AP poll released

[merkuree 0]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/foot...l.ap/index.html

[Aubie16 1]

Well...we started 17th in 2004. Maybe its a good sign.

I still can't believe we are being THIS overlooked though.

[Tigerguy 1]

WHEN we beat the gators and the corndogs, we'll be in the top 10. Right now, nothing that's here is anything but a guess.

[eibua12 81]

ESPN (no clue who) just said we are underrated and should be in the top 10. He also stated we would win the SEC.

SportsCenter I have idea who the guy was and only caught the last minute of his review.

They are reviewing the AP Poll

[Guest BoStillKnows]

The guy's name is Joe Schad. He also said Rutgers, Ohio State, FSU, and Florida are overrated.

He gave the AU defense and Bradon Cox kudos. His counterpart credited Auburn for being a consistent winner along with Nebraska and FSU.

They actually sound pretty logical. Who kidnapped the upper managemant at ESPN?

[TigerOne 1,477]

The guy's name is Joe Schad. He also said Rutgers, Ohio State, FSU, and Florida are overrated.

He gave the AU defense and Bradon Cox kudos. His counterpart credited Auburn for being a consistent winner along with Ohio State and FSU.

They actually sound pretty logical. Who kidnapped the upper managemant at ESPN?

they are just saying that to dig at saban

[aucanucktiger 1,989]

"Well...we started 17th in 2004. Maybe its a good sign".

And that worked out well for us, didn't it.

I'll buy the "we don't want to start in the top 5" line of reasoning but this ranking is absolutely rediculous...to the point i don''t what to attribute it to. Either they're ignoring our 5th year QB (maybe they think Cox wasn't hurt when he sucked against UGA last year?), they haven't looked @ our defense, or their warm vodka spilled all over their stat sheets w/ our recent SEC & overall records while "reloading". To just PLAY in the MNC game now we'll need to win all our games and everybody except one team must lose @ least 1 game...late in the year. Likely, very likely.

[WaREaGLe316 0]

Lets hope so

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/...94&n8pe6c=2

[AuburnChopper1 0]

We're number 14 in the poll that matters. Don't go gloom and doom about 17. The AP doesn't mean squat in the end.

[AUChizad 0]

"Well...we started 17th in 2004. Maybe its a good sign".

And that worked out well for us, didn't it.

My sentiments exactly.

[AuburnChopper1 0]

"Well...we started 17th in 2004. Maybe its a good sign".

And that worked out well for us, didn't it.

My sentiments exactly.

The AP mattered back then.

It doesn't now.

We're 14 where it counts. There's a long season ahead that hasn't even started yet. Geeez....

[Earthcat 4]

Hey, all we got to do is win all our pushover road games and....(what are we on the second index finger or the the first big toe)win the Iron Bowl. Then we sould be rated #3 and have no chance of facing #1 for the championship.

Man, am I becoming jaded.

[CircleDrill 180]

If you guys are already complaining, wait until the annual "SEC needs to play tougher OOC opponents" talk starts up and everybody in the media jumps on that bandwagon.

There are 6 teams in the Top 25 on the AP and 6 on the USA Today.

How many PAC-10 teams are on there?

Check out this #1 ranked schedule:

USC Trojans

09/01/07 vs. Idaho

09/15/07 at Nebraska

09/22/07 vs. Washington State

09/29/07 at Washington

10/06/07 vs. Stanford

10/13/07 vs. Arizona

10/20/07 at Notre Dame

10/27/07 at Oregon

11/03/07 vs. Oregon State

11/10/07 at Cal

11/22/07 at Arizona State

12/01/07 vs. UCLA

Think they may go undefeated? With no conference championship game? To a BCS Bowl?

I am sorry, but there is not an LSU-type game or a Florida-type game on that schedule. PERIOD. I don't care WHO their out of conference games are. This "SEC needs to play tougher OOC opponents is just pure BS.

[PChamp119 96]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

[AWK 0]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

Matters as pertaining to BCS Bowls, where everyone likes to go. Last time I checked their isnt a Golden Rule AP National Championship Bowl Series...

[PChamp119 96]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

Matters as pertaining to BCS Bowls, where everyone likes to go. Last time I checked their isnt a Golden Rule AP National Championship Bowl Series...

I thought I noted that in my response.

It doesn't affect the BCS, but it still has a champion that can differ from the MNC that the nation will respect

[townhallsavoy 2]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

USC and its clan of Trojan-thirsty sports writers are the only ones who give USC credit for that title. Granted, it was a total screw job but USC has nothing real to show for the 2003 national championship because they did not win or compete for the official national championship given by the BCS, which every major conference is committed to.

[PChamp119 96]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

USC and its clan of Trojan-thirsty sports writers are the only ones who give USC credit for that title. Granted, it was a total screw job but USC has nothing real to show for the 2003 national championship because they did not win or compete for the official national championship given by the BCS, which every major conference is committed to.

I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that I feel USC never earned that title. LSU was the best team by far in 2003. LSU earned their title.

