LSU National Champions...........

well it has worked if you consider that it simply forced all the conferences to stop having natural associations with certain bowls, making it much more possible to create that natural #1 versus #2 matchup.

But all the same, they could have left it up to the polls and gotten rid of the bowl alliances, and it would probably work better in this instance.

 

yeah, i do have reasons. usc whipped up on easy teams all year long. michigan was the best team they played, and both ou and lsu played at least 2 teams apiece better than michigan, and thats not counting their matchup last night.

i'm tired of hearing people say how usc dominated the rose bowl. if not for the sacks then michigan would have outgained them. oh yeah, their loss was to california. please. lsu and ou played tougher schedules, their only losses till the sugar bowl were to quality teams.

honestly, i just don't see why there is even a discussion. not saying you all are wrong. obviously many many analysts agree with you so you must be onto something. i just wish someone could show me why.

 

1 - Cal's not that bad a team. Certainly, triple overtime is a lot different than a championship game whipping. And certainly, having to decide a national championship based on how Notre Dame finishes their season is bullshit.
2 - I really did see the Rose Bowl as a domination, as far as BCS games go. Michigan was plenty good, IMO, to have deserved their status there in that game - and USC out matched them each way.
3 - it's just that simple. Coaches and media wouldn't have overwhelmingly voted USC #1 if they thought they sucked.
4 - talent. Mauck is no Matt Leinart, and while the defensive minded Tigers would have done a bit more against USC, the Trojans are more balanced in philosophy and you really can't beat the combo of Carroll and Chow in the big game. The offensive talent's just better for USC, and I think the edge in defense is close enough with scheme.

You're right. There shouldn't even be discussion...by the way, did that statement have a point?
We should just say you're right. I can see reasons both teams should be national champions, so I have absolutely no reason for you to say that USC shouldn't, they're a damn fine team that IMO would whip LSU if given the chance.

 

I'll take a stab...

"If not for the sacks Michigan would've outgained them". Hmmm.....if USC hadn't scored more points then Michigan would've beaten them. What, you think those sacks don't count? Plus if you want to play the takeaway game, what if we take away the entire 4th quarter where USC just kinda let Michigan do what they wanted since the game was out of hand at that point? What would that do to the stats?

Disagree with you on OU playing "2 teams better" than Michigan. Turns out the Big 12 wasn't quite as good as we all thought. 2 bowl wins. 5 losses. Also turns out that the "easy" PAC-10 did pretty well going 4-2. You can say it was matchups and in some instances I'm sure that’s part of the story. But another part of the story is the Pac 10. But let's play that game anyway. What two teams in OU’s case? Texas? The same Texas that was throttled by Washington State a few days ago? The same Washington State team that USC waxed? Hmmmm..... K State? Oh wait, OU didn't beat them. Past that, it gets thin for OU real quick. Okie State? Mizzou? I'd take either Oregon team against those teams. So maybe it just turned out that OU didn't play anyone (aside from Texas- who they own) til the end of the year and we all bought into the hype. I did.

LSU? That’s a little different. I thought it should have been LSU/USC and last night’s game seemed to help with that. But if you want me to nitpick, LSU lost at home. To Florida – who took more than a few days off this year including New Year’s Day. Based on what I saw from Cal this year, I’m not sure which is really the bigger crime – USC losing AT Cal or LSU losing AT HOME to Fla? I don’t know the answer to that, but I saw both games. If not for a punt return early on, LSU would’ve been shutout in that game. USC should’ve won early in OT at Cal and this would all be moot. Pete Carroll should burn his FG kicker at the stake.

Turns out the SEC had two VERY good teams at the top with UGA and LSU. But the Pac 10 is better than you think. I think this is part of the problem - the PAC 10 is getting better and no one realizes it apparently. Both USC and LSU handled Auburn easily.

I'd rate the D's even, but USC is better than LSU on offense. I think so at least. USC is gonna KILL my Hokies opening day next year. Yikes. Maybe a storm will cancel the game.

 

Forgot you were the Techie.
Yeah, you'd probably vouch for the fact that Tedford's Golden Bears aren't a pushover loss. USC shoulda won, but each of these teams have one of those on the schedule, and USC's was the least egregious.

 

The bowl game is part of it but I also caught a lot of Pac 10 games this year on Fox and TBS. Hard to believe (and I should probably be shot for it), but I saw Cal play 6 or 7 times and I am convinced that if Tedford doesn't leave real soon for greener pastures they will be a team that challenges USC in the next few years. Gotta find a D though. And the loss to UCLA was pretty bad - you have to win those.

I expected nothing from them this year. I mean NOTHING. 3 or 4 wins maybe. They lost all kinds of good kids from their probation squad and came back to go 7-5 again? At CAL?? That's the coach. And they're young. Yikes again.

 

I can live with that, and all I would ask is they just change the computer program to deduct a greater point value for a conference championship loss. Change an integer, re-compile and the system is even better....

 

The crazy thing is, while they're similarly styled QBs, Tedford's done basically the same things to Rodgers that he did to Boller, and they both feature suddenly great accuracy deep, ball placement, and a tight, compact release. I think he ties his QB's arms together so they have to throw without flexing the arm. It becomes all wrist, so that they don't have to go over the top.
Promotes arm strength, too, which is sick.

In the NFL, he won't have to worry about the defense. He should pay attention to it, but he should be able to get better talent and better coaching behind him.

 

and Keeps its "the highest paid coach in college football" Coach! LSU #1,still

 

since we can bump this thread, maybe we can rebut some of the comments suggesting USC the better team.
USC, simply better