Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on August 17, 2010, 11:47:30 AM
-
From CFN. I know we are all prejudiced, but I found this interesting, especially Herbstreit's comments (2004 is still a sore spot in my heart.)
Once again, we're extremely proud to get the thoughts from some of the top voices in the college football world in our annual State of the Game piece. Along with three CFN writers, check out the opinions on the key topics going into the 2010 season from legendary play-by-play man, Verne Lundquist, ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit, Ivan Maisel, Joe Schad, and Bruce Feldman, Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com, and the Chicago Tribune's Teddy Greenstein.
2. The SEC champion has one acceptable loss (say, at Florida), and two champions from other BCS leagues finish unbeaten. Assuming the strength of schedules are relatively even, will you be okay if the SEC champion isn’t playing in the BCS Championship?
Pete Fiutak, CFN : Not even a little bit. If Alabama loses to Florida but runs the rest of the slate, and Ohio State and Texas go unbeaten and end up playing each other in Glendale, I’ll still have a hard time believing the best team in America isn’t playing in the Sugar Bowl (assuming Bama would win the bowl in a walk). While I believe the SEC is a bit overrated and the success by others (like the Big Ten in the Florida New Year’s Day bowls) doesn’t get played up enough, the killers on top of the conference have more than earned the benefit of ten doubts after the last four national title games. It’s an unfortunate reality in our BCS world that there isn’t a playoff with the six BCS conference winners involved. The worst part about it is that Ohio State, or Texas, or Boise State, or Duke could go 12-0, be the best team in America, and blow through the schedule and win the BCS Championship in a breeze, but there will always be a, “yeah, but …,” if the one-loss SEC Champion isn’t involved in the mix.
Richard Cirminiello, CFN : Absolutely. The key here is strength of schedule. Assuming they are similar, you’ve got to give the nod to the unbeaten team, even if we’re talking about the Big East or ACC champion. It’s only when we’re talking about a noticeable gap in scheduling that a team with a perfect record should be jumped in the rankings by a one-loss contender.
Matt Zemek, CFN: If the strength of schedule is even, the non-SEC teams should be playing for the BCS title. A 1-loss SEC team should only play for the title if there are no unbeaten teams with appreciably strong bodies of work. The college football community should not cede so much ground to the SEC before a season and its attendant debates even begin.
Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com: Weeeell, that's a bit superficial don't you think? Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia). In your scenario, then, (a loss to Florida), the only team you're talking about is Alabama. If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game. You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games.
Bruce Feldman, ESPN.com: It's tricky to deal with hypotheticals at this point, but I'll say Yeah, I think so. If it's, say, OU and Wisconsin, those two still would've had to most likely overcome some top 15 teams to get through unscathed.
Teddy Greenstein, Chicago Tribune: As coaches love to say, I don't answer hypotheticals. To me it would depend on the strength of the other leagues and whether the SEC team has a big-time non-conference victory.
Kirk Herbstreit, ESPN : You can't assume that a champion from another conference would have an even strength of schedule. There's not another conference that comes close to the week to week grind of the SEC. Therefore, I would definitely NOT be okay with the SEC champion being left out of the National Title under your scenario.
Verne Lundquist, CBS : Yes, I'm okay with a one loss SEC champion losing a spot in the BCS title game to two unbeaten conference champions from other BCS conferences, or an unbeaten champion from the Mountain West or Boise State, for that matter. I believe sustained excellence should be rewarded. An undefeated season is representational. And, yes, I'm quite familiar with how difficult it is to go unbeaten in the SEC, but a hiccup is a hiccup.
Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com: Sure. The two best teams should play, whoever they are and wherever they lay their head.
Joe Schad, ESPN : It depends which BCS leagues boast the undefeated teams. If a team in the Big 12, Pac-10 or Big Ten goes undefeated, I can't envision a one-loss SEC team making the national title game ahead of that team. But if an undefeated ACC or Big East team were deemed weaker than a one-loss SEC team I could see the SEC team getting in, particularly ahead of an ACC team that does not have the clout and tradition of a Florida State or Miami or really any Big East school, particularly if devoid of the tradition of a Pittsburgh or West Virginia. Which leads me to wonder: is it fair that tradition and clout become factors in considering which undefeated programs or conferences could be bypassed without much fanfare or bickering? Fair or not, it would be naive to believe those factors are not considered (even if just in a subliminal manner) - not by computers, of course, but by coach and Harris Poll voters.
