Debates Down South: Should Auburn have played for the 2004 BCS National Championship?
Once upon a time, an undefeated SEC team got UCF treatment.
How’s that for a lede?
The 2004 Auburn team might not have been considered a borderline top-10 team like the Knights were in 2017, but they have something in common — they won every game they played and didn’t even get a chance to play for a national title. Both created debate about the system, and both made us wonder what that opportunity could have looked like.
Fortunately for you, that’ll be the last reference to UCF that you’ll see here. What we’re going to focus on today is the 2004 Auburn squad, headlined by Ronnie Brown, Carnell “Cadillac” Williams and Jason Campbell, and whether they were robbed a chance of playing for a national title. That opportunity went to Oklahoma and USC, who then proceeded to play in one of the most lopsided title games ever.
So, let’s dig into this ever-fascinating season:
Why was/is this a debate?
It was a popular topic of conversation at the time because it was essentially the BCS nightmare. That is, 3 Power 5 teams were undefeated at the conclusion of conference championship weekend (Auburn, Oklahoma and USC). Actually, including Urban Meyer’s Utah (Mountain West) squad and Boise State (WAC) , there were 5 unbeaten teams in Division IA for the first time since 1979.
(Not enough was made about the fact that Utah was undefeated with future No. 1 pick Alex Smith, and all that team did was smash 3 Power 5 foes in the regular season by an average of 22 points. Then Utah demolished Pitt 35-7 in the Fiesta Bowl. What a flawed system we once had.)
No matter what, an undefeated team was going to be left out of the BCS National Championship. With USC pegged as the preseason No. 1 — a spot the Trojans held from start to finish — the belief was that the other spot was to be decided between Auburn and Oklahoma. It was actually a bizarre year in which USC and Oklahoma started and finished the regular season at the No. 1 and No. 2 spots, respectively.
Then there was Auburn, AKA the team that surprised the college football world by going from an unranked finish in 2003 to a team with a legitimate case to play for a national title in 2004. Brown and Williams took the sport by storm, and with coordinator Gene Chizik leading the No. 1 defense in America with Carlos Rogers and Junior Rosegreen, the Tigers steadily became a team that demanded national attention with moments like this.
23 days to kickoff: Ronnie Brown runs over Tennessee in 2004 as Auburn blows out the Vols 34-10 in Knoxville. #WDE pic.twitter.com/zNbOIZatl1
— Graham Brooks (@The_GBrooks) August 9, 2018
For those reasons, it was obvious why it was a debate even before the BCS National Championship was played. What happened between USC and Oklahoma only fueled that discussion. The Trojans rolled to that aforementioned beatdown of the Sooners with a 55-19 laugher. Oklahoma’s dynamic duo of 2003 Heisman Trophy winner Jason White and record-setting freshman tailback Adrian Peterson couldn’t get anything going,
Auburn meanwhile, beat a top-10 Virginia Tech team 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl to complete the undefeated season. All that did was fuel the debate even more.
Had USC and Oklahoma played in a classic title game like the one we had the following year (Vince Young’s Texas team prevented the 3-peat), perhaps we’re not having this discussion. But that’s not what happened, and here we are.
What people said at the time
I tend to think that the discussion over this season would have multiplied had it occurred in our current 24-hour news cycle. That’s not to say it was lacking then, but we would have had all the charts, graphs and fire takes for this argument. (I could totally picture the contrarian take artists coming out with “why Utah would beat both Auburn and Oklahoma” columns.)
Discussion, as we know, was important in the BCS era. After all, AP and Coaches polls were part of the equation. Human polls actually mattered more for the BCS Standings that year than they did in 2003, when there was a split national championship. In 2003, a trio of 1-loss teams (Oklahoma, LSU and USC) dealt with a similar debate, but because the title game was so close — LSU beat Oklahoma 21-14 — there was a split national championship with USC also owning the honor.
So with the AP and Coaches Polls carrying so much weight, here’s what the voting was at the conclusion of the conference championships, all of which were won by these 3 teams:
[table “” not found /]
Going into the conference championships, Oklahoma was actually No. 1 in the computers. The Sooners then cruised to a 42-3 victory against unranked Colorado while Auburn beat No. 15 Tennessee 38-28.
Heading into the SEC Championship, there was a feeling that Auburn was going to need a loud statement to jump Oklahoma. Like, even Tommy Tuberville complained after the 21-13 Iron Bowl victory against 6-win Alabama that it shouldn’t be a knock against the Tigers among voters because that’s how that game was typically played (12 of the previous 13 Iron Bowls were decided by 2 scores or fewer). He could see the writing on the wall.
