Well That's Fair! Big 12 Crew At Rose Bowl
December 26, 2003 8:52PM
edited January 2014
Wonder why we won't see a Pac 10 crew at the Nokia Sugar Bowl?
Why don't we just award the game to Michican ahead of time.
Reply 1 of 9
December 27, 2003 11:57AM
Just pray to god they're not like the Big East officials in the 1994 title game that handed to game to Florida State. Geez, wheneven Nebraska would look at Charlie Ward in the wrong way, those dudes would call a personal foul penalty....Even the analysts on ESPN could not believe it. Months later when there would be a "phontom call" in a basketball game, an ESPN analyst would be heard to say: "Must be a Big East official from that Nebraska vs. Florida State game...."
Reply 2 of 9
December 27, 2003 12:01PM
I don't get it, does the BigXII have a love-affair with the Pac-10 I don't know about?
Reply 3 of 9
December 27, 2003 12:33PM
Since a Big 12 team (Oklahoma) is playing for the "BCS National Championship" , do you think those Big 12 officials are going to give USC any breaks? Or a fair shake? All it takes is 3-4 calls a game.
If USC loses, it opens the door for Oklahoma. College football is just unbelievable.
Reply 4 of 9
December 27, 2003 1:23PM
Whoever wins the Sugar Bowl is the national champion. The outcome of the Rose Bowl does not matter. Sugar winner gets the trophy.
This is a sad conspiracy theory. Shouldn't USC fans be more confident?
Reply 5 of 9
December 27, 2003 2:02PM
Wah Wah Wah.
The Rose Bowl has always had neutral refs ever since Charles White's phantom TD handed USC an undeserved Rose Bowl.
This is a lame conspiracy theory by whiny ass USC fans.
The winner of the Rose Bowl does matter though. If USC wins then they will win the AP half of the national championship regardless of not being in the "championship game". They'll be just as much national champs as the Coaches' poll winner even if the AP trophy isn't quite as cool looking as the Sears/Circuit City/ADT crystal football. In fact, their championship will arguably be more legit than that of LSU/OK given that it is a true poll whereas the coaches are bound by agreement to vote for the BCS winner even if they do not think that that team is deserving. Of course, if Michigan wins then this is all moot.
Reply 6 of 9
December 27, 2003 8:06PM
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Of course, if Michigan wins then this is all moot
Disagree here. If Michigan wins, it doesn't change the past, which is when the most significant event already took place. If Michigan wins, it just means USC lost to a team they shouldn't even have been playing. USC fans could also say the team was psychologically/emotionally disadvantaged by the whole debacle.
Reply 7 of 9
December 27, 2003 9:01PM
Well all this whiny USC fan wants is a fair shake. Imagine the hue and cry from the Sooner faithful if a Pac 10 crew (neutral) were at the Sugar Bowl. But we left coasters aren't part of the good ole boy football network. Incest is best in the BCS.
Reply 8 of 9
December 27, 2003 9:19PM
Quit crying and wait for the game to be played. It's awfully presumptuous of you to think these refs are inherently corrupt.
It'll be obvious as the game progresses how well these refs are doing. But I highly doubt this is a conspiracy to undermine the USC Trojans. Please wait until after the game to make excuses.
Reply 9 of 9
December 28, 2003 12:40AM
NB: I've had a few drinks, so I don't know how this will come out.
I believe the only reason USC was put
by the AP and coaches poll was because USC did everything they possibly could to get into the NC, but didn't make it because they had an easier schedule. Just about everyone in the nation didn't feel that they should be punished for something they had no control over, so they best way to rememdy that is for both those polls to place USC at
to give them a chance to share the NC title at the very least.
Statistically speaking, LSU and OU trump USC in just about every meaningful category regarding the BCS:
both won 12 games vs. 11 for USC
both had tougher SOC: 11 and 26 vs. 39 for USC (last I saw)
both lost to higher ranked teams: 10 and 17 vs. unranked
None of that was through the fault of USC. The coaches and the AP knew that OU would still make it to the NC game even if they ranked them
, but by ranking USC
that gave them a fair shot at sharing, which I think just about everyone agrees is deserving for what they've accomplished this season.
For all those who criticize the BCS formula: it's better than what there was. The purpose of the BCS is to get the two best teams in the nation to play each other. I believe, from a statistical standpoint, it has done that. Prior to the BCS there was a bunch of underhanded, politicized crap that went on to rank teams and have them play in certain bowl games. The BCS was supposed to eliminate that, and it has for the most part. Granted, the formula is not perfect and there probably should be a playoff system, but that's not the point of this post.
If USC does their part and takes care of whoever they're playing then they deserve every bit to share in the NC title.
Personally, I'd like to see OU beat the crap out've LSU just to put to rest anybody's reservations about how good they are.
Groverat, I'm a fan of UT and think it's crap they got kicked out of a BCS bowl because K-State won. I went to Texas Tech and was actually pulling for UT during that game because I think UT deserves it even though I'm not a big fan of Mack Brown.
Anyways, I don't know if I completed my initial thought, but I'm finished with this post.