January 23, 2006
What is this nonsense about USC?
Before the game, the football pundits (most of whom must have been USC fans) were touting the "three-peat" mantra stating that USC was going for it's third national championship. Jason Coleman has more on this story, complete with links you gotta click on.
Hook 'Em Horns
Posted by GM Roper at January 23, 2006 07:35 AM | TrackBackGM,
I think the AP poll voted them number one and did not recognize the winner of the BCS Chamionship game. Needless to say the AP is now not part of the BCS process anymore.
That's where the three-peat stuff came from, some of the sports writers and pundits decided to call it a shot at a threepeat just to be bitter about it.
Oklahoma should not have been in that game against LSU.
Posted by LASunsett at January 23, 2006 05:01 PM
Ahhh, beloved and valued friend, what is absolutely true is that the AP had no business voting... National Championships should be decided on the FIELD. If LSU had played USC, the results may well have been the same. LSU was on fire that year. But, good try anyway! LOL
Hook 'Em Horns! Now the horns can go for a twopeat maybe... we shall see!
Posted by GM Roper at January 23, 2006 07:22 PM
It kills me to say it, but the Yankees were a dynasty. Several times. The Boston Celtics were a dynasty. UCLA was a dynasty.
After that, there's a lot of almost/maybe/kindas, such as Green Bay, Chicago Bulls.
I don't think you necessarily have to have an extended streak of championships to be an almost/maybe/kinda. You can win 4 years out of 6, 3 years out of 4, 7 out of 10. But two of anything doesn't count.
Sure it's hard. That's the point.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at January 23, 2006 07:45 PM
LASunsett, Oklahoma shouldn't have been on the field against So. Cal, either. Auburn, which finished the season undefeated, would have done better. Nevertheless, USC probably would have won that game, but it would have been more of a test.
Posted by Woody at January 23, 2006 08:02 PM
