I don’t know about you, but I was tired of hearing about USC going for their 3rd straight National Championship. Did the media just forget about LSU in 2003 or what? And now with USC losing to Texas, I have created an image for USC fans to celebrate their 2004 1-peat. Remember, LSU won the ADT National Championship trophy in 2003, USC won it in 2004, and now Texas is the 2005 champion.
* Both Auburn and Utah were also undefeated that season.
Update: Looks like some other people agree with me. Check out One-Peat.com.
reply to #1
Brian
January 9th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I think it’s more of a 1.5-Pete. I give them credit for the AP title in 2003, but I sure would be pissed as an LSU fan that their more important title was completely forgotten by USC. I bet LSU fans were rooting for the Horns almost as much as Texas fans Wednesday.
reply to #2
Matt
January 9th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Ok. Maybe a 1.25-peat. Maybe.
reply to #3
USC Trojan
January 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Is this the same BCS that Auburn was complaining about that we are talking about? Isn’t it a nice matter of convenience to look at it when it works in your favor and complain about it when it does not? The AP writers, most of whom have the journalistic independence not to vote for ‘their’ teams, vote at the end of the year and decide the National Champion.
Look at the final AP poll at the end of last 2 years – and guess which team was #1?
Being in denial is ok. But it is more honorable to accept a dynasty than shooing it off like a fly in your face.
The facts are going to remain facts. USC won the AP National Championship Trophy (Paul Bear Bryant trophy for those of you still in denial about it) 2 times in a row, because they ended the year at #1 in the AP Poll those years.
Like it or not, that’s not going to change. And if it were not for the ‘technical difficulties’ in the review monitor (very convenient) resulting in a knee-down TD lateral by Vince Young, and a completely pathetic incomplete pass of a fumble, USC would have 3-Pete-ed.
Fight On!
reply to #4
Matt
January 9th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Well, I definitely got the reaction that I was looking for. Makes me smile.
I understand that USC won the AP National Championship, which is great and all, but it wasn’t the “official” (whatever that means) final poll. One of my main points of this post is the fact that the media just threw around “3-peat” and never once mentioned LSU. It just seemed too convenient for them to forget.
Now I am not discrediting USC’s 34 wins in a row, which in this day of college football is much more impressive than previous streaks of that nature. I am just simply saying that USC only won 1 ADT national championship. And that won’t change either, because the facts are going to remain facts.
reply to #5
Matt
January 9th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
And if it weren’t for the fact that USC couldn’t stop Vince, and USC’s inability to convert that 4th and 2, and Reggie believing too much of his own hype, etc…USC may have 3-peated.
But luckily for us we don’t have to think what-ifs, we won the game. Hook ’em.
reply to #6
Cledus Snow
January 9th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
As an LSU fan I can honestly say that this Texas Championship meant almost as much as LSU’s. Thanks again Horns for providing USC with a wake-up call.
reply to #7
USC Trojan
January 9th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
@Matt: Maybe then you should call it 1-ADT-Pete 😉
@Cledus Snow: There was no wake-up call like you imagine. The wake up call was only that we were entertained so much in winning 48 of the last 52, that we had assumed we cannot lose a game. The wake up call was that we can lose sometimes. And we did. We woke up.
LSU won the crystal ball that time, and I am not taking anything away from that. But the wake up call that Texas delivered was not that LSU won the championship. Trust me, not a single Trojan is thinking that. But all of them are saying ‘we were spoilt in thinking we could win any game at any time’. That is reality and we are honest now.
We have won 48 of the last 52 … quite an achievement.
Fight On!
reply to #8
Brian
January 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
“Like it or not, that’s not going to change. And if it were not for the ‘technical difficulties’ in the review monitor (very convenient) resulting in a knee-down TD lateral by Vince Young, and a completely pathetic incomplete pass of a fumble, USC would have 3-Pete-ed.”
