Atleast some people get it

[aufan59]

From CFN's SEC Preview

To feed the ego a little more, the league has gone 7-1 in the BCS since 2001, with two national titles, and the lone blemish was Georgia’s 38-35 upset loss to West Virginia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl. In that same time span, the Big Ten went 4-6 (with Ohio State winning three of those), the Big 12 went 3-6, and the ACC was 0-6.

Remember, it took USC losing to UCLA and a sizable portion of the voters to go against Michigan just to get Florida in the championship game. Maybe it’s time to start weighing the strength of schedule more when it comes to the SEC, and to realize that a one-loss team here could be the equivalent of an unbeaten team from another conference. That might especially be the case this season.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/661632.html

The stats show that when a team is good enough to rise to the top of the SEC, they are a very good, tested team.

It's nice that people are finally recognizing it.

[GatorGrad]

SEC Champs are also 3-0 in BCS Championship Games. Best winning % of any conference and most BCS Championship wins of any conference. The SEC has produced one-third (3 of the 9) BCS Champs. The most impressive thing to me about those numbers however, is that the three BCS Champs were three different schools.

And if you want to go back to 1992, when the Boal Coalition started and the SEC expanded to 12 teams with a CCG, the SEC has had 5 MNC teams in 15 seasons. Again, one-third of the time...just like in the BCS era. And coming from four different schools (Florida is the only 2X MNChamp from the SEC during this time period.)

None of this counts Auburn who never got their shot in 1993 due to their own fault (probation) or in 2004 due to no fault of their own (BCS.) Georgia went 12-1 in 2002 and would have got a shot in the BCS Title Game as well had they not been upset by Florida.

[buckeyejim]

Talk about not getting a shot. How about these Big Ten schools who were not given a shot to play for the title or were simply "voted" #2.

1994 Penn State 12-0-0 (Paterno called this his best team ever)
1996 Ohio State 11-1-0 (Beat 11-0-0 Arizona State to help Florida out)
1998 Ohio State 11-1-0 (Best Ohio State team I ever saw)

[GatorGrad]

Yes, those teams were all great and should have and would have gotten a shot had there been at least a 4-team playoff. But if you're comparing to Auburn '04, Penn St '94 is the best comparison since both were unbeaten. There was nothing else that either team could have done. But one difference is that Penn St '94 WOULD have gotten a shot in the MNC game had their conference not been locked into the Rose Bowl whereas Auburn was perfectly eligible for the MNC Game, but there just so happened to be three unbeaten BCS teams in 2004. Just plain bad luck.

[Blue Hen]

The SEC champs , in recent years, have, indeed, performed impressively in PSEGs.

All time, the SEC champs & co-champs are a very 'average' 42-38-1 (.525) in post season exhibitions. .....even less remarkable when you consider that the SEC is the 'relative' home team most of the time.

[jeff4bucks]

Georgia went 12-1 in 2002 and would have got a shot in the BCS Title Game as well had they not been upset by Florida.


I remember watching the UF/UGA 2002 game. I guess us OSU fans should thank the gators for that. Maybe that was a little payback for '97 Rose Bowl.

say what you want about Ron Zook, his Gator teams provided the only loss for UGA that year and LSU the following..

[jeff4bucks]

Talk about not getting a shot. How about these Big Ten schools who were not given a shot to play for the title or were simply "voted" #2.

1994 Penn State 12-0-0 (Paterno called this his best team ever)
1996 Ohio State 11-1-0 (Beat 11-0-0 Arizona State to help Florida out)
1998 Ohio State 11-1-0 (Best Ohio State team I ever saw)


I would agree with GG that the 1994 PSU team would compare best to the 2004 Auburn team. Nothing either could've done...OSU had no one to blame but themselves. '98 loss to MSU was inexcusable. You can't lose a game like that and expect to get a chance to play for a MNC, no matter how good OSU was.

[GatorGrad]

I would agree with GG that the 1994 PSU team would compare best to the 2004 Auburn team. Nothing either could've done...OSU had no one to blame but themselves. '98 loss to MSU was inexcusable. You can't lose a game like that and expect to get a chance to play for a MNC, no matter how good OSU was.

Right, those OSU teams were great, but they didn't do EVERYTHING that they could have done (gone unbeaten) like PSU '94 and Auburn '04.

