U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2011, 05:14 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,756 posts, read 3,911,391 times
Reputation: 664

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
And even though I agree with you that Auburn should of gone instead of Oklahoma (ONLY because the Sooners didn't win their conference game)...USC would have rolled Auburn up. They were pretty much unstoppable that year.
And if that was the case then why Auburn had led Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl(which Auburn won) that Season while USC was behind Virginia Tech in the first-half earlier that season? No one would have known what would had happen between Auburn and USc because the NCAA took out the strenght of schedule which would had put Auburn up in #2. I guess you and other USC fans like to discount the 2004 Auburn team because of the season before when Auburn had lost to USC, if you had looked at Auburn's QB Jason Campbell's numbers from 2003 season to 2004 due to the new offensive coach Campbell's numbers had improved a alot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,413 posts, read 7,712,582 times
Reputation: 3054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackandgold51 View Post
And if that was the case then why Auburn had led Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl(which Auburn won) that Season while USC was behind Virginia Tech in the first-half earlier that season? No one would have known what would had happen between Auburn and USc because the NCAA took out the strenght of schedule which would had put Auburn up in #2. I guess you and other USC fans like to discount the 2004 Auburn team because of the season before when Auburn had lost to USC, if you had looked at Auburn's QB Jason Campbell's numbers from 2003 season to 2004 due to the new offensive coach Campbell's numbers had improved a alot.
Not a USC fan...SOONER Fan, Brother.

Well, I guess we'll never know. It's just that USC's defense (everyone always talks about their offense) was ridiculous that year...and they were so well coached/disciplined. And I've heard the V-Tech argument before...USC was world's away as a team at the end of the season as opposed to the start of the season.

Not taking anything away from Auburn, but USC probably would have crushed them, regardless of Campbell's improvement. But winning the SEC is no small feat so I definitely think you have a legitimate argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 11:31 PM
 
922 posts, read 1,017,050 times
Reputation: 750
The ESPN love affair with USC is one of the reasons why everyone thought they would've beaten Auburn that year. True objective college football fans never bought into that. The next year the same ESPN hacks in the lead up to the title game between USC & Texas touted that USC team as one of the best ever, only to end up losing the game. Couple of years later #1 USC was a 41 pt. favorite over Stanford at home and lost when they could've almost sewed up a berth in the title game with a win. Basically, USC was not who ESPN made everybody believe they were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:52 AM
 
1,640 posts, read 4,230,871 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Not a USC fan...SOONER Fan, Brother.

Well, I guess we'll never know. It's just that USC's defense (everyone always talks about their offense) was ridiculous that year...and they were so well coached/disciplined. And I've heard the V-Tech argument before...USC was world's away as a team at the end of the season as opposed to the start of the season.

Not taking anything away from Auburn, but USC probably would have crushed them, regardless of Campbell's improvement. But winning the SEC is no small feat so I definitely think you have a legitimate argument.
Agreed, The VaTech agrument is dumb. It's hard to compare two teams based on a mutual opponet and even harder when the played them on opposite ends of the season. Besides, USC may have trailed briefly against VaTech but they still beat them by more than Auburn when all was said and done.

Auburn was a great team that year but they would've been gutted by USC.

Last edited by truckingbronco; 02-04-2011 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 12:13 PM
 
1,640 posts, read 4,230,871 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceter View Post
The ESPN love affair with USC is one of the reasons why everyone thought they would've beaten Auburn that year. True objective college football fans never bought into that. The next year the same ESPN hacks in the lead up to the title game between USC & Texas touted that USC team as one of the best ever, only to end up losing the game. Couple of years later #1 USC was a 41 pt. favorite over Stanford at home and lost when they could've almost sewed up a berth in the title game with a win. Basically, USC was not who ESPN made everybody believe they were.
I've never heard "true objective college football fans" make a legit claim that Auburn was better than USC in 2004. Maybe SEC homers say that, but no one else. Auburn didn't exactly strengthen their case by getting shut-out at home by USC the prior year.

As for the following year, it's not like the USC team that lost to Texas in the NC game was exposed. They lost by 3 against a great team after controlling the majority of the game in one of the best college football games of all time.

Last edited by truckingbronco; 02-04-2011 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,413 posts, read 7,712,582 times
Reputation: 3054
Quote:
Originally Posted by truckingbronco View Post
I've never heard "true objective college football fans" make a legit claim that Auburn was better than USC in 2004. Maybe SEC homers say that, but no one else. Auburn didn't exactly strengthen their case by getting shut-out at home by USC the prior year.

