What 1-loss team would deserve to play in the Rose Bowl?

[Andy]

What if USC (with 1 loss) played Texas (undefeated) in the Rose Bowl, USC won, and then Penn St. beat one of the other 1-loss teams in whatever bowl they play in? Who gets the National Title?

The result could easily be a split championship in the polls. The #1 position in the coaches poll (ESPN) automatically goes to the winner of the BCS championship game; the coaches are obligated to vote the winner #1 as part of the BCS agreement. Voters in the media poll (AP) are able to vote for who they think is the best team regardless of whether they play in the championship game or not.

I remember there was a mini-uproar when a few (I think between 4-7) voters in the coaches' poll voted USC 1st in their poll anyway after the 03 season. I wonder if anything ever happened to them...

[B]

USC deserves to be in the game if all those teams have 1 loss (or if all but Texas loses). Penn St. probably deserves it most because they have the most controversial loss, but USC is a better team...and the goal is to get the 2 best teams playing for the championship.

 

What if USC (with 1 loss) played Texas (undefeated) in the Rose Bowl, USC won, and then Penn St. beat one of the other 1-loss teams in whatever bowl they play in? Who gets the National Title?

 

Isn't that what happened two years ago?

It's exactly what happened two years ago. Thanks to SC not losing since 2003, no one even remembers that technically LSU won that year's national title.

 

They didn't win technically. They got the effin trophy. What does USC have to show they won it? I still don't understand why Auburn didn't get a split last year. It was the exact same scenario as '03. I hate USC.

[Andy]

USC deserves to be in the game if all those teams have 1 loss (or if all but Texas loses). Penn St. probably deserves it most because they have the most controversial loss, but USC is a better team...and the goal is to get the 2 best teams playing for the championship.

 

What if USC (with 1 loss) played Texas (undefeated) in the Rose Bowl, USC won, and then Penn St. beat one of the other 1-loss teams in whatever bowl they play in? Who gets the National Title?

 

Isn't that what happened two years ago?

It's exactly what happened two years ago. Thanks to SC not losing since 2003, no one even remembers that technically LSU won that year's national title.

 

They didn't win technically. They got the effin trophy. What does USC have to show they won it? I still don't understand why Auburn didn't get a split last year. It was the exact same scenario as '03. I hate USC.

It was a much different scenario from 2003. In 03, the Number 1 team going into the title game (Oklahoma) lost, otherwise we never have this discussion. Logically the Number 2 team in the AP poll, which was USC, hopped past Oklahoma. In 2004, the Number 1 team in all polls going into the title game (USC) won, and won in absurdly decisive fashion, 55-19 over Oklahoma. What possible evidence was there that Auburn deserved to leapfrog USC after the title game was played?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Just for the record, the 2003 National Champion is LSU.

[adamb0719]

USC deserves to be in the game if all those teams have 1 loss (or if all but Texas loses). Penn St. probably deserves it most because they have the most controversial loss, but USC is a better team...and the goal is to get the 2 best teams playing for the championship.

 

What if USC (with 1 loss) played Texas (undefeated) in the Rose Bowl, USC won, and then Penn St. beat one of the other 1-loss teams in whatever bowl they play in? Who gets the National Title?

 

Isn't that what happened two years ago?

It's exactly what happened two years ago. Thanks to SC not losing since 2003, no one even remembers that technically LSU won that year's national title.

 

They didn't win technically. They got the effin trophy. What does USC have to show they won it? I still don't understand why Auburn didn't get a split last year. It was the exact same scenario as '03. I hate USC.

It was a much different scenario from 2003. In 03, the Number 1 team going into the title game (Oklahoma) lost, otherwise we never have this discussion. Logically the Number 2 team in the AP poll, which was USC, hopped past Oklahoma. In 2004, the Number 1 team in all polls going into the title game (USC) won, and won in absurdly decisive fashion, 55-19 over Oklahoma. What possible evidence was there that Auburn deserved to leapfrog USC after the title game was played?

