I just wanna address those of you who are making it a point to post messages telling some of us to get over our bashing of USC. Thats fine if you don't wanna bash and hate USC, but don't expect us to change our views of USC simply because you post a message telling us to. As a DIEHARD LSU fan, I am pro anything LSU. If that means hating a team that tried to steal LSU's glory after winning it's first national title in over 40 years, I see nothing wrong with it. So please, respect our dislike for USC and we will respect your choice to like USC. P.S.- We aren't hurting anyone so is it really that big of a deal.
has LSU ever played USC? usually hatred towards a school is a by product of a continued meeting between the schools, like my hatred for Auburn, Ole Miss, and Florida. In my lifetime I have never seen LSU play USC...hell, I hate Nebraska more then USC for beating LSU in the Sugar and Orange bowls in the 80s. USC, IMO, had a legitimate gripe last tseason, and they were one of the two best teams in college football. They were screwed by a loophole in the BCS that allows a non conference champion to play for the MNC. Can you blame USC for being upset over this? They were also ahead of LSU in both polls because they lost before LSU, and that is why they got the AP title. I have read many things from various AP writers during and after this year's fiasco, and trust me, the AP title is more of a statement by the AP voters that they think the BCS sucks, not so much that USC is better or more deserving then LSU. One AP voter actually said if LSU had been the oddman out and won their bowl game, he would have voted LSU national champ. I dislike USC because they took some of the Tigers glory, but I am over it now. i know that in reality, we won all but 2 human/computer polls, and we were the better team. that is why it is easy for me to say screw USC, and lets focus our hate on Ole Miss, Auburn, and Florida! Good Day to You All. Thank you very much!
I hate USC "fans" more than anything they have a school that is playing great and the people that support them the most are the poeple in the media they have some of the worse fans in the world
First of all, excellent points. But to answer the question that you stated, "YES", I can blame USC for being upset over this. Sure, they have a right to gripe about it--heck, even I didn't think Oklahoma, for all it's might and praise, and 77-point victories, belonged in the Sugar Bowl considering they didn't win their own conference title game. But everyone (USC included), at the beginning of this season, and every season since '97, agreed that the BCS determines the national champion. What? Is the BCS good enough for USC IF, and only if, it has a positive effect on the Trojans? Seems to me that when they realized the system wasn't good for their individual situation, they throw their agreement, and vote of confidence for the BCS, out of the window and start with their media campain. So, ultimately, yes, I think the BCS needs to be tweaked. It can remain the same in terms of the calculations--but just add the stipulation that in order to play for the National Title, you MUST first be your conferences Champ (or in the case for conferences that don't have a title game--ACC, PAC-10, Big East and Big Ten, then you must be Co-Champ). However, USC should have stood by their word, and stuck to the current system like an honorable school should. What they did was not honorable--they back-doored their way into a National Title claim. A claim that does not hold water as far as the record books go--the NCAA recognizes but one champion, and the 2003 National Champion in I-A football will have LSU listed... Not ficticious "People's National Champion, USC". :geaux:
They didnt "try" to steal our glory, they DID! Virtually every media outlet, every website, every publication and every reporter lists us as co-champs. As far as I'm concerned, screw USuCk because I wont be over it until we win an undisputed title. Sorry, just feel that way because we should have been playing them and NONE of this would have happened.
Quote of the year by BostonBengal so far: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ But to answer the question that you stated, "YES", I can blame USC for being upset over this. Sure, they have a right to gripe about it--heck, even I didn't think Oklahoma, for all it's might and praise, and 77-point victories, belonged in the Sugar Bowl considering they didn't win their own conference title game. But everyone (USC included), at the beginning of this season, and every season since '97, agreed that the BCS determines the national champion. What? Is the BCS good enough for USC IF, and only if, it has a positive effect on the Trojans? Seems to me that when they realized the system wasn't good for their individual situation, they throw their agreement, and vote of confidence for the BCS, out of the window and start with their media campain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amen Brother! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote by drc40 They didnt "try" to steal our glory, they DID! Virtually every media outlet, every website, every publication and every reporter lists us as co-champs. As far as I'm concerned, screw USuCk because I wont be over it until we win an undisputed title. Sorry, just feel that way because we should have been playing them and NONE of this would have happened. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amen brother #2 I just hate USC now! That falls squarely on the coaches shoulders.......... Look at what Nick said compared to Pete.............. If Nick's team ever play Pete's...... I pray that we will run up the score to settle this once and for all. Paybacks a bitch!
Lets step back and really think about this. If you really think about it, the loss to K-state was just another game. Forget the fact that it was dubbed the "Conference Championship Game", what it all boils down to is that it is just one loss. The actual name "Conference Championship Game" aside, how is that loss any different from USC's loss to Cal? Actually, who would you rather lose to, a weak Cal team or a good K-state team? Yes I understand that they(OU) didn't get the title of "Conference Champs", but common sense tells you that the loss was just a loss. Everyone is acting as though that loss is any different from the other one loss teams because it was dubbed this......"Conf. Championship Game"....pleeeasse...come on now. If all the teams just played 12 games with no conference championship game, then nobody would be saying anything about OU's loss, but because that game had a certain name to it, all of a sudden OU isn't deserving....lets get real. My whole point in all this babbling, is that the OU loss was JUST ANOTHER GAME in the whole scheme of things. OU was just as deserving as any, to be in the Sugar Bowl......I need to stop now, I'm getting carried away over something that has passed.
