SOS analogy

[aufan59]

I'd rather climb over ten 3-foot walls than nine 2-foot walls and one 10 foot wall. Most people would agree.

The first is a combined 30 feet of walls to climb over while the second is a combined 28 feet. The number crunchers would say that the first set of walls is harder due to more combined footage, but to the person that actually climbs the walls, the first set of walls is obviously easier.

The difference between 6 foot tall man climbing over a 2 foot wall compared to the 3-foot wall is unnoticeable because both are just a simple step. However the 3-foot wall is 50% more difficult than the 2-foot wall when you look at it mathematically.

A logical viewer would ignore the difference between the nine 3 foot walls vs the nine 2 foot walls and say that it is a wash in difficulty, and just compare one 3 foot wall to the one 10 foot wall to see the gap in difficulty. This is how logical comparisons beat formulas. No matter how good of a formula you have, it will always calculate the difference between a 3 foot wall and a 2 foot wall. The logical thinkers will always just say, "The walls are so short that the difference doesn't matter for the average size man."

Now if you have a 3-foot tall man do the same two sets of walls, the first series would be easier for him. The difference between 2 feet and 3 feet for him is quite large.

In this example, when judging the difficulty of a series of walls, neither averaging out the height nor determining the general difficulty for every single person makes much sense.

Its the same way for a college football schedule. A team ranked #300 is not much more difficult than a team ranked #200 for anyone in the top 25. But for the #250 team the differnce between the two is huge. It's relative.

If team A plays #200 and #201, and team B plays #200 and #300, team A gets credit for a harder schedule. However, anyone with common sense realizes that if both A and B are top 50 teams that they should easily win both games and it is ridiculous to measure the difference in difficulty.

Much like once you get below 3 feet, all walls are just a simple step with no real difficulty change, once you get to a certain point all teams are just a simple game with no real difficulty change. Team A shouldn't have an edge against Team B because Team A played #100 while Team B played #101. An averaging of numbers simply is not an accurate or fair way to determine SOS.

[Blue Hen]

When you play all those D1AA , Sunbelt, and assorted directional Louisiana teams , you basically get free 'Ws' without having to climb anything :-)

[footballfiji]

There are no more Louisiana Directional teams in Division 1-A. Get your facts straight.

[Blue Hen]

Merely name changes..same type teams...and, of course, you've got 4 SEC teams hosting 'directional' 1AA teams.
Bottom line - 46% of SEC non conference opponents are home games vs D1AA or Sunbelt Teams. That's all you have to know.

[GatorGrad]

I'd rather climb over ten 3-foot walls than nine 2-foot walls and one 10 foot wall. Most people would agree.

The first is a combined 30 feet of walls to climb over while the second is a combined 28 feet. The number crunchers would say that the first set of walls is harder due to more combined footage, but to the person that actually climbs the walls, the first set of walls is obviously easier.

The difference between 6 foot tall man climbing over a 2 foot wall compared to the 3-foot wall is unnoticeable because both are just a simple step. However the 3-foot wall is 50% more difficult than the 2-foot wall when you look at it mathematically.

A logical viewer would ignore the difference between the nine 3 foot walls vs the nine 2 foot walls and say that it is a wash in difficulty, and just compare one 3 foot wall to the one 10 foot wall to see the gap in difficulty. This is how logical comparisons beat formulas. No matter how good of a formula you have, it will always calculate the difference between a 3 foot wall and a 2 foot wall. The logical thinkers will always just say, "The walls are so short that the difference doesn't matter for the average size man."

Now if you have a 3-foot tall man do the same two sets of walls, the first series would be easier for him. The difference between 2 feet and 3 feet for him is quite large.

In this example, when judging the difficulty of a series of walls, neither averaging out the height nor determining the general difficulty for every single person makes much sense.

Its the same way for a college football schedule. A team ranked #300 is not much more difficult than a team ranked #200 for anyone in the top 25. But for the #250 team the differnce between the two is huge. It's relative.

If team A plays #200 and #201, and team B plays #200 and #300, team A gets credit for a harder schedule. However, anyone with common sense realizes that if both A and B are top 50 teams that they should easily win both games and it is ridiculous to measure the difference in difficulty.

