Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight

[Hawkigizer]

Gotta chime in here real quick about the 2004 Auburn thing. I know mweb wants someone to make an argument for Auburn so I'll try to rehash the same stuff I posted on this very board back 7 years ago on the subject:

Just taking regular season into account, Auburn had 3 wins over top 10 teams (when the game was played). USC & Oklahoma had 2, combined. Auburn had 4 wins over top 15 teams. USC & Oklahoma had 3, combined. Auburn trailed twice all season: the LSU game, and the Bama game. No other games were even close enough to be considered in doubt. USC squeaked by a bad Stanford team, needed a miracle finish in the fog (anyone remember that?) to beat Oregon St, and a fumble by UCLA to escape with a victory there (in which they got credit for gutting out a tough win at their rival, while Auburn was criticized for only winning at Bama by 8 points).

I honestly don't remember too much about Oklahoma's season, but they squeaked out ranked wins vs A&M and Ok St (those were nice road wins though), but of course when they got drilled in the championship game, their argument kinda died. Auburn's SOS was down due to having to play Citidel in place of GA Tech team that bailed out of a neutral site game at the last minute. I hardly think that's reason enough to say they had a weak schedule.

Anyway, that was my argument then, and I think it still holds water. And actually if you see what the guys off that team are doing and have done in the NFL (Cambell, Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, Carlos Rogers, Marcus McNeil, Obamanu, Aromashodu, Will Herring, Quentin Groves, Jay Ratliff, etc...) compared to the other two teams, Auburn may even come out looking even better. So anyway, hopefully that appeases mweb. I think I went into greater detail back when I was making this argument in 2004, but I can't remember everything, so that's all I got.

[Hawkigizer]

Historically the two programs aren't even close. Auburn will always be second fiddle in Alabama.

Not to hi-jack this thread and make it a Bama/Auburn thing, but let's take a look at the last 30 years (2 years greater than my lifetime...not exactly a small sample size.) It was 1981 when Pat Dye took over Auburn, which is what many Auburn fans consider the start of our "modern era". Not even close, eh?

(I should mention that this does not include the 2011 season...this was done for the 30 year stretch from 1981-2010)

National Titles since 1981

Auburn: 1 (2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

SEC Titles since 1981

Auburn: 6 (1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 5 (1981, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2009)

Undefeated Seasons

Auburn: 3 (1993, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

Iron Bowl Wins

Auburn: 17 (1982, 1983 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)

Alabama: 13 (1981, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009)

Wins since 1981

Auburn: 254 (11 nationally)

Alabama: 226 (22nd nationally)

SEC Wins Since 1981

Auburn: 141

Alabama: 129

Bowls Since 1981

Auburn: 22 (15-6-1)

Alabama: 19 (12-7)

Heisman Trophy Winners since 1981

Auburn: 2

Alabama: 1

NCAA Probations since 1981

Auburn: 1

Alabama: 3

[Pedro Cerrano]

Not to hi-jack this thread and make it a Bama/Auburn thing, but let's take a look at the last 30 years (2 years greater than my lifetime...not exactly a small sample size.) It was 1981 when Pat Dye took over Auburn, which is what many Auburn fans consider the start of our "modern era". Not even close, eh?

(I should mention that this does not include the 2011 season...this was done for the 30 year stretch from 1981-2010)

National Titles since 1981

Auburn: 1 (2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

SEC Titles since 1981

Auburn: 6 (1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 5 (1981, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2009)

Undefeated Seasons

Auburn: 3 (1993, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

Iron Bowl Wins

Auburn: 17 (1982, 1983 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)

Alabama: 13 (1981, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009)

Wins since 1981

Auburn: 254 (11 nationally)

Alabama: 226 (22nd nationally)

SEC Wins Since 1981

Auburn: 141

Alabama: 129

Bowls Since 1981

Auburn: 22 (15-6-1)

Alabama: 19 (12-7)

Heisman Trophy Winners since 1981

Auburn: 2

Alabama: 1

NCAA Probations since 1981

Auburn: 1

Alabama: 3

Who asked you to put together that list of stats from an arbitrary period of time? Not me, not anyone.

[Hawkigizer]

Who asked you to put together that list of stats from an arbitrary period of time? Not me, not anyone.

Well, I didn't put it together. The end of 2010 marked 30 years since Pat Dye came to Auburn so these were put together by some journalist doing a piece on that anniversary. Not exactly arbitrary.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well, I didn't put it together. The end of 2010 marked 30 years since Pat Dye came to Auburn so these were put together by some journalist doing a piece on that anniversary. Not exactly arbitrary.

Sure it is, give me their stats since they started playing each other.

