OT: Auburn/Alabama show that Boise/TCU MNC claims ludicrous
There is simply, objectively, no comparison between what Auburn has had to do to to advance to the SEC title game and what Boise/TCU have to do to go undefeated. Playing at Bama, getting through the SEC schedule, and now having an SEC title game is playing football on another planet than Boise. Boise, who's "Big Tests" were Oregon State--yes Oregon State, Va Tech and now, the latest "test," a Nevada team they have beaten ten years in a row. I have no issue with Boise or TCU in a BCS game, but even if Auburn loses in the SEC championship game, they will be FAR more worthy of a BCS MNC game than either of Boise or TCU. So would LSU.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
It's one thing for Boise or TCU to beat a team like Va Tech at the beginning of the season, or Auburn in a one-off NC game after facing very light conference competition.
Their players have to be healthier, plain and simple, than a team from a major conference that takes beatings every week. As is commonly said, in football there's a difference between "hurt" and "injured." By the end of the year, almost everyone is "hurt." But those same players play unless they're "injured." It seems that with conference schedules like Boise's or TCU's, there's necessarily a lot less "hurt" AND "injured."
Moreover, if it's "body of work," as we constantly hear from NCAA eval committees, how can Boise's or TCU's bodies of work compare with, e.g., Auburn, etc...? IMHE (and it is, indeed, a humble one), they can't.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
There is no argument that Auburn and Oregon deserve to be in the MNC if they win out. Despite my personal opinion that Boise would beat both of those teams, the superiority of their schedule is undeniable. HOWEVER, if Auburn loses in the SEC title game, it in no way deserves to be in the MNC ahead of either of those two teams. It would not have won its conference(neither would LSU) and the precedent as of 2006 has been set that winning your conference is a prerequisite for playing for the MNC(which if UM fans were honest, most would agree is a fair assessment). Now if you want to go down to Wisconsin, OSU(or not since they'll have two losses), MSU, etc. we'll have a discussion. But in no way does a one loss non-champion SEC team deserve a berth over TCU or Boise for the MNC.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
I love the '06 precedent application. Though what if the precedent is narrower: a team whose last game before the NC is a loss cannot play for the NC? Wouldn't matter much for Michigan or Auburn, but could mean that a team which wins its last game but doesn't win the conference still goes to the NC. At least, if that's how you read Florida v. Michigan.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
is both(michigan and florida) have one loss while boise state is undefeated(theoretically).
November 26th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
Would anyone deny an undefeated Big 10 team in the national title game?
According to Sagarin, Strength of Schedule:
- Ohio State: 59
- Wisconsin: 61
- Michigan State: 67
- TCU: 68
- Boise State: 73
Yes, that's a difference, but not a huge difference. Especially when you compare it to Oregon's 19th and Auburn's 40th.
EDIT: Didn't mean to reply to you, oops!
November 26th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
sorry, there must be a flaw in any system of measurement that says playing in the WAC, a conference that is WORSE than the MAC, is almost comparable to the teams you list
November 26th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^
The WAC is vastly superior to the MAC. I cannot come up with one method of comparing the conferences in which you could say that the MAC is even equal to the WAC. This assertion is simply ridiculous.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
The WAC has sent fewer players to the NFL than the MAC two out of the last three years. I don't position that as conclusive in any way, but barring a playoff, or major head to head games, which is the only fair way of comparison, subjective measure like recruiting rankings and NFL talent are all we have to go on.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
Number of ranked teams, number of bowl eligible teams, number of BCS bids/wins, respective out-of-conference records, statistical conference rankings, etc. are invalid methods of comparison? Because the WAC wins every category I just listed.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
of media voting, therefore not objective. Number of out of conference wins is skewed by Boise, rankings also a function of opinion. Those measures are not objective at all. I do admit it is not an open and shit case at all, and I don;t presume it is. But take out Boise and I am confident the MAC could stand very nicely to the WAC. My opinion of course.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
November 26th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
Correct me if I am wrong but they are both among the 120 teams in division 1 football. Then why can't they play for a national title. Isn't that segregation? They need to create a nonBCS national title if they can't play in the bigger kids title game.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
Boise and TCU are good teams, but there are a lot of good teams. Undefeated or one loss through an SEC/B10 schedule is another matter. As much as it's a test of play, It's a test of will and pressure that Boise and TCU just don't face.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
Cam Newton is set to return. When asked why he said this "the pros' just don't pay as much as the collegiate level."