Much like once you get below 3 feet, all walls are just a simple step with no real difficulty change, once you get to a certain point all teams are just a simple game with no real difficulty change. Team A shouldn't have an edge against Team B because Team A played #100 while Team B played #101. An averaging of numbers simply is not an accurate or fair way to determine SOS.

I agree with this logic. It was a long post, but you did a pretty good job explaining it. So many people look at SOS the wrong way. The fact is, SOS is different for different teams depending on the quality of the teams you are comparing. If you are a top 10 team with a goal of competing for a MNC, then the difference between a team ranked #100 and #200 really means nothing - the top 10 team should win every time. I would say the same for pretty much any team outside of the top 50.

For a top 10 team competing for a MNC, the true SOS should be determined by the # of teams you play that actually have a realistic chance of winning. I would say that this would be the number of top 20 to 30 teams that a top 10 team plays, but that is up for debate. For a team trying to go unbeaten, it would be more difficult to play 2-3 top 10 teams and the rest I-AA teams vs playing all teams ranked 75-100. There is little chance that a top 10 team can lose to any of the 75-100 ranked teams, but a decent chance of losing to any of the 2-3 fellow top 10 teams.

So it is possible to play a tougher schedule while also playing the most "least ranked teams." It's all about the number of teams that actually have a chance of beating you. Of course, for a lesser team, they would prefer more I-AA teams because a "sure win" requires a lesser quality opponent. It all really depends who you are and what your goals are. For a MNC contender with the goal of going unbeaten, it is much better to play a schedule full of 6-6 type of teams rather than a schedule full of 1-11 teams but a few 10+ win teams.

[aufan59]

When you play all those D1AA , Sunbelt, and assorted directional Louisiana teams , you basically get free 'Ws' without having to climb anything :-)

They are the SEC's 2 foot climb. The SEC gets blasted for only having to climb 2 feet in their cup cake games while others climb 3 feet.

The difference is negligible, yet formulas attach a number to this difference, feeding forum trolls with 'stats' for their anti SEC crusades.

[Blue Hen]

GG, you made 10 references to "top ten" or "ranked" this or "ranked " that in your post. What's all that mean ?

[GatorGrad]

Ah you know what I mean Hen. I didn't know what word to use so I used the term most are familiar with. I should have said "one of the ten best teams, one of the worst teams, etc" rather than refer to rankings. Just pretend that we had an objective standings system for the time being. I don't like polls either, but they are historically relevant when trying to determine the probability of one team beating another. Statistically speaking, higher ranked teams usually beat lower ranked teams, and that % statistically and historically increases the larger the gap is.

[aufan59]

GG, you made 10 references to "top ten" or "ranked" this or "ranked " that in your post. What's all that mean ?

Think of to 25 teams as 6 foot tall men in the analogy. They should consistently climb 2 and 3 foot tall walls. Its just a way to classify the teams that are above average that everyone can recognize.

[sc69er]

Walls have nothing to do with:

1) Playing 50% of your games at home.

2) Playing teams so over matched that better players can be rested, injured players given a chance to recuporate.

3) With games that are LESS challenging than scrimmages against your Scout squad.

4) Walls have nothing to do with the systematic scheduling, by an entire conference, of automatic wins in 1/3 of their schedule, all played at home, which raises the net w/l % of the conference.

5) Walls have nothing to do with the cynical implementation of this "rent-a-win" policy by an entire conference which raises the net w/l % of the conference which, in turn, allows one or 2 more bowl teams/year, which nets more $/conference team/year

It is quite clear what is going on.

[ktffan]

They are the SEC's 2 foot climb. The SEC gets blasted for only having to climb 2 feet in their cup cake games while others climb 3 feet.


The traditional, and accurate argument is that the SEC has so many more 2 walls than most other conferences.

[GatorGrad]

It is quite clear what is going on.

It is also clear that the PAC 10 has won only 39% of its games against the SEC all time. And that the SEC has the best bowl record among all conferences in the BCS Era. Is that due to playing weak OOC teams?

On a serious note, I don't see what all of the fuss is. A cupcake is a cupcake. If you're a MNC contender, you're going to win all of your games against bottom I-A and I-AA teams. It's not affecting the MNC race. These aren't games that good teams would otherwise lose.