-
Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com: Weeeell, that's a bit superficial don't you think? Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia). In your scenario, then, (a loss to Florida), the only team you're talking about is Alabama. If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game. You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games.
When, where? Is the Big ten only playing Big 10 teams. Bullshit.
Texas and homa are that conference. Tough conference my ass.
-
Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com: Weeeell, that's a bit superficial don't you think? Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia). In your scenario, then, (a loss to Florida), the only team you're talking about is Alabama. If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game. You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games.
When, where? Is the Big ten only playing Big 10 teams. Bullshit.
Texas and homa are that conference. Tough conference my ass.
All of that made no sense.
Herbstreit and Fiutak are the only ones that made any sense amongst that babble. I was thinking exactly what Herbie said about the premise of the question before I read his response.
Funny that he was the champion of the opposite opinion to what he conveyed here, which ultimately had a lot to do with us getting left out of the MNC game in 04.
-
All of that made no sense.
Herbstreit and Fiutak are the only ones that made any sense amongst that babble. I was thinking exactly what Herbie said about the premise of the question before I read his response.
Funny that he was the champion of the opposite opinion to what he conveyed here, which ultimately had a lot to do with us getting left out of the MNC game in 04.
I agree...although I thought Greenstein's answer was the most honest and probably what I would have said.
-
All of that made no sense.
Herbstreit and Fiutak are the only ones that made any sense amongst that babble. I was thinking exactly what Herbie said about the premise of the question before I read his response.
Funny that he was the champion of the opposite opinion to what he conveyed here, which ultimately had a lot to do with us getting left out of the MNC game in 04.
Actually if you remember correctly Herbie was backing us until the night after the SEC championship. That when his masters called and told him who he better be backing.
-
Actually if you remember correctly Herbie was backing us until the night after the SEC championship. That when his masters called and told him who he better be backing.
He suggested that "IF we could beat Georgia & Alabama", and then "IF we could beat Alabama", and then "IF we could win the SEC Championship", and then..."Nevermind all that stuff I said." "USC & Oklahoma it is."
-
A few points. First off, the notion that the SEC is not really that strong after the top couple of teams (UA & UF) is total BS. It's that way EVERY freakin' year. Not that the rest of the league isn't that strong, it's just that this league is always going to boast a couple of legitimate contenders every single year and then a bunch of really good teams. One of the big differences in this league and the rest of the college football world is that there are always going to be 8-9 teams who can beat anybody, anywhere on any given Saturday. There will only be a couple of teams, usually Vandy and MSU who truly are bottom dwellers. As a result, the SEC will consistently have more top 25 rated teams than all others.
I don't see this year being any different. Someone will be in contention for the MNC and we'll always have 5-7 teams ranked and kicking ass.
-
He suggested that "IF we could beat Georgia & Alabama", and then "IF we could beat Alabama", and then "IF we could win the SEC Championship", and then..."Nevermind all that stuff I said." "USC & Oklahoma it is."
This
-
This
and that.
Serioulsy, that's spot on with the way it went down. Week after week, it was "If they beat..." "Well, if they beat..." "Yeah, but if they beat..."
And one of the sad parts was every poll that measured strength of schedule had AU well ahead of either USC or Okeehomo.
-
and that.
Serioulsy, that's spot on with the way it went down. Week after week, it was "If they beat..." "Well, if they beat..." "Yeah, but if they beat..."
And one of the sad parts was every poll that measured strength of schedule had AU well ahead of either USC or Okeehomo.
The biggest "if" was UGA. That game was hyped up BIG TIME. And the 24-6 score was no where indicative of the way Auburn dominated that game. We could have won that ballgame by 40, but TT did his patented "take my foot off the gas in the second half" bullshit. I honestly think if Auburn would have beat the fuck out of everyone like we could have, we would have been playing in the BCS title game...
-
The biggest "if" was UGA. That game was hyped up BIG TIME. And the 24-6 score was no where indicative of the way Auburn dominated that game. We could have won that ballgame by 40, but TT did his patented "take my foot off the gas in the second half" bullshit. I honestly think if Auburn would have beat the fuck out of everyone like we could have, we would have been playing in the BCS title game...
And Reggie Brown got knocked the FUCK out.