Come on . . , Oklahoma was ranked #1 by AP all season long. USC only became #1 when Oklahoma tanked in their title game. USC, of course never put their ranking on the line in a conference title game like LSU and Oklahoma did and it hurt their SOS in the BCS. You see, the AP has never mattered since the advent of the BCS which has performed as intended and selected the top teams according to its criteria and USC came in #3, NOT #1. USC came in #1 in two BCS rankings. LSU came in #1 in NINE. I fully understand their frustration . . . and Auburn's frustration in 2004, but it's simply cheesy to then claim a national championship when two other teams played in the National Championship game. AP is just a subjective poll and finishing #1 in it is NOT a National Championship when another team won it on the field. I wanted to see LSU/USC the sportswriters wanted to see LSU/USC, friggin' everybody did. But USC fell short. Nobody's fault but their own.
It takes brass ones to imply that USC's schedule was somehow superior to that faced by Auburn when the facts simply don't support the argument. And whether the '03 game factored in to the '04 voting is irrelevant ..... everybody knows that it shouldn't have factored in at all since it was a different team in a different year. Another flaw in a long list of flaws with the BCS system.
Didn't Auburn go undefeated that year after the only leverage call that season was made to give them another opportunity to tie the score on an extra point? :hihi: (that's what I call a slight...:wink
Not to mention Oregon State's kicker missing THREE extra points against LSU and then making All America by never missing another one. I've said many times, and I will say again, it usually takes a liitle luck and the right bounces to win the MNC.
Yes, we were lucky it rained like hell before our game, and you're lucky Tubby's check cleared before yours.
What I said was that Auburn started the year ranked 17th, and 18th, USC started ranked #1, and Auburn's NON-conference schedule was weak. It wasn't nearly enough to overtake a #1 team that did not lose a game all season. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech........ALL AT HOME. Not what most folks would consider quality wins for non conference.
I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, however you've chosen "non-conference" schedule as a matter of convenience, while omitting that Auburn's OVERALL schedule was deemed stronger than either USC or Oklahoma's. In fact, Auburn beat more top 10 teams than both USC and Oklahoma combined. So, while your position conveniently supports your opinion, unfortunately it is based on a flaw in the BCS system, not in fact. I could just as easily make the claim that USC didn't deserve to be ranked ahead of AU due to it's extraordinarily weak Conference schedule .... and such an expression would easily be as misguided as the opinion you've expressed. No credible, objective person can legitimately make a case that Auburn should have been left out ...... none.
We didn't play Florida in 2004. Cal was 3-0 when they played USC having beaten AF, NM St. and Oregon St. They ended up 12-2, losing to Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl. Auburn's OOC schedule was weak and made worse when we had to replace Bowling Green with The Citadel at the last minute (BG pulled out). BG had a good team that year. I will always believe the SEC got snubbed along with Auburn. But that's history. Let's let the bammers dwell on history:lol:
