Should Auburn have gone to the NCG in 2004?

[KrAzY3]

The allegation that Auburn BSU'd the schedule is pretty much false. Think about it. Suppose they had played Arizona State (9-3) instead of the Citadel. Do you HONESTLY think that that one game would have been enough to raise their SOS above the other two teams?

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree with this part. I'm no expert, but from what I understand Auburn dropped Bowling Green to play the Citadel. To me that's a textbook Boise State style move, as is the home out of conference schedule. Even when compared to LSU the previous year, you'll see that LSU played 5 road games. Arizona turned out to be a joke, but at least LSU made the effort. I suppose the heart of my argument is I'd like (even if it's Auburn) to argue for the SEC team and if it's close (like the year before, LSU's SOS was down a bit at for a contender at 28) I'm going to side with the SEC. Auburn had a chance to make their case with a decent schedule but they chose to make it even easier instead... which, to me is a perfect example of how to Boise State your schedule. To me Auburn voluntarily took themselves out of it and that was my point in that regard.

1) Auburn played the toughest schedule in the nation that year - period.

Funny how folks are trying to accuse them of BSUing their schedule - but when they did play the toughest still don't want to admit it.

Just for the record, I haven't had that discussion but if someone wants to start a topic about it I might jump in. I personally try my best to be logical and objective in my arguments. That's one reason I stick by SoS and the integrity of scheduling real opponents. I don't care if it's Tulane (91), Marshall (111), Auburn (60), Utah (67, 56) or Boise State (90, 96).

I do think making that list says everything that needs to be said about those teams though... sub 50 SoS, meaningless undefeated seasons. It does also say that Boise State has more in common with Marshall and Tulane than it has in common with even Auburn and Utah though but all those teams clearly benefited from a soft schedule.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

EVERY team that wins the NC does so with a lot of skill and a lot of luck as well. Bama is no exception. Yes, AU had some close calls and games that could have gone either way, but so does every national champion. We ran the table in the SEC and had one of the most balanced teams in our history. What I saw when Oklahoma played USC was a terrible secondary get picked apart. One thing is for certain, our secondary which had been close to lights out all year would not have let some of those floaters hit their targets. It was embarrassing to watch. Could we have lost to USC.. sure.. Should be have been given the chance.. absolutely. Bottom line, its the system we have and the fact that no one accurately predicted our talent level at the beginning of the season cost us the chance. It's flawed, but its what we have so I accept the outcome. I do not put any credibility into the "People's national championship". We did not win the NC that year. Plain and simple.

Classy post.

I agree.

But I'm one of Auburn's few defenders for 1983 here.

1993? No

2004? No

But 1983? Without question.

 

[Jessica4Bama]

Jessica,

I hope you have a few minutes to follow me through this. I read most of these posts yesterday, but I was on my I Phone, not the place for this long post.

The question of Auburn's 2004 'snub or no snub' has taken on an ironic weight in light of the SEC's utter dominance of the BCS system, esp. the last four years. Keep in mind there is the intellectual argument and the emotional argument. I will address the latter one first.

EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT

This argument cuts two ways. The first is Tide fans who simply will not admit that Auburn - under ANY circumstances - should ever be national champion. Want proof? Do what I've done before with the 1983 season only don't mention the year or the team names. The Tide fans ALWAYS pick Auburn as the champ - until they find out it's Auburn. Then I get accused of playing a dirty trick on folks.

Never mind that we shouldn't be hypocrites in this whole thing. In fact, I had a dust-up back in 2004 with Jess Nicholas over this very issue of Auburn and the national title game.

On the other side of emotion - there is an inherent conference loyalty in the SEC that is second-to-none. And some Tide fans here will not admit this, but they'd still rather Auburn win to keep the title in the SEC than, say, Miami or USC. So it doesn't cut just one way.

INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT

Now the intellectual argument has been presented very cogently here. These are the main points of that argument.

1) Auburn played a weak schedule in 2004.

2) The top two teams in the pre-season poll were unbeaten all year long.

3) Auburn had played USC in 2002 and 2003 and got smoked.

