From my orange tinted glasses Auburn and OU are close but both better than USC, but not by much. All 3 teams are very good and deserve to play for a title.b
SEC CHAMPS!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter wareagle
- Start date
Auburn #Un
Auburn #Un
Un-beaten :clap:
Un-tied :clap:
Un-Crowned :cursin:
Un-stoppable :cursin:
Un-derappreciated :cursin:
Un-FU*KINGBELIEVABLE :cursin:
WAR DAMN EAGLE :fingerc:
12-0
Auburn #Un
Un-beaten :clap:
Un-tied :clap:
Un-Crowned :cursin:
Un-stoppable :cursin:
Un-derappreciated :cursin:
Un-FU*KINGBELIEVABLE :cursin:
WAR DAMN EAGLE :fingerc:
12-0
today i heard somebody on espn say that he thinks auburn came out flat in the 2nd half because they heard the usc score.i don't know if i agree.
we wont see a playoff anytime soon but i think pre season polls should be eliminated. imo the first polls should come out in october, not before.
i still think that there is not much difference between usc, okla., auburn, & calif.with calif. being the best all around team.
we wont see a playoff anytime soon but i think pre season polls should be eliminated. imo the first polls should come out in october, not before.
i still think that there is not much difference between usc, okla., auburn, & calif.with calif. being the best all around team.
That Tenn team with a 3rd string QB would shred apart Bowling Green or any team in the MAC. Wasnt Auburn suppose to play BG and they backed out to play OU? I thought that I heard Citidel was a last minute replacement because BG couldnt take the beating they woulda got from Auburn.
AuburnRulez said:
with all due respect, youre on drugs. oklahoma couldnt even blow bowling green out and youre talking about tennessee doing it? vols physical play (and any sec team's physical play) would certainly challenge bg, but they can score on anybody. tennessee would beat bg by no more than a TD.
i think i heard that Bowling Green's decision to switch from Auburn to Oklahoma was all about the money.
Oklahoma either offered or did pay Auburn the buy -out fee for their contract with Auburn.
Citadel was a last minute team for Auburn..
Also something about games with Goergia Tech and Auburn fell thru originally slated for 3 years between those two teams.. hence the " Louis Nye- Tech-Monroe" weakling games.
Oklahoma either offered or did pay Auburn the buy -out fee for their contract with Auburn.
Citadel was a last minute team for Auburn..
Also something about games with Goergia Tech and Auburn fell thru originally slated for 3 years between those two teams.. hence the " Louis Nye- Tech-Monroe" weakling games.
GMAN I want whatever drugs you take if you thank that they can come within 7. Everyone knows they have no defense. They could run Houston up the middle and beat them like a drum!!!!!!!
auburn:
and how are they going to stop bowling green's offense? last i looked, vols gave up 100 pts in the final 30 games of the season, and two of them were to quasi-mac teams (vandy and kentucky).
and how are they going to stop bowling green's offense? last i looked, vols gave up 100 pts in the final 30 games of the season, and two of them were to quasi-mac teams (vandy and kentucky).
could go on to the end of time talking about who got screwed and who is the best the fact of the matter is that the bcs was supposed to fix this problem and has failed miserably and im sick of this shit it would be so easy to have a small playoff system to get the final four teams or 8 teamds even and have a three week playoff or a two week playoff after the bowl games its a joke this system and it wont ever get fixed until there is a playoff i think auburn is the best team but i also have no problem that usc and oky are rated number 1 and 2 but there needs to be a playoff
griffis
I agree with you and I am also in favor of a 4 team playoff.
I do disagree with you about the BCS. The BCS has worked and is doing exactly what it is designed to do. That is, GET THE BEST 2 TEAMS PLAYING EACH OTHER.
If we didn't have the BCS, Auburn, USC, and OU would all be playing in 3 seperate bowl games. That would be a mess. That is why the BCS was created. To get the best 2 teams against each other. This year and last year AU and USC were left out of the BCS Title game. Can't complain, those are the rules and that is why we inserted the BCS in the first place. So if you look at it that way, the BCS has worked exactly the way it was intended too and IMO much better than the old system in determing a NC.
