Rants, comments, thoughts and funny - mostly funny - on all things Michigan and college football.

If you have ideas, tips, links or pictures for the blog, e-mail us at: MichiganZone at gmail dot com.

Thanks for checking out the M Zone. And if you enjoy the site, please pass the link on to a friend or two. We'd sure appreciate it.

Twitter: @MZoneBlog

Facebook/MZoneBlog

Best Of Tat and Tresselgate

M Zone Videos

Best Of MZone 2.0

Best Of The Original MZone

Tosu Favorites

MZone Archive

Monday, January 16, 2006

An Open Letter to "Steve," the Onepeat.com Founder


Dear Steve (aka The Great Defender of Tiger Honor),

Since you've visited our site and left us a few comments, one question:

Did you attend or graduate from LSU? And if not, what school did you go to?

We notice that your site says, "Geaux Tigers, Hook 'Em Horns, Go Bruins" and we were just curious what the Bruins have to do with this "debate" you're so passionately behind. You wouldn't be a UCLA alum, would you?

Thanks,

Your friends at the M Zone

P.S. Since we doubt we'll get an answer, any of our readers know "Steve" and where he went to school?

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

i'm the guy posting this stuff.
i'm nott he guy who owns the site.
just so you know
dont jump to assumptions
because you make a sumptious ass out of me

the burden of proof is on usc to show us the bcs documents that their conference signed

if the bcs documents show that they still acknowledge that the ap is a legitimate national championship purveyor, there is a split.

if the bcs contract says there is only one national championship game that will decide the one champion, as i know it says because i've read it, usc has no argument.

LSU's title is based on a CONTRACT (Legitimacy) and the FIELD (Merit).

usc's on the slight majority of media voters who said usc was #1, showing their real motive: to destroy the bcs.

Anonymous said...

P.S.

It's http://www.OnePeat.com

not one-peat.com


You want me to c&p the argument of legitimacy and merit again?

P.S.S. You got a good blog even though you're blind about 2003

Anonymous said...

P.S.S.S.

on your graphic with barney, clever, but wrong.

there is only one trophy that matters in 2003

it is the crystal ball in that cartoon.

it has never been to california.

it is in baton rouge.

it has never nor will ever be shared.

Yost said...

Anon,

Thanks for the kind words about our little blog...even if we disagree on this topic.

And since you're not Steve, hopefully you won't be offended by the post I'm working as to why I'm opposed to the Onepeat.com thing (whose address you seem to put up a lot on our site for a guy who isn't behind it). My reasons are a tad different than Benny's.

TrojanRuss said...

What a moron you are. Since you've seen this supposed contract, why don't you post it where we can all see it, or give us a link to it. SHouldn't be that difficult, should it. And asnwer me this: Why does the BCS site itself acknowledge that there are two national champions for 2003? I posted the link to this yesterday.

Besides, none of that matters because the AP has been awarding a national championship since 1936, and they didn't all of a sudden give up their right to continue doing so.

Plus, why don't you show us and tell us about the contract that really matters, the one between the Coaches Poll and ABC that dictates that the coaches are contractually obligated to vote for the winner of the BCS title game as its national champion. That is the only reason LSU has a share of the title to begin with-- so that ABC can televise a trophy ceremony after the game. Everybody knows that the only reason LSU has a share of the title is that most coaches honored their contractual obligation and voted for the winner of the BCS game rather than the team they thought was most deserving of the national championship. USC was the coaches' number one team, and would have continued to be the number one team had the coaches not been prevented from voting for USC by ABC's contract with the coaches' poll.

By the way, the BCS championship is nothing more than the coaches' championship, as the trophy is awarded to the team with the most points in the coaches' poll. Was that in the contract you supposedly saw?

Yost said...

Russ,

Great point re: Coaches voting for LSU BECAUSE THEY HAD TO! Man, that's such an obvious one that I had forgotten to post here these last couple days.

Yeah, they fail to mention that. You think EVERY coach that had SC #1 suddenly had a change of heart? I'm gonna go out on a limb and so no.

Thanks for your comment.

Dezzi13 said...

I've gone to the official BCS site and can't find a link to this contract that everyone keeps talking about... in fact, I've done numerous searches on this... still nothing. The Google has failed me.

TrojanRuss said...