And yes, we consider our 2002 win over Georgia, which helped Ohio St finish #2 in the BCS standings, our payback for the 1997 Rose Bowl win over AzSt.

Good fun facts about Zook's Gators being the only team to beat 12-1 Georgia in 2002 and 12-1 LSU in 2003, both away from The Swamp.

[Hubbs]

Just plain bad luck.


Not really. I mean even though Auburn's overall schedule was tougher than OK or USC's Auburn didnt deserve a shot because they played the citadel.

I am starting to take Hen's outlook on the polls. Especially preseason polls. They are stupid!! Auburn '03 is a prime example just like Tennessee '05 or bammer in 2000.

[buckeyejim]

Just plain bad luck.


Not really. I mean even though Auburn's overall schedule was tougher than OK or USC's Auburn didnt deserve a shot because they played the citadel.

I am starting to take Hen's outlook on the polls. Especially preseason polls. They are stupid!! Auburn '03 is a prime example just like Tennessee '05 or bammer in 2000.



A lot of people blame Oklahoma's preseason #2 ranking as a reason they got in ahead of Auburn in 2004 but here is what a lot of people forget.

On November 14th, 2004 Auburn and Oklahoma were TIED for second in the AP Poll behind USC. On November 20th Auburn beat an Alabama team that finished 6-6 21-13 and Oklahoma beat Baylor 35-0. Those results pushed Oklahoma back ahead of Auburn. Oklahoma distanced themselves from Auburn in the Championship Games. Oklahoma blasted Colorado 42-3 in the Big 12 Championship Game while Auburn struggled to beat Tennessee in the SEC Championship Game 38-28. Auburn didn't play as impressively as Oklahoma in those last two games

Preseason polls seldom have much impact by December.

[aufan59]

Agreed buckeyejim. Blaming preseason polls was just a scape goat for a flawed system and something else for Auburn fans to vent their frustration on.

There isn't a single way that you can alter preseason polls to change the fact that 3>2, and one team was going to get left out. So why blame them?

[CJHawkeyes]

Agreed buckeyejim. Blaming preseason polls was just a scape goat for a flawed system and something else for Auburn fans to vent their frustration on.

There isn't a single way that you can alter preseason polls to change the fact that 3>2, and one team was going to get left out. So why blame them?

Why use them? Sure 3 > 2 and one team will be left out but how is it not self-evident to everyone that objective rules would produce a specific and known reason why one team is left out. With polls, what did specifically USC and Oklahoma do that placed them above Auburn? Why are their resumes worth more? Why is it assumed that USC was entitled to a top two finish? Because they ultimately won the title game in convincing fashion? That is certainly irrelevant. Even after Auburn tied Oklahoma in the AP poll, the Sooners broke away after beating opponents with 9 I-A wins versus Auburn beating opponents with 14 I-A wins. Why are Oklahoma's results worth more? Because they weren't challenged? Preseason polls are a valid scapegoat in this instance as pollsters are quite reluctant to drop a preseason top 2 team without it losing. Even if such a team is dropped, there is no answer for why. Auburn very likely could have been playing for the title if they had just been voted in the top two to start the season. That possibility is absurd no matter who you are.

[buckeyejim]

Why use them? Sure 3 > 2 and one team will be left out but how is it not self-evident to everyone that objective rules would produce a specific and known reason why one team is left out. With polls, what did specifically USC and Oklahoma do that placed them above Auburn? Why are their resumes worth more? Why is it assumed that USC was entitled to a top two finish? Because they ultimately won the title game in convincing fashion? That is certainly irrelevant. Even after Auburn tied Oklahoma in the AP poll, the Sooners broke away after beating opponents with 9 I-A wins versus Auburn beating opponents with 14 I-A wins. Why are Oklahoma's results worth more? Because they weren't challenged? Preseason polls are a valid scapegoat in this instance as pollsters are quite reluctant to drop a preseason top 2 team without it losing. Even if such a team is dropped, there is no answer for why. Auburn very likely could have been playing for the title if they had just been voted in the top two to start the season. That possibility is absurd no matter who you are.


