I dont believe Auburn played well enough to deserve a split title. What do you all think?

I think the AP should give it to them to further the BCS turmoil.

But based on how they played tonight against VT not even a top 5 team? I wish they would have played one of the smaller school such as Boise State or Louisville. They prob would have been beat badly.

Sugar had two conference champs. Would have been more interesting if undefeated Utah were the other conference champ.

It was a strange game, especially when Auburn could not seem to punch it into the endzone thrree times, especially with their power offense?

Would have been interesting to see how the Utah defense handled Auburn, and the Auburn defense handled the Utah multiple options.

We'll never know.

Based on this performance, no one will be voting Auburn No. 1. They really needed to dominate VT to have AP writers vote them no. 1.

8-)

Don't say that until we see the Orange Bowl tonight. There could be 10 fumbles, 3 interceptions, in a 6-0 game.

bisonfan is right ::) in that we need to reserve final judgement till the Orange Bowl is over.

That being said, I would likely not vote Auburn #1 for multiple reasons, incluing the fact that I don't think they're the best team going. Further:

1) While the SEC is routinely the best conference going, I've had more than an ear-full of how ANY SEC team that goes undefeated should be granted spot #1 in any national title game. Very presumptious, if you ask me, and they haven't been subtle about it either. (Kudos to Coach Tuberville, however, for not only having a great season but also being very well spoken regarding the BCS matters.) If Auburn gets the nod for being undefeated, than so should Utah. Period.

2) Giving Auburn the AP vote would only make this year slightly more notorious than if they didn't, after all we could all point to the season and say "Hey, three teams finished undefeated. Erego, the BCS failed in one respect, split title or not." Plus as a writer I'd feel more foolish for voting them #3 at the end of the season but then leapfrogging them over an undefeated team that was #1 or #2. The AP would only be reducing itself to pure politics if they did a bold 180. (If the votes were really that close, I could buy it, otherwise...)

3) Is anyone else finding the irony (hypocrisy?) of the BCS title coming from the coaches vote rather funny? It's their puppy that's tied to this wagon and yet so many of them are wishing it weren't so. At least, until they cash their checks which are all slightly bigger because of the extra marketing involved. So, here's the consolation Auburn fans: Your team made roughly $4 mil in profit, probably half of which is due to the BCS system that placed you in third. Without that system, in the old bowl world, you'd be in the same spot with less money and possibly in a less attractive match-up. Btw, the bar's still open.

It's a tough call:

Auburn played a weak OOC schedule which included LA Tech, LA-Monroe and Citadel.

That said, Auburn beat more top 10 teams than either USC or Oklahoma.

Last night, Auburn beat VA Tech 16-13, but they controlled the entire game. Those who just look at the score or watched the last 15 minutes might not have seen that.

As for their opponent, VA tech...VA tech lost only 1 other game this season...a week 1 loss to USC at a nuetral sight. VA tech was the ACC champ, a conference with top 18 Miami, UVA and FSU.



While the Auburn schedule seems to have kept them out and the fact that the #1 and #2 teams never changed this year so they were always behind, they did beat more top 10 teams than either. With no playoff format, I do think they deserve a peice of the title. But so does Utah for their dominance this year which included 4 OOC games against BCS conference teams and a poundign of BCS Pitt in the Fiesta.

The way I see it though, if USC wins tonight, they should get it outright (they were champs last year and wouldn't have lost this year).

But if Oklahoma squeeks out a win tonight, I say split it with Auburn.

Tough call. No playoff = no fair solution.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Moved to BCS Banter Forum: 1/4/2004

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Even if USC wins convincingly, split it with Auburn to mess up the BCS.

As an AP voter, I would be tempted to give Auburn the benefit of a doubt.

Any doubts now?

Auburn is a great team. Utah is a great team. Neither of them, IMO would've beaten USC last night.

Both the Tigers and Utes won their bowl games against lesser opponents but they made their own mistakes along the way. Auburn did control the Sugar Bowl, but it was hardly dominating in my eyes: VT missed a field goal and dropped a sure TD early that could've changed the direction of the game.