Yost, remember, three coaches even broke their contractual obligations and voted for USC anyway. Had the coaches been able to vote for whomever they wanted, they probably would have split a little closer to LSU than their pre-bowl vote (USC had 37 first place votes to LSU's 18 and Oklahoma's 8), but LSU would have had to maintain every single first place vote from the coaches who voted them #1, plus gain every first place vote from the coaches who voted Oklahoma #1 and have six coaches who voted for USC to change and vote for LSU. Possible, but certainly not likely considering USC's domination of Michigan in the Rose Bowl and the ugly game LSU and Oklahoma played, with Oklahoma having a chance to tie it at the end.

Yost said...

There is no doubt in my mind, that free to vote their conscience, SC would have won both polls.

And I'm not saying that as some rabid SC fan (as a Michigan fan, I've had my heart broken many years by the Trojans in RB games) but as someone with no horse in this race.

Anonymous said...

IMO the One Peat is basically directed at Pete Carrol, not so much at USC. It was Pete Carrol that decided to declare the Rose bowl a NC game and USC NC. This was after agreeing to the BCS fromula to designate a NC.

In fact USC, thru the PAC10, had the strongest influence on the formula of any school in the country and got it like they wanted it over other proposals. This was a result of their sharing of the NC with AL I believe in 1979 when they beat L early in the season.

After getting the formula exactly like they wanted it Carrol chose to ignore it and proclaim USC NC. No. 1 in the AP meant nothing because both the AP and USC were part of the BCS process. No one objects to him still saying he thinks his team his the best team, but why attack the process to which USC and the PAC10 agree.

If you agree with Pete Carrol having the right to do this I suggest that we just let him name the NC every year after the season is over. Save a lot of time and trouble for everybody.

Yost said...

Uh...what? SC was the AP National Champion of '03. Period.

LSU was the BCS/Coaches Poll Champ (b/c the BCS contract REQUIRED the coaches to vote the winner of the BCS game as Nat. Champ NOT who they thought was best).

Let me ask you this, Anon -- do you think it was right that the coaches were FORCED to vote for LSU after the '04 Sugar Bowl?

Anonymous said...

YOU'RE FORGETTING THE WHOLE REASON THE BCS WAS FORMED

IT WAS TO PREVENT BIASED AND STUPID DECISIONS BY THE POLLS. THERE ARE TOO MANY EXAMPLES IN THE PAST OF HUMAN VOTERS VOTING WITH NO LOGIC.

THE AP DECIDED TO LEAVE THE BCS WHEN THE BCS PRESSURED THE AP TO REVEAL ITS VOTERS' BALLOTS. COULDN'T HAVE THAT, NOW COULD WE?

IF THERE IS A HUMAN ELEMENT, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF ACCOUNTABILITY

THERE IS NONE WITH THE AP

BECAUSE THE AP WAS PART OF TEH BCS SYSTEM, THE AP POLL RENDERED ITSELF MEANINGLESS IN DECLARING ITS OWN NATIONAL CHAMPION

THE AP IN 1998 FELL BY TEH WAYSIDE WHEN IT COMES TO CROWNING CHAMPIONS

THAT'S WHY IT WENT ON A RAMPAGING PRO USC, ANTI BCS CAMPAIGN IN 2003. THEY WANTED THEIR POWER BACK.

BECAUSE OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU, THEY GOT IT

AT LEAST IN THE PRESENT. 2003 USC AND LSU BOTH WANTED TO GO TO THE SUGAR AND WIN IT. THEY KNOW THAT THE WINNER WAS THE ONE AND ONLY NATIONAL CHAMPION.

COACHES VOTE MEANS NOTHING. COACHES COULD HAVE VOTED LSU #1 EASILY. REMEMBER WHEN THEY DID THEY BOOSTED A BETTER #2 NEBRASKA TEAM PAST YOU LOSERS? LOL

THERE IS NO RATIONAL DEFENSE FOR HAVING USC ABOVE LSU

I CHALLENGE ANY USC FAN TO GIVE ONE. USC'S CLAIM IS ONE BASED SOLELY ON OPINION, UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNACCOUNTABLE (ONE AP VOTER VOTED MICHIGAN OVER LSU IN HIS FINAL BALLOT).

LSU PLAYED A CLEARLY BETTER TEAM IN ITS BOWL
LSU WOULD HAVE BEATEN THAT SAD MICHIGAN TEAM BY 30.

WE BEAT A BETTER UGA TEAM BY THAT MARGIN.

CapBuck said...

Wow...Since you wrote that in all caps I guess I am forced to agree with your argument (screaming).

Yost said...

Anon,

*sigh* First off, typing in all caps doesn't make your point any stronger. That's what my little neice does with her 4th grade friends to emphasize which boy band is best and what old people who are just learning to use the Internet do when they forget they have the CAPS LOCK on.

