• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Let's get something straight

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hi to all you USC haters thinking the BCS winner is the sole champion, please be more ignorant. There have been co-champions in the past and there will be more co-champions in the future as long as these big money bowl games still exist.
 
Originally posted by: brian_riendeau
Blame college football for not implementing any type of playoff sytem between the top 4 or 8 teams to determine and actual winner on the field. Nation Champsionship in any sport are not something that should be shared. The LSU-USC split did nothing except show a completely and total failuire of the BCS failure. I love college football, I hate the BCS and all of the stupid drama at thend of the season.

Oh, and I hate the retarded excessive bowl games too. There is no need for so many bowl games at the end of the year, no one needs to watch so many medicore teams play and think it is special.

And get rid of the historic bowls? No way. I'm sorry, but how would you implement a playoff system without getting rid of the bowls. The Texas-Michigan game last year was a complete bastardization of everything the Rose Bowl stood for.
 
Originally posted by: nycxandy
Hi to all you USC haters thinking the BCS winner is the sole champion, please be more ignorant. There have been co-champions in the past and there will be more co-champions in the future as long as these big money bowl games still exist.

qf'fvckin't
 
Originally posted by: nycxandy
Hi to all you USC haters thinking the BCS winner is the sole champion, please be more ignorant. There have been co-champions in the past and there will be more co-champions in the future as long as these big money bowl games still exist.

please be more ignorant... that was before the BCS agreement :roll:
 
hello and welcome to 2 years ago.

dont' be mad cuz Trojans are better than [insert your team here]
 
Trojans lose out this year. Expectations are too high. Pressure is WAAAY to high. USC ain't up to it. Besides, who the heck do they play to earn the right. Shoulda played Auburn last year and been poleaxed by the tigers. Oklahoma is a pushover, as demonstrated by both LSU and USC. BTW, there is NO college champion football team. There is just some team that wins according to a bunch of computers. If you accept a national champion, then you have to accept the BCS. That means that USC has only won one national championship. The AP poll in 2003/4 just couldn't handle tha fact that they didn't get the ratings pig that they wanted. USC and LSU shoulda played that one. The AP agreed to vote the BCS winner as champ. Then they went back on their word. Not at all suprising considering that they are the PRESS after all. I don't like the BCS, but it IS what we have. Until we have a playoff system (or, more likely, hell freezes over) we have the BCS.
 
One more time, LSU won the 2003 season, fair and square. Funny how USC and its fans were playing along with the BCS all year, but then got all upset when they didn't get to go to the big dance <BTW, where were you guys when Auburn, another SEC team got burned last year when then went undefeated>.

If you didn't like the BCS, why didn't you say anything before the season started <2003>? I don't like the BCS as much as the next guy but rule is the rule. You can't change the rule in the middle of the season so it will benefit your team.

Edit: I have no doubt USC is a good team, just please stop telling everyone about how they were co-champs in 2003. LSU were BCS champs = national champs, end of story.
 
Back
Top