Sports writers are some of the biggest moral cowards in journalism. They agitate all season long for specific bowl-game match-ups, but refuse to let their polls be used to determine those same match-ups. They clamor for an impractical and unworkable NFL-style playoff system so they don't have to face up to their own poll deciding who is the champion. (You can see this in the complete lack of acknowledgment that LSU was the 2003 BCS National Champion, not USC, which split the title by coming in on top in the AP Poll.) They want it their way all the time, and when they're proven wrong, they blame everyone else. They should be in Congress.

One of the symptoms of this malady is the "conventional wisdom" - the articles that assume something but never outright state it because that would leave a paper trail. This month, the conventional wisdom undergirding all Rose Bowl coverage is that USC is going to win the game and the national championship. They won't come out and say it, because then they'd have to answer for it, but it's clear from the tone and the discussion. Texas was a strong #2, and this is the match-up they wanted, but it's clear to them that USC will win.

This reminds me of nothing more than the coverage leading into the 2001 Orange Bowl (after the 2000 football season). Chris Wienerkey (or whatever his name was) had just won the Heisman Trophy, and his one-loss Florida State Seminoles were playing for the BCS championship against undefeated Oklahoma. This was because the 11-1 FSU team, though a unanimous #3 in the polls, was a unanimous #1 in the computers, leaving Miami (unanimous #2 in the polls and #3 in the computers) out of the title game. 12-0 Oklahoma was #1 in the polls and #2 in the computers, guaranteeing the Sooners a shot at the game.

The sportswriters were unhappy. They didn't overtly question OU's place in the title game, because the Sooners were the nation's only undefeated team, but they very publicly questioned FSU's place because FSU's one loss was to - you may remember this - Miami, on 2000.10.03 in the Orange Bowl (the original, not Pro Player Stadium where the bowl game is played). The sportswriters had voted Miami #2, but it was clear from the coverage that they didn't think OU was up to either FSU or Miami's standards.

The tone of the coverage for the two weeks preceding the game was, "When FSU beats Oklahoma, does Miami have a legitimate share of the national championship?" Only the Coaches' poll was bound to follow the BCS game results, as the 2003 season would later demonstrate. When FSU beat Oklahoma, the sportswriters said, they were going to vote #2 Miami as #1 to replace OU, and FSU would finish in second place to Miami where they belonged.

You may recall that the final score of the 2001 Orange Bowl was OU 13, FSU 2 - and the 2 points came after the punter deliberately threw a bad snap out of the back of the end zone with 5:00 left in the game. It was an offensive shutout of the do-no-wrong Seminoles and their Heisman-winning quarterback. Miami won the Sugar Bowl and finished the season as a consensus #2, for OU was the only 13-0 team in the country.

This week, the more I hear the assumption that USC cannot lose to Texas, the more I think about the same sportswriters wondering if Miami should get that share of the 2000 National Championship when FSU won the Orange Bowl.

Just a thought.