4) OU as a power in the early 2000s.

Let me address each issue.

1) Auburn played a weak schedule in 2004.


First of all, it is TRUE that Auburn played a weak schedule in 2004. That was partly their fault - and partly NOT their fault.

Remember this: Auburn cannot be blamed for their SEC schedule because that is pre-set. Eight of those games are assigned and five of them are always the same every single year. Out of confernce they played a weak schedule of La Tech, ULM, and the Citadel. Hardly national powers.

HOWEVER - let me show you something interesting that nobody has mentioned:

TEAM A
LOUISIANA-MONROE
Mississippi State
THE CITADEL
Tennessee
LOUISIANA TECH
ARKANSAS
KENTUCKY
Mississippi
GEORGIA
Alabama
SEC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

TEAM B
LOUISIANA-MONROE
Arizona (2-10)
Western Illinois
Mississippi State
LOUISIANA TECH
ARKANSAS
Florida (8-5)
South Carolina
Mississippi
GEORGIA
Alabama
SEC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

So these two teams have SEVEN common opponents plus an SECCG, which is no gimme. Team A is Auburn 2004. Wanna know who Team B is? It's the 2003 LSU Tigers - who won the national championship. Note that even their OOC opponents are the same with one exception.

This does beg the question of why. But even that has an easy answer: because the SEC West was WEAKER in 2004 than it was in 2003.

The allegation, therefore, that Auburn 'Boise State-d' their schedule is somewhat unfair. However - let's not conclude that means they should have played for the title,either. Auburn didn't BSU their schedule any more (or any less) than LSU did. It's just look at these differences:

Alabama (4-9, 6-6)
LSU (13-1, 9-3)
Ole Miss (10-3, 4-7)
MSU (2-10, 3-8)
Arkansas (9-4, 5-6)

You can't really count LSU since LSU didn't play themselves, but LSU's 9-3 was better than Auburn's 8-5 in 2003. So in the swap you've got two teams that did SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE than 03 (Ark, Ole Miss), and two that did INSIGNIFICANTLY BETTER (Bama, MSU). And MSU is a head case. This is the year they got Zook fired at Florida by beating him - yet this same Bulldog team lost to I-AA Maine.

The truth is that 2003 LSU and 2004 Auburn played virtually the same schedule in terms of WHO they played. If someone wants to throw in Florida and Auburn didn't play them in 2004, I would note that Florida was the only team to BEAT LSU in 2003, so that hardly helps the argument. The problem stems from HOW GOOD the teams were - or in this particular year were not.

The allegation that Auburn BSU'd the schedule is pretty much false. Think about it. Suppose they had played Arizona State (9-3) instead of the Citadel. Do you HONESTLY think that that one game would have been enough to raise their SOS above the other two teams? No. What killed Auburn more than anything was two things: Tennessee losing to Notre Dame (6-6) and MSU beating Florida.


2) The top two teams in the pre-season poll were unbeaten all year long.

This is true. It's also the single STUPIDEST argument that anybody can invoke.

So some sportswriters and coaches (or their appointed lackeys) looked at 2003 and said, "These guys have a lot of folks returning; they oughta be ranked highly." Doesn't mean they're right. Remember when Alabama was #3 to start 2000 - despite losing 73% of the offense? Those folks don't know much and that part I can actually sympathize with Auburn fans about. The Aubies weren't even ranked.

Of course - and this is their other problem - they started the year ranked #1 twice (1984, 1985) - and lost in September both times. They started 2003 as a contender and finished out of the running.

The notion that because USC and OU never lost they shouldn't have dropped is not a very compelling argument. However - Auburn could well have overcome that had they played a decent schedule, which was already addressed in point one.

3) Auburn had played USC in 2002 and 2003 and got smoked.

This is an even BIGGER irrelevancy than number 2. After all - Oklahoma got drilled by K-State late in the 2003 season at a time they were being liberally compared to the greatest teams of all-time. They then lost to LSU - proof of what I said earlier about pre-season polls and how little folks really do know about it.

4) OU as a power in the early 2000s.

