I'm hearing a lot of talk that Auburn is all of a sudden the best team in college football, that USC plays in an easy conference and doesn't play anybody, and that USC is soft.

First: Does anybody happen to remember the first game of the 2003 season? Oh, wait, that's a full year ago, isn't it?? Auburn probably had a different QB/RB tandem, right? No.... SC probably had a differnt QB/RB tandem, right?? No. That game was probably in Los Angeles, right?? No... Well, it was probably a close game anyway, right? How about 23-0 USC, in Auburn, with Auburn rated No. 1 in the nation. Well, must have been a fluke, right?? That a soft Pac-10 team beats mighty Auburn?? Sorry... but SC also beat Auburn and the mighty Cadillac Williams in 2002 in LA.

So with all of that behind us... Largely the same teams as last year, what else can we do to prove the supremacy of Auburn. Schedule!! Yeah, SC's schedule is SOFT, right??? Sorry, SEC fans, SC has beat #4 Cal, # 14 Arizona State, # 15 Va. Tech (an a #2 computer rated schedule -- higher than Auburn). Take a close look at Auburn's schedule (and don't let the fact that they played Division I-AA Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech, or The Citidel make you think they are wussies right off the bat): # 11 Georgia, # 16 LSU, # 17 Tennessee. Damn, it looks like the top 3 wins for Auburn don't stack up to the Top 3 SC wins.

So.... What the hell does Auburn fall back on, here? SC has won 30 of their last 31 games including blowout wins in their last 2 BCS bowls. Arguably the best defense in the nation, arguably the best QB in the nation, the best RB tandem in the Nation, the best D-Line, the best Linebackers, the best Head Coach, and the Best Offensive Coordinator.

Somebody help Auburn here. Oh yeah... The Pac-10 is soft!!! Yeah!!! The Pac-10 is soft!!! (Dont' let them remind you of that Oregon State / LSU game to start of the year in Baton Rouge, during which the O. STate kicker did everything he could do to gift-wrap the game for LSU.) No way, the Pac-10 is soft!!! Yeah!!

Alls I can say is this: We'll see you in Miami, Auburn. Get ready to take your medicine for the third year in a row. The trojans are gonna knock your dicks in the dirt. Fight on!

I agree with everything you say, but I still think that USC will have to play OU. If you notice the crazy BSC, it's OU which keeps winning the Computer Rankings with Auburn 3rd.
I don't think it matters who USC plays. They should pretty much kick ass. I guess the only thing which could screw them is if UCLA has an acid-flashback and plays like it's the 60s again (Gary Beban, anyone?)

I personally agree with you that Oklahoma is in every way superior this year to Auburn. That O-Line, creating massive holes for A. Peterson and giving Jason White time is a force like the Nebraska steamrollers of the Tom Osbourne era. Their defense gives up a lot of points (and that will hurt them in a bowl game, even against Utah), but they will score points. I personally think that Shawn Cody, Mike Patterson, Frostee Rucker, and Lo Jack will be able to neutralize OK's O-Line enough to for SC to prevail win, but SC would make quick work of Auburn's O-Line. [Just go ask the vaunted Michigan and Iowa BCS O-Lines that ran their mouths for weeks before each of the last two SC bowls -- something again about the "soft" Pac-10.] Iowa.... ha!!

Bring on any team in the country. Bring on a playoff. Whatever you want to do, but don't complain after SC rips # 2 in the final BCS a new ***hole that there should be a split title. There's no foundation for it. Trev Alberts can kiss my ass!

And UCLA?? hmmmm.... Ok.

I personally think that the BCS ranking should be as follows:
1. USC
2. Auburn
3. Oklahoma

I wouldn't put Auburn in the one spot because USC is the last years champion and still undefeated. I hate the way that college football does it though. Why can't they just make a playoff series? it would be so much better than having to constantly argue about who is better and why the computer is wrong. IF there was a playoff series we would know for sure who is the better team. And if they are worried about losing money, they can just make the playoff games into "Bowl games". Almost every other major sport has a playoff, NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA Basketball (Men's and Women's). It is about time that college football hop on the bandwagon.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Angelo,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

I wouldn't put Auburn in the one spot because USC is the last years champion and still undefeated.

---

Generally I would agree with you. Auburn & SC have no common opponents & no losses. My argument is not that SC is simply last year's champion...It's that SC DESTROYED Auburn just last year IN AUBURN, and the rosters of the two squads are largely the same. That's significant, and the voters should have that in the forefront of their minds. Of course, you can't make a similar argument against Oklahoma because SC & OK have not played for years.

This whole thing sucks. I don't see how you can have more than two undefeated teams and no playoff. I think I am going to just say f*** it and say that the Gators are our new national champions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
This whole thing sucks. I don't see how you can have more than two undefeated teams and no playoff. I think I am going to just say f*** it and say that the Gators are our new national champions.

