USC & the three-peat

[mountainman]

A second championship.

[..fanaticjr]

I would call it a second-straight title. It is impossible to share a national title. USC did not make it to the 2004 national championship, therefore it is physically impossible to win the national championship. LSU was the 2004 national champions, they didn't share it with anyone.

[bmcd]

all i know is espn looks a little stupid right now for all that greatest team of all time crap....should have done it last year....sc was clearly better last year with chow at OC and a defense 2nd to none.

[Yeofoot]

One of the things that really started irritating me was how many sports announcers, and interviewees would say "USC has the advantage here, they are playing in their 3rd national title game in 3 years". ARGH! The reason the media always said they were going for their third, is because according the them, and them alone, they did. They flubbed so many times talking about USC playing in the title game.

[Howdy]

It is hard to win 3 times in a row.

Nebr. had two shots at it.
In the 70's and in the 90's and failed

Too much presure of doing it.

I do beleive Usc lost the game by not punting on forth down.
They could of made texas go for 80 yards and I do not beleive texas could gone that far in that short of time.

[mountainman]

That was definitely the defining moment in the game, Howdy.

If USC gets the first down, and then run the clock way down and probably win the game with Vince Young on the bench. If they punt it, then they have to win the game with Vince Young on the field.

I guess that Coach Carroll had more confidence in his offense to win the game than he had in his defense and special teams.

That's O.K. as far as I'm concerned, but what I do question about that play is why was Reggie Bush not on the field. Even if he didn't carry the ball he would have presented a threat to carry the ball. I believe that Southern Cal would have helped their chances of making that first down by having Bush on the field when that play was run.

[Yeofoot]

I've been reading that Michael Huff, the guy that had White by the legs, wasn't supposed to be stunting in on that play, but he knew what was coming and went for it anyway. I think USC knew that if VY got the ball back, they were going to lose.

[mountainman]

Coaches love those players with good instincts.

[Yeofoot]

It's so hard just to win one national championship these days, you have to be perfect.

[mountainman]

I sure hope they keep it that way. Winning the National Championship should be hard to do. Keeping it hard to do gives the National Title value and makes it mean something.

[Yeofoot]

I agree.

[Eric]

Now way man, I hate getting into these discussions because I'm one of the only people who back a bowl system.

There is no middle ground here, it's either a playoff or bowl games. Everybody keeps trying to come up with some compromise. The reason why the bowl games are so special, is because it makes the season mean something. I mean, if there is a big game in college basketball, for instance, sure it could be interesting, but it doesn't have the same meaning. Every week you are putting your championship on the line, and when all the teams get filtered out, the BCS normally selects the 2nd best team if they have one loss, to play a usually undefeated, pretty much considered as the best team in the country. A playoff would ruin the regular season in college football. This is the reason why it is so much better of a game than the NFL or any other sport for that matter. I'm really tired of it. There's nothing that fans can do, all that matters is what generates more income, and it will hopefully be the bowl system. I'm praying to God it will be the bowl system!

You'd completely ruin the regular season, as I've said many times before. The thing you have to love about college football is it is do or die week every time you take the field, and as a fan, it makes it so much more interesting.

[..fanatic]

I'm reposting this from a different thread because it has merit here.

The biggst problem I've seen had to do with this year's title game. ESPN kept saying USC was trying to three-peat, completely dismissing the fact that LSU won the BCS title in 2003 and USC only topped the AP Poll. Prior to the BCS, you could call that a split title. You can't say that now. The BCS title IS THE CHAMPIONSHIP, period. The AP was merely a component at the time and it's not even that now. USC was trying to repeat, not three-peat. LSU was completely dissed by the media.

Congratulations, CFP, for never falling prey to that crap.

Their Rose Bowl preview stated..

"Texas finally got the Oklahoma monkey off of its' back and here they are in the BCS Championship. Now, the Longhorns get the chance to try and stop USC from winning their second consecutive BCS title.

USC was also crowned champions in 2003 by the Associated Press while LSU won the BCS Championship"

Drop the polls, let the computers rule. Better yet, just let CFP take over the whole thing! That way, we'd ownly have one source to throw sticks and stones at.

[mountainman]

Eric, don't feel like you are on an island out there about your position on the keeping the bowls versus having a playoff.

I'm right there with you. The bowl system helps, to the extent it can, to ensure that every regular season game and conference championship game, matters.

College football is unique and demands with its system of rankings and bowls that a team must strive to win every regular season game and when applicable, win its conference championship game. A loss, although not unforgivable, can mean the difference between a Bigtime Bowl and a December date in a smaller venue. That's a very good thing, especially for the fans of college football.