Is Auburn overrated?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by GAC

Alabama should have won the game..... but they didn't. For Auburn to be down 24 -0 in Alabama, and to come back and win like they did shows their mettle. They've trailed in 8 of their 12 games this year, yet are undefeated. IMO, that says something about this team. And lets also not forget the level of the competition they have faced this year too.

The beat S.Carolina earlier in the year in a good game when at one point they were down by 13. So if they can beat the Gamecocks next week in the SEC championship game, then IMO, they deserve to be in NC game vs Oregon.

Who is more deserving?

I think it would be a good game. High scoring, but a good game.

Why should they have to beat SC twice to earn a trip? Oregon doesn't have that burden? I'd say they've already earned their trip and if SC upsets them in Atlanta then Auburn got screwed by the system.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Why should they have to beat SC twice to earn a trip? Oregon doesn't have that burden? I'd say they've already earned their trip and if SC upsets them in Atlanta then Auburn got screwed by the system.

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

But the SEC (and other leagues later, including the one my school is in) chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

The logic was lame then and it's lame now. The SEC chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.

Money-wise having a championship game is the way to go but it does bring with it a burden for a top ranked team. In 2001 Tennessee went into it as the #2 team in the land and a shot to go to the Rose Bowl. They'd already beaten LSU earlier in the year. But LSU got 'em in the championship game.

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

In the Big Ten, not only is there no championship game, they don't even have to play the other top contenders. Thus they're left with things like a 3 way tie where the teams hadn't even played each other on the field.

I think Auburn will handle SC but it's an extra burden that some others don't have, such as their likely opponent, Oregon.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Money-wise having a championship game is the way to go but it does bring with it a burden for a top ranked team. In 2001 Tennessee went into it as the #2 team in the land and a shot to go to the Rose Bowl. They'd already beaten LSU earlier in the year. But LSU got 'em in the championship game.

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

In the Big Ten, not only is there no championship game, they don't even have to play the other top contenders. Thus they're left with things like a 3 way tie where the teams hadn't even played each other on the field.

I think Auburn will handle SC but it's an extra burden that some others don't have, such as their likely opponent, Oregon.

Like IslandRed said, the SEC willingly chose to go this way. Making it hard to get to the NC game is a by-product of this and is self-imposed. The SEC made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for this extra burden.

In general, I'm not a fan of conference championship games.

[MWM]

The SEC crowd were also leading the chorus against Michigan in 2006 because "they didn't even win their conference." The consensus was that a team should have to win their conference to play in the title game.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by MWM

The SEC crowd were also leading the chorus against Michigan in 2006 because "they didn't even win their conference." The consensus was that a team should have to win their conference to play in the title game.

I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. Do you?

[RBA]

How about this scenario: The Florida Gators are ranked 5th in the BCS. Auburn is ranked 2nd. Now Florida has a real small chance of making the BCS title game if there was no SEC title game. But since there is, Florida plays Auburn and if Florida wins gives them an advantage over other conference teams that don't have conference championships. Florida leaps over teams 3 and 4 to the BCS title game. Stanford and Ohio State (teams 3 and 4) are at a disadvantage. (hypothetical)

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Like IslandRed said, the SEC willingly chose to go this way. Making it hard to get to the NC game is a by-product of this and is self-imposed. The SEC made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for this extra burden.

They did and I think it was a good move. The Big Ten will have one after Nebraska joins and IMO it'll be an improvement over what they have now.

The SEC was fully aware the burden that comes with such a move and so am I.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RBA

How about this scenario: The Florida Gators are ranked 5th in the BCS. Auburn is ranked 2nd. Now Florida has a real small chance of making the BCS title game if there was no SEC title game. But since there is, Florida plays Auburn and if Florida wins gives them an advantage over other conference teams that don't have conference championships. Florida leaps over teams 3 and 4 to the BCS title game. Stanford and Ohio State (teams 3 and 4) are at a disadvantage. (hypothetical)

That scenario would represent a possible plus to having a championship game. More often than not the risk is worse than the benefit but your scenario does show a positive side

[kaldaniels]

As long as you have the current setup where conference teams play 3 OOC games (usually 2 are against creampuffs) and the rest of the games vs their conference, someone is always gonna get screwed to put it kindly. There is no accurate way to determine the relative strength of both conferences and teams....there are simply not enough inter-conference games to do that. Computers do the best they can with the data, but there is just not enough of it.

