Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight

[CrimsonTribe]

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

It's somewhat arbitrary and somewhat not. He did start it at the beginning of Pat Dye's run, which can be seen as a logical starting point I guess. The problem is that the time frame starts right at the beginning of the tenure of their legendary coach and only takes into account the last two years of ours. Either way, it's pretty obvious that Auburn has a slight advantage over the last 30 years (other than National Championships), but what it really comes down to is a horrendous slump from DuBose through Shula. Some of that was aided by probation, but Alabama really lost its luster for a little while until Saban was hired. It was excruciating to watch those Shula teams play. There are also like 29 vacated wins over that time frame (8 in 1993 thanks to Antonio Langham signing with an agent and 21 over 2005, 2006, and 2007 over that stupid textbook thing), which kind of artificially lowers the win total a bit. Either way, I'd rather have our guys in charge than theirs going forward.

[Birds of B'more]

@McMurphyCBS

Brett McMurphy

LSU Jarrett Lee, others may be ruled academically ineligible for postseason

Wow....don't you have to be trying really, really hard to be ruled academically ineligible at any SEC school not named Vanderbilt?

[Hawkigizer]

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.

And I could make the argument that VA Tech wasn't nearly as good of a team when they played USC. They were a much improved by the time they played Auburn 4 months after they played USC, and were coming in on a 8 game win streak and considered one of the hottest teams in the country. When they played Auburn, they were a legit top 10 team. When they played, USC they weren't. Comparing those two games isn't really fair.

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.

Georgia and Tennessee had 5 losses combined...3 of those coming to Auburn. And one of them coming in their game against each other. That might have had something to do with them falling out of the top 10 by season's end. Kinda hard to stay in the top 10 when you're beating up on each other. Cal beat one ranked opponent all season, and remained in the top 10 despite getting smoked in 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.

I'm trying remember exactly the fumble I was referring too. I think I misspoke when I said it was a fumble by UCLA. If I remember correctly it was a goofy fumble play late in the game that the refs botched the call on. USC fumbled and a UCLA guy picked it up and was running for the go ahead TD, but the refs called the UCLA guy down by contact when replays showed he wasn't. It should've been a UCLA TD. A couple plays later UCLA threw and interception to seal the game for USC. Once again, my memory is spotty on this, but I think it was something like that. As far as the fog game, I just remember it being kinda flukey, mainly due to the fog and USC not looking very good. And as far as comparing margin of victory, you gotta understand Tommy Tuberville was never one for style points. Auburn easily could've run up the score in a few of those games but that wasn't Tuberville's style (obviously, it probably should've been). And really the only game that was ever in doubt for Auburn was the LSU game. The Bama game may have only been a 8 point difference, but after trailing 6-0 Auburn scored 21 straight before giving up a garbage TD in the last seconds. Auburn blew threw their schedule unimpeded, only struggling against LSU, while USC & OU had stumbling blocks along the way.

[mweb]

How was VaTech not a legit top 10 when USC played them?

As far as your Georgia and Tenn comments. Well sure, them beating each other along with their losses to Auburn hurt a lot. But the SEC was down that year in terms of depth, so that hurts them some too. Georgia's only good wins were hosting #18, #25, and #30.

And who did Tenn beat besides Georgia? Just Florida at home by 2 points. They only had 1 conference win by more than 6 points, and they didn't play a tough schedule. Oh and they lost at home to the same Notre Dame that USC beat 41-10.

So I can make the exact opposite argument of yours, which would state the Georgia and Tenn really weren't all that good, they just were able to beat their SEC foes, most of which were not good that year. Between the two teams, you have 1 win over LSU, one win over Georgia Tech, and two wins over Florida. 3 of the games were at home and the other was against UF in JAX. Then there's the home loss to Notre Dame who went 6-6 that year.

USC really only had two games that were seriously at question in the 4th quarter since the two examples you gave weren't really except for a potentially miraculous finish in the UCLA game, which the game recap says nothing about a controversial call. And USC played a tougher schedule.