As for your "reasoning," I don't know where to start and to even start would imply that you made sense to begin with. Tell you what, I'm just going to let your "thoughts" speak for themself. People can then judge whether or not they think you're making any sort of rational argument.

I have a hunch, except for you and the "Mythical Steve," the answer is no.

CapBuck said...

And by the way, everybody knows that the BCS was not created to 'prevent biased and stupid decisions by the polls.'

The BCS was formed to create a national championship game that reached across the barriers of conference-bowl contracts/affiliations.

The BCS was formed to ensure that a #1 and #2 team could meet regardless what conference they were in.

However, if you think for one second that the BCS magically and unanimously settled for all time the issue of WHO #1 and #2 (and the eventual champion, for that matter) actually are, well then you're living in a fanciful land devoid of logic, historical perspective, reality......

Yost said...

Cap,

Well said. And you must be right to get a Buck and a Wolverine to agree 100% on something.

Anonymous said...

I'm an State fan and the man does have a point in saying that the media and coaches polls are, of course, going to be biased. We're human after all and you can't discount the bias involved in either of these two polls. Correct me if I'm mistaking my history but didn't CAL get screwed by some coach voting them far lower that everyone else therefore allowing Texas to jump them. (I can't completely remember which teams it was, but it was a sheisty move and became a big deal).

God knows the BCS isn't perfect, but it's much better than the media or coaches poll. The only way we can prevent the 97' and 03' splits is for there to be a playoff, something that will not happen. So any fan arguing that either opponent in the 97' game or 03' game is the outright champion is living in a dream world. You're both champions. Be grateful you finished better than 115 teams in the country.

Yost said...

You're both champions. Be grateful you finished better than 115 teams in the country.

Touche.

Beaker said...

Ummmm.... The AP was never a part of the BCS, at least not by their decision. The BCS used the AP as a basis for decision but it was never the AP's choice.

You can question the AP's integrity for pulling out. But you also have to consider that the AP didn't sell out by saying we'll just vote for who you tell us to vote for.

Yost said...

Beaker,

Yeah, how much of a "champ" are you if you're crowned b/c folks are contractually forced to vote for you.

Not taking away from LSU, but when they say SC didn't get a piece in '03, they never mention that fact.

Anonymous said...

check out the LSU fan's comments in the latest blog though. Not bad.

Yost said...

If you mean the post above, already did and already responded. And better than not bad, I thought they were great.

Benny Friedman said...

ANONYMOUS LSU fan above. You are wrong about the AP leaving the BCS because the BCS wanted them to reveal votes. The AP chose to leave the BCS because they didn't feel that the "journalists" who vote in that poll should be helping to direct bowl money to certain schools. And besides, the AP votes are NOT anonymous. It's the coaches poll that is anonymous, rendering its credibility pretty low.

Yost said...

Benny,

Thanks for clearing that up although I suspect facts and the truth are irrelevant to him.

Anonymous said...

"The AP chose to leave the BCS because they didn't feel that the "journalists" who vote in that poll should be helping to direct bowl money to certain schools."

Well, wait a minute, let's be honest here. The Associated Press poll had no problems *joining* the BCS at its inception in the 90s. It was only after the controversy of 2003 that they began to grumble, and then the fact that they (and the coaches) all looked pretty foolish when Auburn ran the table and USC wiped the floor with Oklahoma in 2004.

I think they got out because it's much easier to rip on something if you're not one of the major components of said problem (a corollary to the old "if you don't vote, you can't complain" theory). The 'push bowl money to different schools' explanation (and it's certainly a valid criticism, but my guess is also came up when they were debating JOINING the BCS) was simply convenient and would be very difficult for proponents of the BCS to refute.

At least, that's the way I saw it. I could of course be wrong. But I'm always very hesitant to ascribe any sort of positive moral character to the national media - it's simply a matter of 'precedent.' :)

---Underbruin

Yost said...

UB,

Good stuff. I respect your opinion.

Thanks for posting.

Benny Friedman said...

Underbruin, I agree with you regarding the "moral standing" the AP took when asking out of the BCS. That's why I put the word "journalists" in quotes in my original comment. But at least they're willing to reveal their votes, and are free to vote who they think should be number one, unlike the coaches.

Anonymous said...

The burden of proof is on USC?
First off, the burden of proof is not on USC or USC fans here. It is on LSU fan.
When someone alleges breach of contract, the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. That is exactly what we have here. These guys are the ones that are claiming in particular what the BCS contract says. These guys are the ones that are claiming said contract has been violated. The burden of proof is on them to prove it. And let us be clear here. They will in effect have to prove the BCS is either ignorant of its own contract, or a party in the conspiracy as seen below.

