I don't think we deserve a top 5 ranking. What have we done to prove it? We don't even have an official starting quarterback! I don't know. I really don't know what to expect out of this team.
Try selling that somewhere other than in the SEC, because nobody's buying it around here. Auburn played and beat more ranked opponents than any other qualifier and they accomplished it in the toughest conference in the land. Had Auburn started in the Top 2-3, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and that is a fact. It is also the reason your statement lacks any real substance and indicates that you're simply parroting the party-line of big media. If you want to trot out the same 'ole stale "Citadel argument" (something the team had little control over), then you'd better be prepared to examine the cakewalk schedule played by both BCS participants ..... very lame. The real question should be this .... Should the Media be allowed to skew the MNC results based upon a teams demographic market? In other words ...... it's all about the advertising benjamins. Any D-1 team located in any major media market, and accomplishing what Auburn did on the field would've been a 100% shoe-in to play in the BCS Championship. Rushing Defense: USC #2, AU #12, OU #13 Passing Defense: AU #8, USC #36, OU #65 Pass Efficiency Defense: USC #5, AU #24, OU #43 Total Defense: AU #5, USC #6, OU #23 Scoring Defense: AU#1, USC #2, OU#14 All stats from the NCAA site: web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/ranking_summary/DIVISION1.HTML Auburn defeated 5 teams with 10 wins. That could be arguably be one of the toughest schedules in the history of college football. Auburn has won more games against 9 win teams than OU and USC combined. Auburn has won more games against 9 win teams than the entire Pac-10 conference. Auburn has won more games against 9 win teams than the entire Big-12 conference. Auburn has won as many games against 9 win teams as the Pac-10 and Big-12 conferences combined.
I don't know that there is a big difference in schedules. AU still had to go thru the SEC. But with SOS taken out of the picture, it was a press pick for the 2004 championship. They (the Press) wanted an OU vs USC match up because SOS knoced USC out in '03. Don't be fooled. If it were not for the SOS, LSU would have never played OU in the BCS championship bowl. AU took care of business that year, and OU vs USC was a private party and no one was getting in unless something wierd happened. That is my opinion. Now on to this year shall we.
In a perfect world Auburn would have been given the opportunity to participate in an expanded playoff, however, there could only be two. The issue was which 2 of 3 worthy teams should be chosen. As I said preseason ranking matters to a degree, but no where near what you suggest. SOS, particularly OOC mattered more and how you performed at critical points mattered more. I will not get into a long term debate over this since this this is very old news, but I will give you at least this one detailed response. First, it should be obvious that it is not a fact that if AU started in the top 2-3 they would have been chosen, it is an opinion. One fact that is constantly ignored by holders of this position is that AU actually passed OU in the AP for one week late in the season (after the impressive victory over GA). How do you explain this? Am I supposed to believe that it happened because voters forgot that they had OU ranked above AU during the preseason, or should I believe that after a less than dominant win over Bama, voters gave intense scrutiny to the records of both teams and decided OU was more worthy? The Citadel may be stale news to you, but it is factual news. It is also factual news that your OOC schedule was woeful. It is also factual news that schools negotiate their OOC games and they are not imposed upon them. It is also factual that the SEC overall had a woeful OOC schedule and didn't beat anyone of note. This also hurt you because incestual relationships are always looked at askew. It hurts in the eyes of the voters because we claim we're playing all these great teams but we only beat each other. It hurt in the models because it makes other conferences look better if we don't beat anyone any good. The best teams we beat as a conference were Oregon state, So Miss., and GaTech, each with a 7-5 record. We lost to all the better teams and to some other bad teams. I find it ironic that you claim I'm parroting big media. A day hardly goes by without them bitching about preseason polls (sound familiar). If you haven't noticed yet, I'm making nearly the opposite claim: preseason polls matter only to a degree. They matter because there is a threshold you must cross to convince the voters that you are more deserving and only if the outcome matters, like it did for AU. However, it isn't insurrmountable by any means, particularly with the BCS formula. In 2004 TX jumped Cal on the strength of their computer numbers. The obviously big media influenced models had AU unanimously third. So, are you saying that Oklahoma City is a major media market? That USC was simply a media creation and was void of any talent? What is the relationship between big media and the AP voters, coaches, and computer models? Do you know the distribution of AP voters among the state and how it is determined? I don't parrot big media, I think for myself. If you think USC was your competition for the last spot, then I don't know what to say. The only thing that was going to knock USC out, particularly given the circumstances of the previous year, was a loss. And I think they were deserving anyway. IMO AU was a victim of timing, style, OOC scheduling, and bad luck, not because they were ranked low preseason. Timing got you because you didn't really get full credit for beating TN the first time because of their QB situation and you beat them before they beat GA. You were also disadvantaged in that most people outside of AU, didn't really realize how talented the backfield was until the draft. WRT style, as it played out, you really only had one impressive victory, and that was the GA game. Yes you beat LSU, but impressively? And I already discussed the first TN win Overall you didn't really dominate, but you did win. In 2002, if there had been 3 credible undefeated teams, Ohio State would have been left out. Style would have won out over substance. In the current setup, style is part of the game. Who you beat and how you beat them matters. I'm not saying you skirted thru like OSU, but you really didn't impress often. You just cannot ignore the OOC scheduling of both AU and the SEC and the SEC's poor performance. This hurt you in both the human and computer polls. Even if you had passed OK in the human polls, it would have probably been by a narrow margin. The computer polls would have dragged you back down primarily because of this. You guys just had bad luck in going undefeated that year. Given the infrequency of having more than two undefeated teams from major conferences and going undefeated yourself, the probability would be quite low of AU getting hosed this way. But there could be only two, and the choices made given the facts, were not unreasonable. It was not due to your preseason ranking.
