Greatest Athlete to never win highest Championship of their Sport

[WA_Vol]

If the SEC was really considered the best conference I think Auburn would have got a title shot in 2004.

Oklahoma was the defending champ so they get in, but USC beating Auburn for the chance to play for the NC in 04 heard the conference reputatoin. In hindsight seems appropriate but at the time, it seemed the conference wasn't getting the respect it deserved.

 

[milohimself]

If the SEC was really considered the best conference I think Auburn would have got a title shot in 2004.

Oklahoma was the defending champ so they get in, but USC beating Auburn for the chance to play for the NC in 04 heard the conference reputatoin. In hindsight seems appropriate but at the time, it seemed the conference wasn't getting the respect it deserved.

I don't think Auburn's SEC schedule was really one of the main factors.

Right or wrong, USC had a defending national champion status that helped them out as well as a win over Virginia Tech.

Oklahoma's regular season was incredibly dominant, nobody even gave them a game except Oklahoma State.

The Citadel was a nasty, irreparable black eye on Auburn's schedule.

I think those are the three main contributing factors to Auburn's absence from the 2004 Orange Bowl.

 

[GAVol]

I don't think Auburn's SEC schedule was really one of the main factors.

Right or wrong, USC had a defending national champion status that helped them out as well as a win over Virginia Tech.

Oklahoma's regular season was incredibly dominant, nobody even gave them a game except Oklahoma State.

The Citadel was a nasty, irreparable black eye on Auburn's schedule.

I think those are the three main contributing factors to Auburn's absence from the 2004 Orange Bowl.

I think it's a lot simpler than that and has nothing to do with schedule or conference strength . . . Auburn, due to preconceived notions about how good they were, started the season ranked somewhere around #20 and the top 2 teams didn't lose. Auburn actually probably blew their chance to play for the national title the year prior when they were preseason #3 and completely flopped coming out of the gate against Ga Tech and BYU. The pollsters didn't want to make the same mistake twice.

 

[hatvol96]

I think it's a lot simpler than that and has nothing to do with schedule or conference strength . . . Auburn, due to preconceived notions about how good they were, started the season ranked somewhere around #20 and the top 2 teams didn't lose. Auburn actually probably blew their chance to play for the national title the year prior when they were preseason #3 and completely flopped coming out of the gate against Ga Tech and BYU. The pollsters didn't want to make the same mistake twice.

I would agree with that assessment. '04 was just a year in which there were three deserving teams for two spots. It's hard to say any of the three didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship. The game versus The Citadel gave the BCS boosters a convenient excuse for Auburn's exclusion.

 

[BLEEDS ORANGE]

Barry Sanders

 

[WA_Vol]

I would agree with that assessment. '04 was just a year in which there were three deserving teams for two spots. It's hard to say any of the three didn't deserve a shot at the National Championship. The game versus The Citadel gave the BCS boosters a convenient excuse for Auburn's exclusion.

If the SEC was considered the more dominant conference, don't you think they have would given Auburn the opportunity to play for the NC instead of USC? Obviously, they would have been more deserving since they played in the dominant conference. The problem is the coaches and media are biased and they dont believe the SEC is the dominant conference.

 

[GVF]

Oklahoma-Excellent.
USC-Excellent.
Miami-Excellent.
Ohio State-Excellent.
There are some others, for example Texas, who are on the cusp. I don't see where expecting a program to consistently be one of the top 3-4 teams in their league, win a conference title every 4 years, and contend nationally in their best years is unrealistic. Your expectations are far too low. Were this Oklahoma, SC, or Texas, we wouldn't be having a discussion on Fulmer because he would no longer be the coach. If the fan base doesn't demand results, they don't get them. You get the program you deserve. Given the attitudes of our fan base, 5-6 is exactly what we deserve.

Oklahoma = Excellent? They've had no more succes than UT the last decade. Certainly no more titles.
Miami = excellent? Seriously?
Ohio State = Excellent? Now your talking. How many NC's and conference titles do they have the last decade.

If you consider the programs you listed as excellent, only one is viable in USC at...at the moment..., then UT's program is on top of the world, second only to USC.

 

[hatvol96]

If the SEC was considered the more dominant conference, don't you think they have would given Auburn the opportunity to play for the NC instead of USC? Obviously, they would have been more deserving since they played in the dominant conference. The problem is the coaches and media are biased and they dont believe the SEC is the dominant conference.

I'm not sure that's the case. My thought would be that they simply thought USC and OU were better than Auburn. If you get into a conference based discussion, USC would have been left out. I don't think many people would debate that the Big 12 and SEC are better than the PAC 10. This was an issue of teams, not conferences.

 

[Jaytrain5]

Oklahoma = Excellent? They've had no more succes than UT the last decade. Certainly no more titles.


