Total National Championships

[johngateswhiteley]

100% False - common fallacy. I see why USC fans get so frustrated - and I'm a UT grad. There is no BCS champ. The BCS is just a mechanism to put #1 and #2 together for a bowl game; a mechanism developed by the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, the major conferences, and ABC (now Fox-ABC). This mechanism makes quite a bit of $ for all the parties involved (leading to the anti-trust talk from smaller conferences), but does not crown a national le.

As part of the BCS deal, the Coaches association agreed to crown the winner of the #1-#2 game as their national champion. The AP did not agree to this and continues to crown their own champion. In fact, this is what allowed to AP to make the BCS remove the AP poll from the BCS standing calculation last year.

So at the end of the year the Coaches poll crowns a national champ, which is contractually the winner of the BCS le game. The AP poll does the same, but is not bound to select anybody. Thus, the possibility for split polls.

2003 USC can claim that AP national le; 2003 LSU beat OU and can claim the Coaches' national le. 2004 Auburn can claim neither. 2005 Texas can claim both.

You can dress it up in the BCS/Bowl Alliance/whatever you want. At the end of the year, nobody "wins" national les. We're still claiming them just like back in the day. Don't hold your breath for a change any time soon either.

...ahh! another poster with intelligence. i commend you my friend and thank you for trying to explain to these people what the real situation is. i think that it was coming from a Trojan/Aggie fan made it easy to dismiss.

you are correct in that teams claim national les. however there are still les in which every poll had that team #1...so that claiming may not be the correct word. consensus national les for USC are:

1931
1932
1962
1967
1972
2004

...with the other 5, of course, being shared. funny you mentioned 1939, i was waiting for someone to do that, and am glad it was such a respectful fan as yourself. i think A&M had like 10 polls select them the national champion, cornell 2, and USC 1 ( inson). however, USC did finish #1 in a poll at the end of the following years, but they did/do not claim a national le those years:

1929
1933
1976
1979
2002

pretty interesting stuff and definitely creates a lot of debate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Longhorn_Athletics

(note rivalries @ the bottom)

[Mr Dio]

that makes me feel like less of a fan, you have truely made a showstopping argument

[Mr Dio]

In the BCS era, the BCS champion is the national champion. That system is just as flawed as using the polls, but it was signed off on by the major conferences and Myles Brand himself. If you want to give USC a piece of LSU's 03-04 le then you can give Auburn a piece of USC's 04-05 le. And then maybe throw Utah a bone while you're at it.

I don't think some idiots get it j-6.
This is so simple to understand yet you have some idiots who should be in the political forum or with their boyfriends on the back of a motorcycle & yet here they are trying to discuss common sense.

[reydawg]

I don't think some idiots get it j-6.
This is so simple to understand yet you have some idiots who should be in the political forum or with their boyfriends on the back of a motorcycle & yet here they are trying to discuss common sense.

Am I an idiot?

[Mr Dio]

I don't know.
I haven't seen any blather or senseless guff from you but let me ask you......What are the rankings of the teams that play in the BCS National Championship game?

[Mr Dio]

100% False - common fallacy. I see why USC fans get so frustrated - and I'm a UT grad. There is no BCS champ. The BCS is just a mechanism to put #1 and #2 together for a bowl game;

This is where there is a major concern.
100% false?????

------------->>>>If the #1 & #2 teams play @ the end of the season in the final bowl game who should be #1?<<<<---------------------------

Common sense dictates that the winner of the BCS National Championship game (#1 vs #2) is THE NATIONAL CHAMPION via head-to-head match-up.
None of this going back to the time Moses to pull a game out of our asses that most of us weren't alive for in the 1st place.



2003 USC can claim that AP national le; 2003 LSU beat OU and can claim the Coaches' national le. 2004 Auburn can claim neither. 2005 Texas can claim both.
True. Very true.

[reydawg]

I don't know.
I haven't seen any blather or senseless guff from you but let me ask you......What are the rankings of the teams that play in the BCS National Championship game?

Due to the components of the BCS formula, those teams typically are ranked #1 and #2 in the AP and/or coaches' polls.

