Latest Topics

[xiv]

Noah, on 29 January 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Wasn't Auburn overlooked in 2004 because of a weak schedule?

Auburn was overlooked because there was an ineligible team ranked #1. But yes, when we were under the illusion that USC was good enough to win a BCS championship with a team comprised solely of eligible players (which USC has never been able to do btw), Auburn was overlooked because their schedule was not as strong as USC's or OU's; all of this falls in line with my saying that  never has an SEC school been excluded from the national title game in lieu of a school with a weaker schedule.

To put it more specifically, anytime an SEC team has finished in the top 2 in the computers, it has finished in the top 2 in the polls. When the math and the votes are in sync, you won't have much of a "We got screwed" argument.

Edited by xiv, 31 January 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[Large Marge]

xiv, on 31 January 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

To put it more specifically, anytime an SEC team has finished in the top 2 in the computers, it has finished in the top 2 in the polls. When the math and the votes are in sync, you won't have much of a "We got screwed" argument.

Unlike Nebraska in 2001. Them votes and maths were all ed up, but no one from the Big XII wants to bring that up, do they? It was the biggest case of BCS screwing over ever, but since it was the good ol' Big XII screwing it's own members and the PAC-10 over and not the SEC screwing them over, it's okay. Otherwise we'd all still hear about it.

[bbqit]

more conference games, more playoff games, more, more, more games all around. they gonna just have to come off this 25 schollys a year and increase the total schollys a school can have.

[Hothotz]

Meh, <--- How I feel about the whole situation.

       I don't want to expand the conference again, I don't want to play more conference games, and I don't see how it could help at all. The SEC doesn't have a problem in the polls. Sure people outside of the conference might bitch about some of our schedules but once the voting starts there are always four or five of us in the top ten. Adding more games for us to just increase our losses does nothing to help the schools to get in a position to play for the big games. The only thing it would do is bring more money to ESPN and CBS for advertising.

       Adding more conference games is just a all around HORRIBLE idea. If you want to increase your SOS then add better out of conference games to your slate. We are already going in that direction, We play Georgia Tech every year and once in a blue moon they are decent. Georgia has Clemson to start the season for the next couple years.

[xiv]

Large Marge, on 31 January 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Unlike Nebraska in 2001. Them votes and maths were all ed up, but no one from the Big XII wants to bring that up, do they? It was the biggest case of BCS screwing over ever, but since it was the good ol' Big XII screwing it's own members and the PAC-10 over and not the SEC screwing them over, it's okay. Otherwise we'd all still hear about it.

Nebraska had a better record than every team beneath them, and among all one-loss teams, Nebraska had the highest SOS. Nebraska was the clear #2, no matter how many people that the ill-informed sports media convinced that they weren't.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

I have a better idea... Go back to 12 teams like it was before where you could play everyone in your division, your cross-division rival, and still see two other cross-division teams a year.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

Noah, on 29 January 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Wasn't Auburn overlooked in 2004 because of a weak schedule?

We beat five top 15 teams that year, went undefeated in the SEC (Only five teams have done that in the past 25 years; Alabama and Auburn twice and Tennessee once. All but 2004 Auburn were undisputed national champions), and beat every team by an average score of 34-11 over the course of the season not counting the bowl game... I'm not sure what else we could have done.

[xiv]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 31 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

We beat five top 15 teams that year, went undefeated in the SEC (Only five teams have done that in the past 25 years; Alabama and Auburn twice and Tennessee once. All but 2004 Auburn were undisputed national champions), and beat every team by an average score of 34-11 over the course of the season not counting the bowl game... I'm not sure what else we could have done.

None of this matters.

They all had the same winning percentage. USC's and Oklahoma's opponents combined for better records than Auburn's opponents. USC's and Oklahoma's opponents' opponents combined for better records than Auburn's opponents' opponents. USC and Oklahoma had larger margins of victory than Auburn did.

In a universe where USC wasn't cheating, Auburn got excluded because there were two teams who were better and had proven it on the field.

In reality, Auburn got excluded because USC cheated.

Auburn didn't get screwed by the BCS. It got screwed because USC cheated and the NCAA took six years to figure it out.

1983 was the real Auburn screw job anyway.

Edited by xiv, 31 January 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[SheLuvsBama]

Playing the cupcakes has its advantages in that it gives the team a mental and physical break, plus allows them to hone their skills with a bit less tension. Still, I have never been a fan of these games. I always thought it was a bore when the competition was not up to par. We have seen how easy that attitude can win the cupcake some games against teams they are supposed to be unable to stay on the same field with, though. Give them respect, but I have never really enjoyed those games.