If (and this is a big IF) Auburn had got to play USC over Oklahoma and USC had killed Auburn, everyone would be screaming that Oklahoma SHOULD have been in that game. It's a no win situation, regardless of who was left out.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that a squad made up of the best players on both Oklahoma's and Auburn's teams from that season would have been able to beat USC.

[Blue Hen]

I'm thoroughly convinced that if Auburn.....and even Utah started the season on top of the Pre Season polls they would have made the BCS pretend NC game. Pre Season polls mean 'Everything' in the case of multiple undefeateds. There has never been a team that started either 1 or 2 in the pre-season, posted an undefeated season, and did not play in the BCS MNC game. It's a lock !!!!....a stupid, unfair lock but , nevertheless a lock.
This season USC and LSU will probably get the pre-season 'free' #s 1 & 2 ranking. If they both run the table, they meet in the BCS MNC title game., GUARANTEED.........makes absolutely zero difference what any of the other 117 teams do. Pre-season polls decide championships in this 'mythical' sport.

[CJHawkeyes]

If (and this is a big IF) Auburn had got to play USC over Oklahoma and USC had killed Auburn, everyone would be screaming that Oklahoma SHOULD have been in that game. It's a no win situation, regardless of who was left out.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think that a squad made up of the best players on both Oklahoma's and Auburn's teams from that season would have been able to beat USC.

I have no doubt that you are right about people screaming for Oklahoma after the fact if USC had bombed Auburn, but those fans are just as unthinking as the fans that argue in favor of Auburn because Oklahoma laid an egg. My problem isn't who gets in and who is left out but why two teams qualify and one does not. With polls, A > B and B > A can both be true given the exact same results.

[Blue Hen]

Utah would have had the best chance vs USC, IMO. USC and Utah did have 3 common opponents - Arizona, CSU, & BYU.

USC won those games by an average 47-6 score, Utah by an average of 46-19

In the 04 debates everybody keeps forgeting about Utah. That was a strong CF team.

[buckeyejim]

I'm thoroughly convinced that if Auburn.....and even Utah started the season on top of the Pre Season polls they would have made the BCS pretend NC game. Pre Season polls mean 'Everything' in the case of multiple undefeateds. There has never been a team that started either 1 or 2 in the pre-season, posted an undefeated season, and did not play in the BCS MNC game. It's a lock !!!!....a stupid, unfair lock but , nevertheless a lock.
This season USC and LSU will probably get the pre-season 'free' #s 1 & 2 ranking. If they both run the table, they meet in the BCS MNC title game., GUARANTEED.........makes absolutely zero difference what any of the other 117 teams do. Pre-season polls decide championships in this 'mythical' sport.

Preseason #1 & #2 in AP Polls in the BCS era

1998:
#1 Ohio State (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Florida State (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
Tennessee and Tulane were the only Division 1A schools that went undefeated in the regular season in 1998

1999:
#1 Florida State (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Tennessee (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
Virginia Tech and Marshall were the other Division 1A schools that went undefeated in the regular season in 1999

2000:
#1 Nebraska (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Florida State (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
Oklahoma was the only Division 1A school that went undefeated in the regular season in 2000

2001:
#1 Florida (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Miami (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
No other Division 1A schools went undefeated in the regular season in 2001

2002:
#1 Miami (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Oklahoma (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
Ohio State was the only other Division 1A school that went undefeated in the regular season in 2002

2003:
#1 Oklahoma (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Ohio State (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
No Division 1A school went undefeated in the regular season in 2003

2004:
#1 USC (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Oklahoma (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
Auburn, Utah and Boise State were the other Division 1A schools that went undefeated in the regular season in 2004

2005:
#1 USC (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Texas (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
No Division 1A school went undefeated in the regular season in 2005

2006:
#1 Ohio State (Did go undefeated in the regular season)
#2 Notre Dame (Did not go undefeated in the regular season)
Boise State was the only other Division 1A school that went undefeated in the regular season in 2006

What teams ranked preseason #1 or #2 that did go undefeated in the regular season would you have dropped? Just curious.

[Blue Hen]

Its not a case of who should get 'dropped' its just a dead lock pattern that any #1 or 2 preseason ranked team that runs the table automatically advances to the BCS champ game. It's not fair to any, much lower, pre-season ranked or unranked team that performs at the same level as the pre season top two. Those lower/unranked teams have to swim up stream while the 'free' #s 1 & 2 just have to tread water. Pre season rankings are a tremendous advantage for those ranked at the top or near. Dumbest system in world team sports history. Do you think its a fair system ?