Nielsen Media Research Local Universe Estimates* (US) - *Estimates from the 2003 measurement year, for use in 2004: RANK-Market Area- # TV Homes - % of US 1 New York 7,231,110 6.412 2 Los Angeles 5,572,211 5.112 24 San Diego 1,221,820 .944 43 New Orleans 668,370 .609 44 Oklahoma City 655,170 .597 61 Tulsa 509,760 .462 Oklahoma City ranks #44 out of the top 210 media markets, exactly one spot behind New Orleans. Add in nearby Tulsa and it's not even a debate when compared to Auburn. The Auburn-Opelika market did not rank in the top 210 markets listed. The closest market to Auburn was Columbus, Georgia (a bastion of UGA media) which ranked at #129. You're naive to believe that media demographics don't play a role in either the pre-season rankings or the subsequent media orchestrated matchups, or that it still doesn't play a role today. It is very well documented that Media coverage heavily influences the majority of AP voter's perceptions on a consistently biased basis , Coaches too for that matter. Preseason polls matter because they shape television consumer perception. It's a year round sell-job. Look at Notre Dame this year - the media is already spooning up the dog chow for the masses. Oklahoma had no business being in the BCS championship and their schedule couldn't begin to hold a candle to that of the average SEC team in '04, let alone that played and conquered by Auburn. You jest. Auburn completely smothered UT and called off the dogs in the 3rd quarter. With a key player injured, even the backup had a field day with UT. The last time i checked, UT's quarterback situation didn't have a thing to do with Ronnie Brown using future NFL Draft pick Jason Allen as his personal doormat on the way to the endzone. I guess you failed to remember that this scenario is exactly what did happen with two weeks remaining in the polls. Auburn won out against a tougher remaining schedule and still got hosed. I present this graphic from ESPN as evidence of the hosing...... (graphic depicts the schedule strength of undefeated teams with three games remaining, Auburn ranked #2 at the time) So, despite winning out .... against a clearly tougher schedule .... the media influenced the computer polls to engineer a BCS matchup that would yield larger advertising revenues. It's strictly a business when it comes to polls ! Wake the hell up.:thumb:
You're not gonna make any headway arguing OK City is the media capital of the world and that the only people who care about AU live within just a few miles of AU. Preseason polls shape opinions, but you got to do it on the field. Delay the poll to whatever week you want and you would have gotten essentially the same ranking. The entire argument for AU rests on it's SEC record. This attitude that even Ole Miss could beat the Steelers cause it the freaking SEC is silly. You have to do it on the field and during the regular season the SEC pretty much stunk it up OOC due to scheduling and poor performance. Bowling Green was was a better win for OU as well as VT for SC than any SEC OOC victory. We lost games to TX, Miami, Louisville, Wyoming, Maine, Clemson, and probably some others. There would no good wins. This kind of record matters. You performed well, jumped 5 spots in the AP poll, but at that time there were more doubts about how good TN really was due to the freshman qbs. That's just the way it played out. The scenario I meant to communicate is different from this one, so it is not the same. But you still have not answered how you could have passed OK when you were ranked behind them in the preseason. Finally could you explain to me how the media influenced the computer polls. I'm dying to know.
I do give them credit, but there could be only two. The entire case for AU is based on the fact that they played in the SEC. The problem was that the SEC did not perform well in there OOC games for the most part. We didn't beat anyone good (didn't play many, but we lost them all. This is pre-bowl and even then we didn't do that well) and we lost to bad teams too. OOC games is how you determine the relative strength of conferences. The conference's performance hurt AU that year, particularly in the computer models.
My feelings exactly. SOS put LSU in the MNC in 2003, and the press/media didn't like it. So they changed the rules to favor the media picks, eliminating SOS. Auburn got screwed by the system. Auburn USC was the game to see, and the BCS got it wrong. But, the BCS got it right this year. The Rose Bowl will go down as one of the best college games in history, as will Vince Youngs performance. Down by 12 with 6 minutes left, Vince just carried them to the win. I still like to watch the second half on ESPN Classic.
There is misunderstanding regarding the SOS component. SOS as a concept has not been eliminated; it's just not explicit. Albeit inconsistent, voters take it into account subjectively to some degree as they did then, and all of the computer models use either an explicit or implicit form of SOS. The SOS component that was eliminated was in most cases a small adjustment that essentially just broke virtual ties like it did for us in 2003. In 2004 it would have hurt AU to have it because as defined, AU had the weakest SOS of the 3 teams. You have to remember that the SOS component was an average SOS where OOC teams generally have more impact than in conference teams. Having a weak OOC schedule hurts your SOS. If I remember correctly (I can verify this later if anyone cares), the quality win component wouldn't have helped them either. As an aside it was a good idea to get rid of this component. While well intentioned, there just isn't a good way to implement this, and it was highly likely to get wierd results. Finally, it is not true that the press was unhappy with SOS putting LSU in the CG. They were unhappy with OK getting in and USC being left out. Why on earth would they be upset at the team they voted number 2. The design change was put in place to eliminate an OK, not LSU. It is a complete fiction that eliminating SOS kept AU out of the CG. There is a good reason why AU was ranked third in all of the BCS computer models (and about 100 other non-BCS models too). It was their SOS, not their preseason ranking.