[Mizzou_Fan]

SheLuvsBama, on 31 January 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Playing the cupcakes has its advantages in that it gives the team a mental and physical break, plus allows them to hone their skills with a bit less tension. Still, I have never been a fan of these games. I always thought it was a bore when the competition was not up to par. We have seen how easy that attitude can win the cupcake some games against teams they are supposed to be unable to stay on the same field with, though. Give them respect, but I have never really enjoyed those games.

No team from the Power Six should be allowed to play FCS teams. I'm fine with playing an easy FBS opponent but they shouldn't play FCS teams.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

xiv, on 31 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

None of this matters.

They all had the same winning percentage. USC's and Oklahoma's opponents combined for better records than Auburn's opponents. USC's and Oklahoma's opponents' opponents combined for better records than Auburn's opponents' opponents. USC and Oklahoma had larger margins of victory than Auburn did.

In a universe where USC wasn't cheating, Auburn got excluded because there were two teams who were better and had proven it on the field.

In reality, Auburn got excluded because USC cheated.

Auburn didn't get screwed by the BCS. It got screwed because USC cheated and the NCAA took six years to figure it out.

1983 was the real Auburn screw job anyway.

Several teams had better strengths of schedule than Bama this year (before the NC game, obviously) and didn't get into the BCS game over them. Notre Dame had a great strength of schedule and look at how shitty they were.
Undefeated in the SEC is just straight up way better than undefeated anywhere else, strength of schedule or not.

Plus, your assertion that USC and Oklahoma had larger margins of victories than Auburn is false:
USC - 37-13 = 24
Auburn - 34-11= 23
Oklahoma - 36-14 = 22

USC had a slightly larger average margin of victory and Oklahoma had a slightly lower one. There's pretty much no difference between the three overall though, honestly.

[xiv]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 31 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Several teams had better strengths of schedule than Bama this year (before the NC game, obviously) and didn't get into the BCS game over them.

This doesn't matter.  Whether or not Alabama should have been in the 2013 BCSCG has nothing to do with whether or not Auburn should have been in the 2005 Orange Bowl, and vice versa.

And regarding Alabama's SOS (for the sake of this conversation, I'm referring to the old BCS formula--look it up because I'm not explaining it to you because you won't understand it so I'm not wasting my time), the only teams who had stronger schedules than Alabama and lost one (or fewer) game(s) were Florida and Oregon, and each of them had one fewer win than Alabama.  Oregon's schedule was slightly stronger than Alabama's, but not so much that it made up for the extra win.  Florida's schedule was significantly stronger than Alabama's, and honestly, it wouldn't have been a crime to put them in the BCSCG over Alabama.  That said, there's no reason to have a serious problem with Alabama's inclusion in the game, even if you disregard the results of the bowl games.

Quote

Notre Dame had a great strength of schedule and look at how shitty they were.

Irrelevant.

Quote

Undefeated in the SEC is just straight up way better than undefeated anywhere else, strength of schedule or not.

Irrelevant, illogical (you just claimed that going undefeated in the SEC is better than doing so anywhere else regardless if the on-field results back up your claim), and not always true, especially when concerning 2004 and 2005, the only two seasons in the past decade where an SEC team did not play for the national title.  

http://jhowell.net/cf/cfindex.htm is where you can find Jay Howell's rating system.  I'm using his as an example because it is the most accessible one that comes to mind.  (I follow a lot of computer ratings and have one I've built for my own information.  I realize that every computer rating has built-in flaws and cannot be 100% trusted when it comes to ranking teams, but when it comes to ranking conferences, the sample size is exponentially larger and, therefore, most likely more accurate.)

Here's how Howell's system ranks the SEC among the other conferences in each of the past 10 seasons (you'll find, if you do your own research, that every system to some degree reflects the obvious trend you're about to see):

• 2003 - 1
  
• 2004 - 5
  
• 2005 - 5
  
• 2006 - 1
  
• 2007 - 1
  
• 2008 - 1
  
• 2009 - 1
  
• 2010 - 1
  
• 2011 - 2
  
• 2012 - 1

So, no, going undefeated in the SEC isn't always the best thing you can do, especially when you're playing in 2004, a season where you only have three OOC games, and especially when those three games are against teams who aren't good.  And no, nobody gets brownie points for Bowling Green backing out; that's Auburn's problem and nobody else's.  What matters is what your record is, and against whom, and how your resume compares to that of others; what doesn't matter is the means by which a team drafts its regular season schedule.

