Da Bulls

After watching the South Florida Bulls' ugly upset over Auburn just now, it occurred to me that it was the second unlikely victory by a team called the "Bulls" today. The first, of course, was the University at Buffalo Bulls' 42-7 win over Temple. As awful as Temple is, the equally awful Bulls of UB were a three-point underdog, probably because the game was at Temple. And so they went out and won by thirty-five. Raise your hand if you saw that coming. Yeah, me neither. For that matter: raise your hand if you thought UB would have more wins at the end of Week 2 than Michigan and Notre Dame combined. Heh.

Comments

[Patrick]

I'm pasting a comment I posted under the thread below because it's more relevant here ...

Between West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers, South Florida, and Cincinnati, the Big East might actually be as strong as the SEC this year. Get this, outside of the hapless 'Cuse, the Big East is undefeated after two games. UConn and Pitt look decent. Two years ago, I would have laughed at anyone who would have told me that the Big East would have 7-potential bowl teams a mere two years after the conference shake-up.

The SEC, in my opinion, has been, all things considered, the best conference over the past decade. Can we really compare the Big East to the SEC? This year, the SEC has LSU and Florida, both top five and both having won in convincing fashion after two weeks. Well, the Big East has at least has two top 10 teams in WVU and Louisville, who've looked somewhat lackluster thus far ... at least on defense. It's the third, fourth, fifth and sixth best teams where I think the Big East really stacks up as well if not better than the SEC. There is quite a drop off after LSU in Florida in the SEC. South Carolina and Arkansas both look legit. Tennessee has certainly underwhelmed, as have Georgia and Auburn. Kentucky and Alabama, though undefeated, don't appear very strong, nor do 'Ole Miss and Mississippi St.. Meanwhile, in the Big East, Rutgers, Cincinnati, and South Florida have all won handily or have defeated ranked teams (i.e. USF v. Auburn). On top of that, Pittsburgh and UConn appear to be decent teams, though their competition thus far has been weak.

Given the strength of LSU and Florida, I think the SEC still gets the nod, but one cannot deny that the Big East is commanding attention. There is serious talent in the conference from top to bottom (well, ignoring Syracuse). There are at least 5 teams that deserve consideration for the Top-25 right now, and that is not something any of us would have anticipated two years ago. How has this happened?

[David K.]

The SEC, while a good conference, is overrated, and not the best over the past decade. I don't think there has BEEN a best conference over the past decade.

[Patrick]

David, a history lesson...

Here are the national championships over the past 9 seasons:

1998 - Tennessee (SEC)
1999 - Florida St. (ACC)
2000 - Oklahoma (Big 12)
2001 - Miami (Big East)
2002 - Ohio St. (Big 10)
2003 - LSU (SEC) / and I'll GRANT you USC for the sake of argument (Pac-10)
2004 - USC (Pac-10)
2005 - USC (Pac-10)
2006 - Texas (Big 12)
2007 - Florida (SEC)

By this formula, the SEC has 2 1/2 or 3 championships out of 10 (depending on whether or not you're a USC fan)... and by 3 different teams! Meanwhile, only the Big 12 and Pac-10 have multiple titles, and the Pac-10 by only 1 team, USC! Undeniably, the SEC has had MORE championships by MORE teams since the inception of the BCS. That alone is sufficient for a claim that they've been the superior conference over the past 9 years.

Now, you'll probably retort that from top to bottom, there is relative parity among BCS conferences, notwithstanding the SEC's claim to most championships. As another bit of history, here are the number of BCS bids per conference since 1998.

Mountain West - 1
WAC - 1
Big East - 9
ACC - 9
PAC Ten - 11
Big Twelve - 12
SEC - 13
Big Ten - 15

While the Big Ten has had more multiple-bid years than any other conference, they've only had two championship appearances, by the same team, and only one championship to show for it, facilitated, no less, by a terrible interference call that unjustifiably gave OSU the ability to win a game that should have been won by Miami. The SEC has a better resume, then, than the Big 10 does when it comes to championship performance.

Not so fast you say, how about overall performance in the Bowl Championship Series? First, I'm disregarding the Mountain West and WAC's perfect 1-0 records because they simply haven't played enough games to merit discussion. Here are the BCS records by the BCS conferences over the past 9 seasons:

ACC: 1-8 ( 0.111)
Big Twelve: 5-7 (0.417)
Big Ten: 8-7 (0.533)
Big East: 5-4 (0.555)
PAC Ten: 7-4 (0.636)
SEC: 9-4 (0.692)

At this point, you'll probably respond that the BCS cannot be the final determination of the strength of a conference, and that one must look deeper into the statistics, at all teams in the conference, to make a complete assessment. Well, I think the Top-25 is a good indication of the strength of teams and their conferences (although we know it's not perfect). I don't have the time to look at all of the final polls in each of the past 9 seasons, but I recently heard that the SEC has had more teams in the finals polls (both AP and Coaches) over the past decade than any other conference. You're welcome to fact-check that for me, but I'm certain that it's true.

So in 3 out of the 4 criteria I've listed, the SEC is superior, and in the one criterion that the SEC isn't technically superior (number of bids), upon further inspection, based on the BCS record, the SEC has fared FAR better than the Big 10. The Big 10 gets more bids, but loses far more often. The SEC has more ranked teams, and wins FAR more often when it gets BCS bids. Furthermore, the SEC has an unblemished record in the championship game. Most championships, second most bids, highest win percentage, most number of teams ranked in the final polls, undefeated in the championship game. Face it, the SEC has been the best conference in America since the inception of the BCS system.

[Brendan Loy]

I'll GRANT you USC['s 2003 championship] for the sake of argument ... the SEC has 2 1/2 or 3 championships out of 10 (depending on whether or not you're a USC fan)

Patrick, you don't have to be "a USC fan" to acknowledge, without sarcasm or caveat, the indisputable legitimacy of the annual Associated Press college football championship, which has been around far longer than the BCS, and which -- contrary to what the hypocritical, ridiculous Trojan-haters constantly say -- nobody "agreed" to ignore when they "joined" the BCS. The AP has always been around, the AP will always be around, and its championship always has, and always will, "count." It is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise, and I am sick to death of this absurd argument. Bash us over Reggie Bush if you want... or call Pete Carroll a poodle or whatever... but the 2003 business is just utter bullshit. You're not "granting" us anything, and there is no "argument."