As for the following year, it's not like the USC team that lost to Texas in the NC game was exposed. They lost by 3 against a great team after controlling the majority of the game in one of the best college football games of all time.
Excellent points, TruckingBronco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,091 posts, read 3,018,870 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by truckingbronco View Post
I've never heard "true objective college football fans" make a legit claim that Auburn was better than USC in 2004. Maybe SEC homers say that, but no one else. Auburn didn't exactly strengthen their case by getting shut-out at home by USC the prior year.

As for the following year, it's not like the USC team that lost to Texas in the NC game was exposed. They lost by 3 against a great team after controlling the majority of the game in one of the best college football games of all time.
Not to mention SC's secondary was depleted and had a third stringer playing. And of course let's not forget two plays: 1. Bush's mysterious lateral as he was getting tackled at UT's 3 yard line and my favorite 2. Young's touchdown pass...from his knee!

And I hate USC, but they would have curb-stomped Auburn IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 09:56 PM
 
922 posts, read 1,017,050 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acuda View Post
Not to mention SC's secondary was depleted and had a third stringer playing. And of course let's not forget two plays: 1. Bush's mysterious lateral as he was getting tackled at UT's 3 yard line and my favorite 2. Young's touchdown pass...from his knee!

And I hate USC, but they would have curb-stomped Auburn IMO.
Knowing what we know now, an undefeated SEC champion as Auburn was that year, getting blasted by a USC team that was barely challenged that year, is quite unrealistic to say the least. Blasting Oklahoma is not a barometer to make one think that Auburn would've suffered the same fate, remember it was Oklahoma. Then when you consider that Auburn had beaten 3 top 10 teams that year in the regular season while USC and Oklahoma each beat 1 top 10 team in the regular season, the case becomes even more shaky.

Last edited by Aceter; 02-04-2011 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,091 posts, read 3,018,870 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceter View Post
Knowing what we know now, an undefeated SEC champion as Auburn was that year, getting blasted by a USC team that was barely challenged that year, is quite unrealistic to say the least. Blasting Oklahoma is not a barometer to make one think that Auburn would've suffered the same fate, remember it was Oklahoma. Then when you consider that Auburn had beaten 3 top 10 teams that year in the regular season while USC and Oklahoma each beat 1 top 10 team in the regular season, the case becomes even more shaky.
I find it always interesting that everyone who claims AU would have beaten SC (not necessarily you) fails to remember that same AU team with the exact same superstar backfield (who had what, 4 NFL players) were blasted the year before, shoot, two years in a row. I realize they had a a different OC, but they were shut down badly at Jordan-Hare. And it wasn't like USC wasn't young themselves. Leinert was making his first start, they had a freshman playing safety, and AU never got past the SC 33. That was domination. So, AU got better the next year. Well, so did SC. As for the whole ranked team argument, who cares? Everyone knows SEC teams are always ranked highly. Besides, LSU that year was a total cupcake having only beaten Florida and losing all their other big games. In fact, they only escaped Oregon State that year because the Beavs missed 3 extra points. The most rational comparison is the head-to-head that happened the two previous years with equally young teams in 2003. Both teams matured and played VaTech where AU ecked out a win 16-13 to end the season. SC utterly dismantled OU 55-19! I think AU would have beaten OU maybe 34-20ish, no more. I think SC's DL would have caved in AU's OL just like they did in 2003.

Sadly, we will never know though.

Last edited by Acuda; 02-04-2011 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2011, 04:04 AM
 
922 posts, read 1,017,050 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acuda View Post
I find it always interesting that everyone who claims AU would have beaten SC (not necessarily you) fails to remember that same AU team with the exact same superstar backfield (who had what, 4 NFL players) were blasted the year before, shoot, two years in a row. I realize they had a a different OC, but they were shut down badly at Jordan-Hare. And it wasn't like USC wasn't young themselves. Leinert was making his first start, they had a freshman playing safety, and AU never got past the SC 33. That was domination. So, AU got better the next year. Well, so did SC. As for the whole ranked team argument, who cares? Everyone knows SEC teams are always ranked highly. Besides, LSU that year was a total cupcake having only beaten Florida and losing all their other big games. In fact, they only escaped Oregon State that year because the Beavs missed 3 extra points. The most rational comparison is the head-to-head that happened the two previous years with equally young teams in 2003. Both teams matured and played VaTech where AU ecked out a win 16-13 to end the season. SC utterly dismantled OU 55-19! I think AU would have beaten OU maybe 34-20ish, no more. I think SC's DL would have caved in AU's OL just like they did in 2003.

Sadly, we will never know though.
Some valid points indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that USC was pounded into the brains of everyone watching ESPN so much that talk began of them likey beating some NFL teams. Since you're an Oregon fan you heard the talk of the SEC's BCS title game streak and how a Pac 10 team was not on the short end during the streak. You didn't hear that same thing regarding USC's success in that it never came against an SEC champion. Why, because they were so busy heaping praise upon USC, the thought probably never crossed their minds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top