Started By
Message
re: 2004 Alabama vs. Auburn Highlights
Posted on 8/28/15 at 8:57 am to TheJones
Posted on 8/28/15 at 8:57 am to TheJones
Just to prove how terrible a point that is, we lost worse to UGA and LSU in 2003 than we did to USC, how'd that work out for them in 2004?
As for the second part of your post, I don't think anyone doubts that. However, what does that say about the legitimacy of the system when "intrigue" matters more than reality?
Like I posted yesterday I understand somebody had to get left out. I just wish they would have said "we feel like like USC and Oklahoma are the two best teams". Even though they wouldn't have had any good argument other than opinion to back that up I could at least respect. It was/is the ridiculous attempts to justify their opinion that irk me to this day. Bringing up our schedule (which was the most difficult), what happened in 2003 (which is completely irrelevant), or the fact we had one bad half the entire season (when USC had multiple games where they struggled against bad teams) is just pathetic.
The whole thing is/was a joke.
As for the second part of your post, I don't think anyone doubts that. However, what does that say about the legitimacy of the system when "intrigue" matters more than reality?
Like I posted yesterday I understand somebody had to get left out. I just wish they would have said "we feel like like USC and Oklahoma are the two best teams". Even though they wouldn't have had any good argument other than opinion to back that up I could at least respect. It was/is the ridiculous attempts to justify their opinion that irk me to this day. Bringing up our schedule (which was the most difficult), what happened in 2003 (which is completely irrelevant), or the fact we had one bad half the entire season (when USC had multiple games where they struggled against bad teams) is just pathetic.
The whole thing is/was a joke.
1
Posted on 8/28/15 at 8:59 am to RandySavage
There was a lot of justification from voters for keeping USC and Oklahoma 1-2, when all they had to say(and some did) that they just couldn't all of a sudden take OU from the #2 spot when they'd been there all season and not lost. Some of those justifications had merit, especially the one that AU had just played USC the 2 years prior and lost both of them. the rest were just spin.
I also remember at the time everyone thought the USC/OU game was going to be close. A lot of the AU got screwed talk didn't start until after USC destroyed them, at least outside of AU fans.
I also remember at the time everyone thought the USC/OU game was going to be close. A lot of the AU got screwed talk didn't start until after USC destroyed them, at least outside of AU fans.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 9:07 am to The Spleen
quote:
Some of those justifications had merit, especially the one that AU had just played USC the 2 years prior and lost both of them. the rest were just spin.
Are you serious? That one was BY FAR the worst "justification".
Posted on 8/28/15 at 9:08 am to allin2010
Good AU team. Few Iron bowls I went to where it wasnt whether we were gonna lose or not but by how many? 
Felt the same way in
83
87
88
97
03
06 and 07 to some degree
Went anyway but knew AU would have to turn it over like 10 times for us to have a chance at overtime.
Felt the same way in
83
87
88
97
03
06 and 07 to some degree
Went anyway but knew AU would have to turn it over like 10 times for us to have a chance at overtime.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 9:09 am to RollTide1987
I don't think I've ever seen an offensive line perform so poorly on a consistent basis like Alabama did during Mike Shula's tenure.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 9:27 am to The Spleen
quote:
I also remember at the time everyone thought the USC/OU game was going to be close. A lot of the AU got screwed talk didn't start until after USC destroyed them, at least outside of AU fans.
I mean, it was a screwing either way. Not necessarily in a "out to get us" kinda way, but any undefeated team from a major conference with a bunch of signature wins getting left out is a disaster.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 9:28 am to Gary Busey
It was an agenda. The week before Herbie was saying that our dismantling of a highly touted UGA team was impressive but "just beating a rival" was always an accomplishment. I believe he was setting up his argument if OU just got by OSU, in the end a lack luster performance against bama was the ammunition ESPN needed to get the OU vs USC match up and Herbie seemed to forget the comment he made a week earlier about "just beating a rival".
Auburn was the most talented team.
The argument about 2003 is silly. Auburn's offense was literally 70 spots better from 2003 to 2004 and the defense improved as well.