[mweb]

Gotta chime in here real quick about the 2004 Auburn thing. I know mweb wants someone to make an argument for Auburn so I'll try to rehash the same stuff I posted on this very board back 7 years ago on the subject:

Just taking regular season into account, Auburn had 3 wins over top 10 teams (when the game was played). USC & Oklahoma had 2, combined. Auburn had 4 wins over top 15 teams. USC & Oklahoma had 3, combined. Auburn trailed twice all season: the LSU game, and the Bama game. No other games were even close enough to be considered in doubt. USC squeaked by a bad Stanford team, needed a miracle finish in the fog (anyone remember that?) to beat Oregon St, and a fumble by UCLA to escape with a victory there (in which they got credit for gutting out a tough win at their rival, while Auburn was criticized for only winning at Bama by 8 points).

I honestly don't remember too much about Oklahoma's season, but they squeaked out ranked wins vs A&M and Ok St (those were nice road wins though), but of course when they got drilled in the championship game, their argument kinda died. Auburn's SOS was down due to having to play Citidel in place of GA Tech team that bailed out of a neutral site game at the last minute. I hardly think that's reason enough to say they had a weak schedule.

Anyway, that was my argument then, and I think it still holds water. And actually if you see what the guys off that team are doing and have done in the NFL (Cambell, Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, Carlos Rogers, Marcus McNeil, Obamanu, Aromashodu, Will Herring, Quentin Groves, Jay Ratliff, etc...) compared to the other two teams, Auburn may even come out looking even better. So anyway, hopefully that appeases mweb. I think I went into greater detail back when I was making this argument in 2004, but I can't remember everything, so that's all I got.

Thanks for at least stating a case. I disagree with the notion of looking at how teams were ranked when the teams played compared to where they ended up though. USC won what was essentially a road game against VaTech who wasn't ranked at the time, but ended up in the top ten despite that loss, and then lost to Auburn in the Sugar Bowl in a closer game than the USC game.

According to the link I posted earlier, USC played two top 10 teams before the bowl, OU played 1, and Auburn played zero. Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU were 11th, 15th, and 18th respectively.

The game against the Citadel was hardly the only reason their SOS was weaker than the other two teams. They scheduled two other out of conference cupcakes and it was somewhat of a down year for the SEC as the next best team after the aforementioned teams that Auburn played was Arkansas, who was ranked 44th.

Meanwhile USC played the #6, 7, 13, 17, 31, 34, 41, and #46 teams.

USC was easily the best team based on the Sagarin ratings and the voters thought they were better as well.

If you want to argue Auburn over OU, I think the case gets stronger, especially in hindsight given what USC did to OU, which only makes the USC argument stronger. Auburn didn't help their argument as much with their bowl game.

You mention that OU and USC barely won some games, but OU had the same amount of single digit games as did Auburn and USC had two more with both games you mention becoming closer at the end. I'm not sure what miracle you're referring to in the Oregon St game. The fell behind 13-0 in the fog and then scored 28 unanswered, then Oregon St scored a TD with 2:36 left to make it close. And what fumble are you referring to in the UCLA game? USC outgained them 477 to 295 and led 29-17 until UCLA scored a TD with 2:20 left in the game.

As far as the guys making it in the NFL, I addressed that earlier, but I will also add that it doesn't matter that Leinart and Bush have been disappointing in the NFL and Jason White wasn't even much of a prospect. What matters is those guys were all incredible college players. They combined to win 3 straight Heisman's.

[OFFNY]

Who asked you to put together that list of stats from an arbitrary period of time? Not me, not anyone.

He doesn't need your permission, your approval, or your solicitation to post statistics from whenever or wherever he wants to.

[Pedro Cerrano]

He doesn't need your permission, your approval, or your solicitation to post statistics from whenever or wherever he wants to.

The next time you make a post worth reading will be the first.

[OFFNY]

The next time you make a post worth reading will be the first.

Says who ? The person that called Matt Wieters the biggest bust in Oriole franchise history ? Those that have the biggest mouths say the most foolish and most judgmental things.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Says who ? The person that called Matt Wieters the biggest bust in Oriole franchise history ? The have the biggest mouth, and you say the most foolish and most judgmental things.

Whatever, I'm not going to get into this with you. The original post you took such exception to was meant to point out that the time-frame he was citing was arbitrary in nature. I could tell you that since the Rangers have gone to more World Series than the Yankees in the last 5 years that they are a better overall team historically. Does that make sense?

That was my only point, and other than my tone which MIGHT have been slightly harsh, the post was pretty innocuous. I'm pretty sure most got that, but you didn't which is not surprising. Instead you made a post that added nothing to the conversation.