[Hawkigizer]

How was VaTech not a legit top 10 when USC played them?

When they played them? Well, that would be because VaTech was unranked when they played. Then they improved as the season went on and peaked in the top 10 before losing to Auburn.

Anyway, you wanted something to back up waroriole's claims, so I gave it to you. That's all I got. You don't like it, but whatever...I don't care. Auburn had one game that was in question in the 4th quarter (other than the bowl game), and there's no way to say what they would've done with USC's schedule. I'm just going off of what I already explained to you and the 13 games I watched Auburn play (the majority in person), as well as the numerous USC & Oklahoma games I watched...not just reading game recaps 7 years later.

And for the record, while I obviously wanted Auburn to play in the championship game, I wasn't too upset. USC and Oklahoma started out #1 and #2 and then ran the table...they did everything they had to do. If one of them had gotten bumped they would've had just as big of a gripe. One team was going to be left out, and it just so happen it was Auburn. I just don't think it was as much of a slam dunk that Auburn was the clear choice to be left out that everyone seemed to think.

[mweb]

When they played them? Well, that would be because VaTech was unranked when they played. Then they improved as the season went on and peaked in the top 10 before losing to Auburn.

Anyway, you wanted something to back up waroriole's claims, so I gave it to you. That's all I got. You don't like it, but whatever...I don't care. Auburn had one game that was in question in the 4th quarter (other than the bowl game), and there's no way to say what they would've done with USC's schedule. I'm just going off of what I already explained to you and the 13 games I watched Auburn play (the majority in person), as well as the numerous USC & Oklahoma games I watched...not just reading game recaps 7 years later.

And for the record, while I obviously wanted Auburn to play in the championship game, I wasn't too upset. USC and Oklahoma started out #1 and #2 and then ran the table...they did everything they had to do. If one of them had gotten bumped they would've had just as big of a gripe. One team was going to be left out, and it just so happen it was Auburn. I just don't think it was as much of a slam dunk that Auburn was the clear choice to be left out that everyone seemed to think.

VaTech didn't necessarily improve anymore than normal though, they just were under ranked to start the season. You can't possibly not give USC credit for beating a really good team because of how they were ranked before the season started.

Well thanks again for stating a case instead of just stating that since Auburn played in the SEC, they played the tougher schedule, and thus should be in the title game. Because they did not play the tougher schedule. And yes waroriole, I connected the dots properly, unless you want to say that their cupcake OOC schedule contributed to their tougher schedule or tougher games.

Great last paragraph Hawkigizer. I don't care for the pre-season rankings carrying so much weight, but the reality is they do, and those teams did what they had to do to retain those rankings. I also agree that any of the teams would have had a legit gripe and said as much earlier. I think USC was a pretty clear choice to be included, though. I am biased, but the evidence and hindsight backs me up.

[Hawkigizer]

Yea but I specifically said that Alabama has been better than Auburn "historically" and that it wasn't even close

Right, and this is what I had issues with. There's no arguing as a whole Alabama has been the greater program. But saying it's "not even close" or "dominant" isn't exactly accurate. It's not like this is Tenn/Kentucky or even the Texas/Texas A&M or rivalry here. There was time before Bear arrived at Bama where Auburn was the better program, and as I showed if you look at recent history after Bear left (ie. the LAST THREE DECADES), Auburn has been the better program. Historically, sure Bama is better. (Although, I'm not sure why the last 30 years aren't considered historical, but whatever.) Clearly, there's a large advantage that tips the scales to Bama's side, but "dominant"? That's a stretch. That's the perspective I was trying to change with my post. It may have come across as arbitrary, but it's 30 years man...and I said there was logic to looking at that time period. To say that's similar to comparing the Rangers last 5 with the Yankees as a whole, well, that's a pretty absurd statement.

[ledzepp8]

VaTech didn't necessarily improve anymore than normal though, they just were under ranked to start the season. You can't possibly not give USC credit for beating a really good team because of how they were ranked before the season started.

Exactly right. 2010 Auburn started the season off #22 in the polls.