USC had many players drafted off the 2004 squad, but few made it out of their rookie contracts. I.E. Busts. The media often over inflates a teams talent and potential and the average joe eats it up like a Ryan's buffet. Auburn actually has two undrafted guys from the 2004 squad that managed to make it past a rookie contract. The QB was better, running backs were better, oline was better and shocking the WR's were also better despite all that pitch/catch hype USC generated. Defensively it was close. We had a huge edge talent wise in the secondary and interior line. The LB's likely go to USC and the ends were a wash. We also had the ST's advantage. Oh, what might have been if our name was the name of one of the pretty girls at school like bama, OSU, OU or USCw.
Auburn was the most talented team.
The argument about 2003 is silly. Auburn's offense was literally 70 spots better from 2003 to 2004 and the defense improved as well.
USC had many players drafted off the 2004 squad, but few made it out of their rookie contracts. I.E. Busts. The media often over inflates a teams talent and potential and the average joe eats it up like a Ryan's buffet. Auburn actually has two undrafted guys from the 2004 squad that managed to make it past a rookie contract. The QB was better, running backs were better, oline was better and shocking the WR's were also better despite all that pitch/catch hype USC generated. Defensively it was close. We had a huge edge talent wise in the secondary and interior line. The LB's likely go to USC and the ends were a wash. We also had the ST's advantage. Oh, what might have been if our name was the name of one of the pretty girls at school like bama, OSU, OU or USCw.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 10:30 am to RandySavage
quote:
Just to prove how terrible a point that is, we lost worse to UGA and LSU in 2003 than we did to USC, how'd that work out for them in 2004?
LSU was 9-3 and UGA was 10-2 in '04, FYI
Posted on 8/28/15 at 11:06 am to TheJones
They would have both been top 10 teams had LSU not lost to that Hail Mary against Iowa. They both went 9-1 against teams not named Auburn and LSU's only other loss was to UGA and UGA's only other loss was to UT who AU thumped twice.
So I don't know if you were trying to make a point like those teams weren't very good but if you were it was a bad one.
So I don't know if you were trying to make a point like those teams weren't very good but if you were it was a bad one.
This post was edited on 8/28/15 at 11:06 am
Posted on 8/28/15 at 11:55 am to RandySavage
quote:
So I don't know if you were trying to make a point like those teams weren't very good but if you were it was a bad one.
They were good but USC was great. And Auburn wasn't going to beat them. There's no amount of arguing that can change what happened anyway so I don't know why Auburn fans are so salty about it still
From 2002-2004, USC was like 34-3 with two natties and the 2004 is consistently regarded as one of the better college football teams in recent history. Frequently rated in the top three within the past 25 years. All I'm saying is that it's time to move on. If Auburn wanted to edge out Oklahoma then they shouldn't have laid a goose egg the year before against USC on their home turf. Nobody had any faith that Auburn was going to beat USC if they made it to the game
Posted on 8/28/15 at 12:06 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Bama fans celebrated only losing by 10 or whatever for years afterwards. It was pretty interesting how excited they were not to get blown out even though they were at home and the game was over by the start of the 4th.
You engage in a LOT of revisionist history.
Posted on 8/28/15 at 12:44 pm to TheJones
quote:
They were good but USC was great. And Auburn wasn't going to beat them. There's no amount of arguing that can change what happened anyway so I don't know why Auburn fans are so salty about it still From 2002-2004, USC was like 34-3 with two natties and the 2004 is consistently regarded as one of the better college football teams in recent history. Frequently rated in the top three within the past 25 years.
All I'm saying is that it's time to move on. If Auburn wanted to edge out Oklahoma then they shouldn't have laid a goose egg the year before against USC on their home turf. Nobody had any faith that Auburn was going to beat USC if they made it to the game
That's the problem. Auburn would have won, they were the more talented team top to bottom. Unfortunately as so often happens the better team wasn't given a chance to prove it. Thankful for the 4 team playoff. What would have happened to poor OSU last year who couldn't have beaten bama or oregon until they played the games and everyone realized they were better.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News