You have a legitimate beef with Alabama, who cheated a decade ago and went 6-6 under sanctions in 2004, therefore hurting your SOS in a way you could not have foreseen.
You have a legitimate beef with Kentucky, who cheated a decade ago and went 2-9 under sanctions in 2004, therefore hurting your SOS in a way you could not have foreseen.
You have a legitimate beef with USC, who cheated a decade ago, therefore effectively stealing a spot in the 2005 Orange Bowl
You have a legitimate beef with the NCAA, who operates under rules that are impossible to understand and enforce with any efficiency, therefore allowing an ineligible team to take the spot in the Orange Bowl that Auburn rightfully deserved.
You have no legitimate beef with the BCS.  Under the conditions given, the BCS did its job correctly and effectively by placing its #1 and #2 teams in its designated championship game.

Quote

Plus, your assertion that USC and Oklahoma had larger margins of victories than Auburn is false:
USC - 37-13 = 24
Auburn - 34-11= 23
Oklahoma - 36-14 = 22

• School - points scored - points allowed - average margin

(totals reflect those tabulated before Selection Sunday, by which point each team had played 12 games {USC didn't have a conference championship game, but they played Virginia Tech in a kickoff classic})

• Auburn - 401 - 134 - 22.25 http://jhowell.net/c...Auburn.htm#2004
  
• Oklahoma - 433 - 164 - 22.41 http://jhowell.net/c...lahoma.htm#2004
  
• Southern California - 441 - 150 - 24.25 http://jhowell.net/c...fornia.htm#2004

So...it appears as if your math is wrong.  

Quote

USC had a slightly larger average margin of victory and Oklahoma had a slightly lower one. There's pretty much no difference between the three overall though, honestly.

I will agree that these margins of victory are not so disparate, all things considered, that they should have decided the two Orange Bowl representatives.

Edited by xiv, 01 February 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Noah]

Those lying ass cheatin mofos should be stripped of half a dozen of those so called national championships because times were different then and, well....   I'm tired of those ass whoopings.

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 31 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Several teams had better strengths of schedule than Bama this year (before the NC game, obviously) and didn't get into the BCS game over them.

Sorry but please forgive me, sometimes I tend to paraphrase.

Edited by Noah, 01 February 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

xiv, on 01 February 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

This doesn't matter.  Whether or not Alabama should have been in the 2013 BCSCG has nothing to do with whether or not Auburn should have been in the 2005 Orange Bowl, and vice versa.

And regarding Alabama's SOS (for the sake of this conversation, I'm referring to the old BCS formula--look it up because I'm not explaining it to you because you won't understand it so I'm not wasting my time), the only teams who had stronger schedules than Alabama and lost one (or fewer) game(s) were Florida and Oregon, and each of them had one fewer win than Alabama.  Oregon's schedule was slightly stronger than Alabama's, but not so much that it made up for the extra win.  Florida's schedule was significantly stronger than Alabama's, and honestly, it wouldn't have been a crime to put them in the BCSCG over Alabama.  That said, there's no reason to have a serious problem with Alabama's inclusion in the game, even if you disregard the results of the bowl games.Irrelevant.Irrelevant, illogical (you just claimed that going undefeated in the SEC is better than doing so anywhere else regardless if the on-field results back up your claim), and not always true, especially when concerning 2004 and 2005, the only two seasons in the past decade where an SEC team did not play for the national title.  

I'll ignore your foolish condescension and get straight to a response. Your point was that Auburn didn't get in because of SOS. I pointed out a double standard in Alabama not having the best SOS and still getting into the title game anyway. If you want to talk about "not understanding" something maybe you should start with yourself. The point is that the best SOS doesn't always get in when teams are tied.
Like you just admitted, Florida and probably Oregon *should* have gone to the BCS game over Alabama if you're looking at record and SOS. If your point is that Auburn shouldn't have gone because of SOS then logically Alabama should not have gone either.

And in 2004 the SEC went 3-3 in bowl games, which isn't great, but the only conference to do better was the Big 12 going 4-3. It was a pretty even season between major conferences, sure, but the SEC also had the most teams in the final polls (and Auburn faced each of those teams other than themselves, including Tennessee twice).

Quote

http://jhowell.net/cf/cfindex.htm is where you can find Jay Howell's rating system.  I'm using his as an example because it is the most accessible one that comes to mind.  (I follow a lot of computer ratings and have one I've built for my own information.  I realize that every computer rating has built-in flaws and cannot be 100% trusted when it comes to ranking teams, but when it comes to ranking conferences, the sample size is exponentially larger and, therefore, most likely more accurate.)