And in the SEC, you have 12 teams needing to fill FOUR non-conference dates thanks to the hypocritical addition of the 12th game. So these teams all want 7 home games to fund their athletic departments, so they can only usually schedule home and home games against solid teams once or twice a year. The rest must be willing to come to town, take their beating, and go home with a check. There are only so many I-A schools that are willing to trade a sure loss for a paycheck week in and week out to go around. They have their own conference schedules and want to become bowl eligible too. So while I-A may run out of teams willing to trade a loss for $$$, there are many I-AA conferences close by who are happy to provide such teams.

While this OOC scheduling issue can lead to inflated win/loss records, it doesn't have much to do with whether or not a conference should be considered to be "the best." That's why I don't quote overall records, overall winning %, number of bowl teams, etc whenever I am trying to show why I believe the SEC to historically (or recently) be the strongest conference in college football.

[ktffan]

And that the SEC has the best bowl record among all conferences in the BCS Era. Is that due to playing weak OOC teams?


The SEC has the fourth best bowl record in the BCS era.

[GatorGrad]

The SEC has the fourth best bowl record in the BCS era.

Perhaps he was wrong, but here is what Don had posted in the other thread:

In the "BCS era" the Bowl records.

SEC (37-31)--0.54412
ACC (30-26-0)--0.53571
Big Ten (30-29)--0.50847
Big 12 (32-35-0)--0.47761
Pac-10 (22-27-0)--0.44898

If this is not accurate, please post the accurate data.

[ktffan]

Perhaps he was wrong, but here is what Don had posted in the other thread:

In the "BCS era" the Bowl records.

SEC (37-31)--0.54412
ACC (30-26-0)--0.53571
Big Ten (30-29)--0.50847
Big 12 (32-35-0)--0.47761
Pac-10 (22-27-0)--0.44898

If this is not accurate, please post the accurate data.


Those aren't total bowl records.

[GatorGrad]

What numbers do you have? I don't have time to look them all up right now, but I will try to later...

[Hubbs]

Doesn't USC play Idaho? You telling me that Booty and the rest of the great players on USC will have to go past the 2nd quarter in that one? I never get into all this conference Bias crap you guys are still obviously arguing over. It was clear this past January that the SEC is just as good as any other conference in america, ask Notre Dame or Ohio State. That said it doesnt matter what the homecomming game is. Auburn has to replace 4 OL and its starting RB and opens the season with two BCS contenders this year vs Kansas State and South Florida (my pick to win the big east with Marve they are dangerous). No they are not playing at Kansas State or USF but we do go to West Virginia in '09. We play Tennessee Tech because there was nobody else left to fit our schedule. Sometimes its not the schools fault or at least it better not be. Do you think it is worth the gas money and time to go watch Auburn play Tennessee Tech? No, if anything I wish it was a away game. Some fans dont like to see the DII schools on the schedule but Auburn surely has a difficult schedule home and away


AT: ARK, FLORIDA, LSU, and UGA
Home: Kansas State, USF, Alabama, and I think Orgeron will have Ole Miss at .500 this season.

[ktffan]

What numbers do you have? I don't have time to look them all up right now, but I will try to later...

I'm not sure what exactly he has there. I think it relates to BCS opponents.

Anyway from 1998, bowl records by conference:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2006&bowl=on&fcn=on

Bowl records against BCS teams:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2006&major=on&bowl=on&fcn=on

[sc69er]

I was responding to the guys trying to make a case that it doesn't make any difference if the SEC schedules a weak OOC schedule and plays all OOC games a at home, it makes a great deal of difference. It lifts the individual w/l % and the conference w/l %. BTW, I thought the SEC had the deepest conference last year and they showed it in the BCS bowl games. I think the SEC will be the #1 or #2 conference this year given some breaks!

[GatorGrad]

I'm not sure what exactly he has there. I think it relates to BCS opponents.

Anyway from 1998, bowl records by conference:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2006&bowl=on&fcn=on

Bowl records against BCS teams:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2006&major=on&bowl=on&fcn=on

Those bowl records were correct then. He just was not counting nonBCS bowl records or the Big East. Just the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 10.

[Blue Hen]

.... so opinionated # 25 is 6 ft tall, and opinionated # 26 is 2 1/2 feet tall ?...ok , got it..thanks.