BCS Formula:
1/3 Coaches Poll
1/3 AP poll
1/3 Computers
More weight for the human polls so more likely you will see the 2 teams in the BCS Title game that "majority" of the country wants to see.
Now AU still can win a NC if the AP poll feels they are the best team in the country. BCS does not force the AP to vote the winner of the BCS title game the NC.
The only problem I have with an 8 and def. 16 team playoff is you might get teams winning a NC when they don't really deserve too. For example, say team A is the best in the country, but their star QB gets hurt in 2nd round and they lose out in the playoffs. That is not right.
I agree with you and I am also in favor of a 4 team playoff.
I do disagree with you about the BCS. The BCS has worked and is doing exactly what it is designed to do. That is, GET THE BEST 2 TEAMS PLAYING EACH OTHER.
If we didn't have the BCS, Auburn, USC, and OU would all be playing in 3 seperate bowl games. That would be a mess. That is why the BCS was created. To get the best 2 teams against each other. This year and last year AU and USC were left out of the BCS Title game. Can't complain, those are the rules and that is why we inserted the BCS in the first place. So if you look at it that way, the BCS has worked exactly the way it was intended too and IMO much better than the old system in determing a NC.
BCS Formula:
1/3 Coaches Poll
1/3 AP poll
1/3 Computers
More weight for the human polls so more likely you will see the 2 teams in the BCS Title game that "majority" of the country wants to see.
Now AU still can win a NC if the AP poll feels they are the best team in the country. BCS does not force the AP to vote the winner of the BCS title game the NC.
The only problem I have with an 8 and def. 16 team playoff is you might get teams winning a NC when they don't really deserve too. For example, say team A is the best in the country, but their star QB gets hurt in 2nd round and they lose out in the playoffs. That is not right.
Last edited:
Scott4USC said:
finally some sense and objectivity.
oklahoma and lsu were the two best teams last year. they battled it out.
southern cal and oklahoma are the two best teams this year. theyre going to battle it out.
in that respect, the bcs works.
as for the 8 or 16 gm playoff, you said that would allow for the chance that an undeserving team could win the national title.
well -- if you win 4 games in a row against the the 16 teams in the country....you deserve it.
not advocating a playoff, but if it did come to that, wouldnt have a problem with it.
the bottom line is...
if you think that USC and OU are the two best teams, it is still just an opinion!!! It may be the majority opinion, but it is still an OPINION!!!! I refuse to say any team is better than Auburn until that team beats tham head to head. When did college football become ice skating where the judges get to decide whose the best??? And throw out SOS, unless you really think that Auburn wouldn't have beaten Colorado St. or Bowling Green. Congrats to OU and USC, they are definitely deserving to play in the Orange bowl. But don't tell me the system works just because that's all we've got. The system only works if everbody that is undefeated gets a chance to play for the national champioship and settle it on the field!!!
if you think that USC and OU are the two best teams, it is still just an opinion!!! It may be the majority opinion, but it is still an OPINION!!!! I refuse to say any team is better than Auburn until that team beats tham head to head. When did college football become ice skating where the judges get to decide whose the best??? And throw out SOS, unless you really think that Auburn wouldn't have beaten Colorado St. or Bowling Green. Congrats to OU and USC, they are definitely deserving to play in the Orange bowl. But don't tell me the system works just because that's all we've got. The system only works if everbody that is undefeated gets a chance to play for the national champioship and settle it on the field!!!
AU2001
You are bashing and asking a system to do what it is NOT and never was designed to do. You cannot compare/expect the BCS system to do what a playoff system would do. Would a playoff system be better? I think so, but the BCS is better than the old system in "help" determining a NC.
