re: Curious why 2004 was virtually a non issue?

quote:

---

but how do they justify their outrage over OSU being left out when they got beat by a NOBODY while Bama got beat in OT by the #1 team in the nation?

---

You're focusing on the loss and overlooking the quality wins and wins against teams above .500 - Ok St >>> Bama in that department.

Auburn's resume just wasn't as strong across the board as USC and OU.

Texas? Texas... in 2004?????

quote:

---

Replace Bama with Michigan and OSU with Florida. People just want consistency

---

Yes!! Michigan's only sin that year was that it's loss was the last game of the regular season and Fla. had the better resume. However in 2011 that criteria is flawed.

and to the OP. 2004 was a non-issue and exposed the problem of preseason polls. USC and OU started in the top-spots and never lost. There was nothing AU could do.

quote:

---

That's pretty much why, no noise was made. Urban Meyers when it looked like 1 and 2 were going to do battle again lobby long and hard and came off as an a-hole to the rest of the Big 10 and other football colleges.

HE also guarantee a victory over Ohio st and said the entire Big 10 was a joke and that the SEC is tougher then any conference out there by a factor of ten.

---

This is why Gundy didn't get a chance to...

quote:

---

prove it on the field.

---

|He didn't have to be an a-hole like Meyers, but he should have been talking his team and conference up instead of Bama and the SEC.


Instead of, "the SEC is the best conference. Bama is the no. 2 team .... right now."


He should have been saying, "the big12 is the strongest conference from top to bottom this year. If we continue to take care of business, I don't think there is a better resume out there." ETc, and so on.

quote:

---

orry Aubie, its you that is wrong..

2004 was a weak year for the SEC. I know, SEC fans think the SEC is dominant every single year, but that's not always true. While this is not a perfect measure by any means, if you look at the conference record, 2004 was the worst since expanding to 12 teams in 92.

---

Nope, it's you that's wrong, beatbammer already posted the schools top teams played, OK played a whopping 2 top 25 teams, one in the top 10. Auburn played three top 25 teams (actually 4 if you count playing Tenn twice), and one top 10. The SEC was pretty average that year, but the Big 12 was even worse. The SEC being weaker than normal that year has zero bearing on OK having a weaker resume, they just had a flat out weaker schedule period. The OOC/Citadel issue was just an excuse to keep USC and OK in there. The simple fact of the issue is that USC and OK started #1 and #2 and didn't lose, nothing we did period would have changed things. We had a dominate offense and defense, it sucks but not much you can do. Hopefully okie state getting left out will get the conferences off their asses and get the plus one going.

quote:

---

There was a sentiment that everyone wanted to see USC - OU play, since they were denied that the year before.

---

the 2003 mess played a part, but what people were denied was USC/LSU in fact I still have espn magazines and newspapers

LSU was not the team that people were saying did not belong...it was OU

quote:

---

Wrong. OU had the weakest resume of the three schools by far.

---

Wrong! Have you seen who Auburn played for its nonconference games?

quote:

---

Have you seen who Auburn played for its nonconference games?

---

I don't give a flying frick who played what outside of this: Oklahoma played and beat TWO Top 25 teams and Auburn played and beat FOUR.

Now you can argue all you want about the relative merits between a then-horrible Houston and Louisiana-Monroe and Bowling Green and The Citadel, but that doesn't change the math that 4 is still greater than 2.

Auburn got screwed due to the "OOC schedule" argument. The SEC hadn't quite earned its rep as the greatest conference ever.

And also Auburn got its arse kicked by USC in 2003, and that was used against Auburn in 2004.

Once again, the deciding factor was Name Brand. Auburn is a second tier power (like LSU is). Oklahoma is OU. You'll always lose a beauty contest to OU, just as OSU will always lose to Bama. Nothing to do with merits. It has to do with the Name.