SEC should of been 5-0 but wasn't it GA that went undefeated and didn't even make it to the game?
NCAA Football 2008-09 Season
- Thread starter Ramy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 5K
- Views 200K
SEC should of been 5-0 but wasn't it GA that went undefeated and didn't even make it to the game?
Yea like OSU
I think the BCS was a bit lienant on the SEC because they screwed them just 2 years prior.
Somebody ranked MICHIGAN in the top 25? Personally I wouldn't rank ANYBODY until 5 games have played. I think polls are a joke anyhow. Look how wrong they got it all last year.
You make a really good point Paul, that IS why the BSC polls don't come out till later, but what it all boils down to is right here in front of us.
It's football season and thouse of use on our computers across the USA and possibly other areas are TALKING about what possision thier favorite team is starting in, the talk fuels college football every year, so THAT is why they bring the polls out early.... so we have something to debate about
Jimbo
Because that conference that you keep saying has only 1 BCS win (a national championship win btw), contains 2 teams now that have 3 BCS wins (with one being a national championship) from the Big East.
Perhaps the Big East should stop relying on the laurels of Miami to show their "greatness". Especially since Miami was the only reason they were ever a BCS conference in the first place.
The SEC being #1 & #2, I'd have to agree.I thought the season end polls were pretty accurate.
To bad UGA lost the tiebreaker to UT (damn you Kentucky for choking), then the SEC championship game would have actually been the true National Championship Game (as it should it be
).
That was Auburn.
edit... didn't see the response above, were posting at the same time. I think Auburn could have beaten USC, I know they would have done better than Oklahoma, would have been a great game.
...and you accuse US of homerism? HA!
"dropped in talent or stature" eh?
I give you as evidence the ACC of the "FSU and the seven dwarfs" years. Now THAT was pathetic. The PAC10 before Pete Carrol. Same.
The Big East has 7 quality teams. To be honest, that's about equal with the mega conferences, as some of the bottom halves here are just sad (I'm looking at you, Big 10).
Damn, that UT game was painful - at least the ending. And they keep replaying it lately on CBS College Sports.
I don't think that was the case. OU had better wins, and the BCS computers took that into account. As I remember, AU had a Div II team in their schedule.
No they weren't. In 1993 they had an undefeated season under Terry Bowden, but were ineligible for post season play. Are you thinking of that?
Not for the 2004 season they weren't. They went on to the Sugar Bowl and beat Virginia Tech.
The problem was that the pre-season polls had USC & Oklahoma as #1 & #2. auburn started at #17(AP)/#18(Coaches). They rose to #3, but since neither Oklahoma or USC lost a game, they couldn't leap either of them, even though arguably Auburn had a tougher schedule than Oklahoma.
Last edited:
No they weren't. In 1993 they had an undefeated season under Terry Bowden, but were ineligible for post season play. Are you thinking of that?
Yeah sorry about that.
If by quality teams you mean all being relatively mediocre then you are right Big East has 7 of them.
As I said earlier WVA is a very good program, not elite though. A solid top10-20 type team on most years.
S Florida is an up and comer on the rise IMO.
The rest of the Big East is devoid of talent and would be bottom feeders in any other BCS conference.
Rutgers and their ilk are last place teams in the SEC and about any other BCS Conference.
That such teams eke out a 8-4 record while playing likewise mediocre teams and go to some minor bowl game means absolutely nothing.