---

What's funny is that even if there were a playoff, somebody gets screwed with the BCS. 4-team playoff this year? Who gets screwed? Utah? Texas? Georgia? 8 team playoff? Who gets screwed? Undefeated Boise State? Florida State? Wisconsin? A playoff doesn't solve everthing...

A playoff may not solve everything but it is a good start. Better than just voting fot the number one and two teams and having them play. Of course there will be a couple teams that feel they were disenfranchised but it is better than almost all of them feeling that way. Look at March Madness, nobody feels bad there, if they lose they realize they need to play better. And I am sure that Florida State would not get screwed because they have lost a game.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I think that if Auburn wins out, it should be playing in the championship game...probably against USC, for the reasons Mike gave above...they're last year's champs, and they haven't lost a game this year.

Out of USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn, I think Auburn definitely has the toughest schedule, and that's why they should play in the championship game. The SEC is the toughest conference in America, not the Pac 10, Big 10, or Big 12.

As for this argument that USC is better than Auburn because they killed Auburn in Auburn last year, that's a ridiculous argument. Unless each team is exactly the same, you can't compare teams in college sports across years. If it's the same Auburn team as last year, why is this team beating everyone? Maybe the players improved, understood the system better, new players at certain critical positions, etc. If any of those are true, and since they're undefeated, something is different, you can't compare across years.

There are countless examples, but I will give one regarding college basketball: Georgetown won the championship in Patrick Ewing's Junior year. With the exception of Michael Graham, the entire team came back the next year. Did Georgetown win? Nope. 'Nova beat them in the finals. Oh, and Georgetown beat them twice during the regular season that year. So I guess that didn't mean too much of anything.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by asc85:

Unless each team is exactly the same, you can't compare teams in college sports across years. If it's the same Auburn team as last year, why is this team beating everyone? Maybe the players improved, understood the system better, new players at certain critical positions, etc. If any of those are true, and since they're undefeated, something is different, you can't compare across years.

---

I think you're overstating your case here. College football is much more predictable than pro football, for example, because college football now is like the old NFL prior to free agency. What is so different about comparing SC or Auburn's 2004 team to its previous year than comparing, for example, the 97 Bulls to the 96 Bulls, or comparing the 93 Rockets the 94 Rockets? Sure, some players have changed, but the core of those teams are intact. You ask, "Then why is Auburn winning all their games this year???" Simple answer: they haven't played USC like they played them last year. Instead of scheduling a tough Pac-10 team like they did last year or like LSU did this year, they chose to play The Citadel, and a couple of other Div. I-AA teams. Of course comparing teams from different years is inexact, but of course it's relevant. I think MGE's point is that you can't simply state, "Oh Yeah, Auburn is clearly better than SC" when largely the same SC team wiped the floor with largely the same Auburn team just last year in Auburn of all places. If you can't understand at least the relevance of that game, you're denying reality.

quote:

---

College football is much more predictable than pro football,

---

But pro football isn't that predictable itself. Remember the Vikings and Cardinals game last year? How about the miracle that is the Steelers. There are very few teams in any sport that have the same team. Especially in the NCAA, with all of the recruiting that is done. Auburn got beat by them last year, many times teams end up beating teams they lost to the same year in the postseason. Previous losses usually aren't very relevant, especially ones from a year ago. Things change, teams change, strategies change, and players get better, some players go to the NFL. This isn't the same Auburn team from last year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

But pro football isn't that predictable itself. Remember the Vikings and Cardinals game last year?.. This isn't the same Auburn team from last year.

---

You're making my point for me. You're exactly right that college and pro football are nothing alike because of hard salary cap on the pros which doesn't exist in college. A team can go from 2 wins one year to the Super Bowl the next (see Panthers). That doesn't happen in college. That's why I made the comparisons to Pro Basketball dynasties, teams that kept virtually the same teams together and had success the following years. Do you automatically assume that just because the NJ Nets got swept by the Lakers in the finals the next year that they will beat the Lakers the next year?? Of course not. The teams are a little different, but the core players are the same. The fact that people assume that Auburn, a team that got shut-out at home last year by a USC team that is virtually the same as last year, should now handily beat that SC team makes no sense to me. I agree with MGE that if you take a close look at the teams, they are 80 - 90% the same as last year. Same QBs, running backs, etc., etc.

