Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/1/19 at 4:07 pm to Leto II
No it wasn't. Protip: Bowling Green wasn't AQ.
Posted on 7/1/19 at 4:10 pm to Korin
quote:
No it wasn't. Protip: Bowling Green wasn't AQ.
Yeah I forgot we went through this before. But BG would've been better than Citadel.
The bigger issue was the preseason rankings. 1-2 vs. 17.
This post was edited on 7/1/19 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 7/1/19 at 8:55 pm to coachcrisp
That’s fine, but losing head to head seems like a bigger deal than winning one more game against a weaker conference foe.
In a 10 team league, Auburn rarely played LSU and Bama rarely played Georgia.
Georgia rarely played LSU. AU rarely played Vanderbilt or Ole Miss. it was an odd league in that sometimes bowl matchups were SEC versus SEC. AU played Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in three bowl games(Gator, Gator, Liberty). LSU and Tennessee played in the astrobluebonnet bowl one year. Bama played Ole Miss in sugar. Etc.
I guess in the modern 14 team league you have occasional post season matchups like Bama UGA for all the marbles.
At least now the schedule is set. You play all your division and tw from the other.
A head to head win is bigger now, as it should be.
In a 10 team league, Auburn rarely played LSU and Bama rarely played Georgia.
Georgia rarely played LSU. AU rarely played Vanderbilt or Ole Miss. it was an odd league in that sometimes bowl matchups were SEC versus SEC. AU played Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in three bowl games(Gator, Gator, Liberty). LSU and Tennessee played in the astrobluebonnet bowl one year. Bama played Ole Miss in sugar. Etc.
I guess in the modern 14 team league you have occasional post season matchups like Bama UGA for all the marbles.
At least now the schedule is set. You play all your division and tw from the other.
A head to head win is bigger now, as it should be.
Posted on 7/1/19 at 9:17 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
quote:
The "any" means that it's not restricted to just Alabama
You're not too bright, are you?
quote:
any SEC team could schedule extra SEC games if they wanted to
"Any" SEC team (not just Bama) could WANT to schedule extra SEC games, but couldn't unless they found someone else willing to play them.
You're questioning someone's intelligence when YOU feel the need to state that another SEC team also has to play in order for it to be an SEC game..I guess you perceived that after giving it a lot of thought, huh?.. Which one are you? Boudreaux or Thibodeaux?Posted on 7/2/19 at 7:45 am to John Milner
Auburn went 25 years between SEC Championships
Georgia went 20
Tennessee is at 20 now and no end in sight
Can't imagine having that happen.
Georgia went 20
Tennessee is at 20 now and no end in sight
Can't imagine having that happen.
Posted on 7/2/19 at 7:48 am to Pauldingtiger
quote:
Auburn is also the 2004 MNC since the BCS was vacated.
That isn't how it works.
Posted on 7/2/19 at 8:03 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
'm still not exactly sure how or why UK claims this.
-UGA was 5-1 in conference, UK was 4-2
-UGA beat kentucky 31-7
-UGA also had a better overall record and finished higher if those factored in at all
MSU had to forfeit a game to UK in 1976 which then changed their official record to 5-1 and gave them a split with UGA. MSU was playing ineligible players.
Posted on 7/2/19 at 8:13 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Arkansas (0)
Missouri (0)
Sewanee (0)
South Carolina (0)
Texas A&M (0)
Vanderbilt (0)
Granted Arkansas and Missouri are new, but Sewanee, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and Vanderbilt were all in at least the SIAA or SoCon. I think the Dores had about a dozen conference championships back then. Texas A&M was pretty good back in the day but got pulled into the SWC by Texas.
Posted on 7/2/19 at 10:43 am to CNB
quote:
Damn I was hoping we’d just missed one somewhere. Maybe next time. Thanks
You'll always have that 7-4 team in 1969 that won the ACC, so there is that.
Posted on 7/2/19 at 11:08 am to Leto II
quote:
The bigger issue was the preseason rankings. 1-2 vs. 17.
That's what happens when you shite the bed the season before when everyone expected you to be in the running for a national championship. USC and Oklahoma were rightfully ranked #1 and #2 in the preseason polls based on what they did the year before and what they had coming back.
In 2003, USC finished 12-1 with a national championship trophy from the Associated Press as well as a Rose Bowl win. Oklahoma finished 12-2 with a BCS National Championship Game appearance. Auburn finished 8-5 with a win in the Music City Bowl. That's setting aside the fact that USC blanked Auburn 23-0 in Jordan-Hare to begin the season.
Did Auburn get screwed in 2004? No. Not really. We can talk about the strength of schedule, average margin of victory, and point differentials all we want to. Bottom line, no voter was about to move Auburn over two undefeated teams that had been ranked #1 and #2 all season long. Prior to that Orange Bowl game, *everyone* was saying that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in college football. It wasn't until after USC blew the breaks off Oklahoma from the second quarter onward that the SEC and Auburn fans began trumpeting the Tigers.
It sucks that there wasn't a playoff in 2004, because that would have been an awesome year for it. You had USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all undefeated going into the post-season. I would have loved to have seen the following bowl match-ups:
#1 USC vs. #4 Utah in the Rose Bowl
#2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn in the Cotton Bowl
Posted on 7/2/19 at 12:42 pm to RollTide1987
Auburn would've been ahead of Oklahoma had they played an AQ OOC. They chose not to. Choices can have consequences.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News