batchaps4me
Trolley conductor in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood.
It is exactly why he brought up 03 and 04. It was the AP poll. One of the polls used by the computer to put teams in the MNC during the BCS era. Not some irrelevant sports writer opinion poll. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
I don't think I have had any qualms with you, so allow me to explain my position in a manner that is not as confrontational as we are getting. IMHO it matters less to me to what a system is compared to is the system being followed. Before the BCS, polls crowned a champion. We have had dozens of polls used to pick multiple champs in the same season. For the most part, I do not dispute anyone claiming a natty based on contemporaneous pre BCS era polls, even if I disagree with the poll.
That ended with the BCS because opinion was being factored out in lieu of a computer/poll mix, or so the theory went. At the point of the first year of BCS, the BCSCG decided the champ, not the polls. It was at least better than Bowl tie ins and the eye test(polls) on teams that did not play one another. Once the BCS was in place, IMHO that is the decider of champions. The AP was voluntarily a part of and had say in, what pitted LSU and Oklahoma. Every player, coach, AD and conference … along with the AP … knew how the natty would be decided and agreed that the BCS was the system that selected the MNC.
When I say that the AP was irrelevant with their naming of USC as MNC over the BCS champs, it is not because the AP is some random group devoid of skills and discernment but rather because they agreed to be a large part of the BCS to help determine the BCSCG matchup and then refused to abide by the outcome. I also think that USC could have beaten both LSU and Oklahoma but that is irrelevant too. We had a process for picking the MNC and when that process played out USC was not even in the CG, much less the champion of it.