However, I did notice a way for Bama to get it “from Auburn” without Auburn winning straight through. MSU beats Auburn, LSU beats MSU, and Auburn beats LSU to reclaim it the way USCe did last year. That way Bama wouldn’t have to play an undefeaated Auburn to win The Belt.
Magic!
BTW, notfrommensa, I suspect an “I hate the SEC” thread would have hundreds of participants! We are in a minority here as I see it.
Zeldar, In reading cwntoo’s posts, IIRC, he has yet to say what team(s) he is partial too. All he has done is trash the SEC, which in case you haven’t heard has won the last FIVE (5) BCS Championships.
BTW, I am not a Big SEC fan as I am Ga Tech grad, but I can recognize greatness when I see it. I am partial to both Auburn and Florida as I do have some connections to both those schools.
Due to Oklahoma’s impressive OOC schedule early in the season (compare with Auburn’s four OOC games as late as Nov/5) the only path to The Belt for them is from some other Big 12 team.
Oklahoma (Big 12)
9/3 Sat vs. Tulsa Conference USA
9/17 Sat @ Florida State Atlantic Coast
9/24 Sat vs. *Missouri Big 12
10/1 Sat vs. Ball State Mid-American
10/8 Sat vs. *Texas @ Arlington, TX Big 12
10/15 Sat @ *Kansas Big 12
10/22 Sat vs. *Texas Tech Big 12
10/29 Sat @ *Kansas State Big 12
11/5 Sat vs. *Texas A&M Big 12
11/12 Sat vs. *Iowa State Big 12
11/19 Sat @ *Baylor Big 12
11/26 Sat @ *Oklahoma State Big 12
Now the task converts to which Big 12 team has the right opportunity to grab The Belt so OK has a shot at it.
Yes, I know your loyalties. I can name maybe 20 SEC fans at SDMB that have said as much. Maybe there are a bunch of SEC lurkers? Anyway, most comments about the SEC are negative here. That’s cool. Haters gonna hate.
I share my loyalties to Vandy, UT and Auburn, and have preferences for the SEC against other conferences. My split loyalties are all family related, but I was an Auburn fan as a kid and have remained so.
I voted “other” because Auburn can’t very well take the belt from Auburn. After a three-peat by the Tigers, I could see Mullen having Mississippi State up to the challenge for 2013.
Who needs reality? this is a guessing contest, right?
In reality, I see Auburn at about 9-10 wins next year, with LSU leading the West and Florida winning the whole shee-bang. Remember, the Gators have more raw talent stockpiled than anybody. Maybe “Boom-Mo-Fo” will get it out of them, but I hope not.
Great! You convinced me that there’s a way to vote and not jinx Auburn. I’d love to see the 14-0 season again! Hold The Belt for at least as long as Miami (FL) did.
Not “trashing” the S.E.C…just appears the S.E.C fanbase uses rhetoric that this success has always been and always will be. Both false and foolish. The S.E.C has0 had two great teams in this run…Florida and Bama…this years Auburn team can’t even sincerely claim an undisputed title over a team from the Mountain West…perhaps if Auburn destroyed Oregon it would be undisputed…however a 3 point victory as time expired its hard to conclude TCU couldn’t match up with them…And L.S.U’s. 2 loss Championship season was the B.C.S’s biggest joke…about 5 teams that season had a legit claim to play in that game…itt seemed that entire year their was almost a political will in the votiers to throw the S.E.C a bone.
I wouldn’t expect this run to continue…never does…conferences get hot and cold…schools individually like Miami in the 80’s and Florida State in the 90’s dominate for awhile and burn out…its just the natural order of things.
As well other conferences are expanding its roster from 8 to 10 teams to S.E.C like numbers team membership…Next year it’ll be Pac 12 and the Big Ten willl be the Big 12…the Big East expanding in 2012 (and others will follow) taking the S.E.c’s cue that more numbers give a conference a higher number of teams with winning a season each year which gives a conference a little extra clout even if its Bowl record is 5-5.
Its an easy formula and thanks to the B.C.S were seeing major conferences playing three chumps including one team below division 1…so really all a team has to do in a 12 team conference is win three freebies and win 3 of 9 to be eligible for a bowl.
So thanks to the B.C.S formula we are seeing fewer and fewer marquee match-ups during the regular season making it even more difficult to measure a conference champions actual clout. So now all that needs to be done is schedule out of conference/division 4 chumps…defeat the usual bottom of the conference barrel 4…then hope your the one that goes 4-0…3-1…or like L.S.U 2-2 in your toughest match-ups.
I just remember it was routine to see out of conference top 10 match-ups…its no more thanks to the B.C.S formula and the chase for the big money pay-outs of those Bowl games.
For the record I live in Syracuse and will bleed Orange till the day I die…the demise of Big East football is no secret and its Aq status is questionable for legitimate reasons…then again unlike the S.E.c land we alwaaaaaays have B’ball…Cuse is looking real good this year…lucky for S.E.C fans and elsewhere college b’ball post season doesn’t conduct a vote for the finals…they get to play for it…and that’s the only fair way.
Auburn was undefeated in 2004, with a OOC schedule and there 3 non-con games that season were The Citadel, La-Monroe, and La Tech.
That weak schedule setup the BCS game of Oklahoma and USC. (OOC games for Oklahoma played Oregon, Houston and Bowling Green and USC played Va Tech, Notre Dame, BYU and Colorado St)
I am an Auburn fan and they deserved to be shut out of the BCS game in 2004 for that lousy OOC schedule.