______

This conversation started with a reference to ESPN as an outlet hyping Auburn. Is there a coincidence that ESPN has a contract with the SEC?? (and no contract with the Big 12 or Pac-10) It reminds me a lot of 2 years ago when everyone at ESPN hyped Iowa to beat USC when ESPN had the big contract with the Big-10 and the Pac-10 was with FSN. A little far-fetched? Perhaps... Or maybe it's just the fact that these analysts spent their time focusing on the games from the conferences their networks contract with. If the latter is the case, they should study up on the other conferences before making their ignorant claims. Cali is back, people. The two best teams in the nation, in my opinion, are (1) Cal and (2) USC. Sure, SC beat Cal, but anyone who saw that game knows Cal is better. I'll bet anyone in these forums some imaginary dollars that Cal beats Michigan by two touchdowns in the Rose Bowl. (and that SC beats either Auburn or Oklahoma by a touchdown in the Orange Bowl.)

quote:

---

Is there a coincidence that ESPN has a contract with the SEC?? (and no contract with the Big 12 or Pac-10)

---

The SEC is the better division. Auburn has the most difficult schedule and they are still winning. You cannot tell me that the Big 12 and Pac-10 are the better divisions, because it just isn't true. USC has an easier schedule, save, their game against Cal.

If Auburn is supposed to be so good, why is my Crimson Tide only an 8-point underdog this weekend in Tuscaloosa?? Chew on that one a while...

My solution to all of this: 11 game schedule for every team and a 16 team playoff using existing bowls. I don't think there'll be a lot of belly-aching from the 17 rated team who's left out....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Auburn has the most difficult schedule and they are still winning.... USC has an easier schedule, save, their game against Cal.

---

Mike, I think you're denying reality. The unbiased computers have OK with the toughest schedule, USC at number 2, and Auburn at number 3. And as MGE stated so eloquently above: "SC has beat #4 Cal, # 14 Arizona State, # 15 Va. Tech (an a #2 computer rated schedule -- higher than Auburn). Take a close look at Auburn's schedule (and don't let the fact that they played Division I-AA Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech, or The Citidel make you think they are wussies right off the bat): # 11 Georgia, # 16 LSU, # 17 Tennessee. Damn, it looks like the top 3 wins for Auburn don't stack up to the Top 3 SC wins."

You can't aruge with that.

The Iowa Hawkeyes have had an AMAZING year...and with NO RUNNING BACK (we are down to our 5th and 6th string)! Our QB Drew Tate will be in the Heisman running the next 2 years. He is absolutely unbelievable. He has already been compared to so many pro qb's its not even funny. Oh, and Mike, You don't want the Hawks to humiliate the Gators in another bowl do you?

LET'S GO HAWKS!!!!!!!!!!

Among RayRay's rants include the following:

"I agree with MGE that if you take a close look at the teams, they are 80 - 90% the same as last year. Same QBs, running backs, etc., etc."

Funny. I decided to look at SI's College Football issue from a few months ago. USC has only 10 returning starters, so that's actually less than 50% of last year's starters. Four of their players were drafted from last year, and also WR Mike Williams isn't on the team this year. Then I looked at Auburn. They have 13 returning starters from last year, meaning that they have 59% of last year's starters. They also had four players picked in last year's draft.

So neither team is at the ridiculous 80-90% threshold that you (and others) seem to think. Maybe you should investigate these kinds of statements before proclaiming ridiculous "facts" that in reality are totally wrong.

And again, this argument that USC beat Auburn in Auburn last year is ridiculous with regard to how these teams would do against each other this year. If you still can't see why that's a ridiculous argument, I really have nothing more to add.

Finally, I'm not an Auburn fan (or a fan of Oklahoma or USC), but beating LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee is pretty impressive. If they win out (and that will be hard because they play 'Bama at 'Bama and then the SEC Championship game), they deserve to play for the National Championship.

RayRay I am just going to cite for you the ranked teams that both USC and Auburn have played.

Auburn
#4 LSU
#8 Tennessee
#5 Georgia

SC
#7 Cal.
#19 Arizona State


The only hard game that SC has had is with California, compared to the tough teams that Auburn has played. I am personally a Gator fan (obviously) but when there is a team as good as Auburn that is being discredited I feel I must intervene.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
RayRay I am just going to cite for you the ranked teams that both USC and Auburn have played.

Auburn
#4 LSU
#8 Tennessee
#5 Georgia

SC
#7 Cal.
#19 Arizona State


The only hard game that SC has had is with California, compared to the tough teams that Auburn has played. I am personally a Gator fan (obviously) but when there is a team as good as Auburn that is being discredited I feel I must intervene.

---

I like how you are using the pre-season rankings to make your argument so you can inflate LSU (hello, Oregon State??), and leave Virginia Tech off of SC's list.... Clever. If you're so in love with the pre-season polls, which have nothing to do with this year, why not include Auburn's pre-season ranking?? by the way, SC was pre-season # 1. And Oh, yeah, Tennessee is real tough... go ahead and lose to Notre Dame at home. We'll see how SC does against Notre Dame next week in L.A. And don't get me started with Georgia. The last time they've won anything??? I'd put Cal up against any team in the SEC, and put Arizona State on a neutral field with any of them, and they'll outscore 'em.