This guy from California is an idiot and gets owned by the author of the article.
From Jeff in Upland, Calif.: USC has been a national powerhouse for quite some time. The Trojans have whipped pretty much everyone in big-time games except Vince Young. So why is there so much bias against them? They show they can play and beat other top-ranked teams, but voters never vote for them. Surely after their past performances, people would get smart.
You're kidding, right?
There is no bias against USC. In each of the past five seasons, the Trojans started the season ranked no lower than sixth and three times were preseason No. 1. Is that bias? Lest we forget, in 2003 LSU defeated Oklahoma for the BCS national championship, but The Associated Press voted USC its version of the national title. Is that bias?
|Joe McKnight and the Trojans lost their title chances when they lost to Oregon State.|
Its on-field performance and recruiting success ensures that USC will be ranked high at the start of each season, and it should. But the Trojans can only blame themselves for failing to get into the BCS national championship game in the past three seasons.
The Trojans, and not Florida, would have played Ohio State for the 2006 national championship had they not lost to UCLA in the final regular-season game. A home-field loss to a Stanford team that finished 4-8 cost the Trojans a shot in '07. Last season, the Trojans lost to Oregon State. Utah, which went undefeated and beat Oregon State, had a better argument for playing in the BCS title game than did the Trojans.
If there were a playoff, USC probably would have claimed at least one more national championship in the past three seasons. But the current system matches teams with the best résumés, not necessarily the best teams. In the past three seasons, other teams have had better résumés. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of bias.