Let’s actually take a moment to appreciate that. It seems like the vast majority of coaches in that same spot — locked in at No. 3 with a conference championship to play — would have gone with the “we can only control what we can control, and we’ll let the chips fall as they may.” Kudos to Tuberville for recognizing that in a system so dependent on public perception, he needed to do everything in his power to shape it.
OK, back to that SEC Championship against Tennessee. I rewatched parts of that game and picked up on a few interesting details (the “seize the moment” intro with Bo Jackson and Peyton Manning was absolutely electric).
In the middle of the game on the CBS broadcast, they went to an update from the USC-UCLA game (not a conference championship) to show the Bruins scoring to get within a touchdown in the third quarter. Back in the studio, Tim Brando said, “Ya ever notice, fellas, that no one ever questions if USC is No. 1, only whether Oklahoma is No. 2 or Auburn? Interesting, isn’t it?”
(At the time, yes, that was an interesting point. Brando surely wouldn’t have said that if he had a crystal ball to see how the national championship played out, but it was worth discussing considering USC had 3 wins vs. teams that were ranked in that current AP Top 25, and the Trojans were struggling against a 6-win team.)
When they came back from the break, Todd Blackledge brought up an interesting theory he had about USC. He referenced how public opinion favored the Trojans so much because they were the team who many felt was unfairly left out of the BCS National Championship the previous year. And with all the talent they returned with Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush and LenDale White, it would have probably felt challenging not to have USC at No. 1.
If you read between the lines, it sounded like Blackledge and Verne Lundquist both agreed that Auburn deserved one of those top 2 spots. Granted, that was the 5th time they had Auburn as the CBS game. Obviously they got more looks at the Tigers than USC or Oklahoma.
They mentioned the fact that Oklahoma was ahead of Auburn AND USC in the computer rankings, which created the sense that the Tigers needed to do something that would “jump” the Sooners, who didn’t kick off until the second half of the SEC Championship had started.
Unfortunately for Auburn, a 10-point win against Tennessee wasn’t deemed a loud enough closing argument.
The worst take you can have about this debate
It’s interesting. Even though we have the knowledge of USC’s blowout of Oklahoma and that it was considered a college football dynasty, there’s a take about the Trojans that I cannot accept.
“It didn’t matter if it was Oklahoma or Auburn because USC would have destroyed anyone that year.”
It’s true that Tuberville admitted during the BCS National Championship game that it would have been awfully difficult to beat a team like USC with giving offensive coordinator Norm Chow a month to prepare. The Trojans would have been the favorites against Auburn, for sure.
But would it have been a blowout? I don’t think so.
I say that for a few reasons. One is that while USC was indeed a force with talent galore, it had 2 matchups all year against top-10 scoring defenses. That yielded a 24-point showing against Virginia Tech (No. 2 defense) and a 23-point showing against California (No. 8 defense). In the game against Cal, which was the Pac-12’s only non-USC defense that ranked in the top 30 nationally, Aaron Rodgers and the Golden Bears actually out-gained USC 424-205.
Auburn, as you recall, had the No. 1 unit in America. In fact, the SEC Championship against Tennessee marked the first time all year that anyone hit 21 points against the Tigers. The odds of USC putting up 50 like it did on Oklahoma were low.
And take this for what it is, but a year after this season, Chizik was the defensive coordinator on that Texas team that beat USC in that classic thriller (Texas still allowed 38 points to USC but came out prepared and had that big 4th down stop late on White to set up Young’s heroics).
So what do I think the final score would’ve been? My guess is USC wins 21-14.
Some might say that USC would have rolled Auburn because we saw the teams play in 2002 and in 2003. Who knows how much the Trojans’ 23-0 beatdown at Jordan-Hare to kick off the 2003 season played a part in not wanting to see that matchup decide the 2004 title game, but it shouldn’t have.
Let’s not forget that while USC was clearly the better team those years, Auburn changed offenses in 2004. Al Borges came from Indiana and began utilizing the 2-back system. That’s why Brown and Williams took off together, and it allowed Campbell to become a whole lot more confident and efficient (Campbell finished 7th in the Heisman voting that year).
But if we’re talking about a game decided by a touchdown like that, I still would have put my faith in Leinart to find a way. He made a habit of doing that even on days when he didn’t have his best fastball.