This is a factor if we're honest with ourselves. The Sooners won it all in 2000, played for it in 2003 and won the Heisman, and went unbeaten in the regular season of 2004.

BUT IN THE END......

Let's drop whoever the team is. There's a bottom line.

FOUR TEAMS ended the year unbeaten.

Only two could play for the national title.

If SOS doesn't matter - how can anyone from Auburn say that UTAH (coached back then by UM) didn't deserve to play for it?

If SOS DOES matter- then what's Auburn complaining about?

The bottom line is that USC was the national champion in 2004. Auburn should be glad they can hint that they might have won. It's sort of like why Al Gore didn't run for President in 2004 against Bush again.

What if he'd lost? It would have robbed him of the 'they stole the Presidency' argument because it would have validated it.

In short - Auburn didn't go because they didn't deserve to go.


I put out a lot of facts but just so's you know the logic behind it.

Thank you! This was very insightful.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

Just as I stated - Bama fans are NOT going to admit it.

Since 1968 (when the AP permanently released final polls after the bowl game) the #1 team has been beaten in their bowl game 14 times. With only one exception, the team who beat #1 jumped over everyone else to win the national title unless a higher ranked team had a better record. That is what happened to Auburn in 1983.

Here are some historical examples of how the polls ACTUALLY worked:

1973: #3 Notre Dame beats #1 Alabama and jumps over #2 Oklahoma to to win national title.

1977: #5 Notre Dame beats #1 Texas and jumps over #3 Alabama to win the national title

1978: 11-1 Alabama wins national title after beating #1 Penn State. USC (12-1) finishes #2 despite convincingly beating Alabama on the road IN Birmingham during the season. USC's strength of schedule was #1.

1993: 12-1 FSU wins the national title over a 12-1 Notre Dame team that beat them during the season.

I picked those because it shows examples of the four most historic programs in college football (Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Southern Cal) all getting "screwed" according to your Barner system. In reality, they weren't screwed - that's just the way the imperfect AP polls worked.

BTW, the one exception wasn't 1983 Auburn, it was 1989 when 11-1 Miami finished #1 ahead of 12-1 Notre Dame. #4 Notre Dame beat #1 Colorado and #2 Miami beat #7 Alabama.

Now tell me again how exactly Auburn was screwed when the polls behaved exactly as they had previously.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Since 1968 (when the AP permanently released final polls after the bowl game) the #1 team has been beaten in their bowl game 14 times. With only one exception, the team who beat #1 jumped over everyone else to win the national title unless a higher ranked team had a better record. That is what happened to Auburn in 1983.

Here are some historical examples of how the polls ACTUALLY worked:

Sure. Let's consider each one of these examples - and it will demonstrate that you're comparing apples and oranges in most cases.

1973: #3 Notre Dame beats #1 Alabama and jumps over #2 Oklahoma to to win national title.

But you left out a VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL - Oklahoma was on probation and DID NOT PLAY A BOWL GAME!!!

Hence, we're not even talking the same animal here.

1977: #5 Notre Dame beats #1 Texas and jumps over #3 Alabama to win the national title

So then NOBODY on this site HAS EVER or WILL EVER AGAIN say that Alabama 'got screwed' in 1977? Aren't you about to argue about the historical tradition blah blah blah as if that has any bearing on ONE SEASON?

You also didn't mention that Notre Dame also jumped Arkansas. I wonder why?

1978: 11-1 Alabama wins national title after beating #1 Penn State. USC (12-1) finishes #2 despite convincingly beating Alabama on the road IN Birmingham during the season. USC's strength of schedule was #1.

Except for two mitigating factors that don't apply to 1983.

1) Alabama was number TWO - not number THREE or FIVE. Alabama was ranked AHEAD of USC GOING INTO the bowl games. Auburn was ranked ahead of Miami GOING INTO THE BOWL GAMES.

2) Alabama's SOS was very high, too. It simply doesn't compare.

Also - the part you didn't bother to mention is that USC won the UPI title that year for that reason. So it was a SPLIT national championship - which would have made more sense.

