sounds like my sex life...lol) and having to only go 60-80 yards for a score. Scary thing is USC will be strong next year as well. All the great southern cal prospects who would leave are staying home.