Remember, the BCS is not just an opinion. It is a collection of all the coaches poll voters, all the AP poll voters, and a combination of the 6 BCS computers (with the best & worst scores thrown out). That is "NOT" just one opinion, but an opinion of many. Both human polls had USC, OU, and AU ranked in that order. The computers had OU, USC, and AU in that order.
:nono:
USC's OOC Opponents
@ V-Tech
Colorado St.
@ BYU
ND
(2 bowl teams & 2 road games)
OU's OOC Opponents
Bowling Green
Oregon
Houston
(1 bowl team & 0 road games)
AU's OOC Opponents
La. Monroe
Citadel
La. Tech
(0 bowl teams & 0 road games)
You mention AU being capable of beating BG and CSU and not one mention of AU's OOC opponents? Why did you omit the other/stronger OOC opponents OU and USC played and omitted all of the AU OOC opponents? Not gonna fool me! :nooo:
Once again, that is a playoff system, not the BCS system. BCS was never meant to be a playoff system. Therefore, the BCS is doing exactly what it is designed to do. And I agree any team who goes undefeated should have a right to compete for a National Championship. It is unfortunate for the AU players and fans. Although the AP NC is still up for grabs since they are not forced to vote anyone NC.
You are bashing and asking a system to do what it is NOT and never was designed to do. You cannot compare/expect the BCS system to do what a playoff system would do. Would a playoff system be better? I think so, but the BCS is better than the old system in "help" determining a NC.
Remember, the BCS is not just an opinion. It is a collection of all the coaches poll voters, all the AP poll voters, and a combination of the 6 BCS computers (with the best & worst scores thrown out). That is "NOT" just one opinion, but an opinion of many. Both human polls had USC, OU, and AU ranked in that order. The computers had OU, USC, and AU in that order.
:nono:
USC's OOC Opponents
@ V-Tech
Colorado St.
@ BYU
ND
(2 bowl teams & 2 road games)
OU's OOC Opponents
Bowling Green
Oregon
Houston
(1 bowl team & 0 road games)
AU's OOC Opponents
La. Monroe
Citadel
La. Tech
(0 bowl teams & 0 road games)
You mention AU being capable of beating BG and CSU and not one mention of AU's OOC opponents? Why did you omit the other/stronger OOC opponents OU and USC played and omitted all of the AU OOC opponents? Not gonna fool me! :nooo:
Once again, that is a playoff system, not the BCS system. BCS was never meant to be a playoff system. Therefore, the BCS is doing exactly what it is designed to do. And I agree any team who goes undefeated should have a right to compete for a National Championship. It is unfortunate for the AU players and fans. Although the AP NC is still up for grabs since they are not forced to vote anyone NC.
Last edited:
Uhh Bowling Green cancelled on Auburn to play OU. Georgia tech also cancelled on Auburn.
Strange how Scott finds the BCS so reliable last year, but still proclaims USC as a National Champion last year. I wonder if Auburn did win the AP Poll, if we would see Scott discussing how the AP is the most respected, longest running, most important poll, blah, blah, blah like we did last year?
Strange how Scott finds the BCS so reliable last year, but still proclaims USC as a National Champion last year. I wonder if Auburn did win the AP Poll, if we would see Scott discussing how the AP is the most respected, longest running, most important poll, blah, blah, blah like we did last year?
Scott, not bashing or expecting the BCS to do anything other than what it is designed to do. I'm only saying that the beauty of college football is that there is a simple solution to the "who's the best?" question. You settle it on the field!!! And it is very simple to look at OOC schedule when you play in a conference as weak as the Pac-10. We have high schools here in Birmingham, AL that could go to a bowl if they played in the PAC-10!!!
And look, I said USC deserves to be there. OU deserves to be there. So does Auburn! And I agree that the BCS is better than all 3 teams playing in different bowl games. But just because it's better doesn't make it right.
And look, I said USC deserves to be there. OU deserves to be there. So does Auburn! And I agree that the BCS is better than all 3 teams playing in different bowl games. But just because it's better doesn't make it right.
