re: 1974 OU and 1993 Auburn

quote:

---

And then the very next week Auburn struggled to beat a 6-4 Alabama team that was down to its third string QB, its third string RB, and was missing its star player from the offensive line. Despite this...Alabama led 6-0 at the half and only lost 21-13. You were ranked #2 in at least one of the major polls before the Iron Bowl. You dropped to #3 afterward. Clearly the national media was unimpressed.

---

That'a sort of what I meant. When USC won 4 games that year against teams with similar records they never dropped. That bama team had more NFL talent than Oregon State, Cal and Stanford had put together. All close wins for USC that year. They also barely beat a 6-6 UCLA team. You say the national media was unimpressed as if the national media is merely a passive by-stander making an objective observance. The media has a vested interest in getting teams into those types of games that encourage newspaper sales, website clicks, tv viewing, etc...

quote:

---

They were the defending AP national champions. The only way they were dropping out of the Top 2 is if they lost a game.

---

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in human polls and why it is a beauty contest more than an objective vote. If Auburn dropped when it didn't lose but barely won, then why wouldn't USC when it didn't lose but barely beat such inferior opponents? Humans pre-determine and fulfill outcomes that benefit them. As a bama fan you should understand this nature of human pollsters.

quote:

---

The '04 Iron Bowl and the '04 USC-UCLA game are hardly comparable. Alabama was missing half of its starting offense and gave Auburn a scare for two and a half quarters.

Auburn got left out. It sucks for Auburn fans and I get it. But that's part of life. USC and Oklahoma had the unfortunate luck of never losing a game. Why do they have to drop and why does Auburn have to rise? Because Auburn played in the SEC? Come on.

---

Your logic is circular. USC and Oklahoma shouldn't drop, but Auburn dropped after being ranked higher. The entities which make money off CFB wanted USC and Oklahoma because they are worth more money to those entities. In the end the best team and most deserving team was left out. At times the best team had been left out in the past, but not the best and most deserving. The rest of the SEC benefitted from it...Florida was given the benefit of the doubt over Michigan in 2006 then beat the brakes off OSU which led to LSU 2007 and the rest is history.

When using the word overrated, make sure it's saved for Georgia.

The SEC in 2004 was nothing compared to what it was 2006-2013. SEC was weak for a few years between 1999-2005, minus 2003 LSU, compared to 2006-13.

Fault the polls and computers. SC and OU were 1 and 2 from start to finish.

While Auburn had some great talent, OU and USC had the showcase players in 2003 Heisman winner and 2004 finalist Jason White, 2004 Heisman runner-up Adrian Peterson, 2004 Heisman winner Matt Leinart, 2005 Heisman winner Reggie Bush.

2000-2004, prior to the USC loss, Oklahoma had a record of (60-6) which included a National Championship, Rose Bowl win, Cotton Bowl win, and a BCSNCG appearance including 3 conference titles.

Not sure where that shows OU being overrated.

Maybe it had something to do with why Pay Dye wasn't the coach anymore.

quote:

---

Not sure where that shows OU being overrated.

---

People ignore context. That's the problem. At the end of the '04 season, just before the Orange Bowl, OU was considered to be the absolute best program in all of college football. Bob Stoops was being compared to coaches like Bear Bryant and Bud Wilkinson. And his team was a touchdown favorite over the Trojans going into the game. You can talk about the supposed weakness of the Big 12 but the memories of dominant Texas, Colorado, and Nebraska teams were still in everyone's minds. Plus you had upstarts like Kansas State under Bill Snyder that were particularly dangerous teams.

The Big 12 wasn't a weak conference by any stretch of the imagination. Definitely not like how it is today.

You are just a butt hurt little puss. OU did what they had to do. OU never ran up the score on anyone. Not sure what you remember, but sure isn't much. Sometimes style points are needed to get somewhere. It's happened before in other seasons.

quote:

---

Then it sounds like you should blame Tuberville and not the BCS. When you are fighting to get a slot in the national championship game, style points mean everything.

---

I agree. Tubbs definitely let Auburn down that season. He also may have realized it probably wouldn't have mattered either way and took the high road. What we know is Oklahoma was a paper tiger and USC didn't deserve the shot to beat them down over Auburn.

quote:

---

he SEC in 2004 was nothing compared to what it was 2006-2013. SEC was weak for a few years between 1999-2005, minus 2003 LSU, compared to 2006-13.

---

Umm no. That's simply not true.

quote:

---

Big 12 wasn't a weak conference by any stretch of the imagination. Definitely not like how it is today.

---

It was very top heavy with the bottom being very weak.

The fault simply came down to one game for each team. Bgsu. They pulled out of the AU game and scheduled ou. We scrambled and filled with citadel. Had we played bgsu, we would have had the points to be 2nd and in the game.

1993 Auburn played 2 ranked teams and went undefeated.

1993 Florida State played 7 ranked teams and their only loss was to #2 Notre Dame. They also beat #2 Nebraska, which was undefeated up until that point, in the bowl game.

Maybe it would have been a good game between Florida State and Auburn, but Florida State had the better resume BY FAR.