A pretty good read

[PigskinPat 2,579]

I thought some of you might enjoy this article. Some of the same logical arguments that have been given on why we deserve a share of the NC. He pretty much tells it like it is!

Auburn for real, Oklahoma just a wanna be

By DAN LE BATARD

Miami Herald

MIAMI - What more would you have liked Auburn to do?

The Tigers beat every team on their schedule. They went unbeaten through a tougher Southeastern Conference rather than the stink-bomb conferences of USC and Oklahoma. They allowed more than 20 points in only one game, beat all but two teams on their schedule by double digits, defeated four top 10 teams and won more games against opponents with nine or more victories than either USC or Oklahoma.

How can you possibly be better than that?

What is better than perfect?

Auburn should be sharing the national title with USC because Oklahoma was revealed to be a fraud champion from a fraud conference.

Auburn beat Virginia Tech, 16-13, in a Sugar Bowl that wasn't that close. USC beat Virginia Tech, 24-13, in a game that was a lot closer than the score indicates. Tech was one blown referee call from beating USC outright. There is no reasonable way that anyone can say that USC's 13-0 was in any way more impressive than Auburn's 13-0.

SYSTEM STINKS:

The only reason USC won the title is because it was ranked higher earlier. Is that how we're doing these things now? With preseason rankings? Why bother playing any games at all if we're just going to follow whatever guesswork we're using before the season starts?

There is literally no way Auburn could have won the title by this kind of math. The Tigers were doomed by preseason polls that didn't reward a surprise or an underdog or the unexpected. They kept winning and winning and winning, and the criminal BCS system betrayed them.

Cote, of course, is the only man in America who likes the BCS system because, you know, it is always better to have sportswriters decide a champion than the playing field.

You can't do more than win every game on your schedule. You can't do more than lead almost all those games by 18 points or more.

MUST BE A SPLIT:

It turns out Oklahoma was a paper champion from a Big 12 conference that saw its best four teams go 1-3 in bowl games with an average loss of 31 points. So, USC's season-ending punctuation wasn't nearly as impressive as it appeared. USC beating Oklahoma was not appreciably more impressive than Auburn beating up a Virginia Tech team that strangled the life out of Miami for the ACC championship.

You know what killed Auburn? A strength-of-schedule game against Louisiana Monroe in the season's first contest. But that wasn't Auburn's fault. They had to schedule Louisiana Monroe after another team bailed out on them late.

You are going to decide the championship because another program flaked on a contract and Louisiana Monroe wasn't Division I? You mean to suggest that if Auburn had wiped up, say, Division I Rutgers instead, that would have somehow made it more title worthy?

Unblemished USC had a magnificent season.

But it was not one bit better than Auburn's.

That title should belong to both of them.

[aumoore 0]

very good except Auburn's div II Oponent was the Citadel not Lousiania Monroe. Monroe is a div 1 team.

[PigskinPat 2,579]

very good except Auburn's div II Oponent was the Citadel not Lousiania Monroe. Monroe is a div 1 team.

137547[/snapback]

[/quote

I caught that, too. Wished he had researched it just a little more, but the meat of the article is good.

[AuNuma1 1]

So where was the support BEFORE we got screwed out of the title game? Why are they just now writing this stuff? only because OU imploded? Day late and a dollar short...

If the Orange Bowl was a little bit more interesting than 55 to 19 or whatever, I bet you don't see this article.