kingfish 73 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 http://www.al.com/sports/huntsvilletimes/j...97882144220.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Auburn was judged to have the fifth toughest schedule in Division I-A behind Texas A&M, North Carolina, Arizona and Arizona State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidefever 0 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Sagarin had the Tigers 60th in toughness of schedule; USC was seventh, Oklahoma 13th. Sagarin did place USC and Auburn 1-2 in his final national championship rankings, but also had Harvard 37th and William & Mary 58th - just ahead of No. 59 Alabama At least the Seattle computer had Auburn 33rd in strength of schedule, compared to 16th for USC, 14th for Oklahoma and 67th for Utah. DKW, you can't pick and choose what you want to acknowledge. Sure, your right in your quote, but you forgot the other two rankings in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,096 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 i'm not sure, but i think the author of the article is using the sagarin poll as a way to show the absurdity of the system. i could be wrong though. maybe you actually think harvard was better than bama. much as i hate 'em i tend to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 327 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Sagarin had the Tigers 60th in toughness of schedule; USC was seventh, Oklahoma 13th. Sagarin did place USC and Auburn 1-2 in his final national championship rankings, but also had Harvard 37th and William & Mary 58th - just ahead of No. 59 Alabama At least the Seattle computer had Auburn 33rd in strength of schedule, compared to 16th for USC, 14th for Oklahoma and 67th for Utah. DKW, you can't pick and choose what you want to acknowledge. Sure, your right in your quote, but you forgot the other two rankings in the article. 138889[/snapback] I hope you're kidding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jared52 4,354 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Sagarin had the Tigers 60th in toughness of schedule; USC was seventh, Oklahoma 13th. Sagarin did place USC and Auburn 1-2 in his final national championship rankings, but also had Harvard 37th and William & Mary 58th - just ahead of No. 59 Alabama At least the Seattle computer had Auburn 33rd in strength of schedule, compared to 16th for USC, 14th for Oklahoma and 67th for Utah. DKW, you can't pick and choose what you want to acknowledge. Sure, your right in your quote, but you forgot the other two rankings in the article. 138889[/snapback] Well, if you guys hadn't been so bad this year, maybe we would have faired better... And yeah, I know, we played the Citadel... it wasn't our first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe 0 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 The NCAA strength of schedule is bunk...the only way of determining is your opponents win-lose record. Are you kidding me? So basically if you have a better record than everyone else you're better? I think not. An 11-1 Boise State team is better than a 10-2 Georgia team!? Or even a 6-6 UAT team!? yeah right yea so the NCAA sos is worth nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,096 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 boise would trounce bama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moe 0 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 boise would trounce bama. 139062[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.