I like how Trojan fans and most of the media conveniently forget the Drew Kelson interception that wasn’t called on the field or reviewed. And it’s not like USC was going to actually stop Vince and company if the refs had ruled him down at the 10 or so yard line.
I thought the Jamaal Charles catch/no catch was a catch and a fumble, but since it was ruled incomplete on the field there’s no way they should have overturned it. It’s the whole “conclusive video evidence” thing, that play was way too close to change the ruling on the field.
reply to #9
USC Trojan
January 9th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
@Brian: The reason I point out the non-review of the knee-down lateral is because I think there was something ‘fishy’ with the ‘technical difficulties’.
And I bring up the catch and fumble not overruled because it was at a critical point in the game and it actually resulted in the ball being turned over to USC.
There’s not much I (or we, as Trojans) can say beyond that because all you ‘horns need to say is ‘who won?’. But do realize that we got to these points about calls and non-calls only as a side. The main point being it was actually a 3-pete that USC was shooting for, and LSU should not be whining. And worse, Texas should not be looking at what USC did not get, but focus more on what Texas got.
Enjoy the year, because you are the Champions in both AP and BCS. Stop looking at what others did not get and focus on how you will defend the Championship without Vince Young.
Fight On!
reply to #10
MDZ
January 9th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
I’m neither a fan of Texas, LSU or USC. USC’s first “championship” always seemed more like the AP writer’s taking a shot at the BCS system as opposed to really believing USC was better than LSU. Many of the writers were fed up with the BCS, and thought USC should have been there instead of LSU. But in reality Oklahoma was undefeated and LSU played a tougher schedule and had a better loss than USC (UF was better than Cal). The right two teams played that game. USC only got the AP vote because voters were trying to send a message to the BCS, hoping that a playoff situation could be created.
reply to #11
Greg
January 10th, 2006 at 4:17 am
“The AP writers, most of whom have the journalistic independence not to vote for ‘their’ teams, vote at the end of the year and decide the National Champion.”
Sorry, I had to laugh at this.
True, AP writers don’t vote for “their” team in the sense that they tend not to vote for geographically proximate teams. But AP writers are huge bandwagoners, and will always vote for the “hot” team, rather than the one that has performed the best. Look at the current stories about Ohio State – they beat an overrated Notre Dame team, who has failed to beat anyone this year, and suddenly there’s talk about how they are prohibitive favorites for the 2006/7 National Championship. They will also vote for “name” schools almost reflexively, and always, always, always rate flashy offense over excellent defense. Remember 2002 Miami/Ohio St.? Nobody gave Ohio State a shot because Miami beat their opponants by a lot of points, and Ohio State did not – most reporters don’t watch very many games. Maybe one per week. So they go by stats, which are hilariously misleading sometimes.
The reason people would tend to believe that votes are a categorically bad way to find champions is that they are completely subjective. A season of mistakes and mediocrity, and then you blow out a Big-10 team with a defense designed to stop power running games with a passing attack, and people decide that it makes you #1? The reason we have a championship at all is because it’s better to set up a system that is essentially fair, and then see who comes out the other side. LSU did that. USC did not. Was LSU the best team in 2003? Maybe not. But they *were* national champions.
reply to #12
Sandy Underpants
January 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
MDZ, Oklahoma didn’t even win their own conference in ’03 when LSU played them. Oklahoma got BLOWN OUT in their loss to K-state, and LSU got blown out in their loss to UF. USC lost by 3 points in triple overtime on the road. Furthermore, LSU was ranked behind USC the entire 2003 season, including when the season ended. And finally #2 LSU vs. #3 Oklahoma does not result in finding the #1 team. USC was ranked #1 before the season ended, they beat a team that actually won their conference championship and they were still #1 when the season ended. LSU’s fake championship was by 7 points over a crummy Oklahoma team that USC beat by 40 points in the BCS title game the year after. If that doesn’t leave any doubt. I wonder what would, under the circumstances of a bad BCS system.
