Friday, April 28, 2006

setting the record straight.

ok, so let's clarify something here. USC did not win the national championship in 2003. reggie bush and matt leinart are not two-time national champions. LSU won the national chapmsionship in 2003, USC won it in 2004, Texas won it in 2005.

the hype prior to the national championship game was unbearable. "could USC be the first team in the modern era to win three straight championships?" no they could not have, because they had only won 1 national title prior to that. we're getting another rash of this bullshit leading up to tomorrow's NFL draft: "how could somebody pass on matt leinart? he's a proven winner, with two national championships under his belt." no argument on leinart's "intangible qualities", but he only won 1 championship.

i realize this is a pointless and redundant rant. but this has really been festering with me. this is seemingly universally held and oft-mentioned fallacy.

yes, i know that the AP choose USC as its champion in 2003. but college football choose LSU. i suppose media people are just self-aggrandizing: since they choose the AP champ, that must be the real champion. wrong. the BCS certainly has its flaws; but right now it is what is in place. it sets the bowl schedule, and it alone determines the national champion.

i wish nothing but success for reggie bush and matt leinart in the NFL. and 40 years from now, i hope they're enjoying a cold one together on the front porch of one or the other's manse, talking wistfully about that time they won a national championship.

4 Comments:

Blogger GP said...

Thank you for pointing out the fraud that is the USC national championship.

4/29/2006 6:10 PM  
Blogger derry hoofnagel said...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/ncaa/specials/bowls/2003/01/05/final.poll/

You probably should alert the people at sports illustrated and ESPN and all of the teams dating back to the mid-1930s that they never won a national championship. No offense, but split national titles have occurred throughout history, and the AP National Championship is considered significant enough to count. I dislike the system, but these people aren't wrong,a s long as they specify AP when mentioning the championship. There also used to be UPI and AP National Championships, and both were accepted, though I believe that the AP carried a little more weight.

5/01/2006 5:30 PM  
Blogger Huevos McGringo said...

it's true that historically there have been split national championships. an example is georgia tech/colorado in 1990 (with colorado winning the AP, GT winning the UPI).

however, unlike other polls, the BCS is RUN BY THE NCAA. it actually has a say in who plays where. for that reason it is definitive (even if it is flawed).

it is certainly fair to mention that USC won the AP national championship in 2003. "two time AP national champions" would not bother me. the problem is that commentators, caught up in the hype, stopped mentioning that astericks long ago. they just say "two time national champions". which is misleading.

5/01/2006 5:52 PM  
Blogger kenniebloggins said...

However, you also hear BCS National champion used, which specifies that the team won the BCS, which, as it did this year, clearly determined a national champion. However, that year, it still remained pretty unclear which team actually deserved the damn thing, which leads us back into the flawed system discussion. I would like to see a unified champion, like in boxing, when this happens again, which would mean at least one more game and sometimes two, I guess. fuck it, playoffs would be so awesome.

5/02/2006 7:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home