[ledzepp8]

He doesn't need your permission, your approval, or your solicitation to post statistics from whenever or wherever he wants to.

Well regardless of the tone of Pedro's response, he's right. It's a little arbitrary to only compare Auburn/Alabama since 1981.

[OFFNY]

Not to hi-jack this thread and make it a Bama/Auburn thing, but let's take a look at the last 30 years (2 years greater than my lifetime...not exactly a small sample size.) It was 1981 when Pat Dye took over Auburn, which is what many Auburn fans consider the start of our "modern era". Not even close, eh?

(I should mention that this does not include the 2011 season...this was done for the 30 year stretch from 1981-2010)

National Titles since 1981

Auburn: 1 (2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

SEC Titles since 1981

Auburn: 6 (1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 5 (1981, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2009)

Undefeated Seasons

Auburn: 3 (1993, 2004, 2010)

Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

Iron Bowl Wins

Auburn: 17 (1982, 1983 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)

Alabama: 13 (1981, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009)

Wins since 1981

Auburn: 254 (11 nationally)

Alabama: 226 (22nd nationally)

SEC Wins Since 1981

Auburn: 141

Alabama: 129

Bowls Since 1981

Auburn: 22 (15-6-1)

Alabama: 19 (12-7)

Heisman Trophy Winners since 1981

Auburn: 2

Alabama: 1

NCAA Probations since 1981

Auburn: 1

Alabama: 3

I believe that this is just one of many examples that can be cited that undermines Division 1-A college football for not having a playoff system. And it's not just the BCS that is guilty of this. Before the BCS, national championships (and who got to play for them) were just as arbitrary as they are now. Up until the late 1960's, national champions were crowned immediately after the regular season, essentially relegating bowl games to exhibition games. The last time that this happened was in 1973, when Alabama and Notre Dame split a national championship, even though Notre Dame beat them in the Sugar Bowl to finish an undefeated season. What happened was that the coaches put their final vote in before the bowl games, and the sportswriters did so after the bowl games. An embarrassing situation to say the least, but this was indeed one of the 6 national championships that Bear Bryant won in his tenure as head coach of the Crimson Tide.

The BCS was supposed to be a revolutionary change, but it has been anything but. In 2003, USC was ranked number 1 in the AP poll ... yet, they were placed 3rd overall by the BCS, which had LSU and Oklahoma play for the title. Then of course, the following season, Auburn went undefeated, but could not play for the title, because they were ranked # 3 in the BCS behind both Oklahoma and USC (both also undefeated). However, in spite of all of this, a playoff doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight in the near future.

[The Rick]

Whatever, I'm not going to get into this with you. The original post you took such exception to was meant to point out that the time-frame he was citing was arbitrary in nature. I could tell you that since the Rangers have gone to more World Series than the Yankees in the last 5 years that they are a better overall team historically. Does that make sense?

That was my only point, and other than my tone which MIGHT have been slightly harsh, the post was pretty innocuous. I'm pretty sure most got that, but you didn't which is not surprising. Instead you made a post that added nothing to the conversation.

Well regardless of the tone of Pedro's response, he's right. It's a little arbitrary to only compare Auburn/Alabama since 1981.

I think the point is that it's been 30 years now since the rivalry has been on equal footing, if not slightly tilted towards the Tigers. So sure, it's arbitrary, but it's not like Auburn has been the Orioles of the AL East and Bama has been the Yankees the whole damn time.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yea but I specifically said that Alabama has been better than Auburn "historically" and that it wasn't even close. So, my post was right; if you consider the entire history of each program, Alabama has them dominated. Hawkigizer came along and brought up the last 30 years which is fine, but doesn't really counter what my original point was. Instead I get called a big mouth and judgmental or whatever (I'm sure most can see the hilarity there) and then Matt Wieters somehow gets brought up...whatever. I need to just block the guy because this is the 3rd or 4th time he's trolled me.

[The Rick]

Yea but I specifically said that Alabama has been better than Auburn "historically" and that it wasn't even close. So, my post was right; if you consider the entire history of each program, Alabama has them dominated. Hawkigizer came along and brought up the last 30 years which is fine, but doesn't really counter what my original point was. Instead I get called a big mouth and judgmental or whatever (I'm sure most can see the hilarity there) and then Matt Wieters somehow gets brought up...whatever. I need to just block the guy because this is the 3rd or 4th time he's trolled me.

Fair enough. It's definitely not close historically, especially from a NC perspective. I guess I would just say that it's been 3+ decades now of "as close as it gets", if you will, as far as this rivalry is concerned. But again, I get your point, you weren't contesting that anyway.