The People's Voice's love/hate relationship

LOS ANGELES – The column I wrote expressing that no matter how awful, absurd and corrupt the BCS system is – because all the major schools agree that it is the official title system in college football – there can be no intellectual argument for USC's widely hyped bid for a "three-peat" got the nation fired up. I am hated in "L.A." the city, but loved in "La." the state.

A couple of quick clarifications: None of this has anything to do with USC's considerable abilities as a team the last few years. The Trojans may be the best team of all time. And this is not an endorsement of the BCS – I wish we had a playoff. I am in agreement with Pete Carroll on this: "The BCS has been kind of humorous and comical the whole time."

But as long as it is exists, it exists. To ignore it or work around it, only keeps the BCS around longer. It is what it is, which is why LSU won the title in 2003. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. Nick Saban held up that crystal football. A good storyline (the three-Pete) doesn't change that.

Onto The People's Voice (with my comments in italics) …

USC THREE-PETE? ("It's the BCS, stupid!," Dec. 22, 2005)

You are right on the money with your column about how USC is really only going for a repeat championship this season. How about referring to their AP poll result two years ago as a "mythical national championship"? We sure heard that phrase a lot when Brigham Young won the championship back in 1984 under the poll system back then. Makes me sick.

Scott Peterson
Sandy, Utah

What makes the BCS national champion "official"? By whom is it recognized, other than the BCS? How is the AP champion any less "official"?

Neither is recognized by the NCAA. Neither has any more claim to "officialdom" than does the Des Moines Downtown Athletic Club. Certainly, a majority of Division I schools did not agree to abide by such a system. USC has at least as much justification for claiming three consecutive national championships as Alabama has claiming a total of 26 national championships (or whatever the ridiculous number may be).

The point is, of course, that multiple national champions (limited to BCS schools of course), 56 bowl teams (dominated by representatives of the BCS) and 28 bowl winners make for a lot of happy BCS coaches and a lot of money for BCS coffers.

If big-time college football were ever declared a business, the BCS college presidents would be lined up in front of federal judges awaiting sentencing for violations of antitrust laws. I'd like to see that.

Bill Herrmann
Birmingham Ala.

I'd like to see it, too. The NCAA does not crown a Division I champion in football, but the BCS is the creation of the conference commissioners. The schools do abide by it.

I enjoyed your Jerry Tarkanian book. I also love the fact the media doesn't seem to care for the BCS complexities. What the fans and press are interested in is a powerful team that is fun to watch in all phases of the game, and Tiger fans/BCS notwithstanding, that team in '03 was SC.

As you point out in your book, all of the big-time programs are completely corrupt and hypocritical in the way they obtain players. They reap multimillion dollar proceeds through the cheap labor that these players provide. The NCAA is a fraud as well as their Byzantine system for crowning a champion. You can fool the public most of the time, but in '03, no one was fooled. SC had the best team, period.

College football reminds me of how boxing (utterly corrupt) has so many titles and belts, so that just about anybody can claim to be a title winner. But only the hardcore spectators can really judge the best from the rest. Damn the bowls and the college football establishment.

Steve Marino
New Orleans

I (as an LSU fan) just wanted to comment on your take on USC's three-peat? I never understood how the media powers that be seemed to overlook the fact that we did win the BCS championship in '03. We in the Bayou State appreciate your article and stance on the matter and for maybe the only time in my life I will say, "Hook'em Horns."

Marshall Walters
Baton Rouge, La.

Your take on USC and no three-in-a-row means nothing to me and many thinking sports fans. Because the powers that be (not the fans, players, coaches, etc) at the BCS say so is less important than public opinion. Let's see: greed vs. love of sport. I'll take fans over moneymaking suits any day. Nobody respects the BCS. Fans know who the best teams are. No backroom deals – just play, watch and know. BCS! What a joke.

Mark Carpenter
Mesa, Ariz.

I hear you on the "People's Champion" kind of thing. I have no problem with that. I think the fact the BCS officials are willing to tacitly approve of the "three-peat" deal, a completely illogical move by them, proves they know how illegitimate the public believes their system is.

But USC and the Pac-10 are very much part of the establishment that created and operates the BCS. They can't claim otherwise.

It's so reassuring that, outside of you, human beings haven't let computers tell us what we know to be true. Suggesting USC's national championship in 2003 was a "lie" means abdicating personal responsibility for what you know to be true firsthand. Clearly, the "lie" that year was perpetrated by those co-opted by contract to punch LSU's ticket.