[Blue Hen]

Never forget , Hubbs, that Idaho is allowed 22 more full FB scholarships per season than all those 1AA SEC opponents are..........a much,much more level playing field.

[Hubbs]

I was responding to the guys trying to make a case that it doesn't make any difference if the SEC schedules a weak OOC schedule and plays all OOC games a at home, it makes a great deal of difference. It lifts the individual w/l % and the conference w/l %. BTW, I thought the SEC had the deepest conference last year and they showed it in the BCS bowl games. I think the SEC will be the #1 or #2 conference this year given some breaks!



Who knows if the SEC is going to be really good or not? Every team I look at in the SEC has holes to fill. AU has OL concerns, Can Mauck get it done on a week by week basis? Can Tim Tebow throw the ball accurately? Georgia lost a lot on defense as did bammer. Right now I have Tennessee vs LSU/AUB (whoever wins) but it could be South Carolina vs Arkansas just as easily. I think the SEC is going to be really competitive this season but I really dont see any NC contenders. If Auburn didnt have a tough road schedule we would have a outside chance just because we have a 6th year QB who understands the west coast offense. Schedule along with WR concerns puts Aubie at the middle of the pack IMO. SEC will be a good strong defensive conference this season with the best player in college football (McFadden) winning all the awards including the Heisman. JMO

[Blue Hen]

Don has always been stat 'selective'. That sportslinknetwork sure has great stuff doesn't it ?

[EvilVodka]

Who knows if the SEC is going to be really good or not? Every team I look at in the SEC has holes to fill. AU has OL concerns, Can Mauck get it done on a week by week basis? Can Tim Tebow throw the ball accurately? Georgia lost a lot on defense as did bammer. Right now I have Tennessee vs LSU/AUB (whoever wins) but it could be South Carolina vs Arkansas just as easily. I think the SEC is going to be really competitive this season but I really dont see any NC contenders. If Auburn didnt have a tough road schedule we would have a outside chance just because we have a 6th year QB who understands the west coast offense. Schedule along with WR concerns puts Aubie at the middle of the pack IMO. SEC will be a good strong defensive conference this season with the best player in college football (McFadden) winning all the awards including the Heisman. JMO

Cmon now...IMO, the SEC has become the #1 conference due to coaching....Arkansas, Alabama, LSU, and Auburn in the west, and Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee in the East...the conference has become a monster...

Alabama is going to get alot better, and Spurrier is going to have South Carolina competitive real soon...hell, even Vanderbilt has gotten better...

I wouldn't downplay your own Auburn Tigers either...they got lost in the shuffle last year, and have as much chance as anyone to win it

Florida isn't going to drop off much either...Urban Meyer has a winning mentality and its evident in his team

And then there's LSU, which has an excellent shot at a National Championship

And Georgia's won 2 SEC championships in the last 5 years

[Blue Hen]

A 7 game season ? Lots of teams would love to have 42% of their season locked in for wins. You have have to win 2 of those games listed ( maybe even one ) to go PSEGing.

[Hubbs]

I just dont buy the Alabama Bear Saban hype. Not yet that is. I know he is going to get them back to where they need to be (competitive for a NC)However Rome wasnt built in a day. IMO They have a solid QB and speedsters at the WR position but on defense they have holes and nothing but youth to fill them with. Couple that with the nations toughest September schedule and they have at least 2 proably 3 loses in that month. They have 2 games circled this season LSU and Auburn. Winning one of those games would relagate Saban into the Bear status. Winning both and people will be saying who is bear. However, lose them both and their fan base will be cring for another year wanting Mike Shula back.

[aufan59]

.... so opinionated # 25 is 6 ft tall, and opinionated # 26 is 2 1/2 feet tall ?...ok , got it..thanks.
The analogy's purpose was to get people to understand that there is no real difference between playing rank #100 and rank #150, much like the difference between a 2 foot wall and a 3 foot wall is negligible. they are all small steps to overcome. However when the SOS is calculated the difference is made tangible, giving an advantage to one team over another for a 'more difficult' guaranteed win.

You being a smart ass doesn't really add anything to the forum.

[Hubbs]

Never forget , Hubbs, that Idaho is allowed 22 more full FB scholarships per season than all those 1AA SEC opponents are..........a much,much more level playing field.

