re: Do the rant posters think that Auburn DESERVES to be awarded the 2004 NC?

quote:

---

Point is though, if USC did not win, then Oklahoma did not lose the last one. It's like the game didn't happen. Auburn really shouldn't be in the equasion, because they were only ranked #2 after the result of the championship game. If the result changed, it still doesn't effect Auburn.

---

Technically USC's win is vacated and OU still has a loss.

However that wasn't my question. My question was:

Polls aside, who do you think is more deserving to be called a champion: a team that wins all of their games, or a team that loses their last one?

quote:

---

Polls aside, who do you think is more deserving to be called a champion: a team that wins all of their games, or a team that loses their last one?

---

All depends on what defines a champion. If the standard agreed upon is just the regular season, than that is the champion no matter what the bowl game says.

I mean I agree with you, but I'm bored so why not?

quote:

---

Thats great.

---

Yeah, I won't claim '04 regardless but I do find the stance by some on here quite funny. Don't lecture anyone about claiming bullshite titles when you pull shite like that.

quote:

---

From my OP:

quote:

quote:

---

2. This was the worst the SEC performed record wise since 1990. It was certainly the most down year of SEC football the entire decade. It takes a bit of the shine off the undefeated run in the SEC.

---

---

Unfortunately for you, your assumption is belied by the facts.

Since the Crystal Football is awarded by the AFCA and their poll is the USA Today poll, I took the liberty of making the following list of SEC teams in their final poll in the BCS era:

1998 - #1 Tenn, #6 UF, #14 UGa, #17 Arky (4 ranked, 2 Top 10) (Avg rank 11.8)
1999 - #8 bama, #9 Tenn, #12 MSU, #14 UF, #16 UGa, #19 Arky, #22 Ole Miss (7/2) (14.3)
2000 - #11 UF, #17 UGa, #20 AU, #21 USCjr, #22 MSU, #25 Tenn (6/0) (19.3)
2001 - #3 UF, #4 Tenn, #8 LSU, #13 USCjr, #25 UGa (5/3) (10.6)
2002 - #3 UGa, #16 AU, #24 UF (3/1) (14.3)
2003 - #1 LSU, #6 UGa, #14 Ole Miss, #16 Tenn, #25 UF (5/2) (12.4)
2004 - #2 AU, #6 UGa, #15 Tenn, #16 LSU, #25 UF (5/2) (12.8)
2005 - #5 LSU, #8 bama, #10 UGa, #14 AU, #16 UF (5/3) (10.6)
2006 - #1 UF, #3 LSU, #8 AU, #16 Arky, #23 Tenn (5/3) 10.2
2007 - #1 LSU, #3 UGa, #14 AU, #16 UF (4/2) (8.5)
2008 - #1 UF, #6 bama, #10 UGa, #15 Ole Miss (4/2) (8.0)
2009 - #1 bama, #3 UF, #17 LSU, #21 Ole Miss (4/2) (10.5)
2010 - #1 AU, #8 LSU, #11 bama, #12 Arky, #17 MSU, #22 USCjr (6/2) 11.8

Now ranking the SEC with regard to the total number of ranked SEC teams in that particular year (using avg ranks as a tie-breaker) gives you:

1. 1999 (7/14.3)
2. 2010 (6/11.8)#
3. 2000 (6/19.3)
4. 2006 (5/10.2)#
5. 2001 (5/10.6)*
6. 2005 (5/10.6)*
7. 2003 (5/12.4)#
8. 2004 (5/12.8)
9. 2008 (4/8.0)#
10. 2007 (4/8.5)#
11. 1998 (4/9.5)#
12. 2009 (4/10.5)#
13. 2002 (3/14.3)

(# - SEC BCS Championship year)
(* - 2001 and 2005 were equal in ranked teams and avg ranking so 2001 won the tie-breaker using highest ranked team)

As you can see, mix and match the stats however you wish, 2004 was FAR from "the worst the SEC performed record wise since 1990". I don't know where in the hell you got that assertion from outside of that's how you FEEL it was because that's how you want it to be.

quote:

---

The SEC was down that year. As I've been saying through the thread.

---

Yeah, you SAY it.

But never once do you try to PROVE it.

Auburn

quote:

---

Auburn really shouldn't be in the equasion, because they were only ranked #2 after the result of the championship game.

---

That is the "equasion"