FTR, I am also from upstate NY, well at least I went to High School there. Think about Mark May’s (one of ESPN’s football analysts) high school, about 90 miles SE of Syracuse.
Legit point…I’m just finding that more and more schools in Aq conferences are hedging their bets and playing weak as possible non-conf schedules and relying on winning their respective conferences…sure winning an Aq conference is automatic BCS Bowl regardless of OCC schedule…but why risk a championship bid with a marquee match-up loss when its been shown that late season games against Chatanooga didn’t even hurt Auburns bcs computer rating? Its a little known fact that playing lower division foes only hurt bcs rankings if played early in the season…I believe in the first 4 weeks…if they are played later they actually count like any other team even if your playing a community college…so that explains the S.E.c’s continuing to play lower division opponents late in the season…why stop if they they don’t hurt? Won’t be surprised if more conferences begin scheduling this way too.
Sure there will be seasons where there are 3 plus undefeated teams butr those are so few and far between its not worth the risk of playing a bear of a schedule out of conference
…Much better odds to play 4 chumps and focus on going 8-0 or 7-1 in conference.
IMO, you are pulling that piece of ‘information’ straight out of your behind. LOL, SEC knows a glitch in the computer polls that other schools don’t. What a crock
IMO, the reason why the SEC, plays late season cupcakes is for a “breather” and I think it is damn good idea. These games are typically the homecoming cremepuff. And it makes no difference in the BCS computers whether the game was in September or early November.
Thats a typical comment from him. Earlier in the season he busting Florida’s Chops for never leaving the Florida for OOC games.
He claims his favorite team, Wiscosin goes to the West Coast to play teams like UNLV and Fresno state.
Wisconsin HAS to leave the state, and its geographic to play Div I schools because there is no Div I OOC near Madison, closest would be Iowa St and No Illinois. Whooppee!
Florida has 6 other Div I schools within 250 miles in its own state. A fact that seems to be lost on Lamar Mundane.
What can I tell you?..but it was reported by Espn. Take it up with them or perhaps I misunderstood…your reply compelled me to fact check and the best I could find was that “late season losses hurt a rating less than an early loss”…I’ll man up and admit I appear to had misunderstood or the Espn commentator poorly explained why Auburns rating was boosted after playing a laughable opponent.
Sure Auburn fell behind TCU in one of the six “comiputer” polls. But also note that Auburns overall BCS rating “increased”. I also noticed that both Auburns and TCU’s “computer rankings” were almost better than Oregons…I believe
Oregon had “computer rankings” as high as 7th but yet remained at no. 1.
I think this really demonstrates further the farce of the BCS system as it appears the “computer rankings” have almost no impact on the BCS average.
So it does appear that despite all the “computer rating” rhetoric the BCS conveys will bring fairness to all its clear the BCS Championship game opponents are very much hand picked.
It was the voters that was keeping Oregon high. They were enthralled with with the Ducks Margin of Victory, which computers are prohibited to account for. the computers were looking at their opponents:
Take a look at this post I made back in late October. Oregon was not respected by the BCS Computers because of the quality of their opponents.
Exactly my point. Appears the computer rankings have little impact on the final overall BCS ratings…its a wonder they are even used examining the computer ratings with the actual rankings. TCU’s computer ratings were better than Oregons so perhaps the better team was left out. And considering Oregon a team with a questionable defense was able to hold Cam n company to its lowest point output since week 2…and held Cam n company notorious for 2nd half explosions to a mere two field goals in the second half…one should seriously consider what TCU could of done taking they had the nations number one defense in scoring…yards allowed…rush defense.and on and on and on…
Sure TCU played a weak schedule…their schedule was only spot beneath Oregons…not. Huge stretch of difference.
One thing to ask is…considering the game Oregon gave the mighty undefeated Auburn from the best conference in the country how much weight should wven be placed on strength of schedule?
It seems the more stats and schedules are analyzed the less they actually reveal anything compared to what happens on the field. the only fair way to determine a champion a playoff.
TCU got robbed of its opportunity…in no other sport aside from maybe figure skating would this type of thing happen. The BCS formula still has not removed post-bowl questions if a team or two still may have claims of a title.
Auburn’s 2004 schedule was rated much tougher than either USC or Oklahoma. If you force me too, I’ll dig up the cite for you.
The reason Auburn was shut out in '04 was because USC and Oklahoma started the season ranked number 1 and 2 and neither team lost. It was the matchup the writers wanted to see and they voted accordingly.
Some seeking to apologize for their vote said something about Auburn’s OOC schedule, but if I recall correctly, Auburn’s '04 schedule was about #5, USC’s somewhere around 8 and Oklahoma near 15th.
Computers be dammed, I don’t think we’ll ever see two teams start off numbers 1 & 2, win all their games and some third team pass one of them. Voters would have to admit to a mistake for that to happen, and they are reluctant to do that.
This poll (not one of the BCS computer polls) ranks Auburn’s schedule #46 while USC is #25 and Oklahoma is #6. Granted its after the bowl games.
There is no denying that Auburn played an extremely poor OOC schedule in 2004. La Tech, La-Monroe and The Citadel.
If Auburn had scheduled some tougher Non-con teams, maybe they would have garnered some respect. Teams have been known to lose ground in the polls after so-so wins