I wasn't aware that the SEC is the only conference in the nation that schedules DII opponets. Good to know, though. Really if it wasnt Tennessee Tech it would be Louisiana Monroe. Both games are a waste of Gas money and ticket price. No matter how you look at it!!!

[Blue Hen]

Most SEC fans don't think like that, Hubbs....a waste of gas & ticket money. Fans fill those huge SEC stadiums whether the opponent is legitimate or a 'rent-a-win'. SEC fans, in general, are pretty non discriminating.

[Hubbs]

Well I was at Auburn in 2004 when Auburn came back to beat LSU 10-9 and the experience was much better than the one 2 weeks prior when Auburn shutout Louisiana Monroe 31-0. I understand the argument but as a fan I want to see my team dominate a top 25 team. I sleep better at night. We do however play a bunch of top 25 teams year in and year out.

[Blue Hen]

Oh sure..............tremendous difference in excitement level but I bet every single seat was filled for the La- Monroe, Citadel and La Tech games. If hordes of AU fans chose not to attend the Citadel type games, perhaps, over time , they might not be scheduled so regularly.

[Hubbs]

Well Auburn does play Tennessee Tech this season but we had no other choice. When teams buyout of their contracts thats what happens. In 2004 Auburn had Bowling Green on their schedule until They bought out and played Oklahoma. Some people think had Auburn played BG they would have had a chance at USC (I still say we would have beat them).

[sc69er]

The 2004 Auburn team was a fine football team but it was essentially the same team as was feilded against USC in 2003--Ronny/Cadilac, etc. As I recall USC shut out that team at Auburn with a red shirt Sophmore at QB, with Reggie and Lendle playing there first College games as true freshmen. That Leinart/Bush/White team with 25 games under there belt would have given Auburn the same treatment as they gave Oklahoma.

[footballfiji]

The 2004 Auburn team was a fine football team but it was essentially the same team as was feilded against USC in 2003--Ronny/Cadilac, etc. As I recall USC shut out that team at Auburn with a red shirt Sophmore at QB, with Reggie and Lendle playing there first College games as true freshmen. That Leinart/Bush/White team with 25 games under there belt would have given Auburn the same treatment as they gave Oklahoma.

A year of experience and a new offensive coordinator...yep the exact same team as the year before.

[Hubbs]

Yep it was the exact same team in 2004 that it was in 2003. I mean UGA beat Auburn 29-7 in '03 and Auburn only beat them 24-6 in '04. Get a clue and get off your high horse. Still waiting to see USC put 2 players from the same backfiled in the top 5 picks in the NFL draft in the same year. I am a Titans fan, Lendale who? Dude you are so bias and arrogant to think that the 2004 Auburn team was no different than the 2003 team. Defensively you guys would have had a lot harder time stopping the Tigers in '04. Just look at the #'s for Auburn offensively in '03 compared to '04. Not to mention Auburn had the nations (NATIONS including USC) best scoring defense in 2004.

[sc69er]

You played UGa in athens in 2003 and at auburn in 2004. As a matter of fact you played all of the tough games at home in 2004 all the tough games on the road in 2003--substitute Citadel for USC and Home games for road games explains most of the difference between 2003 8-5 and 2--4 13-0 for the Auburn tigers!!

[Hubbs]

Thats Bologna! We both played VT on a neutral field and both had about the same outcome. In fact we got the more seasoned VT team. Our defense was stellar in 2004. Ronnie Brown, Carnell, Williams, Carlos Rogers, and Jason Campbell 1st round picks. You proably thought Florida was gonna get hammered last January seeing as how they struggled to score in the conference. How did that work out again? Your 2004 Trojans were a great team but you give my Tigers no credit at all. Biased west coast crap. No different than a biased SEC fan. Didnt USC beat UCLA in 2005 pretty bad? What was the score last season? Teams can turn it around. In fact Carson Palmer was a underachiever up untill his senior year at USC. He turned it around in 2002 didnt he?

[sc69er]

you puff things up. Auburn played VaTech on a neutral feild the Sugar bowl where 75% of the fans were from auburn, USC played VaTech in washington D.C, where 90% of the crowd was from VaTech. Carson palmer went from one of the worst coachs in USC history(Hackett) his first 3 years to one of the best coachs in USC history his last 2 years. The main difference between Auburn 2003 and Auburn 2004 is in 2004 Auburn scheduled The Citadel and La-Monroe finstead of USC and GaTech and played LSU and UGa at home instead of on the road. Same team with one year more experience just as USC had one year more experience.

