|
Post by PJ520 on Sept 24, 2004 7:00:38 GMT -5
For me it would probably be Minnesota, followed closely by THEE Ohio State Buckeyes.
|
|
|
Post by YbrikTCU on Sept 24, 2004 9:53:30 GMT -5
I like Minnesota. But then, I have friends from Minnesota.
I'm right with you on Ohio State. I also hate USC. Not a big fan of Miami. The only one of the top teams I actually don't dislike too much is Oklahoma, which is surprising since I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Texan.
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Sept 24, 2004 12:41:45 GMT -5
Finally a chance to insult the trojans. I hate USC more than anything. They didn't win anything last year. LSU is the 1 and only NC for 2003. We won the sugar bowl (aka, the national title game.) SC simply beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. The AP hates LSU (along with the rest of the SEC). Anyone that actually buys into that PAC-10 "Conference of Champions" thing is an idiot. The Pathetic 10 doesn't deserve to be a BCS conference.
Here is a good question for everyone. What would USCs record have been last year had they had LSUs schedule? What would USCs record be this year if they had LSUs schedule?
Interesting fact---LSUs defense held Georgia to -8 total yards in the first half of last years SEC title game. Give me an example of USC doing something similar against an equally good opponent.
LSU WOULD HAVE KILLED USC LAST YEAR. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CLOSE. THE 2005 LSU TIGERS SHOULD BE BETTER THAN LAST YEARS TEAM.
Other teams I hate: Auburn Florida Cal Arizona Arizona St (I will just go ahead and say the entire PAC-10) Texas -There are probably more, but I will go ahead and stop.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Tennessee on Sept 24, 2004 12:43:26 GMT -5
Georgia Michigan (stealing the Heisman in 1997)
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 24, 2004 13:00:49 GMT -5
Tennessee, for the way they treated me for undergraduate, graduate, and medical school.
USC, for cheating their way to a NC, then taking another one from the 30s during the offseason.
Notre Dame, do I need a reason?
Michigan, for talking so much about their total wins, when a good 100 came before there were 30 teams in the nation. Give them credit for playing first, but winning over intramural teams doesn't mean much to me.
|
|
|
Post by JaxHawk06 on Sept 24, 2004 14:15:51 GMT -5
USC (There fans were jerks at the Orange Bowl) Illinois (See above but at the Big Ten Tournament) Iowa State (Rivalry) FSU Miami
|
|
|
Post by JaxHawk06 on Sept 24, 2004 14:17:51 GMT -5
USC, for cheating their way to a NC, then taking another one from the 30s during the offseason. You're acting like it's USC's fault. They don't control the polls
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 24, 2004 14:48:37 GMT -5
But they do control accepting the award. And it wasn't a poll that gave it to them in the 30s. The media isn't an option, and there are lots of people from USC who don't respect LSU's NC. That's why.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Sept 24, 2004 20:44:28 GMT -5
West Virginia - for some of their fans being proud of their actions like attacking their own QB, throwing trashcans, whiskey bottles, and batteries at opposing teams.
UVA and Duke - not all alums or fans, but their students. I hate their students.
I agree about USC, though a lot of teams are willling to take credit for something they didn't earn if some people are willing to give it to them, i don't hold it against USC.
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Sept 24, 2004 21:01:54 GMT -5
But they do control accepting the award. And it wasn't a poll that gave it to them in the 30s. The media isn't an option, and there are lots of people from USC who don't respect LSU's NC. That's why. I will now claim the following national titles for LSU. 1895 - (3-0-0) 1896 - (6-0-0) 1898 - (1-0-0) 1905 - (3-0-0) 1908 - (10-0-0) 1935 - (9-1-0) 1936 - (9-1-1) 1958 - (11-0-0) 2003 - (13-1) And I will go ahead and throw this one in too. 1918 - (0-0-0) well, we were undefeated WOOHOO! NOW WE HAVE 10! ***DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR USC FANS, STOP CLAIMING TITLES THAT ARE NOT ALL YOURS***
|
|
|
Post by JaxHawk06 on Sept 24, 2004 22:04:57 GMT -5
I will now claim the following national titles for LSU. 1895 - (3-0-0) 1896 - (6-0-0) 1898 - (1-0-0) 1905 - (3-0-0) 1908 - (10-0-0) 1935 - (9-1-0) 1936 - (9-1-1) 1958 - (10-0-0) 2003 - (13-1) And I will go ahead and throw this one in too. 1918 - (0-0-0) well, we were undefeated WOOHOO! NOW WE HAVE 10! ***DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR USC FANS, STOP CLAIMING TITLES THAT ARE NOT ALL YOURS*** Iowa won a national championship in 1958 too. Why wouldn't you accept the award? They felt their team deserved it and the media thought they did.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 24, 2004 22:12:43 GMT -5
The media thought that Bill Burkett was a reliable source, and that certain documents that look fake are real. They also planted firebombs to make Chevy/GMC trucks catch fire during side collisions. Jayson Blair worked for the media as well. So what are you saying?
Oh, and the media didn't feel they deserved the one from way back when. One computer model and the people at USC thought they deserved it. The fact that the media felt LSU didn't deserve it is the damning thing. Had they voted them both tied for #1 I think I would respect it more.
|
|
|
Post by Dukeman on Sept 24, 2004 22:21:28 GMT -5
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
|
|
|
Post by Dukeman on Sept 24, 2004 22:25:16 GMT -5
Uh... well there is no National Championship in 1-A college football. LSU won the Sugar Bowl, and thus the BCS championship. If you want to consider the BCS title to be equivalent to a national championship, fine, but don't throw a fit when not everyone agrees with that sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Sept 24, 2004 23:55:38 GMT -5
Uh... well there is no National Championship in 1-A college football. LSU won the Sugar Bowl, and thus the BCS championship. If you want to consider the BCS title to be equivalent to a national championship, fine, but don't throw a fit when not everyone agrees with that sentiment. Well, the BCS is the method for determining a national champion that 6 major conferences and Notre Dame decided upon a few years ago. Now that USC found another way to crown themselves the NC they want to pretend that they didn't agree to the championship method. They knew what they needed to do to win the NC, and they didn't do it, they had an easy schedule and lost to Cal. LSU had a difficult schedule and ended w/ a better record than USC. The BCS then dtermined they were the Champs, the way the PAC 10 agreed to it a few years back.
|
|