What proof there is available goes against our favorite LSU fan. Anyone that is halfway sane can go to the following link and see for themselves. The BCS itself says split title. I don't know about you, but I think I'll take the BCS's word on what their contract said rather than some disguntled fans that just cannot seem to deal with reality.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=timeline

This burden of proof schtick is new. USC fans on various boards have personally laid out a challenge to any and all of these people to show us one signed bcs contract that states in whole or part, "all signitors hereto hereby agree that only the BCS title game winner is to be recognized as the national champion to the exclusion of all others including but not limited to the ap poll." or something similar.
It seems simple enough. These guys make a claim as to what the contract says, and a claim that USC signed it, they obviously must have access to a contract. They ought to back that up with proof right? No takers. Two years now that challenge has been out there. And now I see after two years, their only response is to change their tune and now claim the burden of proof is on USC?
Pathetic to say the least. No LSU fan, YOU are alleging breach of contract. The burden is on YOU to prove it. And without said contract with that language in it, you have no proof. I guess Fantasy land isn't just for Disney any more.
One guy (we can't know truly whether he's behind the website) even went so far as to come on the USC boards and claim he'd seen a contract from 2003. But of course he didn't have access to it at the moment, conveniently.
Translated. They have no contract and they are full of nothing but hot air.
And of course this begs the question. If there's this breach of contract by multiple parties cheating LSU out of its right to an exclusive national title, if the ap breached its contract, why isn't LSU itself sueing the ap and USC and the BCS for breach of contract? Is LSU part of this conspiracy? Say it isn't so mabel the commies have infiltrated LSU!!!!Well we're gonna fight em no matter what our own school thinks!!!! Take that!!! I guess people will believe what they want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. By the way, on an unrelated topic did you guys know the world is flat?

It's a shame when Louisianans still are trying to cope with katrina and the aftermath that someone wants to waste 10 grand on a billboard because he cannot deal with reality.
But does he waste his own money? No. He goes and begs UCLA and Texas for their support. Pathetic.
I guess LSU fan is the one to talk about what is and is not a proper National title considering they win one once every 45 years. Next one due in 2048.

Anonymous said...

everyone needs to get a freakin life and quit this crap. USC won the AP, LSU won the BCS. End of story. As far as the rest of the country is concerned. Neither team deserves or doesn't deserve more of a share than the other. It should have been LSU/USC in the title game that year. The system screwed up.

However, correct me if I'm wrong in being a Michigan fan, but LSU does have a rich tradition in football, and the comments about the "45 years every NC" made by the previous anonymous USC fan is a little below the belt. Doesn't need to be mentioned. So Go Wolverines, Fight On, and Geaux Tigers.

TrojanRuss said...

The AP never "joined" the BCS. The BCS used its poll for the purposes of pitting the two top-ranked teams in a national championship game. The AP did not agree to anything. What they didn't do was protect their intellectual property (their poll). If someone starts using your intellectual property and you don't stop them, it doesn't mean that you can't ever stop them or that it means you are now part of their use by caveat.

What happened was in 2004, Mack Brown's pleading for votes, which resulted in Cal and Texas switching places in the Coaches Poll and causing Cal and the Pac-10 to lose out on a major bowl game and an extra $4 million, made the AP decide that they didn't want their poll to be used by a system that hid the identities of the voters (coaches) when their poll (AP) had transparency. When the coaches voted to keep their poll secret except for the final vote, the AP pulled out. It should also be noted that ESPN also decided it didn't want to be associated with the coaches poll for the same reason, and disallowed USA Today and the Coaches Poll to use its name in conjunction with the poll.

The AP never signed up to be a part of the BCS. The BCS just thought they could use their poll, and when the AP exercised its intellectual property rights, the BCS had to go and create another poll to give their sham some legitmacy, which it did nothing of the sort. The morons, in their infinite wisdom, decided to protect the coaches by making the second poll (Harris) secret, too, except for the final vote, thus taking pressure off the coaches from making their votes public.

The system needs transparency or you end up having coaches jockeying teams around so that they can get a second team in the BCS, thereby giving their school an extra $333,000 (in the case of a 12-team conference-- more for conferences with fewer teams).

Dabi22 said...

i don't like hypocrites

Back to Back National Champions!
Three PETE!
--poor lsu gets lost in media Hype, it is as if USC went to New Orleans and not LSU.

onepeat.com
--poor usc fans can't stand it, and are complaining.

Anonymous said...

OnePeatBog.com

Check and mate