Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BCWWF
1. I didn't respond to the AP being used for 70 years because that doesn't prove anything.
2. The Big 10 is a deeper conference then the Big 10, but the Big 12 has much better teams. Texas, Kansas State, Nebraska, and Oklahoma were all better then probably 9 or 10 or the Big 10 teams. Even your beloved AP Poll had Oklahoma better then Michigan, I don't see how you can take that away from them. They dominated the whole season and lost to a K-State team that was better then the Cal team USC lost to.
|
1. You're arguing the legitimacy of the BCS over the AP. The AP poll
was the national championship for the greater part of the last century. If you look up who won the national title in ..say..1954..then that team would be the one that was named #1 in the AP poll. How is that
not relevant?
2. A team that doesn't win its conference shouldn't be playing for the national title. Period. Even the BCS figured out that stupid loophole because they changed it not even a month after the season ended. And even then I'm not saying LSU wasn't a deserving champion or whatever. I'm saying that USC has just a legit a reason to call themselves national champions.
You're saying that they should have some stupid * or that their title is meaningless because they didn't win the BCS game which is utter bullshit. Right now, the way college football is set up, the BCS system carries no more weight than the previous bowl system. Under those rules, there have been 10 split national champions, four since 199o alone.
How you can argue that the 2002 championship won by LSU is somehow more sacred than the 1990 title won by Georgia Tech or the 1997 title won by Nebraska because it was mandated by a BCS system that has proven to be flawed and had to be re-calibrated
every year in its existence is totally and completely beyond me. You just seem to have a hard-on against the fact that USC is getting so much national coverage for its three-peat attempt.