Split championships have happened many times over the decades, and both teams in such scenarios rightfully consider themselves champions. (And it's not a HALF championship. USC won 1 championship in 2003. LSU also won 1 championship in 2003. Each is a whole championship, not a half.) I believe Notre Dame has a few split championships of its own, and those banners hang in the stadium, as they should. (And they don't say "half champions.")

It is of course true, as you'll doubtless point out, that the BCS was designed to eliminate split championships, but it was never guaranteed to do so, as proven by the various occasions since 1998 when the possibility of a split championship has been contemplated (e.g., Oregon if Miami had lost to Nebraska in the 2001 Fiesta Bowl).

It is often claimed that USC's title is somehow illegitimate because the Trojans "knew the rules" when they joined the BCS, and therefore should acknowledge it as the only legitimate championship. But that makes no sense, because those "rules" didn't involve the Associated Press agreeing to follow the BCS formula, nor did they involve the AP saying it would stop giving out a championship trophy every year. There's nothing in the "rules" that made USC's title in 2003 anything less than 100% legit.

In any event, the hypocrisy of this anti-USC argument is just staggering, because there is no college-football fan in America who wouldn't lay claim to a championship if his team were in USC's shoes. If Notre Dame someday were to win the AP championship, but not the BCS, there is NO DOUBT that Domers would be crowing to high heaven about winning a national championship, and rightfully so. Likewise, if the roles had been reversed in 2003, and LSU had won the AP title but not the BCS title, while USC won the BCS, Tigers fans would have considered themselves national champions, and again, rightfully so. There is ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE to the continued bullshit argument that somehow USC's title in 2003 was not legit.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. To the extent that anyone associated with USC might have griped about not winning the coaches' poll championship in 2003 -- since, after all, they were ranked #1 in that poll, too, at the end of the regular season, and they won their bowl game -- then, with regard to THAT, you'd have a legitimate point that "hey, they knew the rules, they have no right to complain." Everybody knew that the coaches' poll would follow the official BCS result, so nobody can rightfully complain when it does just that.

But the same is NOT true of the Associated Press championship, so the argument has no merit as applied to that issue.

[Patrick]

Brendan,

There is a defensible, rational argument that the only national champion in 2003 was LSU, and I happen to ascribe to it. The University of Southern California, as part of the Pacific-10 Conference, willing chose ascribe to the BCS system to determine the national champion each year. In 2003, the Associated Press felt that USC was better than the national champion, LSU, and the pollsters are welcome to disagree with the computerized system and the outcome of the mathematically determined championship game opponents ... but that only underscores my point. The poll is a tabulation of opinion, the BCS involves some opinion, but ultimately it is a mathematical construction that allows a winner-takes-all game to determine who shall be crowned national champion. This is the system that USC chose to follow, and subsequently chose to disregard when it became convenient.

You can disagree with this perspective if you'd like, but MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY people agree with it ... and they have a rational basis for doing so. That said, for purposes of determining which conference has had more titles since the inception of the BCS system, the Pac-10 loses to the SEC even if you give USC a "full" national championship in 2003, instead of the more reasonable "half title" as I described it merely for purposes of calculating the number of championships per conference over the past 9 season.

Clearly, it would make absolutely NO sense to say that there have been 10 championships in the past 9 season. If USC is to receive a full title for 2003, then clearly every AP winner over the past 9 season deserves a "full title" for the AP poll alone, while each team winning the BCS championship also deserves a "full title". Accordingly, the SEC has had 5 titles and the Pac-10 5. Saying 2 1/2 really only reduces the tie to a small number and ACTUALLY acknowledges that there was no consensus among POLLSTERS as to who the best team was in 2003. From your perspective, the SEC and Pac-10 both have the most number of championships among conferences. From my perspective, the SEC has more than any other conference, Pac-10 included. No matter how you slice it, the SEC has the most number of titles among conferences.

However, it's really a shame, Brendan, that you would take one small quip out of the middle of a well-researched, well-founded post about another, more-relevant issue and bitch about it at great length at the expense of addressing the issue that I was actually discussing ... namely, that the SEC has been the best conference in America since the inception of the BCS. How about addressing my point?

[Patrick]

One quick correction ... I got lost in my math at the beginning of my post. If you give USC a full title, then the SEC does not win out. It would be a tie because the SEC would only get a half title for 2003 as well. Regardless, I still hold that the SEC has more national titles than the Pac-10 since the inception of the BCS. Disagree if wish, but it won't detract from my larger point, again, that the SEC has been the best conference since the inception of the BCS.

[Brendan Loy]

You can disagree with this perspective if you'd like, but MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY people agree with it

...and each and every one of them is a bald-faced hypocrite!! Because, in each and every case, if THEIR team were in USC's shoes, they would of course consider it a legit title, and celebrate it, and they'd realize that, DUH, the AP championship still counts... and thus they wouldn't hold to their "logical" "perspective."

Okay, maybe not "each and every." I'll GRANT you, for the sake of argument, that perhaps 1% of all fans would actually refuse to acknowledge their own team's AP-but-not-BCS championship if it were to occur. However, that leaves at least 99% of all fans who would be complete hypocrites in such a situation. They would suddenly have an epiphany, change their whole viewpoint on a process they previously claimed to oppose -- sort of like Democrats and their feelings about the Electoral College if Gore had won Ohio in 2004 -- and they'd realize what's bald-facedly obvious to those who AREN'T blinded by their hatred of USC (a very common affliction, due to the Trojans' recent dominance and widespread jealousy thereof, thus helping explain the "MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY" you mentioned), namely that the AP championship still counts and there is nothing in any BCS rulebook, nor anything that anyone "agreed" to, suggesting otherwise.