Are you serious?

 

[hatvol96]

Oklahoma = Excellent? They've had no more succes than UT the last decade. Certainly no more titles.
Miami = excellent? Seriously?
Ohio State = Excellent? Now your talking. How many NC's and conference titles do they have the last decade.

If you consider the programs you listed as excellent, only one is viable in USC at...at the moment..., then UT's program is on top of the world, second only to USC.

Oklahoma won the National Championship in 2000. They won the Big 12 two other times. They've appeared in three National Championship games. I think that's a little better than UT. Miami won the National Championship in 2001. They played for the title in 2002. They've appeared in 4 BCS bowls since 2000. Again, considerably better than Tennessee. Ohio State won in 2001 and have won the Big 10 multiple times.

 

[GVF]

If the SEC was really considered the best conference I think Auburn would have got a title shot in 2004.

Oklahoma was the defending champ so they get in, but USC beating Auburn for the chance to play for the NC in 04 heard the conference reputatoin. In hindsight seems appropriate but at the time, it seemed the conference wasn't getting the respect it deserved.

Not necessarily true. Valid point, but not necessarily true. TV $$$ was the deciding choice, with Auburn down in little ole south alabam sitting out the big one. AU was not as high profile as the others. AS most SEC schools would be considered as such. Lower profile. While being the better overall conference in total strength year to year, I also consider us the blue collar conference of the biggies. We're not going to win the voting wars into the NC game unless there is no other way but to send one of ours. Very rarely will an SEC team get into the NC with 1 loss. We'd have to be undefeated. But, FSU can get in with 3/4 losses.

 

[hatvol96]

Oklahoma = Excellent? They've had no more succes than UT the last decade. Certainly no more titles.
Miami = excellent? Seriously?
Ohio State = Excellent? Now your talking. How many NC's and conference titles do they have the last decade.

If you consider the programs you listed as excellent, only one is viable in USC at...at the moment..., then UT's program is on top of the world, second only to USC.

How many of those programs have gone seven years without a conference title? How many went 5-6 last year?

 

[cd12]

Mark Martin

 

[hatvol96]

Not necessarily true. Valid point, but not necessarily true. TV $$$ was the deciding choice, with Auburn down in little ole south alabam sitting out the big one. AU was not as high profile as the others. AS most SEC schools would be considered as such. Lower profile. While being the better overall conference in total strength year to year, I also consider us the blue collar conference of the biggies. We're not going to win the voting wars into the NC game unless there is no other way but to send one of ours. Very rarely will an SEC team get into the NC with 1 loss. We'd have to be undefeated. But, FSU can get in with 3/4 losses.

Really, then why did LSU play in the BCS Championship game after the '03 season instead of USC?

 

[GVF]

quote name='hatvol96' date='Jul 3, 2006 11:34 AM' post='354975']
Oklahoma won the National Championship in 2000. They won the Big 12 two other times. They've appeared in three National Championship games. I think that's a little better than UT. Miami won the National Championship in 2001. They played for the title in 2002. They've appeared in 4 BCS bowls since 2000. Again, considerably better than Tennessee. Ohio State won in 2001 and have won the Big 10 multiple times.
[/quote]

They also got their butts demolished in the games proveing they were not the team that should have gone. No different than us getting trashed in top bowl games by Nebraska and K-State. OU proved to be no better than us in final performance. The fact that they got there was more by popular vote than merit.

 

[GVF]

How many of those programs have gone seven years without a conference title? How many went 5-6 last year?

So, in the last seven we have some (a) titles, in the last ten we have a few more. What's their records in the same time frame? I recall in the last decade before Stoops the OU put in some dismal seasons, but YOU consider that ACCEPTABLE and THEM EXCELLENT. You usually post fairly bullet proof, though dimented, but you have too many loop holes in your jargon today.

 

[hatvol96]

quote name='hatvol96' date='Jul 3, 2006 11:34 AM' post='354975']
Oklahoma won the National Championship in 2000. They won the Big 12 two other times. They've appeared in three National Championship games. I think that's a little better than UT. Miami won the National Championship in 2001. They played for the title in 2002. They've appeared in 4 BCS bowls since 2000. Again, considerably better than Tennessee. Ohio State won in 2001 and have won the Big 10 multiple times.
They also got their butts demolished in the games proveing they were not the team that should have gone. No different than us getting trashed in top bowl games by Nebraska and K-State. OU proved to be no better than us in final performance. The fact that they got there was more by popular vote than merit.

There's a huge difference in getting drilled in second tier bowls and getting beaten in National Championship Games. In '04, Oklahoma lost one game, to the National Champion. Tennesee lost three games. one of them at home to a Notre Dame team that was so bad they got their coach fired. You win the all time "Orange Colored Glasses" award.