Finally, since Auburn and Miami didn't play each other, this argument doesn't apply.

1993: 12-1 FSU wins the national title over a 12-1 Notre Dame team that beat them during the season.

Uh, you got your facts wrong.

Florida State was 12-1.
Notre Dame was 11-1.

And since Miami didn't play Auburn, this isn't a fair comparison, either. Also, I notice that when it wasn't convenient here, you didn't put the rankings. That's because Florida State was number one GOING INTO THE BOWL GAME.

So since they were higher ranked and won - why should they have dropped?

What's ironic is this: you gave me four examples and THREE of them prove my case. The other one - well, I trust you've never once in your life ever said we got hosed in 1977.

I picked those because it shows examples of the four most historic programs in college football (Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Southern Cal) all getting "screwed" according to your Barner system.

Ah, typical. Rather than being rational, you'd rather go after me. "Barner system?" I don't know what that is, but I'm sure it's the anger in simply not wanting to admit your own inconsistency on the issue, but that's fine.

I'm still mad about 1977 and Notre Dame had no business jumping Alabama. To be consistent, Auburn should have won in 1983.

And btw - what constitutes a historic football program? TCU?

In reality, they weren't screwed - that's just the way the imperfect AP polls worked.

OK.

So in your entire life you've NEVER said anything about 1977 or - how about this one - 1966?

I trust then that never again will any Alabama fan who sides with Miami in 1983 (and only because it's Auburn, be honest) EVER open his mouth and say we got screwed in 1966 and 1977. It was all part of the 'imperfect system' as you say.

BTW, the one exception wasn't 1983 Auburn, it was 1989 when 11-1 Miami finished #1 ahead of 12-1 Notre Dame. #4 Notre Dame beat #1 Colorado and #2 Miami beat #7 Alabama.

Well, at least you got the records right this time.

Now - let's apply your logic and mine.

1) Miami was #2. Miami was the higher ranked team.

Who was the higher ranked team in 1983? Auburn or Miami? Answer me.

2) #4 beat #1 in 1989. #5 beat #1 in 1983.

Number four didn't move up to number one, did they? So why then do you argue that number five should?

3) Miami beat Notre Dame head-to-head by SEVENTEEN POINTS in 1989. Auburn and Miami didn't play each other in 1983.


So let's consider your five examples.

1) 1973 - you have a team on probation getting jumped. That doesn't apply because there were no teams in the top five in 1983 who were bowl ineligible.

2) 1977 - this is your strongest case and the fact that every Bama fan who's of age still complains about it is proof my point is CORRECT.

3) 1978 - again, the higher-ranked team moved up. This is what I'm pointing out five years later.

4) 1989 - once again THE HIGHER-RANKED TEAM moved up.

5) 1993 - once again THE HIGHER-RANKED TEAM kept its ranking.


The very examples you cite to make YOUR case in reality make mine.

Now tell me again how exactly Auburn was screwed when the polls behaved exactly as they had previously.

Because the polls didn't act 'exactly as they have previously' and I already proved it. The only anomaly was 1977.

So if you agree to go the rest of your life and never mention Alabama should have more national titles, then fine.

But thank you for strengthening my point.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

Again, 13 out of the 14 times that the AP #1 team was beaten in their bowl game, the team that beat them jumped over everybody else to become national champions unless a higher ranked team had a better record.

The AP voters have never used your system to sort out the champion after the #1 loses its bowl game. Nothing else is remotely relevant so I don't know why you keep bringing up minutia that has never been considered at that point of the season.

BTW, before you reply with yet another "you just hate Auburn - you just proved my point", I've been blasted on this site many times for not being a blind Alabama homer. I've defended Auburn, Bo Jackson, Pat Dye, Les Miles, Lane Kiffin, Notre Dame, Tubberville, Urban Meyer, FSU, Southern Cal, the PAC-10 and hosts of others from what I felt was unfair criticism or just blind homerism.

