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

FINAL RANKINGS FOR 2004: Auburn did receive one 1st place vote.

#1 SCAL
8.28.04, #1 SCAL 24, #10 VT 13 (Landover, MD)
10.9.04, #1 SCAL 23, #9 Cal 17 (Pasadena, CA)
10.16.04, #1 SCAL 45, #19 ASU 7 (Pasadena, CA)
1.4.05, #1 SCAL 55, #3 OU 19 (Miami, FL)

#2 Auburn
9.18.04, #2 AU 10, #16 LSU 9 (Auburn, AL)
10.2.04, #2 AU 34, #13 TN 10 (Knoxville, TN)
11.13.04, #2 AU 24, #7 UGA 6 (Auburn, AL)
12.4.04, #2 AU 38, #13 TN 28 (Atlanta, GA)
1.1.05, #2 AU 16, #10 VT 13 (New Orleans, LA)

#3 OU
10.2.04, #3 OU 28, #18 Texas Tech 13 (Norman, OK)
10.9.04, #3 OU 12, #5 TX 0 (Dallas, TX)


Teams that beat another highly ranked team twice always end up getting underrated in the eyes of the rest of the nation, so few people appreciated the difficulty of beating the Vols twice that year, including once in Knoxville, whereas neither SCAL or OU beat another ranked team at an opposing campus.

EDIT: Also, regarding the common opponent VT, the August game was VT's first without Marcus Vick at QB, who was suspended from the 2004 team due to his criminal activities. This happened on August 3, the same month as VT's opening game with SCAL in the BCA Classic.

All this goes by end-of-the-season rankings of course.

Did you watch USC in that game? I don't care if they did play in a puss conference or if they played an overrated Oklahoma. USC was tearing shite up that night. They arse raped Oklahoma using sand as lube

quote:

---

It would look completely retarded handing out the BCS championship to a team that did not even play in the game.

---

quote:

---

1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1945, 1950, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1991, 1992, 1994, & 2009 National Champions!

---

No more retarded than your sig quote. I'm surprised you haven't added 2004 already.

quote:

---

natty

---

Here you go. You are welcome.

I vote yes...but I still think you suck and for making me say something nice about you.

There's a story behind my sig. I'm not even going to take the time to explain it to you though because I have been up for work since 4am and I am tired

If you're going to take shots at someone, at least know what the hell you're talking about first. It's not a jok. At least not one I have to explain to anyone. All I said was that there's a story behind it

You know, if your sig quote is so hard to explain that you can briefly mention it 3 times while being too tired to explain it all, maybe you need a new sig quote.

quote:

---

Cheating bastards

---

U jelly

quote:

---

If you're going to take shots at someone, at least know what the hell you're talking about first. It's not a jok. At least not one I have to explain to anyone. All I said was that there's a story behind it

---

So without an explanation, how am I supposed to know what I am talking about? There is nothing self-revealing about your sig. Change it, explain it, remove it, or shut the frick up when someone calls you on it.