 

[hatvol96]

So, in the last seven we have some (a) titles, in the last ten we have a few more. What's their records in the same time frame?

In the last seven seasons, UT has 0 titles.

 

[hatvol96]

So, in the last seven we have some (a) titles, in the last ten we have a few more. What's their records in the same time frame? I recall in the last decade before Stoops the OU put in some dismal seasons, but YOU consider that ACCEPTABLE and THEM EXCELLENT. You usually post fairly bullet proof, though dimented, but you have too many loop holes in your jargon today.

You're making my point. When OU had bad years, they didn't fiddle while the program burned, they made changes until they got things squared away. OU's last bad season was in '98. The current coaching staff has never had a losing season or failed to make a bowl. The worst season, a 7-5 record in Stoops' first season, was immediately followed by a National Championship the next year. If TCHFCATUTK follows last year's debacle with a National Title, he's immediately absolved of all prior sins.

 

[GVF]

That is without a doubt the silliest statement in the history of this board. There's a huge difference in getting drilled in second tier bowls and getting beaten in National Championship Games. In '04, Oklahoma lost one game, to the National Game. Tennesee lost three games. one of them at home to a Notre Dame team that was so bad they got their coach fired. You win the all time "Orange Colored Glasses" award.

That's funny, orange colored glasses. You got that one. So your glasses must then be commie red. If you look at our over all success over the tenure of Fulmer verses all the others you are mentioning, they have all had very poor stretches and rebuilding years trying to find that new coach that clicked with their program. Stoops brought OK back, Nebraska is still looking, Carroll resurrected SC, Coker w/Miami, and so forth. Al fell on as hard, if not worse times than we are experiencing now. I just don't look at the last 5-7 years to define how strong we've been. Had we pulled the trigger on Fulmer and spent several years in a revi=olving door of finding that next coach we'd have sucked a lot more than only one losing season, only one no bowler, in what 15+ years.

 

[therealUT]

In the last seven seasons, UT has 0 titles.

True, however, seven seasons is a rather arbitrary number of seasons. Just choosing that number shows that you are only concerned with putting UT's program down, because if you go 8 seasons, then UT has a NC and SEC Championship, if you go 9 seasons its 2 SEC championships.

Haven't checked to see how that compares to Miami, Ohio State, etc. Probably a step below, however, I would agree with a previous poster that over the past 10 seasons the only excellent program has been USC.

 

[orangetd88]

My patience with your silliness is now shot. Oklahoma has consistently, except for the small window I mentioned in the earlier post, been winning conference titles and competing for National Championships. While the "I'm just concerned about eating popcorn, watching the band, and being entertained" crowd, which you are apparently the spokesman for, doesn't grasp that championships are why you keep score, some of us in fact do. Count National and conference championships. Oklahoma dwarfs UT in these accomplishments. When they hit a lull in the late '80s and through the '90s, did they say "Oh well, at least the cheerleaders are pretty, the hot dogs are fresh, and my kids enjoyed the pretty colors at the game?" No, they made heads roll until they got back to their rightful place among the pantheon of college football's elite. Where is Oklahoma's program in comparison to UT's now? History is a convenient foxhole for those who are content with the current state of the program. Wave it proudly. I'm sure you'll be "entertained" this year. Fans like you are why UT deserves nothing more than Peach/Music City Bowl seasons.

11 years is not a small window.

 

[GVF]

Does that mean no near future changes are in order. Are we back on track Is our prgram skid over with only one losing season and a stretch of 2nd tier bowl appearances ?????????? Who knows. I'm not a Fulmerite. I'm not a Negavol. I'm just not you.

 

[hatvol96]

That's funny, orange colored glasses. You got that one. So your glasses must then be commie red. If you look at our over all success over the tenure of Fulmer verses all the others you are mentioning, they have all had very poor stretches and rebuilding years trying to find that new coach that clicked with their program. Stoops brought OK back, Nebraska is still looking, Carroll resurrected SC, Coker w/Miami, and so forth. Al fell on as hard, if not worse times than we are experiencing now. I just don't look at the last 5-7 years to define how strong we've been. Had we pulled the trigger on Fulmer and spent several years in a revi=olving door of finding that next coach we'd have sucked a lot more than only one losing season, only one no bowler, in what 15+ years.

Butch Davis resurrected Miami. Coker just reaped some of the benefits. I'm still at a loss as to what games played in 1995 have to do with the current state of the program.

 

[orangetd88]

You also brought up Ohio State, which, by the standards you have set, is nowhere close. Yes, they won the MNC in 2002, but other than that, they could not beat Michigan for years. They have had several 4,5,6 loss seasons over the last 15 years.