I'm a life long Alabama fan, but I grew up in Georgia, am a Georgia Tech grad and have stepped foot in the state of Alabama 2 times in my life (both Alabama games). I certainly don't have some twisted hate for Auburn as I've probably spoken to maybe a half dozen Auburn fans in my whole life. I have no idea where Auburn is even located besides being close to the GA border.

I consider Auburn as a university a complete joke and that the fanbase suffers from cultish delusions but I've had never had any problems giving the actual football team, coaches or players credit when credit is due.

 

[DaleC76]

Of course, if the BCS had existed, Nebraska and Texas would have played and the winner would have been indisputably the National Champion.

As far as Auburn goes, they and Miami were both 10-1. Auburn beat a good #8 Michigan team, while Miami defeats the unbeaten #1 team in one of college football all-time greatest games. If I were an Auburn fan, I'd be upset, too, but I think Miami was the right pick. LOL at the 4 voters who still chose the Cornhuskers #1.

By the way, had Texas been beat yet when the Orange Bowl kicked off? If it had, I wonder if kicking the ball would have been the correct call for Nebraska.

 

[JeffAtlanta]

By the way, had Texas been beat yet when the Orange Bowl kicked off? If it had, I wonder if kicking the ball would have been the correct call for Nebraska.

Yes, at that time the Cotton bowl started the earliest of the bowls and the Orange Bowl started the latest and sometimes wasn't over until after midnight. The UGA-Texas game was almost as poorly played as the Auburn-Michigan game. My (maybe faulty) recollection is that neither team could move the ball at all but UGA sort of came out nowhere to win the game in the last few minutes on a bizarre QB scramble/run.

Ironically, Auburn may have been off if they had not won the SEC crown. If they had played in the Cotton Bowl and beaten Texas in a rematch, it might have given them some additional votes.

Probably the best scenario for them would be to beat Texas instead of Tennessee or Kentucky during the regular season. That may have put UGA in the Sugar and Auburn in the Orange. Can't remember what the SEC Championship/Sugar Bowl selection rules were then and if they took the highest ranked SEC team or the team that hadn't played in the Sugar Bowl most recently.

Regardless, Nebraska would have manhandled Auburn just like they did everyone else. The SEC at that time was still way behind the BIG-8 when it came to strength training. There was still a widespread belief at that time that weight training just resulted in "beach muscles" and actually hurt athletic performance.

Miami had a pro-style attack, struck early and held on for dear life.

 

[EBTIDE]

I wish they would have, I think Southern Cal would have beat them pretty bad and we would never have to here about this again.

 

[pluckngrit]

Yes, without question...

I know they were Auburn, but that team was the most impressive team and most consistently impressive all year long that year. I enjoyed watching them all year, and my wife and I were both enthralled with how well they executed from Game 1 to the SECCG against UTK...

They really were jobbed and I would've loved to see them play USC in the NCG that year...objectively speaking. Gotta leave out the "hatin' AU" stuff for that year...I was pullin' for 'em...

security!

 

[bama_fan01]

I wish they had gone, and been thumped by USC (or Oklahoma, for that matter). Then they wouldn't have anything to yap about!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I wish they had gone, and been thumped by USC (or Oklahoma, for that matter). Then they wouldn't have anything to yap about!

I'm glad they didn't. Because with all the hoopla surrounding Reggie Bush and the suggestion of stripping awards etc, Auburn could then conceivably still gain a national title.

Also - it would have never shut up the USCs of the world who would have used that one game as proof of their 'superiority' over the SEC.

Nope. good thing they didn't go.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

I remember that game. One of the worst PI calls I've ever seen (coincidentally, the other worst PI call I saw was also in 2004, the Bama/LSU game). If that call isn't made, I think VT wins that game. I was rooting hard for 'em. I've always liked VT and hated USC.

Why did you have to go and bring that up. That call still ...... me off.

 

[capnfrog]

I remember thinking at the time that Auburn was the best team and would have put a whuppin on USCw but it's all over and done so it matters not what anyone was thinking at the time.

 

[BamaJeff]

I wish they would have, I think Southern Cal would have beat them pretty bad and we would never have to here about this again.

I'm pretty sure the only people talking about it are Bama fans