Well. maybe I cant blame Scott. It's a school thing. I just saw that they now, after 65 years, try to claim a national title from 1939 even though they had 2 ties, because 1 of 13 polls, actually a sort of computer formula, said they were number one.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/story.php?id=10411
Of course they also claim 1928 (1 out of 10), 1929 (1 of 10), 1932 (oddly enough the same poll ranking them #1 in 1939 didnt have them at number one this year, but I guess that's not inconsistent), 1933 (1 of 12), 1962 (legit, but 3 others given titles as well), ditto 1967 , AP-UPI split in 1974 and 1978, and the 2003 split. Perhaps its just a matter of time til they claim Sagarin in 2002 or Football Research in 1979.
1972 is the best team of all-time in my book, and was an undisputed title.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/story.php?id=10411
Of course they also claim 1928 (1 out of 10), 1929 (1 of 10), 1932 (oddly enough the same poll ranking them #1 in 1939 didnt have them at number one this year, but I guess that's not inconsistent), 1933 (1 of 12), 1962 (legit, but 3 others given titles as well), ditto 1967 , AP-UPI split in 1974 and 1978, and the 2003 split. Perhaps its just a matter of time til they claim Sagarin in 2002 or Football Research in 1979.
1972 is the best team of all-time in my book, and was an undisputed title.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
Last edited:
AU2001
#1 Pac 10 is not weak and your conf. (SEC) has not done to well agains the Pac 10 in the last few years.
#2 I agree playoff solves all problems and it is a problem when AU goes undefeated in a BCS conf. and might get no share of the title. SUCKS! I agree. When I put down AU, it is only in comparison to USC and OU. And as you know, I feel USC and OU deserve to play in the OB more than AU. Does not mean AU can't compete or beat USC/OU. Only 2 teams get to go so you must argue as to which one to leave out.
Sun Tzu
I know both cancelled on AU. I also find it real funny how all 3 teams who went undefeated this year had to fill in 2 open dates in OOC play. OU filled in BG and Houston I think. USC filled in V-Tech and Colorado St. Which of the 3 did AU fill in? La. Monroe? Citadel? La. Tech?
AU could have played USC in the BCA classic. USC accepted the bid and was out looking for an opponent. USC wanted Miami, Michigan, and OU and all 3 did not want to play. USC even told UM they would play AT ANN ARBOR! If AU really wanted too, they could have played USC. Last year AU played tough OOC schedule. Lost to USC and G-Tech.
USC won the AP last year and LSU won the BCS NC (coaches poll). I never said what you are implying what I said. Both the coaches poll and AP have been around long time and neither have great value. Split NC's have been around long time and we might have another one this year but I doubt it cuz AU was ranked #3 in the AP.
Lastly, USC has 10 legitimate National Championships! Compare all 10 that USC recognizes vs Alabama's, ND's, Michigan's etc.
#1 Pac 10 is not weak and your conf. (SEC) has not done to well agains the Pac 10 in the last few years.
#2 I agree playoff solves all problems and it is a problem when AU goes undefeated in a BCS conf. and might get no share of the title. SUCKS! I agree. When I put down AU, it is only in comparison to USC and OU. And as you know, I feel USC and OU deserve to play in the OB more than AU. Does not mean AU can't compete or beat USC/OU. Only 2 teams get to go so you must argue as to which one to leave out.
Sun Tzu
I know both cancelled on AU. I also find it real funny how all 3 teams who went undefeated this year had to fill in 2 open dates in OOC play. OU filled in BG and Houston I think. USC filled in V-Tech and Colorado St. Which of the 3 did AU fill in? La. Monroe? Citadel? La. Tech?
AU could have played USC in the BCA classic. USC accepted the bid and was out looking for an opponent. USC wanted Miami, Michigan, and OU and all 3 did not want to play. USC even told UM they would play AT ANN ARBOR! If AU really wanted too, they could have played USC. Last year AU played tough OOC schedule. Lost to USC and G-Tech.
