BCS/USC as if it matters rant

TEXAS-As if it matters, indeed. The year was 2003, I believe. LSU beat the Oklahoma Sooners for the BCS National Title. USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Suddenly a flood of media questions about whether the Trojans were actually the best team in the land swept the analysis booth. Next thing we knew the AP Writers had given their title to the Trojans, as if it mattered. By the time they were matched against Texas in the 2005 Rose Bowl nat'l championship game, the same media were talking openly about USC playing for their 3rd national championship. The revisionist historians had effectively stripped The Tigers of their rightful crystal from 2003 and acted as if the BCS had just not existed that year. It was a disgusting display of the media's power of shaping public perception. At that moment only people in Austin and Baton Rouge were immune to such illusion. And, let us just thank the great Vince Young and his mighty Texas Longhorns for vanquishing the Disney-like smoke and mirrors hoisted up around L.A.'s football franchise. No retractions or apologies to LSU were ever said or printed anywhere. None of those jack asses on ESPN or sports talk radio ever corrected their over zealous suggestive remarks.
One thing we learned about that moment is that in the absence of an NFL franchise, L.A. claims the Trojans as their pro team. Every major media outlet in the world has at least operations their, if not headquarters. It is arguably the largest market in America. Covering their teams brings more viewers from that market, which brings higher ratings and more Ad dollars, which keeps the fake snowball growing.
I was still shocked Friday morning as I turned on what is increasingly becoming ESPN's version of "Good Morning America." I was greeted with images of USC victory over Penn State in the Rose Bowl. No surprise that the number 5 team had beaten the number 8 team, really. But, you'd have thought you were in Lubbock when Texas Tech beat then number 1 Texas. Pete Carrol in all his class actually suggested his team should have been in the National Championship game. He actually said that USC could beat OK or FL, not to mention Texas or Alabama. Of course Mr. Carrol is savvy at the sound bite and spin game. Over and over they played his little bit. Over and over they had some post-steroidal rock head saying in his honest opinion USC belongs in the debate, as if their is some debate included in the BCS formula. With Utah's victory over Alabama, the unanimous number 1 team for most of the year and with their(Utah's) 13-0 record should we include them in that nebulous debate? If USC had played and beat Alabama, it is possible they might just cancel the rest of the games and crown them on the spot. Could USC beat Utah? You see where I am going with all of this. PLAYOFFS!
As long as the BCS is the target I am OK with any and all doubts cast on those results. But when the automatic recipient is USC when sitting in the top 5, I take serious issue. Either we need playoffs or more inter-conference play as we had with Texas vs Ohio State in the 2005-2006 seasons or USC should play Texas, Oklahoma or Texas Tech every year. And they should play one of the top SEC teams from the previous year. SEC is still the toughest conference. Big 12 is now a close second. PAC-10 and Big-10 are third passengers for sure. And when you lose an early season game to the Oregon State Beavers because you cannot stop their undersized running back, you have no room to get up at the Rose Bowl and suggest you have the best team in the land. I would like to see them play Oregon St. again. That was fun to watch. GO BEAVERS! And somebody tell them to take that back to back bullshit down, it is a bold face lie.