[CrimsonTribe]

Exactly right. 2010 Auburn started the season off #22 in the polls.

2010 Auburn wasn't very good to start the year. They barely beat Mississippi State and a pretty bad Clemson team. It took them a while to figure out how to use Cam Newton.

[Hawkigizer]

Yeah, I'm not trying to take all of 2004 USC's credit away from beating what turned out to be a very good Va Tech team. But, to say that the Va Tech team USC played was the same one Auburn played simplifies things too much and doesn't allow the idea that teams can improve as the season goes on. As CrimsonTribe said, 2010 Auburn is a good example of a team improving as they find their strengths/groove. The Auburn everyone saw at the end of the season would've handled Miss St & Clemson with ease.

[CrimsonTribe]

Yeah, I'm not trying to take all of 2004 USC's credit away from beating what turned out to be a very good Va Tech team. But, to say that the Va Tech team USC played was the same one Auburn played simplifies things too much and doesn't allow the idea that teams can improve as the season goes on. As CrimsonTribe said, 2010 Auburn is a good example of a team improving as they find their strengths/groove. The Auburn everyone saw at the end of the season would've handled Miss St & Clemson with ease.

Maybe it's just selective memory, but doesn't Va Tech have a history of totally sucking at the beginning of the year too? JMU anyone?

[mweb]

Yeah, I'm not trying to take all of 2004 USC's credit away from beating what turned out to be a very good Va Tech team. But, to say that the Va Tech team USC played was the same one Auburn played simplifies things too much and doesn't allow the idea that teams can improve as the season goes on. As CrimsonTribe said, 2010 Auburn is a good example of a team improving as they find their strengths/groove. The Auburn everyone saw at the end of the season would've handled Miss St & Clemson with ease.

The vast majority of teams improve throughout the year. There's no reason imo to think they weren't a top 10 caliber team the first week of the season.

Sure, some teams have special circumstances, but unless you can show what those were in relation to VaTech, they should be considered a top 10 caliber team when USC played them.

[OFFNY]

O

The irony in all of this is that it started as a thread for "Why I Hate The BCS", and it has (for the most part) evolved into a thread debating which team(s) should get to play for the national championship based on the very same merits that ....... that the BCS uses.

[Hawkigizer]

The vast majority of teams improve throughout the year. There's no reason imo to think they weren't a top 10 caliber team the first week of the season.

Sure, some teams have special circumstances, but unless you can show what those were in relation to VaTech, they should be considered a top 10 caliber team when USC played them.

I mean, the only "special circumstances" I can show you is that they started out 2-2, including a home loss to a bad NC State team that went 5-6. Clearly, VaTech wasn't very good at that point. Then they got on a roll and found their groove...as they do seem to do every season as CrimsonTribe pointed out. I don't think I can point to one thing (like the Auburn example), other than maybe they were trying to find their identity with Randall as a full-time QB due to Vick's suspension. Maybe they had zero-confidence to start the season due to the way their 2003 ended and the off-season stuff/distractions with Vick? All that seems logical to me. I really don't see why it's hard to believe they improved a great deal...even moreso than other teams did, since the "vast majority" of teams seem to.

[mweb]

I mean, the only "special circumstances" I can show you is that they started out 2-2, including a home loss to a bad NC State team that went 5-6. Clearly, VaTech wasn't very good at that point. Then they got on a roll and found their groove...as they do seem to do every season as CrimsonTribe pointed out. I don't think I can point to one thing (like the Auburn example), other than maybe they were trying to find their identity with Randall as a full-time QB due to Vick's suspension. Maybe they had zero-confidence to start the season due to the way their 2003 ended and the off-season stuff/distractions with Vick? All that seems logical to me. I really don't see why it's hard to believe they improved a great deal...even moreso than other teams did, since the "vast majority" of teams seem to.

How can you say clearly they weren't very good based on losing a game by 1 to NC State? Because I don't think you can hold losing to USC against them.

I'm not saying it's hard to believe they improved a lot more than normal, I'm saying there isn't a good reason to assume so other than an attempt to diminish USC's win.