Started By
Message
re: Do the rant posters think that Auburn DESERVES to be awarded the 2004 NC?
Posted on 6/7/11 at 8:20 am to beatbammer
Posted on 6/7/11 at 8:20 am to beatbammer
no - we didnt play the game - we don't get it.
nor do I want it to be honest - we got 2010 - im good with that :)
nor do I want it to be honest - we got 2010 - im good with that :)
This post was edited on 6/7/11 at 8:21 am
0
Posted on 6/7/11 at 8:22 am to junior
quote:
Still this is AUBURN's fault. Dont get abused by USC at home in 2003 and they would have played for it on the field. (unless the refs dont screw LSU w/ the redo extrapoint)
That had nothing to do with it. USC and OU were ranked #1 and #2 in the preseason and nothing would have changed that. The media was absolutley in LOVE with both of those teams on paper before the season started and nothing could have prevented them from being ranked as the top two teams.
And when a team ranked in the preseason doesn't lose, they don't drop. USC and OU went undefeated. 1995 Nebraska, with 1982 Hershel Walker transferring in, would have wound up in the same boat as Auburn that season.
If anything Auburn was screwed by the media's desire to put out rankings during the summer - thereby generating interest and revenues for their product - instead of doing the OBVIOUS thing and making a neutral assessment of the quality of all teams at the midway point of the season, after, you know, you have actually seen them play some games.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 8:51 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
A little different than actually claiming national champ for those years, like some other schools
Yep.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 8:58 am to AUFANATL
quote:
That had nothing to do with it. USC and OU were ranked #1 and #2 in the preseason and nothing would have changed that.
The fact that Auburn got destroyed at home by USC in 2003 did have a role where they were ranked to start 2004.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:02 am to junior
quote:
The fact that Auburn got destroyed at home by USC in 2003 did have a role where they were ranked to start 2004.
No, the fact that they went 8-5 in 2003 affected where they were ranked preseason. They could have beat USC, lost another game to finish with the same record and still been ranked way behind.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:03 am to junior
quote:
The fact that Auburn got destroyed at home by USC in 2003 did have a role where they were ranked to start 2004.
So if they were ranked 3 it would have changed things?
As stated the media was in love with USC in that era, as an LSU fan you should know this. Same with ohlahoma, they were all over their nutz.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:04 am to AUFANATL
quote:
And when a team ranked in the preseason doesn't lose, they don't drop.
bullshite.
They were dropping teams ranked in the preseason who haven't lost for years before 2004 and they've been dropping teams ranked in the preseason who haven't lost since 2004.
That rule was invented to apply STRICTLY to 2004 and 2004 only.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:05 am to MedDawg
IMO USC was by far the best team that year. Prior to the bowl games it was 1-USC , 2- Oklahoma, 3- Au. Even though OU lost their bowl game to the #1 team USC it has been found out that USC cheated, so by default that would send OU to #1, and Au to #2. I don't think there was much of difference between OU and Au and would probably split if they played 10 times. You could argue for both teams but since OU played in the Champ game then if it(BCS) was awarded then by default it has to go to them.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:06 am to spacewrangler
quote:
IMO USC was by far the best team that year.
In your opinion, we were gonna lose 6 games last year too.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:08 am to spacewrangler
quote:
IMO USC was by far the best team that year. Prior to the bowl games it was 1-USC , 2- Oklahoma, 3- Au. Even though OU lost their bowl game to the #1 team USC it has been found out that USC cheated, so by default that would send OU to #1, and Au to #2. I don't think there was much of difference between OU and Au and would probably split if they played 10 times. You could argue for both teams but since OU played in the Champ game then if it(BCS) was awarded then by default it has to go to them.
So you think a 1-loss Big 12 Champion should be ranked ahead of an undefeated SEC Champion?
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:10 am to beatbammer
So a majority of AU/non-UA posters say they would give it to Auburn if forced to choose, and every UA fan says Oklahoma. 
Wonder what the UA responses would be if it was AU that got destroyed by USC in the game?
Wonder what the UA responses would be if it was AU that got destroyed by USC in the game?
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:12 am to AUFANATL
quote:
And when a team ranked in the preseason doesn't lose, they don't drop.
So not true
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:14 am to beatbammer
quote:
So you think a 1-loss Big 12 Champion should be ranked ahead of an undefeated SEC Champion?
Refresh me, how many ranked teams did USC play, and How many did OK play?
The reason why Auburn didn't get pushed ahead was because everybody harped on our OoC schedule, despite the fact that Auburn's in-conference was far superior to either teams entire schedule
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:16 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:Exactly
Wonder what the UA responses would be if it was AU that got destroyed by USC in the game?
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:17 am to beatbammer
quote:
So you think a 1-loss Big 12 Champion should be ranked ahead of an undefeated SEC Champion?
No I don't think that but OU doesn't have a loss due to USC being cheaters. I said you could agrue for both teams but by default it would go to OU since they played in the BCS Championship Game, Au didn't.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:17 am to spacewrangler
quote:
IMO USC was by far the best team that year
I really think people forget about what happened during the season just because of the bowl game.
USC escaped with a 3 pt win with a 4th TD against Standford (4-7), an 8 pt win with 2 TDs in the 4th against Oregon State (7-5), and Reggie Bush's TWO long TD runs to beat UCLA (6-6) by 5.
Hell, they needed a goal-line stand against Cal to win that game (although Cal was actually good that year).
Fact is, if Reggie Bush doesn't play against UCLA, USC doesnt go to the Orange Bowl.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:18 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Refresh me, how many ranked teams did USC play, and How many did OK play?
The reason why Auburn didn't get pushed ahead was because everybody harped on our OoC schedule, despite the fact that Auburn's in-conference was far superior to either teams entire schedule
https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?sp=26470283&b=12&s=1&p=26469258
AU by far had the most challenging schedule that year.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:18 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
Wonder what the UA responses would be if it was AU that got destroyed by USC in the game?
Mine would be the same. Au would, by default, get the nod for the BCS since they played in the Championship game.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:19 am to spacewrangler
quote:
No I don't think that but OU doesn't have a loss due to USC being cheaters.
You might want to double-check your facts on that, kemo sabe.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:20 am to spacewrangler
quote:Yes they do have a loss. The victories were vacated not forfeited. The loss will always be associated with OU.
No I don't think that but OU doesn't have a loss due to USC being cheaters. I said you could agrue for both teams but by default it would go to OU since they played in the BCS Championship Game, Au didn't.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News