Auburn would have been a tougher matchup for USC than Oklahoma. With that defense, it would have had a much better chance of not getting run off the field by those incredible USC athletes. Does that mean the Tigers deserved to be there? I’ll get to that in a minute.
Thing I didn’t know/forgot until revisiting this
Freshman Adrian Peterson was truly insane. I forgot just how insane he was. Besides breaking basically every NCAA freshman rushing record, how he did it was something to behold.
I think people have already forgotten how savage Adrian Peterson was his freshman year at #Oklahoma. #Sooners pic.twitter.com/bIruSJmhNC
— Michael Kinney (@EyeAmTruth) August 30, 2016
Peterson made such a habit of keeping his balance amidst some sort of spinning, back to the end zone sequence … and then proceeding to take it to the house. Nobody did that better than Peterson. No wonder he finished 2nd in the Heisman voting.
You could absolutely make the case that Peterson, who finished the year with 1,925 rushing yards and 15 scores, deserved the Heisman over Leinart. Keep in mind this was at a time when we had never even seen a sophomore win the award, much less a true freshman. There’s no doubt in my mind that if Peterson had been a year older, he would have become the first sophomore Heisman winner (Tim Tebow took that title 3 years later).
The other thing I forgot was something I know Auburn fans will appreciate. “JetGate.” That’s right. JetGate.
How could I forget that Auburn brass got caught flying to meet with Louisville coach Bobby Petrino a day before the 2003 Iron Bowl? Yikes, did Auburn blow that. Well, it could have been much worse.
“Me and (Petrino) had a good conversation the Thanksgiving after what happened,” Tuberville recalled (via AL.com). “He called and apologized. And I just basically told him, ‘Bobby, you just don’t do that in this profession. If you would’ve called me and said, ‘Listen, Tommy, you got problems. They’re calling me.’ Of course, had he done that, I would’ve been gone in 2003 because the protocol would’ve been broken.”
When I see a comment like that, my brain immediately goes, “SLIDING DOORS! SLIDING DOORS!”
Tuberville always used to say that Alabama hired Nick Saban because of him. It was Tuberville who won 6 consecutive Iron Bowls at Auburn from 2002-07. But at the time when Auburn infamously courted Petrino, that streak was only at 2. Let’s say either scenario played out. That is, Petrino accepted the job or Tuberville was offended that other coaches were being interviewed as his replacement and he left after the 2003 season.
For starters, the 2004 Auburn season never happens. Brown and Williams both likely bolt for the NFL, and frankly, the SEC’s best running back duo of all-time (for my money), wouldn’t have stayed. It was Tuberville’s decision to hire Borges to run this 2-back system that really got Brown and Williams on board. As a result, Campbell doesn’t take that step and you can bet even if those defensive weapons had stayed, they wouldn’t have been No. 1 in America.
That’s the direct sliding door. The more indirect one stemmed from Tuberville’s belief that his dominance of Alabama was what led to Saban coming to Tuscaloosa. Five consecutive years of losses to Auburn (and 6 total in that streak) resulted in Alabama making its splashiest hire ever. The Crimson Tide ponied up $32 million for 8 years to lure Saban from the Miami Dolphins. Had Tuberville left and it had been a more even battle with Petrino or whoever his successor was — and not 5 consecutive Auburn victories at the time the decision was made after the 2006 season — would Alabama have been that desperate? I don’t know. Maybe.
I’ll just be thankful that Tuberville gave me a sliding door that kept my brain busy all afternoon.
Where do I stand on the debate?
Full disclosure here.
I fully expected to look back on this and bang the drum for Auburn. Why? A couple years ago, we did “G.O.A.T. Week” and I did a story on how Brown and Williams became the best SEC running back duo of all-time. I enjoyed every second of putting that together. Those guys and Tuberville were so generous with their time, and I came away with a new appreciation for that 2004 Auburn team.
But if I had a vote back then for No. 2, here’s what I would have looked at (all of these are post-conference championship weekend):
- Power 5 opponents faced
- Oklahoma: 10
- Auburn: 9
- Average margin of victory (pre-bowl)
- Oklahoma +21.3
- Auburn +22.3
- Wins vs. teams ranked in AP Top 25 after conference championships
- Oklahoma: 3
- Auburn: 4
- Avg. margin of victory in those games
- Oklahoma: +11.3
- Auburn: +13.3
- Wins vs. Power 5 bowl teams after conference championships
- Oklahoma: 5
- Auburn: 5
- Avg. margin of victory in those games
- Oklahoma: +15.2
- Auburn: +12.2
What does that show me? It’s essentially a tie.
