Dear Dan Mullen:

[wesfau2]

I understand what you're saying, but you're trying to assert control over something that can't be controlled. "Being ranked" is an unrealistic goal.  How is "complacency" to blame for that?  Do you want to march on Poll Headquarters and demand respect? Pass a law requiring Auburn to be ranked? Complacency has nothing to do with anything.

First goal should always be to win the West.  It's the only way to win the SEC.  To that end, losses by other West teams open that path.  Damn straight I wanted MSU to score and beat LSU.  Damn straight I want Ole Miss and LSU to beat Bama.  

Second goal should be to win the SEC.  Can't do that unless you win the West.  

If you take care of those two things, anything beyond will take care of itself.  It's not something you have control over.    

This post is the correct answer.

[jadennis]

Bullpoop. bullpoop. bullpoop.

Our only goal this season should be to make it to the SEC Championship game. Win the West. That is all that matters. I don't understand why we need to look impressive. The only time you need wins that make you look good is if you are competing for a spot in the BCS Championship game. We won't be doing that this year.

If LSU had lost that game, they would likely have 2 SEC losses after playing Florida. That would set up the Iron Bowl as a potential SEC West championship game. I would take that in a heart beat.

We need to cheer all the teams in the East to lay it to the West as well as cheer for Ms. St and Arkansas to take it to bammer, LSU, and possibly Ole Miss (less so after South Carolina helped us out).

Hey, I'll take the SEC championship game anyway we can get it. But wouldn't you rather get there at 6-2 or 7-1 and beat some good teams along the way?  I don't want to back into it because we won a tie breaker with two other 5-3 teams (see LSU 2001).  I mean, I'll take it, it would be a great success for this season.  But as long as we're talking hypothetically, I want to get in because we were a very good, well deserving team that went 7-1 in the conference and beat some other quality teams.

And don't forget, you don't want the SEC to look weak.  The only reason LSU and Florida were locks for the BCS title game the last few years is because of the conference strength.  If we lose that, it could hurt us down the road.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

The ignorance of this comment is astounding.  

You're so quick to jump on anything I say, you don't pay attention sometimes.  I didn't disagree so much with winning the West first, then the SEC...etc...

It was the assertion that we should hope that the rest of the conference beats the shit out of each other.  The weaker our conference looks, especially with most of those games ahead of us, the worse our schedule looks to voters and machines.  

What was the big knock on Auburn in 2004???   We didn't do it impressively enough....supposedly.  That was the big shit on Auburn.  It didn't work then, and while we MIGHT get to the BCS game if we somehow won out, there's enough doubt about Auburn (look at our lack-O-ranking right now) that I could see us potentially getting left out in the end.  I don't want to see that happen again.

If we win impressively against other teams playing very well, and looking tough... We got a better shot.   That's all.

[jadennis]

What was the big knock on Auburn in 2004???   We didn't do it impressively enough....supposedly. 

I hear that now, and from Auburn fans, but I don't really recall hearing it much back then.

The only knock in reference to anything other than bad luck was that we had the Citadel on the schedule.  And even then, people weren't so much knocking that (everyone has cupcakes) as they were explaining why the computers weren't going to like us as much as OU or USC.

But I don't really recall anyone saying publicly that we just weren't impressive enough.  The fact was that two other teams were #1 and #2 from the beginning of the year.  They won all their games.  There was never a reason to penalize either of them by moving them down for winning.  Oklahoma wasn't #2 because they were more impressive.  They were #2 because.....they were #2....from the beginning.

OU averaged 36 points per game in 2004.  Auburn averaged 33 points per game.  OU margin of victory was 23 points.  Auburn's was 22 points. 

They beat Bowling green by 16 pts (we beat La Tech by 45). 
They beat Kansas State 31-21 (we beat Kentucky 42-10). 
They beat Oklahoma State 38-35 (we beat Tennessee 34-10). 
They beat Texas A&M 42-35 (we beat Arkansas 38-20)
They beat top 10 Texas 12-0 (we beat top 10 Georgia 24-6). 

Their wins were no more impressive than ours.  The fact is they started #2...and we didn't.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

I hear that now, and from Auburn fans, but I don't really recall hearing it much back then.

The only knock in reference to anything other than bad luck was that we had the Citadel on the schedule.  And even then, people weren't so much knocking that (everyone has cupcakes) as they were explaining why the computers weren't going to like us as much as OU or USC.