[buckeyejim]

Since 1998 there have been 18 schools that have gone undefeated in the regular season. 8 of those 18 were ranked either #1 or #2 in the preseason AP Poll. All 8 of those preseason #1 or #2 teams played in the BCS Championship Game. 4 of the 10 teams not ranked in the top 2 played in the BCS Championship Game. 12 of the 18 schools that went undefeated in the regular season played in the BCS Championship Game. The 6 schools that went undefeated in the regular season from 1998 to 2006 and did not play in the BCS Championship Game were...

1998 - Tulane
1999 - Marshall
2004 - Auburn
2004 - Utah
2004 - Boise State
2006 - Boise State

Why don't we just say that if you're from a BCS Conference and go undefeated you're going to play in the BCS Championship Game (unless there are 3 undefeated from BCS Conferences and 1 must be left out).

4 of the 5 schools from BCS Conferences that were not ranked in the top 2 in the preseason poll still played in the BCS Championship Game. That's 80%! Not too shabby. The ONLY reason that's not 100% is because 2004 was the ONLY time 3 schools from BCS conferences have gone undefeated in the regular season during the BCS era.

[buckeyejim]

In the BCS era 12 out of the 13 teams (from BCS conferences) that went undefeated during the regular season played in the BCS Championship Game. Thats 92.3%. In the BCS era 0 out of the 5 teams (from non BCS conferences) that went undefeated during the regular season played in the BCS Championship Game. Thats 0%.

[Blue Hen]

exactly !!!! What a bull$hit system !!! .........pollsters deciding BCS MNC participants in August, before a single FB is snapped. We need a term, far more derogatory than 'mythical' for this fraud.

[Blue Hen]

Buckeyejim, good posts.

This is exactly why the BCS system was formed. It was designed to :

1) Prevent an NCAA D1 championship
2) Funnel 90% of all post season revenue (and glory) to 67 (of 119) schools
3) Preserve the PSEG (bowl) structure

[buckeyejim]

exactly !!!! What a bull$hit system !!! .........pollsters deciding BCS MNC participants in August, before a single FB is snapped. We need a term, far more derogatory than 'mythical' for this fraud.


Of the 18 teams that have been ranked in the preseason top 2 from 1998 to 2006 (9 seasons) 11 eventually played in the BCS Championship game. That means that the top 2 schools in the up-coming preseason AP Poll have a 61% chance of playing in the BCS Championship Game. I wouldn't exactly say that the two teams are decided just yet. Maybe 1 of the 2. In fact only two years have the preseason top 2 actually played each other in the BCS Championship Game. There has NEVER been a season in which neither of the top two teams made it to the BCS Championship Game, however.

2004 USC vs Oklahoma
2005 USC vs Texas

[Blue Hen]

Right.....but in the case of 'undefeateds' its decided in August. Like you pointed out - 8 for 8. If either LSU or USC win all games it will be 9 for 9 or maybe 10 for 10........100000% 'lock'.

[buckeyejim]

I'll tell you one thing. The writers and coaches HAVE done a very good job with their preseason predictions. You have to at least admit they've done their homework with the stats provided above.

[Blue Hen]

I guess. It's the 'system' that is wrong and fraudulent. All teams should be able to control their own destiny, not just the pre-season 'voted' top 2.

[Don]

I guess. It's the 'system' that is wrong and fraudulent. All teams should be able to control their own destiny, not just the pre-season 'voted' top 2.

And part of determining your OWN fate is your OWN SCHEDULING. If you play a lousy schedule YOU are hurting your own chances of winning the NC. As the schedules are made up before the season one can get a pretty good idea of who is playing a good enough schedule and who isn't and therefore can rank teams accordingly.

[aufan59]

Right.....but in the case of 'undefeateds' its decided in August. Like you pointed out - 8 for 8. If either LSU or USC win all games it will be 9 for 9 or maybe 10 for 10........100000% 'lock'.

And if an SEC team makes it to the BCS bowl game they will win. 3 for 3 so far. 100000% lock.