Sorry, but I stand by every word I said. Your position is nothing but bullshit. Its "logic" is faulty and I don't care how many people agree with it, it's still wrong and it's still hypocritical.

it's really a shame, Brendan, that you would take one small quip out of the middle of a well-researched, well-founded post about another, more-relevant issue and bitch about it at great length at the expense of addressing the issue that I was actually discussing

Hmm. Well, that's one way of looking it. Here's another: I think it's really a shame, Patrick, that you would spoil an otherwise well-researched, well-founded post about another, more-relevant issue (about which I agree with you) by making a couple of snarky, irrelevant side-comments about a side-issue that you had to know, or should have known, would antagonize various people here on the blog, including myself, who are USC fans and are sick to death of this utterly played-out, retarded "debate" over a championship that WE WON four f-ing years ago.

Imagine, Patrick, that the roles were reversed, and Notre Dame had won a split championship a few years back... and people keep trying to claim it wasn't legitimate, and you're sick and tired of hearing that argument, because dammit, your team won, you're proud of it, and you're sick of sore losers and haters trying to discredit your team's accomplishment... and then, several years after the championship, I'm making some sort of broader point about college football, and in the course of it, I offhandedly say, "And oh by the way, that split championship Notre Dame won was totally illegitimate, ha ha." What would you react to first? My broader, logical point, or my unnecessary, irrelevant snarky comment?

Anyway, I agree with you that the SEC has been the best conference in America since the inception of the BCS. I think its dominance is sometimes overstated, but I've always acknowledged that it's a very good conference, and I can't deny that there is no other single conference that has had as much consistent success over the last 10 years. The reason I didn't address that point is because I didn't have a dog in that fight; you were arguing with David, not me. I jumped into the conversation only because of your retarded and highly annoying swipe at USC's '03 title; if you hadn't said that, I most likely would never had said anything on this thread at all.

Oh, and my "half championship" comment was not intended to be in response to your SEC-related math, to suggest that somehow the Pac-10 should get a freebie extra title or whatever. That wasn't my point at all; as I said, I don't disagree with you about the SEC thing, so I wasn't engaging in that debate at all. I just object in principle to either title -- LSU's or USC's -- being called a "half championship." They're both national championships, period; there's no such thing as a half-championship. But of course you're right, for purposes of the conference math, something to that effect would have to be done.

[Brendan Loy]

This is the system that USC chose to follow, and subsequently chose to disregard when it became convenient.

How did USC "disregard" the system? Did the Trojans crash the Sugar Bowl and insist on playing Oklahoma themselves? Did they break into the trophy case in Baton Rouge and steal LSU's crystal-ball trophy? Did they (ahem) put up a bulletin board in Baton Rouge denying the legitimacy of LSU's share of the title? NO!! They merely accepted the AP trophy and declared themselves national champions on that basis, which they had every right to do, and nothing that they "agreed to" in joining the BCS suggests otherwise.

In order to ascribe the "perspective" that "the only national champion in 2003 was LSU," you have to be, first of all, a hypocrite, as I've said, but second of all, you have to believe that the Associated Press national championship magically ceased to exist, or to "count," when the BCS came into existence in 1998. Considering that the AP explicitly declined to join the BCS, despite being asked to do so, such a belief makes absolutely no sense and is, in fact, totally indefensible as a logical position.

If we're talking about what everyone "knew" when they joined the BCS, well, everyone knew that the AP was going to remain independent, and was going to continue awarding the championship to its #1 team, regardless of what the BCS said... hence, for example, all the talk about AP #2 Oregon potentially winning a share of the title if AP #4 Nebraska had beaten AP #1 Miami in the 2001 BCS title game... so, with regard to those LSU fans who are miffed that they didn't win an undisputed title (i.e., both BCS and AP) in 2003, I suppose I could say "this is the system [i.e., a BCS system that still allows for an independent AP championship] that LSU chose to follow, and subsequently chose to disregard when it became convenient."

However, I wouldn't say that, because frankly, it's stupid. LSU fans can be miffed if they want, and USC fans can be miffed if we want. If people, or players, or coaches, want to complain about the system when they think it's being unfair, that's fine. Notre Dame fans certainly complain about officials, and rules, and systems, etc., plenty, and I don't have any objection in principle to that. It's a free country. Complain away. As to the fundamental issue, though, the reality is this: USC and LSU were both national champions in 2003. LSU won the BCS and coaches poll championship; USC won the AP championship. Both of those championships are obviously legitimate; no one has any right to demand that anyone else regard either of them as illegitimate, nor indeed is it logical or defensible to regard either of them as illegitimate. Therefore there is absolutely nothing to talk about here, and no reason for you and your like-minded Trojan-haters to continue this ridiculous charade of pretending we didn't win a national championship in 2003, when, IN FACT, we did.

[Patrick]

If it EVER happens (and at this rate, I doubt it will), I will not credit Notre Dame with a FULL national title if the Irish win over the AP pollsters at the end of a season while failing to win a berth in the National Championship game. Why would I have no problem doing so? Well Brendan, because an AP Poll "championship" alone is undeniably something less than winning the BCS title game AND the AP poll, as every other national champion has done over the past 9 years. Accordingly, you cannot put '03 USC in the same category as '98 Tennessee, or '99 FSU, or '00 Oklahoma, or '01 Miami, or '02 OSU, or '04 USC, or '05 USC, or '06 Texas, or '07 Florida. USC's '03 "title" is simply not the same as their '04 and '05 "titles".

And doesn't that get your goat? If it were ND, and I were in your shoes, it would drive me up the wall to have another team with a supposedly legitimate claim to the title in year the Irish are alleged to have won. When it comes to these things, I am obsessive-compulsive ... truly. When I was a sophomore in high school, for example, I cost my high school a unanimous all-sports conference trophy by missing my heat in the 110-meter hurdles semifinals at the conference track and field championship (I had an ADD-moment ... let's leave it at that). Because I didn't score the guaranteed 1-point that was certain to flow from simply running the race, we tied our conference rival for the trophy. Nevertheless, my high school claims to have 17 straight all-sports trophies in the Greater Catholic League North Division ... and it drives me CRAZY. The streak is tarnished and not truly a streak. Aside from the fact that it was my fault that we did not win the trophy outright, it drives me crazy that another team has a legitimate claim that my high school has not won 17 straight all sports trophies.

