re: Miami '01 vs Alabama '09

quote:

---

It wasnt really Auburns fault they got left out of the NC, it was the biased voters

---

It really WAS Auburn's fault. Had they not screwed up in 2003, a year when they started out #6 in every major poll, they may have had a shot at being pre-season ranked #1 or #2 in 2004. Instead they take that #6 ranking, go 8-5 with it, start out at like #16 in 2004 and bitch and moan when they are left out of the title game after the pre-season #1 and #2 teams run the table. I have no sympathy for them.

This thread sucks. And someone owes me 5 minutes of my life back for reading it. nativetiger, I blame you.

quote:

---

This is the best argument for a playoff.....

---

While I am a huge advocate for a playoff, you have to play with the tools that you are given.

quote:

---

you have to play with the tools that you are given.

---

Are you talking about Trooper and Looper?

AQgain, Alabama had a tougher schedule than auburn, and still averaged the same number of points scored and given up. As for Miami- they gave up 1.25 fewer points per game than Alabama, and averaged 10 pts per game more. However, they played 0 teams that wound up in the top five (their opponent for the BCS, Nebraske, didn't even win the Big 12) 1 from the top 10 and 3 from the top 20 (though Boston College did finish 21) They also played 2 fewer bowl eligible teams. The big number that seperates Miami from Alabama is the Average points per game; 42-32 (and lets not forget Miami's habit of running up the score, gleaned from the Jimmy Johnson years, that was still in place). However, everyone on this board constantly bemoans that Big 12 teams don't play SEC defenses. What's the diffeence in ACC teams? They don't play defense either. The fact is, Miami, while a great team, played a schedule that was a bit on the soft side, played 0 SEC defenses, and has the benefit of being remembered 10 years later. The simple fact is, if you look back at Miami teams from the 80's to now (realizing that only 3 of them went undefeated, 87, 91, and 01, thats right, 83 and 89 lost a game) they always struggled with top defenses. Hence thier loss to Paterno in 86, and Bama in 92. Hell, Auburn beat us worse in 89 than Miami did.

What most people on here are reacting to is Alabama, a team they hate posting one of the best records in the BCS era. Their strength of schedule was as tough or tougher than every other BCS winning team (tougher than Auburn's in 04 as well) and saying Miami would kill them is simply a way for posters to say "There! you're not so great!"

The Simple fact is, however, Alabama had a heisman winner, a record 6 All Americans, played 10 bowl eligible teams (a record). 5 top 20 teams, of which 3 were top 10, of which 2 were top 5 and beat them all. Very few teams in history boast such an impressive resume.

too bad they couldnt average more points during the season, or couldn't hold teams to less points with all that "talent".

quote:

---

Really Texas Tiger, is that why Alabama had more All Americans, a heisman winner, and posted as many points scored and as few points given up against a TOUGHER schedule? Wow- you're bright.

---

Subjective awards mean nothing in this argument.

Points scored against different competition mean nothing as well.

As for the schedule, 2009 was one of the weakest years for the SEC in recent memory.

How bout you read my other posts then, nativetiger, or just let me summarize.

Alabama beat 5 top 20 teams, Auburn 4.
Alabama beat 3 top ten teams, Auburn 2.
Alabama beat 2 top 5 teams, Auburn 0.

Alabama beat 10 bowl eligible teams, Auburn 7. No matter how you slice it, Alabama had the tougher record. So don't give me 'the sec was down' argument. Alabama played a tougher schedule than Auburn did in 04.