|
|
Sorry but USC did lose a game in 2003 and was overrated in 2007. I honestly believe that LSU deserved both titles. The Weakest of the BCS my ass. The talent on both those teams is some of the best this decade. All those Louisiana Boys were good. As much as I dislike the attitude that those tigger fans have I know they are and have been better than OU and USC.
SC would have destroyed them in 03 and, like I say, I *like* LSU
Originally Posted by Luminaire
???? Negative. And weren't all the experts ready to annoint that OU team as possibly the greatest college football team ever before the season was even over. Then they didnt just get beat by KSU and LSU, they got dominated! You never know til you play the game.
If the Mountaineers hadnt decided to choke in the 2007 Backyard Brawl, Jim Tressel wouldve been seen hoisting the Sears trophy 5 weeks later over the mangled remains of the WVU football team. Make no mistake ... the $ec champion was in that NC game by default, not by right. Seriously, a 2-loss champion??? When was the last time that happened?
I checked -- it was Minnesota in 1960. (That was back when the polls came out before the bowls were played.) If you're looking for weakest championships ever, you've GOT to consider the 2-loss teams pretty high on your list.
As for 2003 ... we'll never know who was better. Chigger fans can pontificate all they want about the legitimacy of their bcs title. But history will record that the national consensus was split. Just like the 1997 Michigan/Nebraska split. Or Miami/Washington in 91. Or GaTech/Colorado the year before. The world will just never know which was better.
So again, when you're making a list of weakest championships ever, you've got to strongly consider those years when there was no clear consensus as to who was the best.
So let ellessewe crow about their NCs. Good for them. Did they have the best team in those particular years? Maybe. Heck, probably. But when considered in the broader context of all the national champions ever named in college football, the recent titles they've claimed are somewhat lacking.
You really think OSU's D could have kept up with White and Slaton?
Well, yes.
But that wasnt really the point.
You can say that they got lucky and fell into the game... but they could have also stumbled again themselves and not been in position to fall into the game....
can anyone tell me the last time a "national champion" lost its final regular season game? they did stumble again. it was against arkansas for their second loss. then they lucked their way into the backdoor of the title game.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
"But Arkansas is in the SEC"
Good thing they are in a real conference with a championship game. Unlike the Little 10 and Pac 10.
yeah 2007
Look, you know as well as I do, that two double overtime losses are not the same as two regulation losses. When it gets to overtime in college football, it is anyone's game. One player (McFadden) can change a game...
You can't really think the SEC's way of determining a conference champion is better than the PAC10's? ALL of their teams play. It doesn't get better than that.
The Big10/11 I will grant you has the worst of both worlds.
The argument is that SC beat Arkansas by 300 pointsyeah 2007
Look, you know as well as I do, that two double overtime losses are not the same as two regulation losses. When it gets to overtime in college football, it is anyone's game. One player (McFadden) can change a game...
I'm sorry, but saying that one team beat another that beat another is a rediculous argument. Also, you have to look at what point in the season these two games were played. Teams can drasitcly change throughout the course of a season.
I take exception to the implied premise.
I would submit that given team's season ought to be considered as a whole, and maintain that any selection criteria should be geared towards determining the most deserving teams. Then let those most deserving teams (be it 2, 4, 8,or 64) settle on the field who is best.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
