Started By
Message
re: Is there anyone who thinks AU shouldnt claim 2004?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:26 am to LSUFOREVERAMEN
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:26 am to LSUFOREVERAMEN
quote:
If you claim 1983 or 2004 or whatver, you're only diluting your school's legacy.
In whose eyes?
0
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:26 am to Aman
quote:
So USC vacates, but Auburn wants to go ahead and make their victory against Oklahoma stand since it made them #2? Makes sense to me
I guess its better than losing multiple games, not winning your conference and not even being close to number 1
Does that make sense to you?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:27 am to Thracken13
quote:
my view is that we should not. hosed we may have been, but we didn't get to play for it - so we don't get to claim it.
Someone explain to me how Auburn was hosed in 2004? Two teams started the season #1 and #2, played a much better non conference schedule than Auburn and never lost on their way to the title game. That is not anywhere close to being hosed. It was a bad year to go undefeated since preseason #1 and #2 both did, but nobody "hosed" auburn out of anything. The other two teams did nothing to warrant being jumped.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:27 am to SpartyGator
quote:
We had BGSU on our schedule that year, we backed out in the summer, we scrambled and scheduled citadel
except you would be wrong, nice try though
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:28 am to All4Qtrs
Go for it. The only two teams who will wet or soil themselves are Southern Cal and Alabama. Southern Cal made it clear the previous year that the BCS title afterall wasn't that big of a deal. Alabama claims anything that will stick.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:28 am to All4Qtrs
Yes, Au shouldn't claim 2004. If anyone should claim the title, beside USC, it should be OU. They lost to USC in the Championship game but USC cheated to win that game, therefore OU should get the win by default.
USC is the Champs in 2004, they were, by far, the best team that year. IMO they would've smoked Au just as bad as they did OU. They were on another level that year, one of the most talented teams in the BCS era.
USC is the Champs in 2004, they were, by far, the best team that year. IMO they would've smoked Au just as bad as they did OU. They were on another level that year, one of the most talented teams in the BCS era.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:28 am to All4Qtrs
quote:
Is there anyone who thinks AU shouldnt claim 2004?
I think AU shouldn't. They played USC in 2002 and 2003. USC beat them both years. In 2003, USC shut AU out. USC and AU both got better by 2004, but USC was far and away the best team in the country in 2004. I think AU would have given AU a much better game than Oklahoma did, but I still think USC would have won.
Also, if AU is gonna claim 2004 b/c USC had to vacate (due to being ineligible) then AU can't claim 1993 for the same reasons.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:29 am to Aman
quote:
Someone explain to me how Auburn was hosed in 2004
we feel (and don't think we're alone) that we were better than OU and should ahve got to play USC.
We started low and the #1 adn #2 team didn't lose and you're not going to drop those teasm if they don't lose.
We beat i think 5 top 10 teams that year and in our opinions were more deserving. (this point might be flubbed a bit since i think i'm counting va tech who obviously we woudln't have played if we'd not played in the sugar bowl).
Sorry you don't think we got hosed. I do. I'm not trying to change your opnion though, just explaining how we got hosed.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:31 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:29 am to Aman
quote:
played a much better non conference schedule than Auburn
so 3-4 ooc opponents strength justifies a ranking? interesting
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:30 am to Meno's Paradox
quote:
Also, if AU is gonna claim 2004 b/c USC had to vacate (due to being ineligible) then AU can't claim 1993 for the same reasons.
what same reasons? because they arent the same
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:31 am to All4Qtrs
No way.
Friends don't let friends act like bammers.
Friends don't let friends act like bammers.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:31 am to Aman
quote:Shouldn't factor into the conversation. Who deserved to go based on what happened that year?
Two teams started the season #1 and #2
quote:Why do you think who played the slightly harder cupcakes should get the nod? Shouldn't the team who beat more good teams get the nod over the team that beat slightly better bad teams?
played a much better non conference schedule than Auburn
quote:They also did nothing that season to deserve being 1 and 2 over AU.
The other two teams did nothing to warrant being jumped.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:31 am to spacewrangler
quote:
USC is the Champs in 2004, they were, by far, the best team that year
I like how people glance over the fact they had a hard time beating some bad teams that year
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:32 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:33 am to All4Qtrs
Well you don't have anything to show for it so, yes, AU should not claim 2004
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:33 am to Meno's Paradox
quote:
Also, if AU is gonna claim 2004 b/c USC had to vacate (due to being ineligible) then AU can't claim 1993 for the same reasons.
Explain this a bit more. are you saying they're the same?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:33 am to piggidyphish
quote:
We started low and the #1 adn #2 team didn't lose and you're not going to drop those teasm if they don't lose.
You had pretty much caught OU in the Coaches Poll before the Alabama game. You were like 2-4 points behind them if I remember right. That was a lackluster performance and then yall lost some ground before the SECCG.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:34 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:36 am to wartiger2004
quote:
I can't remember who backed out of that game at the last moment that forced us to schedule the Citadel but our hands were tied with that decision.
It was Bowling Green. Strangely, Stoops at OU wanted to give them a game. They asked out. We got stuck with an open date and had to get Citadel.
I think that some voters held the 2003 USC win over AU against us in 2004. Also many voters just pick top 10 based on last year or recent history. If top teams don't lose, it is hard to move up.
This year and 2010 everybody lost and we even beat some of the teams ahead of us. It works out most of the time, but the reality is an SEC championship is what you can control through your play on the field. The NC has a good bit of opinion and subjective things that are beyond your control even if you win all of your games.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:36 am to bigpapamac
quote:
You had pretty much caught OU in the Coaches Poll before the Alabama game. You were like 2-4 points behind them if I remember right. That was a lackluster performance and then yall lost some ground before the SECCG.
This.
We putzed around against a lousy bammer team that we should have crushed and then let UT hang around in the SECCG. If those had been the blowouts that they should have been, then we would have played USC for the title.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:55 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:37 am to bigpapamac
quote:
You had pretty much caught OU in the Coaches Poll before the Alabama game.
I think we wrew both at #2 either before the UGA or the Bama game.
Basically playing like crap the first half of the IB and letting UT hang around in the SECCG sealed it for us.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:37 am to BammerDelendaEst
quote:
If those had been the blowouts that they should have been, they we would have played USC for the title.
Eh i still doubt that. But we'll never know either way.
Page 5 of 16
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News