BCS changes its tune about 2003

Don't know if this is beating a horse that was beat dead two years ago, but the BCS webpage now lists LSU as the only champ in 2003. The onepeat guys are saying this is a result of a threat of legal action against the BCS for not living up to its contract (USC and LSU agreed to it) that says that the winner of the Title Game is the National Champ. Before this change, it listed both LSU and USC as champs, and that is what all the USC fans used to defend their claim on the title in 2003.

See http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/timeline

 

We should be the ONLY national champ :lsup::crystal: from that year. Blame the coaches for re-nigging on their deal and voting USC #1. I understand Ok didnt belong in the title game after getting thrashed by K-St, but LSU should have to suffer because the system is place sucks.

 

Agree but it was the AP poll that gave USC a "Share" of the title. The coaches did honor their committment. :thumb:

 

My bad, I could have sworn it was the coaches. Too many polls!

 

Also worth noting the AP had no such agreement. There was no "re-nigging" as you put it.

 

The BCS should not have ever had USC listed as a co-champ... LSU was the national champion according to the BCS!

 

I do think the AP cheapened the season by voting for a split championship. It would have been a great season for the BCS + 1 to decide winner take all.

 

If we only had a plus one system... the BCS might be a better place:angryfire

 

Not all of them. There were several coaches who voted for USC in the final coaches' poll, including Lou Holtz when he was at S. Carolina. That was a cowardly action, IMO. It's like agreeing to the rules of a game beforehand and then wanting a do-over when you don't get the result you wanted. Unbelievably childish.

 

I agree with the idea of a plus-one that in the sense that the groundwork has been laid out this year with the 5th BCS bowl. The truth is no matter how many teams you get in a playoff there will always be one team complaining about being on the outside looking in (#5 in a plus-one, #9 in a 8-team playoff, etc.) But NC gains far more credibility in the process. I think a playoff needs to have incremental improvements. Start with a plus-one and then look into including more teams in future seasons, possibly using the BCS as a ranking/seeding system.