Do you see my point? That is my beef with USC's claim to a "national title" in '03. The most neutral thing that one can say is that the title is "shared" between LSU and USC. I still say the LSU has the "official" title ... but it is certainly tarnished, no question.

[David K.]

The flaws in your argument are many Patrick.

1) The BCS is a broken system and relying on it to determine the best assumes its actually done a good job of that, something that most people acknowledge it has failed since its inception. Then there is the lobbying debacle of Texas getting in ahead of Cal into a BCS game, or Oregon or USC getting left out in other years.

2) The SEC has more teams in it than the Pac-10, Big East, or Big Ten, you don't take that into account

3) The SEC plays more weak opponents and more home games or games on neutral sites

4) I could also point out that according to some ranking methods, such as Colley's Matrix method, the Pac-10 beats out he SEC 4 of the past 5 years, sometimes by multiple spots, and other conferences beat them out multiple times as well. Not the full 10 years, but its a good indication that my stance, that no single conference has dominated the past decade holds.

As for the USC agreed bullshit, no, thats NOT what they or the Pac-10 agreed to. The agreed to participate in the BCS, and they agree that their coaches would follow the voting rules for voting in the coaches poll. No where that i have found does it say that they have to pretend the AP poll doesn't exist. Oh and before you start throwing around more, I suggest you check out this page from the official SEC website, listing national championships. You will note that they list the AP poll both in 1998 and 2006, so even the SEC seems to acknowledge what you in your arrogance won't. OH and just in case you throw around the argument about "well if your team won blah blah blah" my team DID win the Coaches Poll championship in 91, and Miami won the AP poll. Guess who was national champ that year? Both.

[Patrick]

"Tarnished" is not the right word ... "inaccurate" is more suitable. It is inaccurate to say the USC was the "national champion" in '03. In truth, there was no "national champion" in 2003. There is a big, fat, stupid, ugly question mark.

[Brendan Loy]

You've got an extra USC title in there somewhere. The Trojans only have one BCS title. I believe the confusion is coming in because the "2003" title we're talking about is actually the 2004 title... it's the 2003-04 season.

Anyway, I'll certainly concede that winning an undisputed championship is better than winning a disputed, split championship. What I won't concede is that a split championship isn't still a championship, which is what you explicitly deny when you claim that LSU is the only legitimate champion in 2003. Would I have liked Notre Dame to beat Syracuse (f***ing Syracuse!) on the last day of the '03 regular season, which would have boosted USC's strength of schedule enough that the Trojans would have edged out LSU for the spot in the Sugar Bowl, whereupon we could have destroyed Oklahoma ourselves, and won both titles? Sure, absolutely. Was the undisputed 2004-05 title more satisfying than the split 2003-04 title? Yup. But the 2003-04 title was still a title, because the system is what it is, the BCS did not outlaw the AP, and under the system as it existed then and as it exists now, we won that [share of the] championship fair and square! Frankly, either we or LSU would have had a legitimate beef if the other had won both titles, so under those circumstances, the best possible result (other than an LSU-USC title game, with Oklahoma on the outside looking in... or better yet, a playoff) was the split title. That way, everybody gets a share.

Until some hater comes along and tries to deny the Trojans our share. And then we just get pissed off.

[Brendan Loy]

In truth, there was no "national champion" in 2003. There is a big, fat, stupid, ugly question mark.

Fair enough, but the same is true in every previous, pre-BCS year in which there was a split title. Yet somehow, fans of those teams aren't subjected to the bullshit that USC fans are constantly subjected to, being told that our share of the championship, in particular, was illegitimate. Michigan, for instance, shared the '97 title with Nebraska (they won the AP, the Huskers won the coaches), yet when people talk about how the Wolverines and Lloyd Carr "haven't won a national championship since 1997," you don't get this sort of crap where people say they didn't really win a championship at all in '97. And likewise, when NEBRASKA 94 95 97 comments here on the blog, people don't constantly tell him he should erase the "97" from his moniker because they weren't really champions that year, Michigan was. And you know why that doesn't happen? Because under the imperfect system that existed in college football in 1997, Michigan and Nebraska were both national champions. Just like how, under the imperfect system that existed in college football in 2003, USC and LSU were both national champions. It's as simple as that.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. You say you "will not credit Notre Dame with a FULL national title" if they ever find themselves in USC's shoes. I gather, then, that you would credit them with some kind of a national title? A half-title, a split title, whatever? If so, then that's mostly a semantic issue. (I certainly acknowledge the "split" or "shared" nature of USC's 2003-04 title; I just choose to regard it -- and LSU's -- as "whole" championships. But I'm well aware that it was disputed, and I don't deny that. Whether one calls it a "full" championship, as I said, is mostly semantics.) The bigger issue is that you would apparently acknowledge ND's share of title, in our hypothetical scenario, as at least part of a national championship (albeit not a "FULL" one). Yet you don't accord that same luxury to USC. Bottom line, you're being hypocritical unless you would say, in such a situation, that "the only national champion" was whoever won the BCS, as opposed to AP champ Notre Dame... and unless you also would say, if Notre Dame were to accept the AP title, that "[the BCS] is the system that Notre Dame chose to follow, and subsequently chose to disregard when it became convenient."

[Patrick]

David,

I have plenty of other ammo if you'd like me to heap it on you, and it won't be pretty. The SEC also trumps the Pac-10 in such categories as SEC v. Pac-10 head-to-head match-ups, NFL draft picks per capita, overall win percentage, out-of-conference win percentage, number of bowl bids, number of bowl wins, All Americans ... I can go on if need be. The Pac-10 has no prayer of winning this argument.

To address your point #2, David, the number of teams in the conferences has no impact on the statistics I addressed above. A conference's win percentage in BCS games, for example, is completely, totally, 100% unaffected by the number of teams in the conference. Similarly, the number of BCS bids extended to each conference is unaffected by the number of teams in the conference, as is a conference's performance in the national title game, or the number of national championships a conference has. Tell me now, based on the statistics I provided, how does the number of teams in a conference bear any relation to the accuracy of my information and arguments? Simple answer? It doesn't.