However, those aren't the sole criteria for matching teams in the last BCS game. That honor actually goes to the two teams with the lowest scores in the final BCS standings (released in early December). The calculcation of that BCS score includes the rank in the most recent coaches' poll. It no longer includes the AP poll, which is totally independent of the BCS system.

Thus, you can't write in stone that the #1 vs #2 teams (at least according to either the AP or coaches' polls) are playing in the BCS le game. Sorry for such a long answer - you were likely looking for something shorter, but the content is absolutely true.

FWIW, my framed 2006 Rose Bowl ticket - which I have sitting here on my desk - says "Bowl Championship Series National Championship". It doesn't say anything about the AP or coaches polls. Now do you have enough information to establish whether or not I am an idiot?

[Mr Dio]

See post #59.

[reydawg]

Common sense dictates that the winner of the BCS National Championship game (#1 vs #2) is THE NATIONAL CHAMPION via head-to-head match-up.

Not been following college football long? When did common sense ever come into play in trying to crown national champions?

That's the point I'm trying to make here! The BCS is what it is - a mechanism for putting the two clear-cut best teams together at the end of the season. As simple as it sounds, this is something which eluded the sport until 1998.

Now what happens when two clear-cut best teams don't exist some year? Then you have bowl chaos and lots of arguing.

Are you arguing that USC didn't win the MNC in 2003? Are you arguing that LSU didn't? Are you arguing that 2004 Auburn should be the national champs?

Or are you just trying to piss off these non-UT fans? I have no idea.

[Mr Dio]

Like I said, post #59 has an unanswered question.

--------->>>?????????<<<-------------

[j-6]

100% False - common fallacy. I see why USC fans get so frustrated - and I'm a UT grad. There is no BCS champ. The BCS is just a mechanism to put #1 and #2 together for a bowl game; a mechanism developed by the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, the major conferences, and ABC (now Fox-ABC). This mechanism makes quite a bit of $ for all the parties involved (leading to the anti-trust talk from smaller conferences), but does not crown a national le.

As part of the BCS deal, the Coaches association agreed to crown the winner of the #1-#2 game as their national champion. The AP did not agree to this and continues to crown their own champion. In fact, this is what allowed to AP to make the BCS remove the AP poll from the BCS standing calculation last year.

So at the end of the year the Coaches poll crowns a national champ, which is contractually the winner of the BCS le game. The AP poll does the same, but is not bound to select anybody. Thus, the possibility for split polls.

2003 USC can claim that AP national le; 2003 LSU beat OU and can claim the Coaches' national le. 2004 Auburn can claim neither. 2005 Texas can claim both.

You can dress it up in the BCS/Bowl Alliance/whatever you want. At the end of the year, nobody "wins" national les. We're still claiming them just like back in the day. Don't hold your breath for a change any time soon either.

There's no fallacy involved. The NCAA record book, the president of the NCAA, and every major conference considers the BCS champion the national champion. Claiming to be the national champion because the Associated Press gave you enough first place votes, even though another team won the BCS championship game, is like claiming to be the heavyweight champion of the world becuase some fringe organization gave you a belt.

[MajorMike]

I don't know.
I haven't seen any blather or senseless guff from you but let me ask you......What are the rankings of the teams that play in the BCS National Championship game?

Ask Colorado about Nebraska's ranking in 2001.

[johngateswhiteley]

There's no fallacy involved. The NCAA record book, the president of the NCAA, and every major conference considers the BCS champion the national champion. Claiming to be the national champion because the Associated Press gave you enough first place votes, even though another team won the BCS championship game, is like claiming to be the heavyweight champion of the world becuase some fringe organization gave you a belt.

...actually its not. you don't understand the the material at hand and what actually decides the national championship. Rey and i have been trying to explain this to people...but you guys just don't get it. good thing for ME and EVERYBODY else not on this forum or not a t.u. fan, we get it. and it does not really matter what "you" think. 2003 national champs...for the record.

