Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:39 pm to TH03
quote:
USC wasn't losing, but auburn would've put up a better fight than Oklahoma
When VY wasn't going God-mode on them, those Carroll USC teams were damn near unbeatable in big games. From 2002-2008, almost all of their losses were of the WTF variety and they usually won big games in extremely lopsided fashion.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:39 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Miami also beat #2 VT that season, producing their only loss, which people on this thread appear to be conveniently forgetting
Washington beat Miami (kind of important here) and a great Oregon State team that finished in the top 5.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:41 pm to VADawg
Miami beat Florida State(#1 team that PLAYED in the title game) kind of important here too
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:42 pm to TheGusBus34
State 1776
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:45 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Miami beat Florida State(#1 team that PLAYED in the title game) kind of important here too
Two teams who are 10-1. Both have two wins over top 5 teams. They have a head to head matchup. You're taking the team who LOST that matchup?
Can't fix stupid.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:51 pm to VADawg
I never said UW didn't have a valid case but they did lose to a 2 loss Oregon team whereas Miami lost to UW(1 loss) yet compensated by defeated two top 2 teams including the defending national champs ranked no. 1 at the time as well as finishing the seasom ranked no. 2. They also defeated the no. 2 defending conference champs as well. Head to head's offset by UW's loss to inferior opponent. Also, your logic didn't work in 1993 when both ND and FSU had 1 loss(ND beat FSU), ND lost to an inferior BC team and therefore FSU played for the national championship whereas ND was excluded. Game. Set. Match. Any more questions?
Posted on 6/28/17 at 6:54 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Also, your logic didn't work in 1993 when both ND and FSU had 1 loss(ND beat FSU),
And that was equally stupid. That should have been ND/Nebraska.
This post was edited on 6/28/17 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:00 pm to VADawg
Bama would be on this list somewhere but they just claim all championships anyways
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:04 pm to BowlJackson
I think he means 1940, not 1941. We were undefeated, beat Alabama head to head in a shutout and Bama claims that title.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:15 pm to MullenBoys
That would make more sense record wise. Although I can understand why the school wouldn't claim a National title without a conference title.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:17 pm to TH03
quote:
USC wasn't losing
Auburn had a better team, but USC had better coaching. Would have been a classic game.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:23 pm to BowlJackson
Uhhhhh there were 2 Heisman winners on that team that returned almost everything they had from the previous year that beat auburn 3 TDs and some change. Auburn was spared the embarrassment.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:29 pm to BowlJackson
Anyone who thinks Auburn would've won or had a better chance than OU against USC in that Orange Bowl is insane, Auburn played a monstrously easy schedule that season whereas USC played the 5th ranked SOS and defeated that schedule by a 25 pt MOV. To further emphasize my point, 2004 OU played the 11th ranked SOS and lost to USC by 36 that Orange Bowl. Incredibly hard to imagine a scenario where Auburn would perform better against an immensely prolific USC team for the national title since it's all hypothetical.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:33 pm to FourThreeForty
Matt Leinart sucked arse.
If you can look at the 2004 rosters of USC and Auburn and say that USC had more talent then you're either an idiot or full of shite.
If you can look at the 2004 rosters of USC and Auburn and say that USC had more talent then you're either an idiot or full of shite.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:37 pm to ThePTExperience1969
LINK
Actually OU had the #1 SOS, AU had the #7, And USC #17
Auburn also had the #1 defense and, whereas USC had virtually nobody of significance on defense going up against an AU offense with three 1st rounders in the backfield, 3 NFL WRs, and 3 pro bowlers on the OL
Actually OU had the #1 SOS, AU had the #7, And USC #17
Auburn also had the #1 defense and, whereas USC had virtually nobody of significance on defense going up against an AU offense with three 1st rounders in the backfield, 3 NFL WRs, and 3 pro bowlers on the OL
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:39 pm to TheGusBus34
1959 Ole Miss and 1962 Ole Miss, and Auburn 1993.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:42 pm to TheGusBus34
Not when it was 103 years ago.
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:43 pm to BowlJackson
Lolz that was 2003 moron
Posted on 6/28/17 at 7:48 pm to BowlJackson
No one wanted to see Auburn/USC 3 years in a row. OU and USC had 2 Heisman winners, one was a defending national champion and the other was coming off a NC appearance.
Auburn was just unfortunate.
Auburn was just unfortunate.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News