[RiverRat13]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

But the SEC (and other leagues later, including the one my school is in) chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

Nothing wrong with your basic point, as long as you're not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to do anything about it.

But many people (not necessarily you), inside the game and out, have suggested in the past the burden faced by SEC and Big 12 teams was unfair, and their proposed remedy was to require BCS conferences to have a championship game. Before ACC expansion earlier this decade, one coach even suggested forcing the ACC and Big East champions to have a "championship game" with only the winner getting an automatic bid.

Or, as I believed you were inferring when you wrote "Why should they have to beat SC twice... they've already earned their trip...", that the BCS rankings be adjusted to discount conference champion game losses -- in other words, getting the money and the bump from a win, but ducking the fallout from a loss. That's another one I've often heard. If that's not your position, my apologies.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. Do you?

My point was that you're suggesting Auburn should automatically make the title game even if they lose to SCU. If that happens, they wouldn't have won their conference and that was the resounding chorus coming from the SEC contingent in 2006.

If Auburn loses to SCU, then they'd basically have the same resume as Wisconsin, Stanford, or Ohio State. They'd be equally deserving as those teams, IMO. No more, no less.

Ironically, Auburn is perhaps the school more screwed than anyone else since the advent of the BCS. They went undefeated in the SEC in 2004 and were on the outside looking in. If you search the archives you'll see that I was very vocal about how royally screwed they were because they just went undefeated in the toughest conference in the country. You had 3 teams *equally* deserving and only 2 spots. There's nothing more annoying, IMO, than the exercise of trying to compare the resumes of undefeated teams or 1 loss teams and try to determine who's more "deserving." It's 100% speculation and it's going to be based on personal opinion as opposed to objective data. If 3 teams go undefeated in major conferences, they all deserve to play for the national championship. The whole once conference is better so that team is more deserving is nonsense, IMO. No one really knows until they play it on the field.

But, if Auburn somehow loses to SCU in the SEC title game, my personal opinion is that TCU should play for the national title. Hell, I think they could beat either Oregon or Auburn and I'd love to see them get the chance.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Nothing wrong with your basic point, as long as you're not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to do anything about it.

But many people (not necessarily you), inside the game and out, have suggested in the past the burden faced by SEC and Big 12 teams was unfair, and their proposed remedy was to require BCS conferences to have a championship game. Before ACC expansion earlier this decade, one coach even suggested forcing the ACC and Big East champions to have a "championship game" with only the winner getting an automatic bid.

Or, as I believed you were inferring when you wrote "Why should they have to beat SC twice... they've already earned their trip...", that the BCS rankings be adjusted to discount conference champion game losses -- in other words, getting the money and the bump from a win, but ducking the fallout from a loss. That's another one I've often heard. If that's not your position, my apologies.

A lot of assumptions there on your part. I will be very clear:

-I do not think the BCS should force any conference to have championship games

-I do not think that these games can be discounted by the BCS

-I do not think anyone has any obligation to do anything about it

It is what it is.

What I am saying is that an SEC winner must achieve more to earn a spot than some other teams such as a PAC 10 or a Big 10 team and that fact makes it all the more impressive that we've had three straight SEC national champs

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by MWM

My point was that you're suggesting Auburn should automatically make the title game even if they lose to SCU. If that happens, they wouldn't have won their conference and that was the resounding chorus coming from the SEC contingent in 2006.

I am suggesting nothing of the type. I'm merely saying that an SEC team has to work harder in order to earn a trip to the NC game than many others. I am not suggesting that Tennessee should have gotten to go to the Rose Bowl in 2001 when they lost in the SEC championship game. I'm saying that they paid a price for being in the SEC that year