But who here ACTUALLY believes that "only USC and its clan of Trojan-thirsty sports writers are the only ones who give USC credit for that title." I guess if ESPN, the Associated Press, the NCAA, and basically everyone in all of sports is considered a "Trojan-thirsty sports writer" then I would say I would agree. Because face it or not - ANY (as in ANY credible source other than a bill board or a local Alabama/Louisiana newspaper) sports writer/broadcast/association classifies USC as a champion. Basically every sports article / news clip referring to USC refers to them as the 2003 and 2004 champs.

It sucks, but don't hide from the truth.

[Tigermike 4,084]

Will Oklahoma be a top ten team without Adrian?

Louisville? Without Petrino? I am not so sure about that.

Does anyone really expect Rutgers to improve or duplicate their 11-2 record of last year?

[townhallsavoy 2]

The AP poll doesn't matter? Since when... just because it is not in the BCS, doesn't mean it's "Champion" doesn't receive credibility. Just ask USC

USC and its clan of Trojan-thirsty sports writers are the only ones who give USC credit for that title. Granted, it was a total screw job but USC has nothing real to show for the 2003 national championship because they did not win or compete for the official national championship given by the BCS, which every major conference is committed to.

I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that I feel USC never earned that title. LSU was the best team by far in 2003. LSU earned their title.

But who here ACTUALLY believes that "only USC and its clan of Trojan-thirsty sports writers are the only ones who give USC credit for that title." I guess if ESPN, the Associated Press, the NCAA, and basically everyone in all of sports is considered a "Trojan-thirsty sports writer" then I would say I would agree. Because face it or not - ANY (as in ANY credible source other than a bill board or a local Alabama/Louisiana newspaper) sports writer/broadcast/association classifies USC as a champion. Basically every sports article / news clip referring to USC refers to them as the 2003 and 2004 champs.

It sucks, but don't hide from the truth.

You missed it.

"Basically every sports article / news clip referring to USC refers to them as the 2003 and 2004 champs." That would be the Trojan-thirsty sports writers, reporters, analysts, Mark May, and anyone else who can tell you the exact dimensions of Pete Carroll's penis.

Just because the media tells you something, doesn't mean that it's the voice of everybody (or even a small amount of people.) Do all liberals agree with Michael Moore? Do all conservatives agree with Rush Limbaugh?

The AP poll is irrelevant because we are in the BCS era. The AP poll has as much merit as an AUNation.net poll. If all the sports writers, reporters, billboards, Lee Corsos, and Pete Carroll's manicurists credited USC in the AUNation.net poll as the national champion, would you say that the AUNation.net poll has credibility?

No offense, board members but you get my point.

[PChamp119 96]

I realize the people on this board don't like me much, but I think even they will admit that the AP champion does have significant merit. Especially compared to the AUNation Poll.

Let me ask you this. Why is it in EVERY sports magazine/article I have ever read - even in the state of Alabama, they refer to USC as champs in 2003 and none refer to Auburn the 2004? That is because the AP has significant credibility (which the NCAA recognizes) and the Eufala Tribune has zero. They talk about how the SEC has X amount of national champion coaches (I don't hear Tuberville in that), and they at the same time mention USC's back-to-back.

You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one. It's like saying "We never landed on the moon" or as silly as Auburn's mascot is an eagle. We may not like it - but the country does see USC as the 2003 National Champs. Maybe you don't. But the amount of people in this country that don't see USC as the 2003 champs are about as many as those that see Auburn as the 2004 champs.

[AuburnChopper1 0]

I realize the people on this board don't like me much, but I think even they will admit that the AP champion does have significant merit. Especially compared to the AUNation Poll.

Let me ask you this. Why is it in EVERY sports magazine/article I have ever read - even in the state of Alabama, they refer to USC as champs in 2003 and none refer to Auburn the 2004? That is because the AP has significant credibility (which the NCAA recognizes) and the Eufala Tribune has zero. They talk about how the SEC has X amount of national champion coaches (I don't hear Tuberville in that), and they at the same time mention USC's back-to-back.

You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one. It's like saying "We never landed on the moon" or as silly as Auburn's mascot is an eagle. We may not like it - but the country does see USC as the 2003 National Champs. Maybe you don't. But the amount of people in this country that don't see USC as the 2003 champs are about as many as those that see Auburn as the 2004 champs.

This was a tough post to read. Kinda sparatic...

Look, the reason that I said that the AP poll "didn't matter", was because most of the people were referencing 2004 as you have. If the AP ranks us at the end of 2007 (2008 Champs), then great, but it doesn't mean dookie when it comes to the BCS championship.

Yes, if the AP Championship is our goal, then fine, but referencing 2004 is moot. It doesn't matter. It's silly. There is NO comparison for this year. If we get left out again this year, it would be because of something COMPLETELY outside the AP polls.

So...I say again. The AP poll doesn't matter.... ....that's just my opinion.

[AUloggerhead 2,868]

I realize the people on this board don't like me much, but I think even they will admit that the AP champion does have significant merit. Especially compared to the AUNation Poll.