November 26th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
That was so funny I almost fell off my dinosaur.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
Alabama's second half performance was downright shameful. I'm confident Boise or TCU would hold their own against either Bama or AU if they played like they did today.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
the fact is that if Boise or TCU go to the title game, we will never see a playoff. They will say that the "system" works.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^
I feel like if BSU or TSU goes to the championship game, there will be a lot of complaining from a lot of politicians and administrators associated with the slew of 1-loss BCS conference teams, and that could maybe help expedite the move to a playoff.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
87% of all statistics are made up on the spot..
November 26th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
If we played Boise's schedule, what would our record be?
November 26th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
Probably 8-2 or 7-3. I don't think we'd beat Virginia Tech or Hawaii(can you imagine what they would do to our secondary?) and I think Oregon State would be a tossup. At best we would probably be 9-1 with a tossup game against Nevada coming up.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:08 PM ^
for being from Atlanta/at least repping the Braves
November 26th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
ago? Put down the Danielson koolaid, dude. That same Alabama team just COLLAPSED and HANDED Auburn the win that'll get them through. . .
Bonus quiz: Which team had more players and coaches that belong in jail?
November 26th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
You sound like the osu AD. However, I do agree that Auburn should be in the BCS national championship game.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^
and neither team really impressed me. I saw a lot of dropped passes, poor tackling, missed blocks, etc. Auburn's secondary is horrific. I was hoping Alabama could pull it out to save us from a 5th straight MNC team from the SEC. Bama's QB got hurt and their backup was lost. Auburn had two DTs sit out the first half and Bama destroyed them. When those two came back in the 2nd half, it was a different story. Makes me wonder what we could have done with Warren and Woolfolk in the secondary this year.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
In the SEC title game a few years ago, they played Arkansas I think. Both teams looked mediocre. Stupid penalties, dropped punts, same sort of thing. Although I remember that title game being much worse, in terms of how the teams looked. But we all remember how that turned out - everyone gave credit to Florida for winning the SEC, and OSU made the polls look brilliant in hindsight. I really wish more teams did the Alabama/Penn State thing like this year, so we could get some more data points (and I bet Penn State would win now if they played an Alabama that rolled over and played dead like tonight). I would not put much money on the SEC in the bowls this year.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
Damn Auburn. I REALLY wanted Boise St. or TCU in the championship game, just for that specific reason.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
They spotted them a 24 point lead. It's not their fault Alabama can't catch passes. I now despise Alabama even more than I did before.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
Why do the coaches continue to rank Boise State and TCU in the top 5 if they have records inflated by their schedule? You should write them a letter about it.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
but just because they do doesn't mean they are necessarily better than boise or tcu. the obvious conclusion is that we need a playoff so we don't have to argue about SOS or quality wins or whatever else
November 26th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
Nobody has any idea how good Boise really is unless they have to play a real schedule. They don't and they probably never will. Oh well. I don't see why we have to find a way to let everyone have an "equal chance" to play in the MNC.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
No, if Auburn loses in the SECCG, they shouldn't go to the MNC, even if it means that either TCU or BoiseSt. goes instead. And No,No,No to LSU even being considered for going. If Auburn loses, both them and LSU would be one-loss SEC teams that DIDN'T win their conference. No way you send them. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't even be considered to play in the MNC, especially if it is an SEC team(I won't ever forget Urban Meyer and his challenging of pollsters to bump UF ahead of UM in 06')
As for scheduling, Auburn only has the 40th place strength of schedule. It's not like they are playing 12 straight LSU or South Carolina type teams. They have only played 5 quality opponents so far. Their OOC schedule was atrocious with Chattanooga(a 6-5 FCS team), ArkySt. (a 4-7 Sunbelt team), Louisiana-Monroe(a 5-6 Sunbelt team), and Clemson. Auburn barely beat Clemson at home in a game that went to OT, and Clemson is 4th in their division in the ACC.
