Started By
Message
re: 1974 OU and 1993 Auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:45 pm to texag7
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:45 pm to texag7
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
3
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:10 am to phil4bama
quote:
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
So NC's aren't a yearly award. NC's are awarded because of an accumulation of years? That is some sound logic you have there.
The truth of the matter...........NC's were awarded as much for the name on the front of the jersey as for the merit of an individual school.
Auburn's 2004 team had some bama fan, who was a voter, not putting Auburn in his top 25......trying to manipulate the vote. There used to be a lot of that when we used the poll system.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:41 am to phil4bama
quote:
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
Yeah, #4 was a completely fair ranking for that 1993 team.
1983 and 2004, however, were complete fricking-overs from top to bottom.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:41 am to phil4bama
quote:This is the actual answer to the OP's question.
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
BTW, despite being on NCAA probation in 1973, the Sooners entered '74 ranked #1 in the AP Preseason poll. They never fell below #3, and regained their #1 ranking in November: Oklahoma AP Poll ranking in 1974
Meanwhile, AU's highest position was #3 following their comeback win in the Iron Bowl, their final game of the season. They finished #4, with 5 first place votes, behind F$U, Notre Dame and Nebraska. AU in 1993 AP Poll
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News