[footballfiji]

Actually the majority of the Sugar Bowl fans were from Virginia Tech. I was at the game and also talked to some of the Sugar Bowl officials.

[GatorGrad]

I love the USC vs Auburn debate. The truth is, we'll never know how they truly would have matched up on a neutral field. To say one team would have handled the other is just opinion. If I had to bet, I would give USC the edge. But I guarantee you that Auburn would have given USC a much better game than OU did. And since 1992 when bowls first started trying to set up #1 vs #2, the SEC Champ is 5-0 in MNC Game opportunities. And in three of those games, the SEC Champ was playing an unbeaten consensus #1 team from another conference.

1992: Alabama over Miami
1996: Florida over Florida State
1998: Tennessee over Florida State
2003: LSU over Oklahoma
2006: Florida over Ohio State

I'm not saying Auburn would have won, but I would have loved to find out.

[ktffan]

But I guarantee you that Auburn would have given USC a much better game than OU did.

That's safe.

[sc69er]

everything you say except that you don't address the fact that USC beat essentially the same team the year before at Auburn, shut them out. The teams had another year(almost 2 years) of experience but USC would have benifited much more from the time than Auburn because of the Bush/White/Leinart maturation. We will never know but if an Oklahoma team, which had 15 players drafted the following spring, gets blown out I wouldn't expect the Tigers to do much better.

[buckeyejim]

Here is a list of all #1 vs #2 since 1990 (Regular season and bowl - regardless of W-L records)

Nov. 16, 1991 #2 Miami (FL) 17 #1 Florida State 16 Doak Campbell Stadium
Jan. 1, 1993 #2 Alabama 34 #1 Miami 13 Louisiana Superdome (Sugar Bowl)
Nov. 13, 1993 #2 Notre Dame 31 #1 Florida State 24 Notre Dame Stadium
Jan. 1, 1994 #1 Florida State 18 #2 Nebraska 16 Orange Bowl (Orange Bowl)
Jan. 2, 1996 #1 Nebraska 62 #2 Florida 24 Sun Devil Stadium (Fiesta Bowl)
Nov. 30, 199 #2 Florida State 24 #1 Florida 21 Doak Campbell Stadium
Jan. 4, 1999 #1 Tennessee 23 #2 Florida State 16 Sun Devil Stadium (Fiesta Bowl)
Jan. 4, 2000 #1 Florida State 46 #2 Virginia Tech 29 Louisiana Superdome (Sugar Bowl)
Jan. 3, 2003 #2 Ohio State 31 #1 Miami 24 (2 ot) Sun Devil Stadium (Fiesta Bowl)
Jan. 4, 2005 #1 Southern Cal 55 #2 Oklahoma 19 Dolphins Stadium (Orange Bowl)
Jan. 5, 2006 #2 Texas 41 #1 Southern Cal 38 Rose Bowl (Rose Bowl)
Sept. 9, 2006 #1 Ohio State 24 #2 Texas 7 Royal-Memorial Stadium
Nov. 18, 2006 #1 Ohio State 42 #2 Michigan 39 Ohio Stadium
Jan. 8, 2007 #2 Florida 41 #1 Ohio State 14 University of Phoenix Stadium (BCS Championship Game)

[Hubbs]

You dont know much history about the AU UGA game do you? The visitor usually wins. Look it up. Im sure UGA and LSU were a year older as well. Just admit your bias. Thats an obvious statement for me to make. 2004 was NOT fair to auburn. Decent talent, well the nfl thought it was decent. Auburn was voted in 2004 in a straw poll the best college football team by the coaches in the nfl. Source: NFL Network.

I see you have an excuse for Palmer not living up to the hype early on. Well Auburn finally opened up the offense in 2004 under Al Borges. Same thing. It wasnt run run run in 2004 and with two first round (top 5) picks in the same backfield you know it would have been more difficult for USC. That wasnt a set Auburn ran out of in 2003. Im through with this topic.