Whether anyone here likes you or not is irrelevent to the discussion (they don't, just in case you were wondering.) You won't get me to admit the AP champion has significant merit. It's just the collective opinion of a select group of sportswriters. Why should I or anyone else for that matter attach any significane or "merit" to their opinions? I know just as much about football as them, and I can watch the same games they do and read the box scores every week just like they do. The only difference between them & me is that their opinions are published every week. I've been distrustful of ALL polls ever since the debacle in the '83 season, when #5 Miami jumped #3 AU.

Let me ask you this. Why is it in EVERY sports magazine/article I have ever read - even in the state of Alabama, they refer to USC as champs in 2003 and none refer to Auburn the 2004? That is because the AP has significant credibility (which the NCAA recognizes) and the Eufala Tribune has zero. They talk about how the SEC has X amount of national champion coaches (I don't hear Tuberville in that), and they at the same time mention USC's back-to-back.

Again, you are being nothing less than a sheep if you cannot learn to think for yourself. The NCAA does not sanction an official Div 1-A football championship. Therefore, all "named" Div 1-A football champions are just that -- named. You can call yourself champion any year in which you choose. The bammies are famous for doing so.

You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one. It's like saying "We never landed on the moon" or as silly as Auburn's mascot is an eagle. We may not like it - but the country does see USC as the 2003 National Champs. Maybe you don't. But the amount of people in this country that don't see USC as the 2003 champs are about as many as those that see Auburn as the 2004 champs.

Until we get a true playoff to determine a true champion, any team can call themselves champion. Polls are biased, and the BCS is fatally flawed. I will recognize the yearly Mythical National Champions named by the BCS and the AP poll for what they truly are -- mythical.

[townhallsavoy 2]

I realize the people on this board don't like me much, but I think even they will admit that the AP champion does have significant merit. Especially compared to the AUNation Poll.

Let me ask you this. Why is it in EVERY sports magazine/article I have ever read - even in the state of Alabama, they refer to USC as champs in 2003 and none refer to Auburn the 2004? That is because the AP has significant credibility (which the NCAA recognizes) and the Eufala Tribune has zero. They talk about how the SEC has X amount of national champion coaches (I don't hear Tuberville in that), and they at the same time mention USC's back-to-back.

You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one. It's like saying "We never landed on the moon" or as silly as Auburn's mascot is an eagle. We may not like it - but the country does see USC as the 2003 National Champs. Maybe you don't. But the amount of people in this country that don't see USC as the 2003 champs are about as many as those that see Auburn as the 2004 champs.

Why is it that you care about EVERY sports magazine article? They're just opinions...USC was number 1 based on a subjective vote by guys who don't play football.

And I'm one on this board who doesn't think USC was the 2003 national champs.

PC, I can't figure it out but somehow, you manage to take the most backwards ass stance on every subject. I guess to each their own.

And if you're so certain that everyone on this board along with the entire country sees USC as the 2003 National Champs, prove it. Until then, I'll accept my own contradiction to your statement, "You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one," to suffice as reason not to believe you.

[PChamp119 96]

I realize the people on this board don't like me much, but I think even they will admit that the AP champion does have significant merit. Especially compared to the AUNation Poll.

Let me ask you this. Why is it in EVERY sports magazine/article I have ever read - even in the state of Alabama, they refer to USC as champs in 2003 and none refer to Auburn the 2004? That is because the AP has significant credibility (which the NCAA recognizes) and the Eufala Tribune has zero. They talk about how the SEC has X amount of national champion coaches (I don't hear Tuberville in that), and they at the same time mention USC's back-to-back.

You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one. It's like saying "We never landed on the moon" or as silly as Auburn's mascot is an eagle. We may not like it - but the country does see USC as the 2003 National Champs. Maybe you don't. But the amount of people in this country that don't see USC as the 2003 champs are about as many as those that see Auburn as the 2004 champs.

Why is it that you care about EVERY sports magazine article? They're just opinions...USC was number 1 based on a subjective vote by guys who don't play football.

And I'm one on this board who doesn't think USC was the 2003 national champs.

PC, I can't figure it out but somehow, you manage to take the most backwards ass stance on every subject. I guess to each their own.

And if you're so certain that everyone on this board along with the entire country sees USC as the 2003 National Champs, prove it. Until then, I'll accept my own contradiction to your statement, "You won't even find people on this board that agree with you over me on this one," to suffice as reason not to believe you.

I don't care if you think USC were the 2003 National Champs. That's not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is what the "Nation" or the "Media" thinks.

The media as an entirety thinks of USC as one of the two champions in 2003.

The NCAA recognizes USC as one of the two champions in 2003. I don't want to hear the "The NCAA doesn't have a playoff so it doesn't have a champion." They still see a champion. It may not be an "NCAA Championship" but the NCAA still recognizes USC as champions. And if you don't believe it, Check out the NCAA Website. Now if the NCAA didn't see these titles as legit, why would they put it on their website? To humor? Whether you want to buy into the NCAA reasoning or not, they and the media and the average joe will recognize USC as a 2003 champ.

I don't know what other proof you would want. Read any article regarding preseason USC as #1 or the 2003 season and who the champion is. It will have USC mentioned in it. Again - if you honestly don't see that the nation/media in general look at USC as the 2003 NC's, you need a reality check. That's like saying "Auburn can only beat Alabama when they are down."