reply to #13
adam
January 21st, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Let’s not forget that in 2003 both LSU and Oklahoma lost to ranked teams while USC lost to a Cal team that went 6-6 in the regular season.
reply to #14
adam
January 21st, 2006 at 7:10 pm
plus the pac shit doesn’t even play a conference championshiop game. LSU beat 6 ranked teams that year compared to USC’s 2. LSU beat a crummy team to win the national championship. What do you then call the Michigan team that year that won two less games than oklahoma
reply to #15
Nader
January 25th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Forget the AP, forget the BCS, forget it all! Years from now, it won’t be the crummy computers talking about college football’s elite. And I don’t think people care about the AP’s “unbiasedâ€? college football opinion. It will be the people talking, and there’s a very simple fact we can all understand. Texas was able to do something this year that neither USC, LSU, nor Oklahoma were able to do in the past 3 years, and that is garner an UNDISPUTED national championship. People will argue over LSU or USC in 2003, and USC or Auburn (forget Utah) in 2004. But 2005 is as clear as day. Texas is the UNDISPUTED National College Football Champion, and no one can argue with that.
Hook ‘em!
reply to #16
Paymon
January 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Nader is completly right, Texas is the first and only true undisputer champion since 2002 Ohio State.
The #12 comment on here is total BS, The Oklahoma team USC played in 2004 isnt the same as the 2003 team, the 2003 defenses for LSU and OU were amazing, dont forgot that LSU ran back a pick for a td in that sugar bowl. Just like this years USC team wasnt the same as last years, you cant call a team in college football the same year in and year out because of graduation and early departures.
FYI USC wasn beating OU or LSU in 2003, a win in LA over Michigan doesnt equate to a national championship, but you know this is all opinion because theres no real way to know.
Id also like to say that the Big 12 is the premier college football conference in the country, 2 national champions, 5 appearnces and multiple BCS and other bowl game wins in the past years is clear proof of this.
reply to #17
Paymon
January 25th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
past 6 years for that last line, hard to type a few different things at once
reply to #18
Snell
March 30th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Jeez guys…Texas won the game..period…but really, had it not been for VY, UT would have lost by two or three TD’s. Who else for UT did squat?
reply to #19
Brian
March 30th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Yeah Snell, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Take away Matt Leinart and USC loses by 3 touchdowns as well. ANd who else did anything for UT? Well Jamaal Charles and Selvin Young both had more yards per carry that Reggie Bush and Lendale White, so I guess there were other people in the game.
reply to #20
Myles Brand
May 17th, 2006 at 2:48 am
USC just better hope the NCAA doesn’t take away every victory they ever got with Reggie Bush on their team.. If Chris Webber’s Final Four banner can get lowered from the rafters, surely Auburn should be awarded the Trojans’ 2003 title because some sports agent bought a house for Bush’s parents to live in. There’s more but heck, you’ll hear about it soon enough, enjoy those victories while they’re still in your record book, Trojan fan! 😛
reply to #21
Jenny
July 30th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
And how about David Thomas…consistency!! And how about the Texas defense. I believe they did SOMETHING!! I am one of Vince’s biggest fans, but you’ve got to give credit to the guys who worked their rears off to help him and protect him. The Texas offensive line was incredible. So forget about calls and whether there were technical difficulties…it went both ways. Get over it. Give credit where it is due. Vince was an incredible leader of one of an incredibly talented TEAM.
reply to #22
vic
September 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
i’m an LSU fan im here to say LSU did not get blown out by florida the game was much closer than it seemed plus this is the SEC my friends we dont get free wins like washington,washington st. ,arizona, stanford….LSU had to bring it every week, eventually you stumble and if you knew anything about BCS oklahoma locked up a championship before their Conference championship so who cared if they lost
reply to #23
Kevin
November 29th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Simple as this. In 2003 LSU won the National Championship and has the trophy to prove it. USC however won the popularity contest. If you look at stats for the year, was USC the top offensive team? Nope, Oklahoma was. Was USC the top defensive team? Nope LSU was. Did USC play the toughest opponents? Nope. Did USC lose to the strongest opponent? NOpe. Did USC win more games. Nope they do not play a quality opponent in a conference championship like the others (which by the way had Oklahoma not had to play they would have been undefeated). In fact USC ranked #1 in exactly 1 subcatagory which was Run Defense…..in a conference that does not run. So other than having the honor of losing first (to rise on others later losses) and being adored by sportswriters, USC really has little claim. The Champion in 2003 was decided on the field with the 2 best teams. USC and the adoring media are simply sad dillusional souls.