[buckeyejim]

You dont know much history about the AU UGA game do you? The visitor usually wins. Look it up. Im sure UGA and LSU were a year older as well. Just admit your bias. Thats an obvious statement for me to make. 2004 was NOT fair to auburn. Decent talent, well the nfl thought it was decent. Auburn was voted in 2004 in a straw poll the best college football team by the coaches in the nfl. Source: NFL Network.

I see you have an excuse for Palmer not living up to the hype early on. Well Auburn finally opened up the offense in 2004 under Al Borges. Same thing. It wasnt run run run in 2004 and with two first round (top 5) picks in the same backfield you know it would have been more difficult for USC. That wasnt a set Auburn ran out of in 2003. Im through with this topic.

I'd like to see how many players from the 2004 rosters of USC, Auburn and Oklahoma were drafted into the NFL. I think that's about as good of a way to evaluate which was the best or most talented team from 2004. Let's face it, the NFL is non-bias when it comes to selecting talent.

[GatorGrad]

everything you say except that you don't address the fact that USC beat essentially the same team the year before at Auburn, shut them out. The teams had another year(almost 2 years) of experience but USC would have benifited much more from the time than Auburn because of the Bush/White/Leinart maturation. We will never know but if an Oklahoma team, which had 15 players drafted the following spring, gets blown out I wouldn't expect the Tigers to do much better.

I'm sorry, but it really is pretty silly to assume that a result in 2003 means that a result in 2004 would be the same. There are so many factors involved and so many things that can change in a year that can't be measured or put in such simple terms such as home/away or returning players. To say that USC would have handled Auburn in 2004 the same way they handled them in 2003 is a little ignorant. In 2005, Alabama beat Florida 31-3. But Florida beat Alabama in 2006 by double digits. I could give you endless examples. Again, I think that USC would have beaten Auburn had they met in 2004, but I am not sure of it. And nobody can prove it either way. I think it would have been a heck of a ballgame. It's a shame we didn't get a chance to see it. A 4-team plus one mini playoff could have produced this title game.

[aufan59]

Carson palmer went from one of the worst coachs in USC history(Hackett) his first 3 years to one of the best coachs in USC history his last 2 years.

Same story with Jason Campbell. But I guess improvement with a new coach can't happen in the SEC but only on the west coast or something.

You are so full of crap its funny.

[sc69er]

Exact numbers of players drafted from Oklahoma, USC, and Auburn in the 2005 draft and the 2006 draft:

2005, Oklahoma 11 players drafted, 2 first round, 3 2nd round, 6 later rounds.

Auburn 5 players, 4 1st round(including 2 top 5), 1 later round.

USC 5 players, 2 1st round, 2 2nd round, 1 later round.

2006. USC 11 players drafted, 2 1st round, 3 2nd round, 6 later round.

Oklahoma. 6 players drafted, 1 1st round, 1 2nd round, and 4 later round players.

Auburn 4 players drafted. 4 later round players taken

So Oklahoma had 17 players taken that played in 2004/2005

USC had 16 players taken that played in 2004/2005

Auburn had 9 players taken who played ion 2004/2005.

USC had 4 first rounder, Auburn had 4 first rounders and Oklahoma had 3 first rounders

USC had had five 2nd rounders, Oklahoma had 4 2nd rounders, Auburn had none.

It doesn't seem to me that Auburn had the most NFL talent or the most top draft choices or the most anything!!

[Hubbs]

When did anybody say they did dude. I said that the NFL had a straw poll in 2004 on the nfl network and the coaches voted Auburn #1.

[aufan59]

scc69er, how can carson palmer improve greatly with a new coach but auburn was the same team with a new coach?

[sc69er]

Carson did little to show his great promiss in the first year under Carroll, it wasn't until the second year when USC had better players and Carosn had been in system a while that he improved. BTW Borges was an asst coach, much diffferent than a head coach. And Borges did little that was revolutionary with the Au offense--drag paterns with the tight end, bringing the backfeild into play in the passing game. That wowed the conservative SEC but wouldn't have did squat against a team that saw that stuff all the time. BTW Borges got fired at UCLA. I maintain my position, there was little difference between the 2003 and 2004 Auburn team other than scheduling and the normal maturation that a year gives to a team. USC would have had an advantage there as there younsters would have benitited more.