Started By
Message
Posted on 7/2/20 at 8:54 pm to idlewatcher
That title is about as legit as UCF's. I hope their fans realize how ridiculous they sound if they actually stake that claim.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 8:57 pm to Dudebro2
USC's claim is baseless. It's just sportswriters with their coastal bias.
USC finished #3 in the AP a few years ago with 3 losses on the season. One of them a 52-6 loss to #1 Alabama. They didn't play in the playoffs, but they still managed to get ranked #3 over teams that did.
Meanwhile last year, a 2 loss Alabama team with 1 of them a 5 point loss vs #1 LSU, Alabama finishes #8.
All USC and the AP poll did is demonstrate why went to the BCS format to start with.
USC finished #3 in the AP a few years ago with 3 losses on the season. One of them a 52-6 loss to #1 Alabama. They didn't play in the playoffs, but they still managed to get ranked #3 over teams that did.
Meanwhile last year, a 2 loss Alabama team with 1 of them a 5 point loss vs #1 LSU, Alabama finishes #8.
All USC and the AP poll did is demonstrate why went to the BCS format to start with.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:03 pm to 3down10
More like a media market bias. Washington was much better than Miami in 1991 but the AP went with the latter
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:03 pm to 3down10
The AP's biggest sin is they're terribly inconsistent. Four-loss Auburn finished #10 in 2017. Malzahn has also had two 8–5 teams end the year ranked. 2015 Georgia was 10–3 and finished unranked. 2016 Tennessee lost to Texas A&M and didn't even fall one spot. When Arkansas lost to Tennessee during the Stoernover, we actually moved up one spot. That poll is seen as the most prestigious one for no real concrete reason.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:04 pm to RLDSC FAN
Well 2004 USC natty was only 2 years before the SEC took complete control of college football which it has pretty much owned since. And Auburn went undefeated in that conference in 04' and had 4 first rounders to USC's 2 in that year's NFL draft. To assume USC would have rolled Auburn like they did that cotton candy Oklahoma team is presumptuous.
This post was edited on 7/2/20 at 9:08 pm
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:17 pm to purpgoldblood
2004 Auburn had more successful future pros than USC and they would've had a massive homefield advantage in Miami. 2008 USC vs Florida would've been a great matchup too: Tebow and that great offense vs a stacked USC defense
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:27 pm to 3down10
quote:
USC's claim is baseless. It's just sportswriters with their coastal bias.
Exactly, my whole argument is that none of this even became a issue until late in the season when it looked like USC could Be left out. All the while ignoring that the AP had agreed to be included in the BCS process. Only then did we start hearing the split title bullshite.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:31 pm to Scoob
quote:
2003 was Oklahoma, the greatest team of all time.
Oklahoma is stuck living in the 50’s. They have had a good program but not the dominant program that their fans act like it is. Even to this day, those idiots live in delusion. A knew numerous sooner fans that legit thought they had a chance against us in Atlanta. Like come on.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:34 pm to turnpiketiger
Somewhat agree about Oklahoma, but they are a true blue blood with four national titles since 1974.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:37 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:
four national titles since 1974.
1974? You’ve gotta be kidding me. It’s 2020. Do something since 2000 and we’ll take you serious. Ole Miss has 3 national titles since 1958. Are they a blue blood
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:47 pm to Dudebro2
I love debates likes this, and hell, it involves my team having to ruin an LSU/USC matchup.
The system and guidelines at the time showed a deserving Oklahoma team to be there. But the human factor, what we see on the field and on the scoreboard clearly showed Oklahoma did not belong. Ah well, I was at the BCS title game. It is kind of a blur to me.
Now I would like for there to be an article/debate on who was the more deserving team to be 1983 national champion.
Miami going from #5 to #1 because Nebraska opted not to settle for the tie doesn't set well. The Orange Bowl was a great thriller and why not let those two teams settle it for the title? I get it.
But like the article stated regarding to LSU/USC, resumes are important.
1983 Miami lost to Florida, granted it was the first game of the season, but still a loss and by 25 points.
Auburn had 1 loss, to Texas, which themselves were undefeated going into bowl season before losing late in the fourth to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl.
Auburn beat Florida and Georgia that year.
Auburn's low key 9-7 win over Michigan in the Sugar Bowl may not look as good as Miami's 31-30 Orange Bowl win over Nebraska, but no matter what, a win is a win no matter how you slice it.
Auburn should be the 1983 national champion.