Anyone who still had the freedom to call what they saw with their own eyes all voted USC. Fortunately, even you seem to agree the Trojans were the better team that year. Your suggestion that the system "helped" USC leap over (equal or greater?) Auburn last year suggests that you weren't watching those teams on the field. The nation's response to Auburn's undefeated (and underwhelming) season performance was barely audible.

If USC walks off the Rose Bowl field with a victory, the Trojans will be known as the greatest NCAA football team of all time – and THREE-time national champion and not even a team of BCS lawyers will be able to take away what everyone has witnessed. To call them a two-time national champion would simply be a lie.

Dan Howard
San Francisco

I also thought Oklahoma was a better title game opponent than Auburn last year. But after what we saw, I was wrong. Auburn would have been a better opponent – although I also believe USC would have beaten the Tigers, too. The problem is all of this is about what I "believe" and not what I know. I didn't believe the Chicago White Sox would win the World Series, but they did. SC may be the greatest team of all time, but intellectually you can't argue they won three titles in a row.

You have been in sports a long time, but can't do the math. Forever, when No. 2 played No. 3, you ended up with No. 2 still. USC was voted in the last poll as No. 1 in the AP and No. 1 in the coaches' poll (or would have been if not for the Nazis at the BCS). How do you justify your math?

Rules are rules? Give me a break. You could pass a rule that says Rice should be national champion every year, but it doesn't make it so. Put your head in the sand if you want, but you are being so stupid or must have flunked math.

Richard Sandfer
Irvine, Calif.

I justify my math (which I did nearly flunk, by the way) that the official championship system of college football in 2003 included the AP poll as one criterion in determining the championship matchup, not the only one. By the way, the media shouldn't even have a poll. We are in the business of reacting to news, not making it.

Why is it just now that the media is poo-pahing USC's potential "three-peat" when last year at this time y'all were lauding their upcoming "back-to-back" national championships? That, my friend, is when y'all should have stepped up and said, "Whoa! It can't be back-to-back ta-dah-ta-dah-ta-dah ad infinitum!"

William Turnham
Wimberley, Texas

I did not mention it last year, but I did back in December of 2003 and during Sugar Bowl week last year.

In 2003, acknowledging only the BSC title becomes a "form over substance" issue. You can't dismiss that, since the 1930s, the AP has been giving out the national championship. It may not have been the ideal system, but it has decades of heritage and legitimacy.

As you alluded to, the BCS has a credibility issue, something that was particularly true three years ago. This point couldn't be underscored more harshly when coaches violated their BCS contractual obligation in 2003 to vote USC the champion instead of LSU. Additionally, the BCS wouldn't have tweaked itself again if it believed it got it right then.

Bottom line: Back in 2003, the BCS was laughable and LSU did not receive the more valuable AP championship.

Scott Lyle
San Francisco

The AP poll was acceptable until the 1998 creation of the BCS, which became the official system. Prior to that, there was no system. Post 1998, the AP poll has no credibility.

I am so sick of the East Coast media not giving SC its due. Go back to New York, you jerk.

Marshall Higgins
San Diego

You sound like a whiney school boy from Louisiana.

Mark Spoonamore
Los Angeles

You stupid Texan.

Tammy Sinclair
Santa Monica, Calif.

Take your Midwest bias home with you.

H.L. Peterson
Yorba Linda, Calif.

You must be an SEC fan.

Brett van Houghton
Los Angeles

You must be a big UCLA fan.

Al Perez
Mission Hills, Calif.

Your article titled "It's the BCS, stupid!" quite frankly is one of the best and factual articles I have ever read.

Jason Hedrick
Baton Rouge, La.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I could crap a better article than this.

Tanja Brosche
Los Angeles

What would be the right way to take that?

Personally, I think you are a genius and hero.

Leo Apple
New Orleans

Have you taken your psychiatric medication lately?

David Thomas, M.D.
Fountain Valley, Calif.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Every time I hear the word "three-peat" I get so riled up that people have to throw ice water on me. It's only a two-peat, people!

Will you marry me?!

Beth Burke
Dallas

Besides the fact that I am already happily married and couldn't imagine life as a polygamist (Imagine the double-nagging? The double to-do lists? Who could think this is a good idea?), let's consider your flattering proposal, Beth.

You hail from Texas. No problem. You are so passionate about college football you occasionally need ice water thrown on you to maintain your equilibrium. This is a plus. However, you are so eager to get married you will email random Internet columnists and offer marital bliss simply because you agree with their opinion. This is what we'd call a red flag.

My conclusion: Have you read Charles Robinson? I know he writes NFL (not college football), but he's usually desperate.