- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Curious why 2004 was virtually a non issue?
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:19 pm to Mike da Tigah
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:19 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Why was it that when Auburn was left out of the BCSNCG in 2004 after a perfect season there wasn't hardly even a wimper?
The question answers itself. Auburn. WGAF?
0
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:23 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:READ THIS and WONDER NO LONGER.
Why was it that when Auburn was left out of the BCSNCG in 2004 after a perfect season there wasn't hardly even a wimper?
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:33 pm to just me
quote:
READ THIS and WONDER NO LONGER.
Very nice and EZE is EZEly one of my favorite down to earth posters on this board. I find nothing to disagree with him on. I just hate ESPN, not as much for being ESPN, but because they are comprised of the same media blowhards that have been bitching and complaining since their AP poll has lost footing in deciding national champions as if we were picking the Most Popular and most likely to succeed.
Quite honestly, and I'm being completely honest here. I refuse to accept anything BUT the crystal ball as proof of a National Championship earned by LSU. If feel the same now as I did in 2003. Nothing has changed.
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:40 pm to Mike da Tigah
You don't put any faith in Kirk Herbstreit's "eye test"?
Makes you wonder how significant a role those recruiting championship t-shirts played in getting Bama into the BCSNCG.
Makes you wonder how significant a role those recruiting championship t-shirts played in getting Bama into the BCSNCG.
Posted on 12/6/11 at 11:41 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
3) USC and OU were objectively better that year. It sucked for Auburn, but shite happens
I agree with this.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 12:02 am to EastBankTiger
quote:
2) There was a sentiment that everyone wanted to see USC - OU play, since they were denied that the year before.
USC yes. OU no.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 12:32 am to Mike da Tigah
Because AU wasn't Bama. Can you imagine a scenario where LSU lost to an SEC opponent, Bama lost to LSU and Okie St had it's loss?
The world would have come to and end if Bama wasn't allowed in the BCS game.
The world would have come to and end if Bama wasn't allowed in the BCS game.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 2:36 am to LST
quote:
Hadn't USC beaten the crap out of Auburn the year before?
Yes, the Condoms shut out Auburn in Jordan Hare & beaten them handedly in '02 in L.A. I think some voters factored that into their votes.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 5:08 am to Mike da Tigah
OU & USC started out ranked very high. USC was a clear choice for #1 and OU / Stoops were still perceived to be a cut above.
AU started the season ranked out of the Top 10 (maybe Top 20). They had flopped in 2003 and been embarrassed by USC at home.
AU was lucky to beat us (bad Saban coaching and crappy call).
In hindsight it's easy to say AU was better than OU but it wasn't tat evident during the season. The SEC didn't have the cred it has now.
AU started the season ranked out of the Top 10 (maybe Top 20). They had flopped in 2003 and been embarrassed by USC at home.
AU was lucky to beat us (bad Saban coaching and crappy call).
In hindsight it's easy to say AU was better than OU but it wasn't tat evident during the season. The SEC didn't have the cred it has now.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 6:04 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
there wasn't hardly even a wimper?
Hardly a whimper? It was the last straw that led to the AP pulling out of the BCS. It was a big deal, but AU just didn't have a great case.
o AU had a terrible OOC sched.
o The SEC overall was the weakest it had been in years and hadn't established itself as dominant. The overall OOC sched was terrible and we didn't perform that well against it. The best win was over something like a 7-4 team; we lost to few better teams scheduled and also had some bad losses. This hurt AU like the Big 12's OOC record helped their teams this year.
o AU finished third in practically every computer poll known to man which reinforced the above.
o AU's style of great defense and efficient non flashy offense also hurt. It's like the criticism AL and us get this year.
o It practically wasn't until the draft that the amount of talent on that team became universally recognized.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 7:51 am to lsunutinno
quote:
Auburn did not appear as dominant
Just an earlier version of Herbstreit's "eye test".
Auburn was easily as "dominant" as Okie that year. U$C, however, was definitely loaded.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 7:52 am to Hot Carl
quote:
2) Auburn played the Citadel that year
But Bama plays Georgia Southern this year and... *crickets*.
quote:
3) USC and OU were objectively better that year
You have a funny definition of "objective".
Posted on 12/7/11 at 7:56 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Why was it that when Auburn was left out of the BCSNCG in 2004 after a perfect season there wasn't hardly even a wimper?
surely you jest
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:00 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:i think it stemmed from usc shutting them out on their home turf the previous year. auburn probably wouldn't have beaten usc, but they would have put up a better fight than ou
Why was it that when Auburn was left out of the BCSNCG in 2004 after a perfect season there wasn't hardly even a wimper?
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:05 am to Mike da Tigah
The SEC didn't have the reputation it does now. No way in Hell that would happen to Auburn right now.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:05 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
Texas and USC were ranked no. 1 and no. 2 all season. Both remained undefeated in the regular season and Auburn's OOC schedule was considered unimpressive
Really is amazing how the grading standards change from year to year. In 2004 the grading standard was did you play an FCS team and how hard was your OOC. In 2011? Those things no longer matter.
By the way, in 2004 Auburn played and beat one Top Ten team (UGA #7) and won three more games against Top 25 teams (Tennessee #13 twice and LSU #16). Four wins against Top 25 opponents.
USC that year played and beat two Top Ten teams (#9 Cal, #10 Va Tech) and won another game against a Top 25 team (#19 Az State). Three wins against Top 25 opponents.
Oklahoma that year played and beat one Top Ten team (#5 Texas) and won another game against one Top 25 team (#18 Texas Tech). Two wins against Top 25 opponents.
But because it was determined that a win against Bowling Green was so much better than a win against The Citadel, Oklahoma (to some) was "objectively" better... which was and is patently ridiculous.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:07 am to Mike da Tigah
Auburn is not a traditional entitled/media darling.
Auburn fans know their place when it comes to 1) Bama and 2) the rest of the nation.
Auburn fans know their place when it comes to 1) Bama and 2) the rest of the nation.
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:21 am to Mike da Tigah
not sure if it's been stated but Auburn losing those games to USC a couple of years before 2004 shouldn't have played a role but I bet it did too
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:are you saying they clearly didn't deserve a shot or that there was more than just a wimper of complaint?
surely you jest
Posted on 12/7/11 at 8:28 am to chadismyname
USC 2004 would have beat auburn anyway, that was one of the better teams in history
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News