The more I think about it I don't like the idea of "Vote Auburn to screw with the BCS." That inadvertanly rewards Auburn and punishes USC for a purely political ideal. If you feel that way why does it have to be Auburn? Why not Utah. Hell, for that matter why not Pitt? As I said before, it would seem very callous to vote USC all year as the best and then punish them for flooring Oklahoma.

Another popular argument: Would USC have gone undefeated in the SEC? Probably not. Then again, neither would Oklahoma, IMO, and who knows how Auburn would've faired in a trip to Cal or the desert. Neither scenario is what we'd be asked to consider, anyway. Voting #1 is essentially like saying this team on a neutral field would most likely beat all comers. I think I saw that team last night.

Quinn's on the mark about Tech & Auburn's control of the game. Tech has a great defense, had a great season, Auburn controlled the game. Tech was very underrated.

But after all is said & done, way too much emphasis is placed on the results of bowl games. Remeber all the discussions over the years about whether a 2-week layoff was too much before the Super Bowl? Whether it threw players off their game? Whether it resulted in blow-outs? And these guys are pros!

We're talking about college kids who haven't played for a month! Oklahoma was clearly off their game last night. Mental errors alone shoed that. Add the pressure of getting so far behind in the first quarter alone. Well . . .

Who "deserves" a title or split title? No one. Championships are earned - not awarded. This isn't politics. When you end the season with 3 undefeated teams, clearly no one has established itself as the national champion. We are left with conference champions & a few who have earned bragging rights over others.

My own views on everything afterwards, rating only the eight bowl teams.

Can't argue at all with USC at No. 1. One of the most impressive and dominant teams in recent memory.

Weakest teams were Pitt, Michigan, Texas, in that order (weakest to strongest, 8, 7, 6. Altogether a pretty sorry lot to be playing in these bowls) Big XII comes across again as a very overrated conference. Why do the pundits insist on giving Oklahoma and Texas a pass every year.

As to the middle tier, would probably do Auburn No. 2, Utah No. 3, Oklahoma No. 4, VT no. 5.

Remember How Utah pasted A&M, and then everyone later on had trouble with A&M, including Texas and Oklahoma. Course VT did not peak early either.

Most underrated conference was ACC.

Just my $.02 worth as always, lol,

and ps that does not take away from the excitement of the Michigan/Texas game with two evenly matched mediocre teams with a lot of tradition and INDIVIDUAL talent. If Michigan could have tackled the quarterback just one time, it would have won, but both the coach and players had attitude and motivational problems all year. Michigan could have been a great team with better coaching and play calling, less attention to the prima donas, and some focus.

8-)

IMO too much is made of performance in bowl games. Remember the debates about whether 2 weeks was too long a lay-over before the Super Bowl? Was it resulting in blow-outs? Were players able to stay sharp? And we're talking about guys who are pros.

In the bowls we're talking about the performance of college kids who haven't played in a month! Oklahoma was clearly off their game last night. Mental errors alone showed that. USC deserves credit for coming out as strong as they did, but I don't think that this rout demonstrated the true difference between these 2 teams.

Doe anyone "deserve" the national championship this year? Not in my opinion. Championships are earned, not awarded. This is not politics. Winning an election doesn't make you a champion. When there are 3 undefeated teams left standing, no one has set themselves apart from the rest. What we have is many conference champions & a smaller number who have claimed brqgging rights over a few others. No true champion this year.

BTW, I thought that Quinn nailed it when he talked about Virginia Tech. Outstanding defense. Very underrated team. And Aubur did control that game.

FF, I fully agree on the bowl games. I weigh them less than regular season games.

Not only are offenses often rusty (USC wasn't!), but motivations are totally different. See Cal and Texas Tech, UCLA and Wyoming.

Java, who would you put in in place of Texas and Michigan? Cal? LSU? Miami who lost to UNC and Clemson? Louisville who didn't beat anyone but Boise and lost to Miami?

IMO if the top 12 all played each other, OU would be 2nd, Texas 3rd. The SEC was pretty weak this year. Auburn deserves #2 and Utah probably #4, but I'm not so sure it would finish that way in a round robin.