[CJHawkeyes]

And part of determining your OWN fate is your OWN SCHEDULING. If you play a lousy schedule YOU are hurting your own chances of winning the NC. As the schedules are made up before the season one can get a pretty good idea of who is playing a good enough schedule and who isn't and therefore can rank teams accordingly.

I'm not sure this is true. For starters, all BCS schools automatically play the "required" schedule just by playing in BCS conferences. In OOC, there is no actual incentive to play strong opponents even though a handful do anyway. Ultimately, if there are two unbeaten major teams, they make up the top two. Only twice in 29 I-A seasons has a one-loss major finished the regular season in the AP top 2 ahead of an unbeaten major. If there are three or more major unbeatens, I'm betting starting point dictates the top 2. When there are less than two unbeatens and multiple one-loss teams, who lost first usually wins. For example, my own system and the AP disagreed on the top one-loss team 13 times in 29 seasons. In those 13 instances, AP voters always favored the team that lost first whereas my system favored teams that played opponents who were 10+ games better on average.

[Blue Hen]

The only reason Auburn didn't get to play for the BCS 'make believe' national championship in 04 was because , in the opinion of poll voters, the Tigers were only the 18th best team.....before any football was played..in August !!! (same for Utah -20th)

...had nothing to do with playing teams like Miss State, La-Monroe, Citadel Etc. like some CF fans like to believe.

[Blue Hen]

I disagree......somewhat. Conference members are given a schedule...no choice at all....and not all teams have the luxury of customizing their non conference schedules to include all home games vs, mostly, rent-a-win opponents. Some teams consistently play 7 home games, some teams 4, maybe 5. Scheduling is an unfair mess in CF.
'Name Brand' recognition determines the pre-season rankings far more than schedules do.

[Blue Hen]

Poll voters don't care about SOS. Auburn actually moved UPWARD in the polls after playing and beating Citadel , LA-Monroe etc.

[buckeyejim]

The only reason Auburn didn't get to play for the BCS 'make believe' national championship in 04 was because , in the opinion of poll voters, the Tigers were only the 18th best team.....before any football was played..in August !!! (same for Utah -20th)

...had nothing to do with playing teams like Miss State, La-Monroe, Citadel Etc. like some CF fans like to believe.

I have to disagree with this, Hokie/Blue Hen. With 2 weeks left in the regular season, Auburn caught Oklahoma in the AP poll. They were tied for #2 with two polls left prior to the final BCS rankings. In their last two games Auburn was a little flat and Oklahoma look dominating and pulled out in front of Auburn. the fact that Auburn started lower was a moot point because Auburn and oklahoma was dead even when it counted and OU made a stronger case than Auburn at the end.

[Blue Hen]

That was strictly a fluke 'system malfunction'. After that tie in the polls, Bob Stoops and OU screamed bloody murder and in the following week's poll the voters colaborated and restored the correct 'order'. After the poll tie, Auburn beats a 6-4 Alabama team on the road while OU clobbers Baylor (3-7)...like everybody else does and jumps back ahead in the polls. Didn't you 'smell' something there ?

[CJHawkeyes]

I have to disagree with this, Hokie/Blue Hen. With 2 weeks left in the regular season, Auburn caught Oklahoma in the AP poll. They were tied for #2 with two polls left prior to the final BCS rankings. In their last two games Auburn was a little flat and Oklahoma look dominating and pulled out in front of Auburn. the fact that Auburn started lower was a moot point because Auburn and oklahoma was dead even when it counted and OU made a stronger case than Auburn at the end.

I think this example demonstrates that schedules take a backseat to style. Auburn looked "flat" versus opponents with 14 total I-A wins versus OU dominating opponents with 9 total I-A wins. Shouldn't pollsters have expected OU to have an easier time? If so, why reward them for it? While these games were conference games for AU and OU, if we want to encourage stronger scheduling, wouldn't we favor teams playing Alabama and Tennessee as opposed to Baylor and Colorado? For example, Michigan schedules Alabama and Tennessee and Ohio State schedules Baylor and Colorado. Who is getting more praise for their OOC schedule?

Ultimately, in this sport, where you start matters more than scheduling, when you lose matters more than scheduling, and how you win matters more than scheduling.