I said Derek Jeter, didn't I?

but seriously, gross.

Auburn has itself to blame for scheduling teams like The Citadel. Texas could have even been in the mix for that one had they been able to score a single point on Oklahoma. Auburn's own choices for its out of conference schedule made far more of a difference than Stoops voting them down.

Stoops felt he belonged, and has on many occasions stated that he supports making the coach's vote public.

If we're talking Big XII coaching douches, you have to mention Leach, Franchione and Callahan as front runners.

I really don't think the schedule argument holds up. Especially considering that our non conference opponents are about the same as the bad teams in your conference. You're telling me you deserved to make it to the game by beating powerhouses like Bowling Green, Kansas, Baylor and Houston? Oklahoma beat only one really good team, that being Texas. Auburn however, beat 3 top 10 teams over the course of the season. Beating LSU, Tennessee(twice), UGA and Alabama is no joke. Not to mention we went on to beat Virginia Tech as well. So make that 4 top 10 teams.

Personally I think Auburn would have won the national championship against USC that year. They were the best team in college football period. Oklahoma was good that year, but not great. There defense had serious flaws in the secondary that USC exploited by throwing the ball deep. If you remember in the Texas game that year, Mack Brown went to an option style run offense instead of throwing the ball down field. He was trying to manage the clock too much.

USC, to me, is easily the most overrated three year stretch team in college football. The 3 straight national championship hype was complete bullshit, as LSU won it in 2003 (USC wasn't even in the game.) They won one, against a far lesser apponent, and then, even though the score was close, got their ass handed to them against Texas.


and I agree that non conference games really don't play that much into the equation. I mean look at last year. Texas' toughest opponent was Ohio State, a very good team.....but after that we didn't play anyone worth a crap.

Unfortunately, the way college football is set up, there will never be true parity within conferences. We can say the Pac 10 sucks and USC doesn't play anyone, but then ESPN will respond that Oregon is top 15 and Cal is top 15, and they completely ignore the underlying idea that perhaps oregon and cal are ranked that high because they simply don't play anyone of note either.

The bottom line is that OU had the better SOS that year. You can argue the particulars of the teams on the schedule, Auburn played Louisiana-Monroe, Mississippi State, The Citadel, Louisana Tech, a 5-6 Arkansas, and a 2-9 Kentucky. We could then talk about how there were only 2 ranked teams on that schedule.

Except for 3 games against teams that finished outside the top 10, Auburn had a pretty easy schedule that year.

As opposed to an Oklahoma team who played Texas, period. A conference title game against Colorado? HAH. Auburn should have had the chance, and you know it. Maybe we'll get some sort of a rematch this year.

OU lost their last two games of the season that year too.......completely throwing out the notion that its better to lost early than late.

True, but I do thing the PAC 10 is overrated. #6 Oregon played in the Holiday this year against Oklahoma and pretty much got embarassed. The score didn't show it 17-7 I think, but I watched the whole game and it was a joke.

Wrong year.

You're thinking 2003 -- losses to K-State and LSU. Auburn didn't have a good season in 2003, going 7-5. For the 2004 season, OU was undefeated going into the game with USC. Auburn wasn't even in contention for its own conference in '03.

No, I'm sayin just that, that the Pac 10 is overrated. The rankings within conferences can often be inflated by one team being ranked too high preseason. For example, say Minnesota is ranked 10th preseason, and Michigan is 7th or something. Michigan could beat Minnesota in the second game of the year, move up to about 4th, and already be in the running for the BCS going on nothing but preseason rankings. I think ranking non-traditional teams highly is dangerous, like in the Minnesota example. The AP will think Oregon is loaded on paper and put them at 6th, and when USC destroys them, it gives wrongful legitimacy to USC. Hell these things can go back several years...If Cal goes 11-1 against shitty competition one year, it may be top 5 the next year. This is when it hurts other teams, as it may take that Cal team 2 losses before they even drop out of the top 10, meanwhile a team like AU, or WVU, or _______ started the season at 24th, and is having to beat top 10 teams simply to move up into the top 15. This is precisely what happened with Auburn.

Yeah you are right.

The dude that went after the A-Team is a bigger douche bag.

Usually you can tell a douchebag by their statements... things like "I hate America," or "George Bush hates black people," or "lets go to the shore."

... or say "Mission Accomplished", or "Bring it On"?