As to your point #3, read the preceding paragraph and apply the same analysis.

As to points #1 and 4, I do nothing but chuckle. You blame it on the system, of course. When numbers of championships, wins, bowl bids, and bowl wins fail you, you rely on some off-beat, largely ignored, alternate calculation coupled with an argument that can be reduced to "the BCS sucks" to trumpet your conference as best. Nice try. You know what, if I can try hard enough, I can find plenty of authority to make a claim that the sky is, in fact, green and not blue, but it won't change the fact that the sky is blue.

Over the past 9 seasons, the Pac-10 can be reduced to the following: USC has been consistently fantastic and Oregon consistently good, while everyone else has been either terribly inconsistent or absolutely abysmal. You simply can't say that about the SEC.

I say this, and I'm no SEC homer. In fact, there isn't a single team in the SEC that I actually like. My loyalties are to Our Lady's team, and I'm not about to drag the Irish into this discussion. Doing so wouldn't even be skating on thin ice; it'd be trying to skate on a melted pond.

[Patrick]

Brendan,

In reference to this:

"The bigger issue is that you would apparently acknowledge ND's share of title, in our hypothetical scenario, as at least part of a national championship (albeit not a "FULL" one). Yet you don't accord that same luxury to USC. Bottom line, you're being hypocritical unless you would say, in such a situation, that "the only national champion" was whoever won the BCS, as opposed to AP champ Notre Dame... "

I must say, again, that if Notre Dame were in USC's '03 shoes, I would not say that Notre Dame was the national champion. I would again refer to the big, fat, stupid, ugly question mark. And we definitely had one in '97, when were were left with the unfortunate situation of TWO undefeated teams, splitting the polls.

Now, here's a bigger question ... where does this leave '07 Boise State?

[Brendan Loy]

There's a difference between "refer[ring] to the big, fat, stupid, ugly question mark," as you're doing now, and claiming that "[the BCS champion] is the only national champion," as you did earlier. A big, huge, honking difference. If all you'd ever done was talk about a question mark, I never would have picked this fight. I certainly agree that there's a big question mark in 2003-04. Who would have won if USC and LSU had played each other? Yes, absolutely, that's a big, ugly question mark. But that's not what you said before. You said before that LSU is the only champion, and USC is not a champion at all. That's an exclamation point, not a question mark.

As for '06-07 Boise State, they -- along with '04-05 Utah and Auburn -- had much bigger, more legitimate beefs with the system than either USC or LSU did, because they went undefeated (whereas the Trojans and Tigers each had a loss) and got NO credit (whereas USC and LSU at least got a championship trophy each). However, the cold hard fact is that they don't have any actual championship to lay claim to. USC and LSU both do. So while I have all the sympathy in the world for them, they're really part of a different discussion, namely whether the BCS sucks. The discussion we're having here isn't over whether the BCS sucks (which it clearly does), but whether the AP championship remains valid in the BCS era (which it clearly does).

[Patrick]

Brendan,

Yes, I did throw in an extra USC title. I've been up too late ... how on earth could I ascribe to USC a national title that both of us can agree never existed? I see why, I was confusing the confusion over whether the 2006-2007 season results in 2006's national title or 2007's, and in the end came up with ten titles over 9 seasons ... either way, my memory of sports knowledge is usually better than that. After all, who else do you know that could tell you that Cal won the NCAA championship in basketball in 1959, or that Oregon won the inaugural tournament in 1939, or that Temple won the last NIT tournament in 1938 before the NCAA was started the next year, or that CCNY is the only school to win both the NCAA and NIT tournaments in the same year? Yeah, I need to stop ... or that CCNY and Seattle are the only two teams to have appeared in an NCAA basketball title game that are no longer division 1 in basketball ... Ok, now I'll stop.

[Brendan Loy]

Hey, if you want to give USC an extra title, I've got no problem with that. We may need it, if the NCAA can ever get anyone in the Reggie Bush case to talk. ;)

[Patrick]

Ok, wow, I was wrong about one stat. NYU actually played in the title game in 1945, losing to Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State). Also, Seattle recently petitioned the NCAA for a move from Division II back to Division I.

Now, off to bed ...

[Patrick]

Brendan,

So yeah, perhaps I did say that LSU was the only "national champion", and I still stand by that sentiment ... to a degree. Their championship, in my opinion, has more an an air of "officiality" to it (and yes, for the record, I did make up that word). The BCS is a computerized system that pits two teams (and arguably the two best teams) against one another for the "national championship". The AP "championship" is a tabulation of the opinion of writers, and not the result of the bowl championship series. So, in my opinion, based on the two systems of crowning a champion, the BCS is more "official" ... perhaps not more accurate ... but more "official."

That said, even if you follow my "officialness" theory (yeah, I just made up another word) the mother-fucker question mark won't go away, and my reluctance to accept USC's title stems both from the lack of "officiality" and that god-forsaken bitch of a question mark. But to which question is that question mark the appropriate punctuation? Admittedly, the question is not "Who was the national champion in 2003?", but rather, "Who was the best team in America in 2003?"

That, we shall never know ... but at least we'd have a better idea if there were a playoff system.

[gahrie]

The SEC also trumps the Pac-10 in such categories .....overall win percentage, out-of-conference win percentage

Do not make me go and dig up all the research I did concerning the SEC's apparent policy concerning scheduling out of conference cupcakes, and extra homegames.

This year:

LSU......7 homegames. (1 away game out of conference..Tulane)

Florida..7 Homegames. (no away games out of conference.)

Georgia....8 home games (1 away game out of conference Georgia Tech)

Tennesse...7 home games (1 away game out of conference..Cal. This is the toughest non-conference away opponent in the conference. Cal won.)

USC....6 home games. (2 out of conference away games, Nebraska and Notre Dame)

Cal....6 home games (1 out of conference away game, Colorado State)

UCLA...6 home games (1 out of conference away game, Utah)

Oregon...6 home games (1 out of conference away game, Michigan)

[Becky]

Who cares which conference is arguably the "best"? All of you men have missed the most important part of Brendan's original post. THE BULLS WON!!!!