 

 

USC does have a National Championship trophy that was presented by the AP. They do have something to show they won a NC two years ago, it is just not from the NCAA-the one that counts IMO. Apparently the AP felt they were being slighted due to the fact that the NCAA disregarded their poll, since they removed themselves from the BCS formula.

 

Ndistops- Auburn was voted #1 in one post-season poll. If you use USC's standards that is enough for a split championship.

[Andy]

I thought USC was the best team in college football after the 2003 season and after the 2004 season. The fact that LSU played Oklahoma and not USC for the 2003 title was a joke. You should not be allowed to play for a national title without winning your conference title and the Sooners did not.

[B]

I thought USC was the best team in college football after the 2003 season and after the 2004 season. The fact that LSU played Oklahoma and not USC for the 2003 title was a joke. You should not be allowed to play for a national title without winning your conference title and the Sooners did not.

 

How can you take away from what LSU did though. They didn't choose what team they were going to play in the championship. The real joke is how easy USC's conference was compared to the SEC and Big 12.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I thought USC was the best team in college football after the 2003 season and after the 2004 season. The fact that LSU played Oklahoma and not USC for the 2003 title was a joke. You should not be allowed to play for a national title without winning your conference title and the Sooners did not.

 

LSU beat the team they were to play in the National Title game; therefore they are the 2003 National Champs. Your thoughts not withstanding, LSU was still the champion.

[UMFan83]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

How do you figure? Michigan won fair and square

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

How do you figure? Michigan won fair and square

 

Carr complained and they unjustly added two seconds to the clock. Time doesn't stop when the team calls timeout, it stops when the official calls it. Michigan won the game on a play with one second left.

[UMFan83]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

How do you figure? Michigan won fair and square

 

Carr complained and they unjustly added two seconds to the clock. Time doesn't stop when the team calls timeout, it stops when the official calls it. Michigan won the game on a play with one second left.

 

How do you know 2 seconds weren't miscounted at some point earlier in the game? It probably happens in almost every game. Enough so that 2 random seconds added at the end doesnt really factor in the decision. Penn State still should have stopped them and they didn't.

[Derwood]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

How do you figure? Michigan won fair and square

 

Carr complained and they unjustly added two seconds to the clock. Time doesn't stop when the team calls timeout, it stops when the official calls it. Michigan won the game on a play with one second left.

 

How do you know 2 seconds weren't miscounted at some point earlier in the game? It probably happens in almost every game. Enough so that 2 random seconds added at the end doesnt really factor in the decision. Penn State still should have stopped them and they didn't.

 

Yes, that's why I don't particularly blame the refs in that game. Penn State didn't score a point in the entire first half, didn't defend the final kickoff very well, and simply didn't stop the Wolverines down the stretch. And of course, had there been 2 fewer seconds, Michigan would have called different plays. It's not like everything would have been exactly the same had the 2 seconds not been added.

[hardcorecubfan]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

As a college football fan, as well as a Northwestern fan who saw them early in the season, let me tell you that they could very easily have two by now.

 

so you are saying that there is real colledge football fans then there are actually people that go and watch Northwestern? Wow! I learn new things everyday

[TruffleShuffle]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

As a college football fan, as well as a Northwestern fan who saw them early in the season, let me tell you that they could very easily have two by now.

 

Penn State could also very easily have zero losses by now, as they lost one very close game and won one. Similarly, Northwestern could very easily have another loss if they hadn't gotten lucky on the onside kick versus Iowa. Hell, USC could've easily had a loss if Leinart hadn't fumbled the ball out of bounds against ND. That's the way college games work, you get an L or a W, and hopefully the close games even out in the end.

[Derwood]

Penn State. They really shouldn't have a loss to begin with.

 

As a college football fan, as well as a Northwestern fan who saw them early in the season, let me tell you that they could very easily have two by now.

 

Penn State could also very easily have zero losses by now, as they lost one very close game and won one. Similarly, Northwestern could very easily have another loss if they hadn't gotten lucky on the onside kick versus Iowa. Hell, USC could've easily had a loss if Leinart hadn't fumbled the ball out of bounds against ND. That's the way college games work, you get an L or a W, and hopefully the close games even out in the end.

 

Northwestern also beat NIU by just 1 point.