Congratulations LSU, history revisionists and whiney pr folk be damned.
reply to #24
Richard Marx
December 5th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
USC was posted number 2 in all polls except for the BCS, so when number 2 bcs LSU won, everyone, and i mean everyone acknowledged that USC football was co-champions that year. 2004 was easy. Then when they played Texas, they got killed by Vince Young, but if you ask a group of people,”Who had a better team? USC or TEXAS?”, more than half will say USC.
reply to #25
Blue
December 23rd, 2006 at 3:01 am
You’re also forgetting that USC technically lost to Notre Dame last year. The Bush Push is an illegal maneuver, ergo time would have ran out, USC would have lost and never been in the National Championship.
Plus saying ‘If Texas didn’t have Vince Young, then..’ is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If Texas wasn’t a college.. then USC would be National Champs! If I were good at football, I could be in the NFL! Such an ignorant statement to make.
Probably the greatest game of football I have seen so far in my life, so it’s foolish to discredit it. There’s a chance I may attend USC so I have no agenda against them at all by saying all this, by the way. Also, Matt Leinart is a complete douche bag if you watched the post-game statements he maid. You have to be a pretty sore loser to claim you have the better team immediately following your defeat. Odds are if USC was the better team, they would have won.
reply to #26
drew
January 6th, 2007 at 6:01 am
fuck you guys look at the good bowl game usc went to this year and look at that shitty bowl ut went to. get used to it cause you guys suck.
reply to #27
Brian
January 6th, 2007 at 8:55 am
41-38 Drew. Eat it.
reply to #28
James
January 17th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I’m tired of all this USC being a dynasty. I’m an LSU fan who gives respect to USC for being a good team. They didn’t win the title in 2003. LSU WON! So there’s no dynasty or repeat for them. I have nothing against USC because they play in the WEAK-10, I’m sorry I meant to say the PAC-10. If USC played in the SEC, they wouldn’t have won as many games. Try playing a tough SEC regular season schedule, where USC would face a tough team just about every week. They don’t play defense in the PAC-10. I have all the respect for USC, but there no dynasty and not even close. I just wish LSU and USC could play a regular season game or bowl game to end all this crap. I’m sure we would hand USC a pretty good beating.
reply to #29
Autrey #14
May 9th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Ya i wish that they would schedule a regular season game too. I mean it would be a good game but i would have to say that USC would come out on top. i will hand it to you LSU is a pretty dang good team but USC is a hella good team. year after year after year they have teams that compete with others. but when you win 32 Rose Bowls you can start talking.
reply to #30
Ivan
June 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
dude your an idiot aren’t you USC and LSU split the title in 2003
reply to #31
Austin
November 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Please, is #8 Brian the only guy with any intelligence on this page? Had the refs not conveniently given UT that touchdown, which was EXTREMELY easy to see with or without “technical issues”, UT would have definitely lost in my mind. I understand that games are generally not decided by one play, but giving UT a touchdown on that play was simply terrible. I saw you, you saw it, we all saw it, and right from the comfort of our couches. Now tell me how UT got that TD? Vince Young is good, but I didn’t know he was so good that rules don’t apply to him anymore.
reply to #32
chris
November 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Rules do not apply to Vince Young.
reply to #33
Texas sucks
August 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Your an Idiot if you dont reconize the AP national Title
reply to #34
Brian
August 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“you’re an idiot.” Idiot.