re: CFB teams robbed of a National Title

No team should have to beat an opponent twice especially when they slayed them at their own house.

It would be like a team losing in the Sweet 16 and then getting a pass to the championship game.

I don't care that Bama was better maybe. But they lost on their home turf when seasons used to matter.

Why play if it's just wiped away?

IF ESPN wanted to declare Co-National Champs then so be it...like when USC defeated Alabama and claims that.

But that was out of Conference shennigans and not in Conference, in Division. We know who won.

Lowest rated Champ game; ESPN miscalculated...Alabama doesn't draw like they assume they do.

Remember return 6? Imagine Auburn had to beat Bama again after that just to get into the title game?

Half of Saban's titles are media gifts. In the old system he'd have two...back then you had to go undefeated and win your Conference.

How many undefeated seasons has Nick Saban had?

Head to head tells the tale...thats why we have a NCAA tournament and not one in football. The regular season is a 13 week playoff.

Who cares who the other team lost to.

If you're comparing Team A vs. Team B and Team A whipped Team B in their own backyard, Team A is the better team. You have to be a rube to think otherwise or simply not care about basic logic.

On two late Hail Mary's against Penn State.

quote:

---

BYU scored over 30 points on them, so did Kansas State, Colorado scored
47 on them. Back when that was a ton.

1994 Nebraska a juggernaut, I think not.

---

What the hell are you talking about? Certainly not 1994 Nebraska. The most points they gave up in 94 was 32 to Wyoming and they dropped in the polls. After that they did not allow more than 17. They beat Colorado who was ranked #2 at the time 24-7 and Kansas State 17-6

1994 Nebraska Schedule



ETA: I just realized you re talking about Oklahoma
The old transitive property proves nothing,

Ah ok, I remember that Iron Bowl not being as close as the score, maybe it wasn't. A&M and Okie State both finished the regular season 7-4 though

quote:

---

problem for Auburn was they started low in polls and their OOC schedule consisted of La Tech, ULM and the Citadel.

---

Ironically with Bowling Green backing out on us to play Oklahoma that year, we wound up being forced to play Citadel, which really helped out Oklahoma against us in the BCS poll. They screwed us over on multiple levels that season.

quote:

---

Not really the 83 team was 10-1 the 1 loss was 20-7 loss at home to Texas who’s only loss was by 1 in the Cotton Bowl. With a lack luster Sugar Bowl win hard to argue Auburn should be #1 over Miami who beat the team that was #1 all year.

---

Are you referring to that 10-1 (11-1 after the bowl game) Auburn team, whose only loss was to the undefeated #2 Texas team (going into the Cotton Bowl) that lost their only game to #4 Georgia....a team that Auburn beat?

This was Auburn's 1983 schedule:
*Rankings are when the game was played

W vs Southern Miss
L vs #3 Texas
W vs Tennessee
W vs Florida St
W vs Kentucky
W vs Georgia Tech
W vs Mississippi State
W vs #5 Florida
W vs #7 Maryland (w/ Boomer Esiason)
W vs #4 Georgia
W vs #19 Alabama
W vs #8 Michigan

Might be the toughest final five teams any school has ever finished with.

Here was Miami's schedule:

L vs #16 Florida (28-3...who Auburn beat 28-21)
W vs Houston
W vs Purdue
W vs #13 Notre Dame
W vs Duke
W vs Louisville
W vs Mississippi State
W vs Cincinnati
W vs #12 West Virginia
W vs East Carolina
W vs Florida State
W vs #1 Nebraska

If the National Championship was supposed to be awarded based on the overall season, then I really like Auburn's argument.

Miami's win over Nebraska was a home game for the 'Canes.

If Nebraska kicks the tying extra point at the end rather than going for two, then whole argument would be moot.

quote:

---

Aub 2004 probably deserved a shot at the title but were they beating usc? Likely not especially given they played the previous two seasons with sc winning both.

---

I've never understood this argument.

So, Auburn probably would have lost to USC in 2004 because they lost to them in 2002 and 2003?

I guess LSU didn't beat Alabama last year since they lost to Alabama in Jan 2012, Nov 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018...

I guess Auburn didn't beat LSU this year since we lost to them in 2017, 2018, and 2019...

quote:

---

So, Auburn probably would have lost to USC in 2004 because they lost to them in 2002 and 2003?

---

USC was better in 2004 than they were in 2003, just like Auburn was.

Something that people forget about Carroll's USC teams is that when they lost, usually it was because they played down to shitty competition. They were money in big games. It took Vince Young playing the best single game in the history of college football to beat them in a huge game.