Heres A Good One To Discuss.

[lll Communication]

If Tennessee had went undefeated in '04 (beating Auburn and Notre Dame) would we have been left out just like Auburn was? Is there any way to calculate it?

I know we started higher than them in the polls, and we had a stronger schedule. :dunno:

 

[la.lovesorange]

Good question!!! I dont understand all the ways they calculate............ :dunno: Maybe someone can enlighten us here!!!

 

[Freak]

Allvol would probably be the best one to attempt to answer that question.

 

[milohimself]

No. All the voters had such a hard-on for the Oklahoma-USC matchup, no other team would have stood a chance for consideration.

 

[checkerboard_charly]

Originally posted by milohimself@Feb 2, 2005 6:35 PM
No. All the voters had such a hard-on for the Oklahoma-USC matchup, no other team would have stood a chance for consideration.

agreed. game of the century is what they called it. and it looked like me playing madden against the arizona cardinals. :spank:

 

[milohimself]

I can't say I blame them. I was in the same boat. I'll admit that I was wrong afterwards, and that Auburn was more deserving of that game than Oklahoma, but there's no way you could have told beforehand. The Big XII is no pushover and Oklahoma dominated it like few ever have.

 

[checkerboard_charly]

yeah. but usc was unbeatable this year. nobody could beat them. to much momentum. to good of coaching.

 

[milohimself]

I will agree with that. I honestly have little doubt that USC could beat any team in the land this last season.

 

[Volunteer]

I doubt it. Oklahoma breezed through the Big 12 and USC couldn't drop unless they lost at least a game. Hard to take teams out when they are 1 and 2 in the nation.

This is where college football die hards question the validity of pre season rankings. Auburn was ranked in the top ten but had to win to get to number 3. Oklahoma and USC did not have that problem.

Would it have changed had everyone started on the same playing field? Probably. In my opinion, if preseason rankings did not factor in, strength of schedule becomes more important and then margin of victory would have to be a considerable factor. It still wouldn't be an exact science.

Take all of that, put it in a blender, garnish with lime and it will still make you woozy.

By the way, unless every major conference and mid major has a championship game, everything I just typed is invalid.

 

[lll Communication]

I don't agree with the BCS, but I don't want a playoff either. I'd like to see +1. Bowl games, plus one more game to decide the champion. This way, the schools don't lose money, and we get a real champion.

 

[DrVol1]

It all had to do with two factors that should not have anything to do with it. As for the preseason rankings, Auburn was ranked 17th in the AP and 18th in the ESPN coaches poll. Another one of the main reasons OU was at the NC instead of Auburn was Bowling Green. Bowling Green was scheduled to play Auburn but backed out at the last minute to play OU, which left Auburn playing a division 2 school and ruining their SOS. These two reasons are not enough to keep AU out of their shot at the title. AU played better teams than USC or OU. At the time they played them, Auburn beat 3 top 10 teams, and one of those twice. OU beat two and USC beat one. Auburn was clearly the better candidate of the 3.
USC was not as good as OU made them look. I mean honestly, Cal nearly beat them. I believe Auburn would have given them one hell of a game and I say Auburn would have won. I know this is opinion only because the BCS hasn't let it happen. I still don't see where everyone sees all this strength in the Big 12 or the PAC-10. In the Big 12, they had OU and Texas. The next closest team was 7 wins, like the team we killed in the Cotton Bowl. The Pac-10 had USC and Cal, next closest was 9 wins(AZ state). In the SEC, we had Auburn and TN, plus UGA with 10 wins, and LSU with 9 wins. By the way Auburn beat all of these once and TN twice.
No way around it, Auburn deserved their chance and, since they didn't get it, no one can really say that USC is the best in the land. I know the polls do, but these are the same guys that had Auburn ranked 17th and 18th at the first of the year.