But I don't really recall anyone saying publicly that we just weren't impressive enough.  The fact was that two other teams were #1 and #2 from the beginning of the year.  They won all their games.  There was never a reason to penalize either of them by moving them down for winning.  Oklahoma wasn't #2 because they were more impressive.  They were #2 because.....they were #2....from the beginning.

OU averaged 36 points per game in 2004.  Auburn averaged 33 points per game.  OU margin of victory was 23 points.  Auburn's was 22 points. 

They beat Bowling green by 16 pts (we beat La Tech by 45). 
They beat Kansas State 31-21 (we beat Kentucky 42-10). 
They beat Oklahoma State 38-35 (we beat Tennessee 34-10). 
They beat Texas A&M 42-35 (we beat Arkansas 38-20)
They beat top 10 Texas 12-0 (we beat top 10 Georgia 24-6). 

Their wins were no more impressive than ours.  The fact is they started #2...and we didn't.

I may be wrong here, but I think I remember even Frank Beamer telling Tuberville to his face after Auburn beat VT, that he wouldn't vote Auburn #1 because we weren't impressive enough. 

...anyway, even in your analysis, it seems to come down to polls... which would actually support what both of us are saying. 

[Kaos]

Youre so right, Carl.  "Not being impressive" was never an issue. It was always the SOS, Citadel argument.

That argument is horse shit anyway because unless you're Gene Chizik at ISU you have three sure wins on the schedule. You're going to win so whether it comes against Citadel or Toledo is irrelevant. Unless that team has a realistic chance of winning -- and in 04 the patsies didn't -- there is no difference.

I hear that now, and from Auburn fans, but I don't really recall hearing it much back then.

The only knock in reference to anything other than bad luck was that we had the Citadel on the schedule.  And even then, people weren't so much knocking that (everyone has cupcakes) as they were explaining why the computers weren't going to like us as much as OU or USC.

But I don't really recall anyone saying publicly that we just weren't impressive enough.  The fact was that two other teams were #1 and #2 from the beginning of the year.  They won all their games.  There was never a reason to penalize either of them by moving them down for winning.  Oklahoma wasn't #2 because they were more impressive.  They were #2 because.....they were #2....from the beginning.

OU averaged 36 points per game in 2004.  Auburn averaged 33 points per game.  OU margin of victory was 23 points.  Auburn's was 22 points. 

They beat Bowling green by 16 pts (we beat La Tech by 45). 
They beat Kansas State 31-21 (we beat Kentucky 42-10). 
They beat Oklahoma State 38-35 (we beat Tennessee 34-10). 
They beat Texas A&M 42-35 (we beat Arkansas 38-20)
They beat top 10 Texas 12-0 (we beat top 10 Georgia 24-6). 

Their wins were no more impressive than ours.  The fact is they started #2...and we didn't.

[jadennis]

...anyway, even in your analysis, it seems to come down to polls... which would actually support what both of us are saying. 

I'm not saying it doesn't come down to the polls,  obviously it does.  I was saying that the reason we finished #3 that year was far, far more due to the fact that OU started #2 and never lost.  In order to take an undefeated Oklahoma team, and drop them down from #2 simply because another team somewhere else also went undefeated, that other team would not have to just be "impressive", they would have to have a 45 point margin of victory over 5 top ten teams.  The point is, Oklahoma was never going to be dropped down as long as they kept winning, regardless of how impressive it was.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

I'm not saying it doesn't come down to the polls,  obviously it does.  I was saying that the reason we finished #3 that year was far, far more due to the fact that OU started #2 and never lost.  In order to take an undefeated Oklahoma team, and drop them down from #2 simply because another team somewhere else also went undefeated, that other team would not have to just be "impressive", they would have to have a 45 point margin of victory over 5 top ten teams.  The point is, Oklahoma was never going to be dropped down as long as they kept winning, regardless of how impressive it was.

I think what's happening here isn't so much a disagreement, rather that my original statement way earlier in the thread was in reference to a current situation and what I'd want to see.

You're talking about 2004, and using it to explain your position...

I actually don't disagree with you, or Kaos about 2004 (yes, I still believe that the fashion we won a few games came into account..BUT...that's just my opinion).

So...I'm down with what you're saying about 2004.  Agreed.  However, I STILL believe that how you win games and dominate your schedule will always play a role.  Okay, unless #1 and #2 don't lose at all...  Which I don't think will be the case this year.