The way this season is going so far, the Bulls might rival Notre Dame for total wins! Go Bulls!!! WOOOOooooOOOOOoooo!

[David K.]

To address your point #2, David, the number of teams in the conferences has no impact on the statistics I addressed above. A conference's win percentage in BCS games, for example, is completely, totally, 100% unaffected by the number of teams in the conference. Similarly, the number of BCS bids extended to each conference is unaffected by the number of teams in the conference, as is a conference's performance in the national title game, or the number of national championships a conference has. Tell me now, based on the statistics I provided, how does the number of teams in a conference bear any relation to the accuracy of my information and arguments? Simple answer? It doesn't.

Hmm, more teams means more chances to earn BCS bids for starters dumbass. More national championships? The Pac-10 and the SEC both have THREE. Good lord Patrick, what undergrad school did you go to and how did you fail basic math so greatly?!?

The SEC also trumps the Pac-10 in such categories as SEC v. Pac-10 head-to-head match-ups, NFL draft picks per capita, overall win percentage, out-of-conference win percentage, number of bowl bids, number of bowl wins, All Americans ... I can go on if need be.

Ok, lets see those statistics, and throw in the statistics for every other conference as well. If your argument is so solid it should be easy. Oh and while your calculating the overall win percentage and out of conference win percentage are you going to take into account the cupcake scheduling the SEC does? For bowl bids are you taking into account that the SEC HAS MORE DAMN TEAMS a point which you seem to think is irrelevant? Oh and which list of All-Americans are you going to pull from? There are multiple each year? Given the way your doing your math your probabl counting the same player from multiple lists as multiple wins, but oh wait can't have split All Americans can we?

As to points #1 and 4, I do nothing but chuckle. You blame it on the system, of course. When numbers of championships, wins, bowl bids, and bowl wins fail you, you rely on some off-beat, largely ignored, alternate calculation coupled with an argument that can be reduced to "the BCS sucks" to trumpet your conference as best. Nice try. You know what, if I can try hard enough, I can find plenty of authority to make a claim that the sky is, in fact, green and not blue, but it won't change the fact that the sky is blue.

Over the past 9 seasons, the Pac-10 can be reduced to the following: USC has been consistently fantastic and Oregon consistently good, while everyone else has been either terribly inconsistent or absolutely abysmal. You simply can't say that about the SEC.

Chuckle all you want, the BCS is broken and everyone knows it. Its screwed up more times than George W. Bush, and yes I am going to "blame" it not because it simply hurts the Pac-10, but because your basing your argument on a FLAWED system.

And your complete lack of knowledge about the Pac-10 is broadcasting far and wide in this part of your comment. Cal has also been a very solid team in the past decade. Arizona State had one loss (to Ohio State) in the 96 season, the WSU Cougars went 10-2 the next season, and then were ranked as high as #3 (going into their second to last game) in the 2002 season. UCLA was 10-2 in the 98 season the last year they went to the Rose Bowl, hell even the UW has had a strong year in the past decade, going 11-1 in 2000 and winning the Rose Bowl.

See in the Pac-10 we have this thing called "parity" where, since we play all the other teams in the conference (or all but 1 up until the past couple of years) and we don't schedule cupcake out of conference opponents we don't have 1-2 teams that dominate the conference as Florida has done in the SEC for the past decade.

The FACT is that the BCS is flawed, and the FACT is that the Pac-10 has fielded more different strong teams than the SEC could ever hope to. You can use the BCS as your metric, but when people point out that its flawed, you can't say its a fact, because thats a logical flaw in your argument, your asserting as fact to support yourself a system that not everyone even agrees works!

Maybe you aren't an SEC "homer" as you put it, but you certainly are an anti-Pac-10 "homer" and you certainly refuse to bend even the slightest when presented with critiques of your argument. The SEC is a good conference but highly overrated by their fans (no, they are NOT the NFL) and they aren't clearly the strongest conference in the past decade, i don't think that anyone holds claim to that title.

[David K.]

Oh, one last thing:

The BCS is a computerized system that pits two teams (and arguably the two best teams) against one another for the "national championship". The AP "championship" is a tabulation of the opinion of writers, and not the result of the bowl championship series.

If by computerized you mean has a computerized component. Even though 2/3 of it is based on the same types of opinion polls the AP uses and in fact up until recently USED those same opinions. There are strengths to the idea of pitting the best two teams against each other, but the BCS has failed to do that more often than it has succeeded. Without a sufficient number of games played in an interconnected way or a play off system, there is just no way to objectively determine the two best teams, especially when you have years with say, 3 undefeateds. The system has its merits but its not perfect, just as the AP system has its merits but its not perfect. And the fact that the BCS locks in the voters, even when there is overwhelming evidence, as in 2004 that the best team didn't even get a chance to PLAY in the national championship game due to the vagaries of the system.

[Patrick]

"There are strengths to the idea of pitting the best two teams against each other, but the BCS has failed to do that more often than it has succeeded."

2001-2002 and 2003-2004 are the only two seasons that people generally disagreed with the outcome. 2 out of 9 is fairly low if you ask me, and far better than the purely opinion-based "championship" that is the AP Poll. Either way, the mere fact that the BCS has a non-opinion based, mathematical element is sufficient to make it better than the AP Poll. While it's possible that the AP could get it right in a year that the BCS does not, it does not change the extreme likelihood, supported by 9-years of evidence, that the BCS system is better and leads to less uncertainty that the poll system.

[Brendan Loy]

Okay, I've mostly withdrawn from this discussion because I wasted far too much time on it this morning, but I can't let this ridiculous bit go unanswered:

the mere fact that the BCS has a non-opinion based, mathematical element is sufficient to make it better than the AP Poll

You do realize, this statement, as stated, is absolutely 100% absurd on its face, right?

Suppose I were to propose the following two systems:

1) The championship is determined by an opinion poll of knowledgeable sports writers.

2) The championship is determined 50% by an opinion poll of knowledgeable sports writers, 25% by the team's historical record over the preceding fifty years, 15% by an objective mathematical formula analyzing the RGB color content of the team's uniforms, and 10% by the 2004 presidential vote tally in the state the school plays in.