The system and guidelines at the time showed a deserving Oklahoma team to be there. But the human factor, what we see on the field and on the scoreboard clearly showed Oklahoma did not belong. Ah well, I was at the BCS title game. It is kind of a blur to me.
Now I would like for there to be an article/debate on who was the more deserving team to be 1983 national champion.
Miami going from #5 to #1 because Nebraska opted not to settle for the tie doesn't set well. The Orange Bowl was a great thriller and why not let those two teams settle it for the title? I get it.
But like the article stated regarding to LSU/USC, resumes are important.
1983 Miami lost to Florida, granted it was the first game of the season, but still a loss and by 25 points.
Auburn had 1 loss, to Texas, which themselves were undefeated going into bowl season before losing late in the fourth to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl.
Auburn beat Florida and Georgia that year.
Auburn's low key 9-7 win over Michigan in the Sugar Bowl may not look as good as Miami's 31-30 Orange Bowl win over Nebraska, but no matter what, a win is a win no matter how you slice it.
Auburn should be the 1983 national champion.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:50 pm to VagueMessage
quote:
almost think this is a hook to get Arkansas fans to fight with you, lol.
Don’t consider 1964 split when Alabama won both major polls.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 9:54 pm to Oklahomey
The 1983 debate is a great one, but Miami did beat an incredible Nebraska team.
The most amazing title was 1984 BYU. It was crazier than 2007.
The most amazing title was 1984 BYU. It was crazier than 2007.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 10:11 pm to Oklahomey
1983 Auburn played the toughest schedule in the country. Just incredible, wins over #3 UGA, #6 Florida (who whupped Miami as mentioned), #15 Bama and #8 Michigan
Posted on 7/2/20 at 10:14 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
1984 BYU will always be a mystery.
IMO, the best team in 1984 was Florida. The deserved the title over BYU, Oklahoma, Washington. Won the SEC title but then had it taken away several months later for NCAA issues? Shoot, way to be late there.
Oklahoma/Washington Orange Bowl was thought to be the national title game. Had the Sooners won the game, they would have been selected. But it wasn't clear for Washington as we all know now.
BYU being the dual poll champion just shows how inconsistent pollsters can be year after year. The criteria changes from week-to-week it seems.
IMO, the best team in 1984 was Florida. The deserved the title over BYU, Oklahoma, Washington. Won the SEC title but then had it taken away several months later for NCAA issues? Shoot, way to be late there.
Oklahoma/Washington Orange Bowl was thought to be the national title game. Had the Sooners won the game, they would have been selected. But it wasn't clear for Washington as we all know now.
BYU being the dual poll champion just shows how inconsistent pollsters can be year after year. The criteria changes from week-to-week it seems.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 10:58 pm to Oklahomey
quote:I mentioned media hype earlier
BYU being the dual poll champion just shows how inconsistent pollsters can be year after year. The criteria changes from week-to-week it seems.
BYU had the famous passing attack, had NFL QBs in Jim McMahon, Steve Young, Marc Wilson etc in the league, and they were undefeated.
They were getting some love, and unfortunately, everyone else lost a game and they didn't.
That's the danger of a courtesy vote, you might get stuck with it.
I remember they beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the bowl, and Bo said there's no way that team deserves to be #1. People said he was being crotchety and sour grapes, but he was right.
Posted on 7/2/20 at 11:40 pm to VADawg
quote:
This is not a good way to phrase your argument. USC lost in triple OT on the road against a red hot Aaron Rodgers. LSU lost at home to Ron Zook and didn't score an offensive touchdown.
Florida was a decent team in 2003. The 5 games they lost were to #5,8,11,14,16 in the final coaches poll and they beat #1 and #6.
Cal only played 3 ranked teams, going 1-2 and lost 4 games to unranked teams.
Aaron Rogers only played the first half of that game.
Posted on 7/3/20 at 3:31 am to olgoi khorkhoi
Yeah. Call was below. 500 when USC lost to them. USC beat only one team that finished the season ranked before the Rose Bowl and still dropped a gimme game.
LSu was just flat for that game but that Florida team finished the season with maybe the most brutal list of opponents anyone could play in a season that short.
quote:
. The 5 games they lost were to #5,8,11,14,16 in the final coaches poll and they beat #1 and #6.
LSu was just flat for that game but that Florida team finished the season with maybe the most brutal list of opponents anyone could play in a season that short.
Posted on 7/3/20 at 3:52 am to Dudebro2
quote:
SUC v LSU the 2003 debate solved
FIFY
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News