[MajorMike]

UCLA: 99
Stanford: 92
Southern California: 84
Oklahoma State: 48
Arkansas: 43
LSU: 40
Texas: 39
Michigan: 32
North Carolina: 31
Penn State: 30

[j-6]

...actually its not. you don't understand the the material at hand and what actually decides the national championship. Rey and i have been trying to explain this to people...but you guys just don't get it. good thing for ME and EVERYBODY else not on this forum or not a t.u. fan, we get it. and it does not really matter what "you" think. 2003 national champs...for the record.

Your feeble attempts at being condescending aren't exactly helping your argument, but that's fine. You can have the 2003 sportswriter's intercontinental tag-team le when the system that USC's conference president signed off on, ending the semi-sacred Pac-10/Big-10 Rose Bowl rivalry, declared another champion. Let's put it this way. Since 1998, nobody except for the University of Southern California gives a about who the Associated Press thinks the #1 team in the country is.

Also, you're right. I don't understand. Your team won a legitimate BCS le the following season and you're obsessing over the one LSU beat Oklahoma for the prior year.

[j-6]

Like I said, post #59 has an unanswered question.

--------->>>?????????<<<-------------

Here's your answer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_...usc3peat122205

[reydawg]

Since 1998, nobody except for the University of Southern California gives a about who the Associated Press thinks the #1 team in the country is.

I wouldn't go that far. We (UT fans) were gripping very hard over the AP voters who where wedging undefeated Utah between 1-loss Cal and 1-loss Texas in late 2004. I won't say it was the entire UT fanbase, but those of us who closely followed the BCS standings week-by-week realized a handful of AP voters controlled who was going to the 2005 Rose Bowl vs Michigan. So while I don't want to re-hash that ordeal, it's very clear that lots of college football fans (including us Longhorns) have "given a " about the AP poll since 1998 (and implicitly, its #1 team). So you should refine your statement to be more specific.

Your team won a legitimate BCS le the following season and you're obsessing over the one LSU beat Oklahoma for the prior year.

It's kinda funny to think that a criterion to winning the National le recently might as well be beating OU. 2003 LSU, 2004 USC, 2005 Texas

[j-6]

OK reydawg, I should have said "at the end of the season". But UT fans know damn well that the BCS sucks.

Of course we remember Mack's somewhat tasteless campaigning to give Cal the shaft the year before last, or how OU blew our chance at the BCS the year before that when they lost to K-State and UT losing to freakin' Wazzou in the Holiday Bowl, or after the Colorado debacle in '01(when Florida got the at-large bid). Now of course the AP isn't even part of the BCS process, but I remember sweating that poll quite a bit. We'd all stop what we were doing to go watch ESPN every Monday at 2:00 PM for the BCS release.

But the fact of the matter is that the BCS ain't perfect, but it's the standard. Proclaiming to be national champs because the AP said so when there's a system in place with results that say otherwise - no matter how ty the system is - is just plain self-serving.

[dmac]

Nice, but how faaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr back are you going?
Sorta cheapens a person's argument the further back into ancient history they have to go.

not really. Tell that to the players that won those champioships.
Tell that Yankees that they may have 26 World Series Championships, that only 4 count because they happened in your lifetime.

[Mr Dio]

not really. Tell that to the players that won those champioships.
Tell that Yankees that they may have 26 World Series Championships, that only 4 count because they happened in your lifetime.

Well, maybe someone can send them all a link to read my posts?

Seriously, I couldn't have cared less that UT beat Who Cares U in 1906 12-11 in OT. Maybe from the time I started being a UT fan in the purest sense of the word.
I started watching the Horns in 1974. I was told many stories by the alums @ the games I watched & many were so passionate about the 1960's on. I was even told stories by mature alums of other schools when I was young @ those same games.

[gtownspur]

not really. Tell that to the players that won those champioships.
Tell that Yankees that they may have 26 World Series Championships, that only 4 count because they happened in your lifetime.

See, this is the problem. THey are totally two different things.

One's a playoff system, the other one is an estimation system. The yankees played their way into the national game, the longhorns and any other college team didn't. THey were mathematically chosen to play. Big difference.

[mookie2001]

jailbre6 well said