As a comparison, BoiseSt. will have played 3 quality teams. Their OOC included 2 teams expected to contend for their conference championship, one of whom will probably end with a 5-7 record, but with 4 of those losses to top ten teams. They scheduled Toledo, which, while they are a MAC school, were expected to be pretty good this year(their record is 8-4).
I don't believe that anyone can definitively state that BoiseSt. could not go through Auburn's schedule unbeaten, nor that Auburn would be unbeaten with BoiseSt.'s schedule. The other point of contention is the winning margins that BoiseSt. has put up nearly all season long. And on the flipside, Auburn has barely beat a lowertier ACC team, barely beat a lower tier SEC team, and barely beat a middling SEC team.
As to the MNC, if you feel that TCU or BoiseSt. are not worthy of the MNC, there really would only be one other choice for a team to go, and that would be either Wisky or OkSt., assuming Wisky wins this weekend and OkSt. wins out and wins the B12.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:08 PM ^
Do people assume that one/two loss teams are better than BSU/TCU? As far as I know, the two teams have a combined one loss in the last two seasons (which, uh, was one losing to the other.) Furthermore, I think their records against BCS teams recently have proven that they are no pushovers ('07 Fiesta, '09 BSU vs. UO, '09 TCU vs. Clemson, BSU vs. VaTech, both steam-rolled Oregon State)
And I really hate the argument that they try to make easy schedules. I'm sure there is no proof of that. Since 2005, TCU has scheduled 12 BCS Teams (4 at home, 7 on the road, 1 neutral site) with a 9-2 record. Since 2005, BSU has scheduled 8 BCS Teams (2 at home, 5 on the road, 1 neutrals site) with a 5-3 record (also they played and beat Utah once, a BCS caliber team.) Also keep in mind that Boise State has rivalry games with an in state that eats up one OOC game/year and their AD probably has less money than other schools, meaning they are confined to playing local schools, of which few are BCS (they have an ongoing home and home with Oregon State.)
I also remember reading that Boise tried scheduling some BCS schools a couple of years ago (USC and Michigan State included) but nobody would agree to a home and home (thus the very lopsided home-away ratio)
November 26th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^
It's whether or not their on field accomplishments are in the Top 2 of the country in 2010.
I think LSU & Stanford have more impressive resumes. I think WIscy's got an argument.
Take LSU. Among Sagarin's Top 11-30, TCU, Boise, & LSU are each 2-0, w/ respective wins over (TCU) Oregon State & Utah, (Boise) VaTech & Oregon State, and (LSU) Florida and Mississippi State. But LSU also had two Top 10 opponents, Auburn & Alabama. Do you really think TCU or Boise would do better than LSU's 1-1 against those two? I'm thinking they both go 0-2. And up next for LSU is Sagarin's #9 Arkansas.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
how to get away w/ a TD dance. (#43 who caught the last TD)
If you want to get away w/ a TD dance after a score, make it a goofy leprechaun dance. You'll never get called for it.
.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
It's cause everybody loves leprechauns. Also, there is usually pots of gold involved.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:37 AM ^
Damn it I missed this
Hopefully someone Youtube'd it
November 27th, 2010 at 1:54 AM ^
Nevada's claim?
November 27th, 2010 at 7:37 AM ^
The funny thing is Danielson said the same thing (and pretty much says the same thing every week on CBS) about the little guys not being able to compete with the big guys. During that Iron Bowl game he specifically called out TCU / Boise and said they didn't have to play Alabama so they weren't legit
Every week he goes on and says stuff like "If you want to play in the championship game, play the big fellas"
November 27th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
...it's all a moot point!
Nevada wins, and that's the beauty of college football: Any Given Saturday.