« The Rest of My Picks | Main | Retrospective National Championship Project »

Onepeat Billboard Is up in Los Angeles

The fellows over at have been raising money since early January for a very worthy cause — to put up a billboard right across the street from the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The purpose of this ad? To refute USC's claim to a dynasty. According to onepeat.com, USC was never going for a three-peat, as LSU actually won the national championship in 2003, which most people had forgotten all about. And obviously, USC didn't win in 2005 either.

Yesterday, I was notified via the onepeat.com e-mail newsletter that the billboard was up at the corner of 39th and Figueroa, directly across the street from the Coliseum. Today, I made my way down there (sporting my lucky Longhorns hat) to take a few shots:

Onepeat.com billboard wide angle shot

Onepeat.com billboard

Onepeat.com billboard from directly underneath

Onepeat.com billboard close-up

Onepeat.com billboard and Jimbo

Here is a satellite photo showing where the billboard is in relation to the stadium. The location of the billboard has been marked by the red rectangle (far right, middle). The billboard faces south. The USC campus lies approximately 1/4 mile to the north.
Onepeat.com billboard location aerial view

I also took a 180-degree panoramic shot that shows both the Coliseum and the billboard. Due to its width, I was unable to post it on this page, but try this link (309 KB): 180-degree panoramic photo of Onepeat billboard and Coliseum.

If you think the panoramic shot is neat, check out this movie of the Onepeat billboard and Coliseum (9.5 MB).

Enjoy this post? Del.icio.us it!

Comments

Great pictures & video!!!

FUSC and their 2003 Season and so called 3peat championship run.

The 2003 NCAA College BCS National Champions, The Louisiana State University Fighting Tigers.

It's not surprising that $C fans would delude themselves that they won a championship in '03. But I still can't get over the national media buying into that one. The BCS (for it's many faults) was created exactly to avoid any discussion about who "really" won the championship. It was agreed on by all parties. There is a championship trophy given to the winning team every year. LSU has the trophy. $C does not. $C has won exactly one championship in recent years. They are no more of a dynasty than LSU or Texas.

What's funny is that the billboard is in a spot where no USC students or alumni venture. It faces South, AWAY from the campus. Nice try, though.

USC Student,

Seems like it got your attention.

Fact: USC won the Associated Press Trophy in 2003, LSU won the BCS Trophy. The record books will forever have this documented as a *split* National Championship.

Case closed.

Why do I love this billboard? It doesn't really say much, as if it's written in code. It can easily be interpreted to mean "none of these programs have a dynasty".
It also shows that a lot of LSU fans are in complete denial about recent history and/or simply dimwitted...

El Pueblo,
No one ever claimed LSU or Texas to have a dynasty, because that would be ridiculous. Southern Cal is part of a Pac-10 Conference that agreed to use the BCS to determine the NC. They didn't win it, case closed.

Isnt that in the ghetto?

When did LSU win the AP National Championship vote in 2003? Oh yeah, they didn't. Deal with it. LSU and USC were co-champs. Could LSU have beaten USC that year? Unfortunately, we'll never know. Because of that, they are both worthy of having to share the crown for that year. Quit being bitches and just accept it.

What kills me is the arrogance of the USC fans, players and coaches. Really, they may have split the title, but no one will ever be able to say they are a "Class Act" because they are NOT!!!

usc fans,

were you playing for the ap title or bcs trophy going into the season?

'nuff said.

Arrogance? Have you ever listened to Pete Carrol? He's quite humble and when they do team comparisons, no matter how weak the other school is, he talks about their strengths and what USC must do in order to win. Are all the players a Class Act? Dude, it's football. Think about the type of people that play and watch football. You expect them all to be a classy? Some will, some won't. Leinart is a Class Act. That fool, can't remember his name, that punched some guy in the face, said he owns the LAPD and then ran away, he's a dumbass. Every team has people like that.

And finally, playing for the AP or BCS trophy. Hello, you play for EVERYTHING. They played for the AP trophy, they played for the BCS trophy, and they played for the Roses!! You take what you can get!

And remember, as far as '03 is concerned, USC was ranked #1 in BOTH polls. However, because of BSC rankings, the #1 team didn't get to play in the BCS title game. instead, #2 and #3 were invited.

Pac-10, USC one of them, signed up for the BCS deal. You can't love the BCS when it favors you and say BCS is unfair when the formula picks another team to be in the championship game. Can't have it both ways. Anyone who denies that is a hypocrite

It's time USC plays some real teams instead of the pac10 pussies

Other teams that USC has beaten (2003 - present):

Arkansas
Notre Dame (3 times)
Auburn
BYU (twice)
Michigan
Virginia Tech
Oklahoma

Jealous much?

LOL...where is LSU in that list?

I'd like to comment on Leinart being a class act. Unfortunately, I can't, because he's not. What kind of class act is a sore loser? Leinart told the cameras "Texas won, but we're still the better team." Get over it dude, you lost.

Leinart is no class act. He's the one who sat there during an interview and said "the better team didn't win," "it was a hard win...err...loss," amongst other failures.

The only reason you hold him so highly as a class act is because he had never lost a game up until Vince Young decided he had heard enough about this fraud and tore up their defense. When Leinart lost the only game that counted, out came his inner bitch.

