Note before I begin my criticism proper my respect for you so that what may come across as harsh isn't intended personally towards you.
Why did Oklahoma get in, in 2003? The computers liked them better. Why did the computers like them better? Probably had something to do with playing one more difficult game than USC and having the same record. That stuff matters, and computers could not be swayed into pretending certain things don't matter.
Actually, that didn't "really" have anything to do with it at all.
Just last week you argued about precedent, a concept pretty much all of us agree with. In that case we had the (and I agree with) questionable ranking of a two-loss Auburn team TWO spots ahead of unbeaten Wisconsin.
Can you tell me how many times and through how many polls there was EVER a team that was number one in the polls, that team lost a blowout by four TDs.....and was STILL number one in the polls? It's happened ONE time......it was Oklahoma in 2003, who everyone seems to forget not only didn't even win their division but was STILL number one after a 28-point loss.
That has happened ONE TIME, and it was beyond absurd that it ever happened.
Furthermore, I would argue that the BCS simply does NOT agree with your argument here since even they monkeyed with the computers and changed the formula enough that we would have gotten the match we should have. Remember...it wasn't a case of USC or Oklahoma, it was a case of USC or LSU........
I wrote about this back in April.
Now, I WILL acknowledge you are RIGHT on one key issue here.....OU DID play the strongest schedule that year. That much is true. But the pure insanity of the whole deal is that the OU-USC game (wouldn't we all look at Saban differently now.....and indeed, does he even leave LSU in 2004?) was ruled out by:
a) Boise State beating Hawaii
b) Syracuse beating Notre Dame
Those two results combined with LSU having to play UGA in a rematch lifted LSU, which wasn't really the issue. No, the REAL issue was we had a poll that for the only time in human history kept a team at #1 despite that team not only losing but getting absolutely blown to smithereens.
And let's be honest....OU's schedule wasn't substantially more difficult than either LSU or USC.
Look at LSU'S OOC schedule that year: ULM, Arizona, W Illinois, and La Tech. WIU was a I-AA school and the other three combined for a record of 8-28. The SEC that year wasn't overly good, either, as LSU's lone loss was to a FIVE-loss Florida team.
Oklahoma's OOC was I-AA (then) N Texas, 4-9 Alabama, 9-5 Fresno, and 6-7 UCLA.
USC played 8-5 Auburn, 4-8 BYU, and 9-5 Hawaii.
COMMON OPPONENTS
USC 23 Auburn 0 (at JHS)
LSU 31 Auburn 7 (at BR)
USC 45 Arizona 0
LSU 59 Arizona 13
USC 47 UCLA 22
OU 59 UCLA 24
OU 20 Alabama 13
LSU 27 Alabama 3
I think too many folks were knee-jerk critics of the BCS. Someone the other day (don't know the name, sorry) basically said that the MISTAKE the BCS made right off the bat was that they tried to please everyone rather than defend the system as it was. In response to the exclusion of Miami after the Hurricanes' head-to-head victory over Florida St, the BCS removed the points differential aspect and it was THIS change that caused the computers to view Oklahoma's blowout loss to K-State as exactly the same as USC's triple OT loss to the Aaron Rodgers-led California Golden Bears.
And that was a decent Cal team.......they played K-State MUCH closer than Oklahoma did for sure.
In other words, changes made early by the BCS in an effort to quiet critics CAUSED this problem. 2003 was, in all honesty, the only case....I repeat, the ONLY case....where we can justifiably say, "Yes, the BCS got one of the two teams wrong." Folks like to say that the BCS "usually got it right." Despite my criticisms of the situation, I would argue that only TWICE did they NOT get it 100%.....2001 and 2003. And you can't blame the BCS for 2001 since the only reason Nebraska made the game was because Colorado vs Washington St was cancelled due to 9/11.
Again for the record.....I'm sitting there thinking a four-team BCS in and of itself solves even THAT particular problem. In my view, the only REAL reason for a four-team playoff is in the event you have 3-4 unbeaten P5 teams.
As far as the Double Secret Committee (har har).......let's be honest and admit they've done a pretty outstanding job in the only poll that actually counts. The rest of it, quite frankly, is window dressing. Only ONE of their 16 selections could be questioned as possibly wrong (Ohio St over TCU in 14), and maybe we have to admit they saw something we didn't since the Buckeyes won out.