Id have to disagree with a lot of what youre saying. Here is why. When Auburn went unbeaten the SEC wasnt quite where it is today. Having won 4 straight national titles and 6 of the 12 BCS titles the SEC is the clear cut top conference. In '04, the SEC wasnt there yet. It might have been the top conference but it wasnt perceived as such. I cant see an unranked SEC team going unbeaten right now and NOT making the title game. Unless the top two to start the year were unbeaten and played a hell of a schedule. Despite not having the respect it once had I cant see a one loss LSU team being passed up because of that. A one loss SEC champ who wins the SECCG will be in the title game unless two top teams are unbeaten. The SEC has taken a hit the last two years with the sheer dominance of Bama and UF but its still the premier conference. People know LSU has the talent. The questions are with coaching and QB play thats causing the media to question us. As for the '07 championship run. Only that year could a two loss team make it to the title game with so many teams ahead of us losing. The strength of the SEC catapulted LSU over USC because of the Pac 10s perception.
Some suffer from a fear of a collapse. But what do they base it on? We improved last season over the season before and we are not a worse team this year, we just aren't noticeably better. Yet.
There is some validity to this, but Auburn beat 3 ranked teams during the regular season, and UT twice making it a 4th ranked team to get to its undefeated status, whereas USC only beat 2 ranked teams. Auburn and USC's schedules were not that much different in level of whom they played. The perception was that USC played a much tougher schedule than Auburn, although the SOS doesn't really support that. Now the comment by Phenom does make some sense in that the perception of the SEC wasn't the same then as it is now, but LSU had just won the MNC the yr before, and at that point the SEC had won 2 of the 6 BCSNC. So, I don't think it was a big factor in why Auburn wasn't considered. The perception and respect for LSU was strong enough in 2007 that we were accepted as a 2 loss team over some 1 loss teams. If I were a betting man, should that exact same scenario happen now, after the last 2 yrs we had, we wouldn't get to the BCSNCG. Also, if I were a betting man, I would bet if we end up in a 3-4 way tie this season, at 1 loss, with some other teams, ie OU, tOSU, USC, or UT we would be the odd man out this time whereas we weren't in 2003.
You know, I really wonder if this will be the year that the sports media makes their big push to put Boise in the NC game if they go undefeated and there are a lot of similar, but not dominating, 1-loss teams. They seem to look at the mid-major situation as a "glass ceiling" story waiting to be broken.
USC was also the 2003 NC by the AP and football writers, through great controversy, didn't make the BCS. Wasn't gonna happen twice. The Okies just played LSU in the 2003 BCS NCG. How would a undefeated Auburn team with an OOC schedule that rivals Grambling, compete with the dynamics of the other two undefeated teams?
I think that, given the right teams, I would make that bet. That would be something to see how it pans out. What does happen this yr if there is a 1 loss LSU, USC, tOSU and an undefeated Boise and/or Utah? Which one of the 1 loss teams gets in and do they put a Boise or Utah in over the other 2/1 loss teams.
My argument is not about the fact that many times the NC is nothing more than a beauty contest, and perception rules the day. That's the price everyone pays for the system were in. If you want to stand beside the 2004 Auburn Tigers and measure yourself this year, it's ok with me. But in 2004, they got "Miss Congeniality" right.
#1 in the AP poll is not a national championship any more. Not since the BCS arrived and there is a NC game. You can't be a champion if you never made it to the championship game. USC came in #3 in BCS points or they would have been in the game. Same thing with Auburn. Strength of schedule matters.
Not standing by them to the point of truly defending THEM, just that their situation fits the point I am making. Also, don't get offended if I don't accept your opinion on whether or not they got Auburn right in 2004, I mean it isn't as if you are a little biased or anything. Besides we are debating the point, but yet without agreeing are making the same point. It is all about popularity, public perception, and polls. All of which are driven by people from the media.