However, Reggie Bush, as I and many UT fans will admit, is a class act.

Ohio State would have beat USC the past 5 years...GO BUCKS! MICHIGAN SUCKS

Seriously guys at LSU you need to deal with the fact that 2003 was a co-championship season. Let me see USC was ranked #1 in both polls, but BCS being what it is, did invited not the #1 and #2 but #2 and #3. Now when have you heard a championship game to be played between the #2 and #3. The only reason why LSU hates this team is because USC has more Media attention which it rightly deserves. Deal with it.

Leinart being a classy act or not? He is one. Deal with that one too.

Also would like to remind you guys that stop singing praises of other Universities, aka Texas.

Also, which school won the last 4 out 5 Heisman's. Thats right USC. Deal with it.

All i think is the this makes LSU look bad...........Only because no one really cares you think any USC students lost any sleep over it??? Infact LSU and USC haters are the only ones that think USC didnt win a NC in 03...................Even the BCS admits they failed and USC split the NC in 03 check it out at the offical BCS web site http://www.bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=timeline

USC fans.

Please list or post a pic of the Crystal Footballs won during the years of your dynasty.

What's USC's beef? LSU would have been in the 2003 Championship game, against either USC or Oklahoma. In the end, they won it.

This Makes LSU look bad? Ha! They're downright GIDDY about looking so bad "on the corner of 39th and Figueroa, directly across the street from the Coliseum."

Ghettos? South End? I supose this means you think there is a better side of the USC campus?

LSU is dealing with it just fine.

Enjoy your dynasty.

As a GT and ACC fan that isn't a SEC fan by any stretch of the imagination, I can honestly say that LSU is the only Champ from 2003. The BCS Champion is the only champion. The AP does not have a Championship vote anymore. If Cal hasn't been the superior team in 2003 you may have gotten an oppertunity to contend for the title. But you weren't. Gratz LSU.

Nebraska won back-2-back titles in '70 and '71. NU also played for national titles five times from '93 to '97, winning three!

Nebraska is the winningest Div. 1 program since the 50's (modern era). And has produced the most Academic all-Americans in NCAA history -- perhaps the most important stat kept.

Thanks for allowing a forum for Nebraska fans to debate.

Shouldn't you have to either be or defeat the #1 team to win a National Championship? Thought so.

This much I know, if at the beginning of the season you placed a bet on who would win the national championship, if you bet LSU, Vegas paid, if you bet USC, you lost. Because there was only one national champion.

im not sure why usc fans are claiming that the #2 and #3 ranked teams played in the national championship...according to the bcs site that some idiot fan was nice enough to give us, it says USC "is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings" USC finished 3rd...why do they deny this? this is a serious question, if someone could please clear this up for me.

I'll try to help you out Nikki.

The Coach's poll ranked USC #1. The AP ranked USC #1. The BCS took those two votes and along with some computers doing some sort of stat crunching calculated that LSU and Oklahoma are ranked #1 and #2. So, LIVE people decided USC was number one. A computer programmed determined otherwise. That's what upset so many people. If Oklamhoma would have won their final game, We'd have had the #1 and #3 teams matched up because LSU still I believe would have edged out USC. I'm ok with that. But, because Oklamhoma was dumped to #3, the computers somehow still put the #3 team over the #1 team. That is why people got upset. Not because of LSU, but because of #3 ranked Oklahoma.

Could LSU have beaten USC? Of course. They had a great team that year. Could USC have beaten LSU. Certainly!! That's why we were robbed of a great. Could Oklamhoma have beaten USC? maybe, but I think USC answered that question in 2004. :)

I'm sure you only post letters to which you have a valid response. However, you fail to mention that although USC and the Pac 10 signed on to the BCS in 2003, we had no control over east coast biased "computer" polls. Recall that the so-called computers theoretically have a formula, but why do they give LSU a favorable rating when playing Div 1-AA teams, whether they win or lose? If nothing else, those computer polls should not include those as part of the formula, treated as if they were Div 1-A teams, and even better would be to at best get a -1 point for even scheduling them, AS HOME GAMES even.

So when your team grows a pair of brass ones, and actually plays someone tough, then you can claim your win.

Our common opponents that year (and Oklahoma the next) shows who should have been invited and why the rules of the formulas were changed.

You were so good, that 3 contracted coaches still did not vote for you (and no, Pete Carrol is not a voting member of the Coaches Poll), AND the WHOLE DIV-1A Football system demanded and received a change in the BCS so that YOUR situation couldn't happen again.

Now that's pride.
Fight on you second-place team.

What? How can Carrol not be a voting member? I seem to recall him even admiting that because of the BCS agreement, he'd have to vote LSU as #1. How can USC not have a voice in the coaches poll?

In 2003 USC and LSU played had two opponents in common, Auburn and Arizona. LSU beat both teams by greater margins that USC did. Not to mention we played Auburn later in the season, when good teams are generally better, and it was a rivalry game.

As an LSU student I am not happy with, but will take with a grain of salt, a co national championship with USC, but not having people say USC won the championship and LSU didn't. call it a half championship if you will but not a whole one.

Also, if you are going to say that there is an east coast bias on the BCS (which by the way how is a computer bias), then you need to include the west coast media bias. Yes the AP is media.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)