According to you, system #2 would be, by definition, better, because it "has a non-opinion based, mathematical element," and the "mere fact" that such an element exists automatically means it's better.

Obviously, the BCS system isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as my hypothetical system #2, but I'm just trying to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous and undeniably wrong it is to claim that ANY system with "a non-opinion based, mathematical element" is therefore AUTOMATICALLY better than any system without such an element. You have to look at what the natureof the "mathematical element" in order to judge it. The "mere fact" that something is "non-opinion-based" doesn't necessarily mean it's better. To pretend otherwise is sheer folly.

[Patrick]

David,

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You will never concede anything. You are stubborn in the face of overwhelming, countervailing evidence against your position. Nearly everyone, even USC-die-hard Brendan, agrees with me! Why do you stand by your position when it's so patently incorrect? Get over yourself.

You raise Arizona State and Washington State as examples of the Pac-10's strengths, yet anyone with half a brain cell will acknowledge the inconsistency of those programs over the past ten years. Furthermore, to support your defense of the Pac-10 with these teams, you refer to years BEFORE the BCS was instituted! Have I not confined my discussion to the past 9 seasons? Yes, I have. You are grasping at straws, David. Jake Plummer? Ryan Leaf? Come on! They are outside the confines of this discussion!

But let's look at their records since '98. Arizona State's win/loss record:
5-6
6-6
6-6
4-7
8-6
5-7
9-3
7-5
7-6
Face it. These are the numbers of neither a consistent nor a top-tier football team. Now let's look at Wazzu:
3-8
3-9
4-7
10-2
10-3
10-3
5-6
4-7
6-6
3 good seasons out of 9, and you want to brand them a powerful program? Hardly. They are occasionally strong, but terribly inconsistent. When is the last time LSU went 3-9? 3-9!!!! And Washington State is a team you refer to demonstrate the Pac-10's strength? Wow ... that's just sad.

But back to the numbers game ... the statistics I ORIGINALLY referenced in response to your "number of teams" argument (number of BCS championships, number of BCS bids, win/loss record in BCS games) are unaffected by the number of teams in a conference, as least insofar as the Pac-10 and SEC are concerned. 10 v. 12 teams ... but, the SEC has four teams that are abysmal (Miss St., Ole Miss, Vandy, and UK) while the Pac-10 has one (Stanford). In terms of teams that are competitive, we have roughly equal numbers, 8 v. 9. But it wouldn't change my point anyway, because with respect to the statistics I was considering in response to your "number of teams" argument, a conference, at best, need only be "two deep" in terms of BCS quality in order to do well in these criteria. Because a conference can, at most, send 2 teams to the BCS, as long as there are two top 10 teams, it doesn't matter how strong the rest of the conference is after their two best teams. The result of this is that, beyond question, overall, the top 2 teams in the SEC over the past 10 years have been better than the top 2 teams in the Pac-10. The rest of the numbers support my argument that, from top to bottom, the SEC has been better over the past 10 years.

When you extend the argument into the realm where the number of teams does matter (i.e. All Americans and draft picks) the SEC is so dominant that numbers almost become irrelevant anyway. Besides, just look at those numbers per capita and you'll find that the SEC kicks the Pac-10's ass all over again. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Patrick]

Brendan,

By "mathematical element" I implied a mathematical element measuring performance throughout the season. I did not intend to suggest that any mathematical element is better than the judgment of pollsters. For example, a mathematical element giving credit to teams with the most number of players with the letter "t" in their name would be far less accurate than the AP Poll. Come on, Brendan, did you think I really was suggesting otherwise?

[Brendan Loy]

No, Patrick, of course I did not think you were suggesting otherwise. I did, however, think that you failed to consider the implications of your own words. And I still think that.

Now you've narrowed your position from 1) saying that any "non-opinion based, mathematical" system is better than any opinion-based system, to 2) saying that any performance-based "non-opinion based, mathematical" system is better than any opinion-based system. However, this is still obviously wrong. What if the "mathematical element measuring performance throughout the season" was something like each team's average number of rushing yards per game, or its red-zone percentage, or its number of sacks? Surely you don't believe that such a system, analyzing a bunch of performance-based statistics in isolation, would be better than the AP poll. Yet it would be "performance-based" and "mathematical" and "non-opinion-based," and your own words say that it would therefore be better than the AP poll.

And this isn't just semantics. My WHOLE POINT is that it is necessary to analyze the content of the BCS formula -- not merely its "mathematical-ness," if you will -- in order to ascertain its comparative merit vis a vis the AP poll. It isn't enough that it's mathematical and objective and performance-based. It also has to measure the right kind of performance, in the right way. In other words: it has to be a good formula, not a bad formula. If you concede this (which I think you must), then you've conceded the whole enchilada, because at that point, your original statement -- "the mere fact that the BCS has a non-opinion based, mathematical element is sufficient to make it better than the AP Poll" -- no longer has any meaningful content. My whole point is that you need to analyze the nature of the BCS formula if you want to prove that it's better than the AP poll; that it's "objective" and "mathematical" is not enough to establish its superiority. This is the exact opposite of what you claimed. How many counterexamples must I cite to prove this point to your satisfaction? Or are you going to keep retreating to an ever narrower position while pretending that your earlier, much broader statement still holds water?

Patrick, earlier you accused David of being too stubborn to admit when he's clearly wrong. Well, I urge you to take a step back and recognize your own stubbornness on this particular issue. Not the whole USC-LSU-BCS thing, mind you. Just this particular issue: your statement "the mere fact that the BCS has a non-opinion based, mathematical element is sufficient to make it better than the AP Poll." There is no reasonable interpretation of that statement which is in any way correct. You need to acknowledge this, and then perhaps we can have an honest discussion (if we want to) of the respective merits of the BCS formula vs. the AP poll. But until you withdraw your facially absurd argument that the BCS formula is automatically better because it's mathematical, no honest discussion is possible because you're clinging to a totally untenable position.

[gahrie]

When is the last time LSU went 3-9? 3-9!!!!

When is the last time LSU didn't schedule more home games than away games, and didn't schedule home games against cupcakes? 7 home games this year, one of them against powerhouse Middle Tennesse State. Their only non-conference away game is against that powerhouse Tulane.

Last year, LSU had 8 home games, and no away games against non-conference opponents.

[gahrie]

LSU:

2005: 8 home games. 1 non-conference away game.

2004: 7 home games, No away games against a non-conference opponent.

2003: 7 home games. 1 away game against non-conference opponents.

2002: 7 home games. 1 away game against non-conference opponents.

Washington State:

2007: 6 home games. 1 away game against a non-conference opponent.

2006: 7 home games. 1 away game against a non-conference opponent.

2005: 6 home games. 1 away game against non-conference opponents.

2004: 5 home games. 2 away games against non-conference opponents.

2003: 5 home games. 3 away games against non-conference opponents.

2002: 7 home games. 1 against non-conference opponents.

[Patrick]

I agree with your post completely. All I need to do here is acknowledge that my description of the mathematical based system was both truncated and, interpreted literally, clearly incorrect. I can concede that the words I wrote were completely laughable insofar as they lacked the description you so eloquently provided. In other words, you've really just done a better job of saying what I was initially trying to say. So, I'm not sure that this is really comparable to David's stubbornness. FWIW, I really have no problem admitting when I'm wrong ... I just tend to be really obstinate when I'm actually right.

Anyway, I think the BCS is a GOOD system as far as doing what it sets out to do - determine the two best teams for a national championship game. However, I think it would be ideal and vastly superior to follow the BCS formula for selecting a 16-team playoff. After 16 teams, you're not likely to find a team that would steamroll to a national championship. That said, much as I am for the current BCS selection of a national championship game, I would be far more comfortable letting the BCS system select the 16 teams that I would allowing polls to do so.

[Brendan Loy]

Fair enough, Patrick, but if you agree with everything I said, then what was your original point in the sentence I quoted? You admit the sentence is wrong as literally stated, but what, then, was your non-literal intent? As I said, I don't think this is a mere semantic disagreement; I think this goes to the core of the question: Is the BCS better than the AP? Before, it seemed like you thought the answer is "yes" because it's non-opinion-based. But if you agree with everything I said, then you recognize that merely being non-opinion-based isn't enough to make it better, so then we have to talk about the merits of the formula. In which case... what was your point again?

Anyway, if we're going to discuss the merits of the formula... well, um, if you "think the BCS is a GOOD system" now, then it follows almost necessarily that you must think it was a BAD system in 2003-04, because the formula has been so heavily tweaked since then that it might as well be a different system!! Under the current "GOOD" system, USC would have played LSU in the Sugar Bowl in 2003-04!! So either it's a good system now, or it was a good system in 2003-04, but I'm honestly not sure it can be both. It has been changed in the last several years precisely because just about everyone acknowledged that it needed to be improved. Alas, that improvement did not come in time to answer the "question mark"... but it seems rather dishonest to deny USC the AP championship it rightfully earned on the basis of the supposed supremacy of a prior incarnation of the BCS system that was so universally regarded as fatally flawed that it was quickly and drastically overhauled!

Personally, I don't think there's any point comparing the AP and BCS, since they're separate entities that award separate championships. I just think we all should acknowledge the legitimacy of both championships, without caveat or sarcasm. And I would think that regardless of which team won which title.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. And, lest anyone think I'm spouting b.s. when I say, "I would think that regardless of which team won which title," recall that in 2004, when USC won an "undisputed" title, I argued on behalf of Auburn, Utah and Boise State that their exclusion from the championship picture was an injustice. I have no problem giving other teams credit where it's due. All I ask is the same in return re: my teams.

[Andrew]

I have a slightly different take than Brendan. To me, USC won a split national title in 2003, with LSU getting the other half. IMO, neither team can claim a full national title that year as the system screwed both teams (but USC the most). I hasten to add that most national titles awarded before thirty and forty years ago also are dubious, as many were awarded prior to the bowls, so the LSU-USC split title is right in the middle of the pack as far as legitimacy is concerned. Also, while I will respect Patrick's position, as many respected commentators take the "legalistic" view that USC's AP national title is not legitimate, I still find that argument utterly bogus given the reality that USC finished the season ranked #1 and was denied a chance to defend that ranking in the title game. In other words, yes the system says LSU was the legitimate champion because we're in the BCS era, but everyone should acknowledge that the BCS failed miserably, and thus that very legitimacy is erased by the injustice of how the system worked in 2003 (and to an extent, in 2004, 2001, and 2000). SEC fans (outside of LSU homers) should especially agree with USC fans, seeing as how SEC's Auburn got minorly screwed in 2004.

Where Patrick is really off his rocker here is his argument that the SEC is far and away the best conference of the past decade and that the Pac-10 is somehow not even close to the SEC's level of parity. As has been pointed out above, the SEC is famous for scheduling tons of home cupcakes. As an example, a mediocre SEC team can chalk up six easy wins and a bowl season before even playing anyone of significance (four OOC games against I-AA or mid-majors, plus a rotation of games against Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and South Carolina pre-Lou Holtz). I also grant that Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, and LSU are solid programs year-in and year-out. But the veracity of their strength is called into question by two details: one, because of the SEC's rotating schedule, they rarely play more than two or three of their fellow top SEC teams; and two, they usually waltz into conference play having chalked up three or four easy cupcake wins. Meanwhile in the Pac-10, prior to USC's recent dominance, every other Pac-10 team had won the Pac-10 title in the previous ten years, save for Arizona (which nevertheless was a great team under Dick Thomey and just narrowly missed making the Rose Bowl a couple of times). My explanation for this is that, in the '90s, when USC was failing to dominate recruiting, enough great players went to the other nine schools that nobody stayed down for long and everyone had a great team once every few years. On the flip side, there was no consistent roadkill in the Pac-10 -- every team was a tough out. This is in huge contrast to the SEC, which has had between three and four perennial doormats going back well more than a decade.

The bottom line is that you can choose certain data points that point to the SEC being the best conference, but the more data you look at, the more obvious it becomes that conference strength yo-yos between the six major conferences and crowning one conference the best over another is purely subjective.