USC won the AP last year and LSU won the BCS NC (coaches poll). I never said what you are implying what I said. Both the coaches poll and AP have been around long time and neither have great value. Split NC's have been around long time and we might have another one this year but I doubt it cuz AU was ranked #3 in the AP.
Lastly, USC has 10 legitimate National Championships! Compare all 10 that USC recognizes vs Alabama's, ND's, Michigan's etc.
I think I did compare all 10. There are several that arent legit, including the 65 years after the fact 1939. To say otherwise really calls your credibility into question. Just because others do the same BS doesnt make it ok. As for the AP last year, you said exactly those things. I realize you dont like it now, and perhaps you had some hyperbole, but you did go out of your way to proclaim the AP poll as the most important.
As for the OOC. Enough of Va Tech. That was an EXTRA game, not a replacement game. Why do you keep acting otherwise?Auburn didnt get any opportunity to play that game, and couldnt schedule an extra game if they wanted to. Did USC ask for Auburn to play in it? Uhhh no. I like this revisionist history as if Auburn had some say in who USC played in an exempt game. Colo St and BYU arent real impressive. You act like that was rigorous. Neither is ND, but it is tradition so cant blame not punting that. As you know, fill-in games generally leave little choice. To get another team, someone would have to cancel, and so on. OU was in danger of not having a game at all until Houston bailed on LSU last minute. I dont doubt that Auburn didnt mind getting 3 cupcakes, but the fact is also there that they wouldnt have gotten anything much tougher even if they had tried. And, of course, while I know you dont want facts to get in the way, it wouldnt matter. The pre-season polls decided which undefeated teams would play in the Orange Bowl. Auburn was never penalized for the OOC schedule-even if they should have been- they went up in the polls every week until they tied OU, then inexplicibly dropped after beating Bama on the road while Ou beat Baylor. Per your Cal-Texas logic, that means in at least one poll, if not both, Auburn got jobbed.
As for the OOC. Enough of Va Tech. That was an EXTRA game, not a replacement game. Why do you keep acting otherwise?Auburn didnt get any opportunity to play that game, and couldnt schedule an extra game if they wanted to. Did USC ask for Auburn to play in it? Uhhh no. I like this revisionist history as if Auburn had some say in who USC played in an exempt game. Colo St and BYU arent real impressive. You act like that was rigorous. Neither is ND, but it is tradition so cant blame not punting that. As you know, fill-in games generally leave little choice. To get another team, someone would have to cancel, and so on. OU was in danger of not having a game at all until Houston bailed on LSU last minute. I dont doubt that Auburn didnt mind getting 3 cupcakes, but the fact is also there that they wouldnt have gotten anything much tougher even if they had tried. And, of course, while I know you dont want facts to get in the way, it wouldnt matter. The pre-season polls decided which undefeated teams would play in the Orange Bowl. Auburn was never penalized for the OOC schedule-even if they should have been- they went up in the polls every week until they tied OU, then inexplicibly dropped after beating Bama on the road while Ou beat Baylor. Per your Cal-Texas logic, that means in at least one poll, if not both, Auburn got jobbed.
The PAC-10 is a weak conference because it only has 2 good teams, USC and CAL. And I am tallking about this year, not the past.
The third best team in the conference, Arizona St. lost to both SC and Cal by a combined score of 72-7, and lost to a 3-8 Arizona. Can't fool me! :nooo: :nooo: :nooo:
The third best team in the conference, Arizona St. lost to both SC and Cal by a combined score of 72-7, and lost to a 3-8 Arizona. Can't fool me! :nooo: :nooo: :nooo:
sun...your last post is dead on...could not have said it better myself...if you think auburn didnt get screwed than you have trojan or sooner glasses on. what is the solution? i dont know, but i will tell you the only reason usc and ok are in the orange bowl is because they started the yr in the preseaon polls 1 and 2...CASE CLOSED. if you tell me otherwise that is horseshit. we didnt get a fair shot, we did everything we could have done this year and got fukked