Here's how Howell's system ranks the SEC among the other conferences in each of the past 10 seasons (you'll find, if you do your own research, that every system to some degree reflects the obvious trend you're about to see):

• 2003 - 1
  
• 2004 - 5
  
• 2005 - 5
  
• 2006 - 1
  
• 2007 - 1
  
• 2008 - 1
  
• 2009 - 1
  
• 2010 - 1
  
• 2011 - 2
  
• 2012 - 1

So, no, going undefeated in the SEC isn't always the best thing you can do, especially when you're playing in 2004, a season where you only have three OOC games, and especially when those three games are against teams who aren't good.  And no, nobody gets brownie points for Bowling Green backing out; that's Auburn's problem and nobody else's.  What matters is what your record is, and against whom, and how your resume compares to that of others; what doesn't matter is the means by which a team drafts its regular season schedule.

Looking at that is in some ways pointless. Of course in the two years that the SEC didn't win the NC they were lower-ranked - they didn't win the NC. Obviously another conference had a team pulling the top weight in the country. Looking at computer systems is flawed. Some computers had Alabama 4th. All had Notre Dame 1st. It's weird to see you talk about how the record, strength of schedule, resume, etc. is why Auburn didn't deserve 2004 but then you say there's "no reason to have a serious problem" with Alabama making the NC despite several teams having equal records and a better strength of schedule. The two viewpoints there don't really mesh well IMO.

Quote

You have a legitimate beef with Alabama, who cheated a decade ago and went 6-6 under sanctions in 2004, therefore hurting your SOS in a way you could not have foreseen.
You have a legitimate beef with Kentucky, who cheated a decade ago and went 2-9 under sanctions in 2004, therefore hurting your SOS in a way you could not have foreseen.
You have a legitimate beef with USC, who cheated a decade ago, therefore effectively stealing a spot in the 2005 Orange Bowl
You have a legitimate beef with the NCAA, who operates under rules that are impossible to understand and enforce with any efficiency, therefore allowing an ineligible team to take the spot in the Orange Bowl that Auburn rightfully deserved.
You have no legitimate beef with the BCS.  Under the conditions given, the BCS did its job correctly and effectively by placing its #1 and #2 teams in its designated championship game.

The BCS rarely does its job correctly because it's a flawed concept that is thankfully changing in two years. Its job isn't really to place the #1 and #2 teams into the championship game, it is to put the BEST two teams into the championship. The two are very similar but there is a difference. If it doesn't choose the best two teams as its #1 and #2 it has not done its job.
My legitimate beef is actually with the tard AP voters who GAVE USC a co-championship by voting them the AP champions after LSU won the BCS game in 2003. USC lost a game but as still given a co-championship. The VERY NEXT SEASON Auburn goes undefeated and the AP voters didn't extend the same courtesy to Auburn. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Quote

• School - points scored - points allowed - average margin

(totals reflect those tabulated before Selection Sunday, by which point each team had played 12 games {USC didn't have a conference championship game, but they played Virginia Tech in a kickoff classic})

• Auburn - 401 - 134 - 22.25 http://jhowell.net/c...Auburn.htm#2004
  
• Oklahoma - 433 - 164 - 22.41 http://jhowell.net/c...lahoma.htm#2004
  
• Southern California - 441 - 150 - [b]24.25 http://jhowell.net/c...fornia.htm#2004

So...it appears as if your math is wrong.  I will agree that these margins of victory are not so disparate, all things considered, that they should have decided the two Orange Bowl representatives.

Oh yeah, my math was MASSIVELY WRONG. All I did was round the numbers because it seems silly not to round them. What you posted is pretty much exactly what I posted only with decimal points.



Anyway, we're getting away from the topic and purpose of the thread so I'm not going to continue this any further unless you want to open it up in a new thread. We can agree to disagree or disagree with agreeing to disagree. My only point was that Auburn didn't have that weak of a schedule in 2004. The real reason we were left out is because USC and Oklahoma were pre-season top three teams and Auburn had to work their way up.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

Noah, on 01 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Those lying ass cheatin mofos should be stripped of half a dozen of those so called national championships because times were different then and, well....   I'm tired of those ass whoopings.


Sorry but please forgive me, sometimes I tend to paraphrase.

You are right about times being different. I mean just think, in 1941 and the four decades immediately following it you didn't claim a 1941 title but from 1983 onward you have!