Here’s the thing, though. Auburn, for whatever reason, didn’t have a Power 5 team in nonconference play that year. The nonconference slate that year was Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel (Division I-AA) and Louisiana Tech. Oklahoma didn’t face some top-10 Virginia Tech team like USC did, but it at least had Oregon on the schedule in nonconference play.
Rewarding Auburn’s easy nonconference path would have felt wrong. And fair or not, but it would have been hard to ignore Auburn’s recent struggles in Power 5 nonconference games. From 2001-03, Auburn was 1-4 in such games, including a 2003 season in which it started off as the No. 6 team in the country and got beat by a combined 40-3 in nonconference games against USC and Georgia Tech.
Auburn was going to have to be a solid notch above Oklahoma to earn that national championship bid. Part of that was because the Tigers hadn’t finished in the top 10 in 10 years compared to Oklahoma, the reigning runner-up, but part of that I believe was because of the recent nonconference struggles.
Imagine this unfolding with a BCS system in 2020. Clemson and Ohio State are the clear No. 1 and No. 2 teams entering 2020, assuming nothing drastic changes. Picture them going undefeated in conferences that look similar in strength to the Big 12. Texas is also undefeated with a similar résumé as Ohio State. But let’s say the Longhorns, who lost a September nonconference game each of the past 7 years, only play Rice, North Texas and The Citadel. There’s no way they’re playing for a national championship instead of Clemson or Ohio State.
I’m sure that’s how plenty of people felt about Auburn. In hindsight, yes, the lopsided national championship proved that Auburn would have given USC a better game than Oklahoma. But more deserving to make it there? I’m not quite on board with that.
What I am on board with is that we finally ditched that system.
I doubt Auburn could have done anything to change the final rankings. I was trying to make this point with someone the other day. The teams ranked high in pre season polls rarely dropped unless they lost. So, unless OK or USC actually lost, Auburn was never going to pass them.
This is why I get frustrated when people say the early rankings don’t matter. They unfortunately and absolutely do.
Did.
Still do but to a lesser degree. There’s only so many play off spots. What if UCF would have started their magical season in the top 4 and went undefeated?
The playoff committee doesn’t release their first rankings until November. I doubt seriously they would have put UCF in the Top 10.
Maybe they should have. They soundly beat the Auburn team that had crushed UGA and beaten Alabama. Both championship teams.
Blind squirrel. Their strength of schedule would have kept them out.
Gator- I know auburn is the joke that lost to UCF but let’s not get carried away.. soundly beat? Auburn outgained UCF in yards, better TOP, better on 3rd down and had more first downs. It wasn’t a sound beating like you implied. Embarrassing? Yes.
It was only a one score game so it was close but ucf looked in control the whole time. I’m not a ucf guy but those are the types of teams that are always going to be screwed by early rankings. Jtf is proving my point for me
Not really. The playoff committee has demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are willing to drop undefeated teams.
They are going to take strength of schedule into effect and a team that is not a P5 is not going to be in the top 4. Nor should they be.
Strength of schedule is affected by rankings that are unearned…
So you think G5 schools should be considered?
That’s not what I was getting at originally but I guess so. They would have to be undefeated and it would still depend on what other teams had done. Originally I was just trying to agree that early rankings still have effects late in the season. Can’t even agree with Dawgs on this site without them arguing with you though
There are no early season rankings anymore that matter.
Anyway, have a nice evening.
I disagree. Have a great night
I’m sorry. You disagree that the very first Playoff Ranking do not come out until November?
I didn’t say that. The other polls come out sooner and affect the way people, including the playoff committee, see the teams. I read articles, some on this site, boasting about how many teams so-and-so beat that were ranked AT THE TIME of the game like that should matter. The media and fans eat it up.
So how would you decide on who goes to the playoffs. Best record regardless of schedule?
Isn’t the answer obvious? A 64 team bracket of course
I believe we were the better team. We had stars everywhere. We had two of the best RBs in the country and a really good QB and a defense that dominated. But the paper stats were what they went by so yeah, Oklahoma and USC got in, and rightfully so. But if they looked at team talent, we would’ve been in
It’s hard to answer this question in today’s light of SEC dominance. SEC teams have played in all but one CFP championship (and one had 2 SEC teams in it), and have won half of them. Prior to that, you have to go all the way back to 2005 to find a BCS championship game that didn’t have an SEC team in it. From 2006 to 2013, the SEC went 7-1 in championship games (thanks a lot, Gus!). But that’s the thing, that’s all POST 2004.
Ultimately, I don’t think Auburn really “deserved” to be in over Oklahoma. I think they had an argument that was just as good as Oklahoma’s and either decision was going to tick the other off. It just boiled down to one simple thing to me: OU started at #2 and never lost. If it had been Auburn there, OU never would have jumped them just like Auburn never jumped OU. Just an unfortunate set of circumstances for Auburn that really should have been the catalyst to move towards a Playoff then (especially after OU got destroyed) and it’s a shame it took another decade and an all-SEC championship game to really get that ball rolling.
The only knock what you’re saying is that, other than the first year of the playoffs.(Ohio State won) I don’t believe the two opponents to compete would have been any different than what the computers were to spit out. I wish, at least for the first couple years they would’ve still made BCS computer results as a comparison. But probably not, because they would’ve rigged it too to match actually match committee decision.
there’s no doubt in my mind that Auburn had the most talent on any College Football Field that year…a Star*Studded*Cast from top to bottom, but sadly the team with the stars does no always Win It All. There have been a number of teams that may have deserved to be in, but if a team above you in the rankings does not lose…moving up is just not gonna happen. This article is about the Big “What If ?”
Your info about 2003 is not correct. The AP crowned usc at the conclusion of their bowl win over Michigan, which was before the actual NC game was even played. LSU could have won by 100 and it would not have mattered as usc was already crowned with their consolation prize. LSU won the title that mattered.
Exactly…USC really only had “one-pete”
LSU was indeed awarded the Crystal Ball that year. Southern won their title as well. Great year for Baton Rouge!
AU was a great team that year and you could certainly make a case for them instead of OU. Trouble is they had a light non-conference sked and just didn’t do anything to distinguish themselves over OU. The good part this pushed the playoff system we have now. I actually went to the first UT vs AU game. They pretty much dominated the entire game until the end when they let off the gas. Incredible running game and defense.
Playing UT again in the SEC title game was actually a big negative against Auburn that year and affected the BCS rankings. The vols would have been a top 10 team if they wouldn’t have had to play Auburn twice.
Neither OU not ND should be allowed in another playoff, national championship game again. We’re all tired of seeing them get their tails whipped.
Do you have a link for the running back article mentioned?
I don’t think beating VA Tech 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl is overwhelming confidence that AU would have given USC a better game. The bad take in all this is basing one, after the fact result as an argument. Prior to the game OU certainly didn’t deserve the opportunity any LESS than AU, what happened once they got there doesn’t change anything before they got there. There’s no real debate here imo.
For starters, Au-VA Tech featured the #1 vs the #2 (respectively) defenses in the nation so it was never going to be a high scoring affair. Oklahoma wasn’t even a top 10 defense. Offensively OU was 14th and Auburn was 18th. Only 1 team scored 21 points all season on AU, which was the most points allowed, and that was I’m the SECCG. I’m not saying Auburn would have beaten USC, but I can guarantee it would have been a much, much closer game.
Check out how many points USC scored against the same V Tech team. They hit 24. Using your stats against such a weak OCS is very weak.
USC kicked a FG with a minute left to get to 24. Auburn took their foot off the gas offensively halfway through the 3rd up 16-0. Tubs knew VT couldn’t do much on offense and just ran clock when they could.
No you can’t guarantee that at all, you can only hypothesize it, with zero way of proving it. So *hypothetically speaking* lets say USC vs AU ends up being a little bit closer of a game (knowing the possibility exists that it wouldn’t have), that’s still no reason or justification to say OU didn’t deserve to play USC by the end of the regular season.
And Missouri is still a horrible program!!!!
That game only looked close on the scoreboard at the end. Tubs was famous for taking his foot off the gas because his defense was so good. That game was a blowout in Auburn fashion that year. VT was never close. I don’t think Tubs even threw the ball in the second half. VT had one desperate hailmary in the 4th to make it look closer than it was. Compare that to when VT played USC, and VT actually led USC at the half.
You are a moron…wtf are you even talking about?
Booches94, the one thing that is clear tho, is Missouri WILL NEVER !!!! Win a NC!!lol dumb f$-$
USC shouldn’t have been there. They cheated beyond comprehension. What a stupid article.
I’ve made a similar case that the Auburn-USC BCS game would have been a close game. I’m not saying Auburn would have won, but they very well could have. The defense was stout, very stout and I do think Auburn’s defense could have contained Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart, and I think they would have. Oh, Bush might have gotten a few good runs in, but I think Chizik’s defense would have managed.
And given USC’s defense, I think Jason Campbell would have done just enough to keep the Trojan’s off the running game to allow Ronnie Brown and Cadillac to find the end zone.
Eh, it’s a fun little exercise in “what-ifs.”
I do think the 2004 year was vital for the SEC as a whole. Inter-conference rivalries aside, most SEC fans felt Auburn got the shaft and if it could happen to Auburn, it could happen to them. The conference seemed to come alive after the 2004 season. USC and Texas would get the big show in 2005, but after that … nothing but the SEC.
BOWLING GREEN!!!! Yep, it still burns me up that people used the schedule to defend putting Oklahoma in over Auburn. Because Ball State cancelled their contract with Auburn to play OU, Auburn had to scramble at the last second to schedule the Citadel. Oregon was 5-6 and not a good team. BG was a top 25 team the previous season and ended up 9-3. Switch the Citadel and Bowling Green on Auburn and OU’s schedule and Auburn ends up higher in the BCS standings.
*Bowling Green not Ball State
That would have helped some with the computers, but it would not have made a difference with the human polls and it would not have put Auburn in the championship.
We were undefeated. So were USC and Oklahoma. USC beat the mess out of Oklahoma. This is why they went to the four team playoff.
We went to a four team playoff because of the LSU Alabama repeat.
Actually, Mike Slive started petitioning for a playoff after Auburn got left out. It didn’t get the traction from other conferences until the LSU vs Bama rematch.
That was seven years later, and just proves my point.
10 years later? OU got stomped by the #1 team while Auburn held on to beat VT by 3.
It would have put Auburn up to #1 in the computers, which likely would have been enough to move Auburn into the #2 overall slot. The poll votes between Auburn and OU were not that far off.
There’s no way. OU won the computers with a 9.9. USC was a 9.7 and Auburn was at 9.2. They were closer to Texas who had an 8.8 than either of the two teams that finished above them.
Yes, it would have made that big of a difference. The computers didn’t include games against FCS opponents, so it was like Auburn played an 11 game schedule.
What does that matter? You really think Ball State was going to add that much? Again, there’s no way.
Many conferences play a CCG. ND doesn’t and it doesn’t really hurt them. There is simply one less data point.
My point is that if OU played the Citadel and Auburn had played Bowling Green it would have been a huge swing in the computer rankings. Auburn played a tougher schedule than OU regardless of those games, but was penalized for playing fewer opponents.
That data point was huge in the BCS formula when you consider Bowling Green was a 9-3 FBS opponent.
The math just doesn’t add up. Not even close. You seem convinced though, so wherever.
Forget about the computer junk and the poll voters. Do you really believe that OU was a better team than Auburn?
I think Auburn would have beaten OU. Not so sure about USC.
USC got the championship vacated because of cheating. The real shame of it all, is THEY should not have been there and Auburn and Oklahoma should have played.
They cheated? Do mean by Bush raking money from an agent? How did that give them a competitive advantage? The school or boosters didn’t pay him to stay. The agent was paying him to leave.
They vacated their last two wins including the championship game. A year without a champion unless you count the AP which let them keep their trophy. Obviously they were thought to have cheated.
But did the “ cheating “ really make any diff? I don’t think so.
The way USC dominated the BCS before the SEC took it over was very irritating because the ultimate flaw of the BCS was if journalists picked you to be the pre-season #1, all they had to do was not choke away easy games and they won it all, nothing anybody else did mattered.
That said, irritation over the system + bias towards our own conference makes it easy to forget how good those USC teams were.
We also REALLY like to forget that time in 2003 when basically the same teams played each other in auburn. I can’t wait for the “yes, but, you see, the thing is….” I’ll get from the barners on that one.
Pretty much they same personnel except Al Borges was the OC and not Hugh Nall. To me, that was the main difference between the years. Using a two back system with Cadillac and Ronnie was lethal and his gulf coast system allowed them to have more success.
I believe the Auburn defense was better than the offense, especially considering they had to carry the team twice, against LSU and VaTech. They only gave up over 20 once, and the offense had two turnovers in that one. In retrospect, certainly Auburn should have been the team in the title game, and they certainly would have given USC a better game. But, they didn’t do enough during the season to surpass either of the teams in the standings.
No question the defense carried the offense that year.
Here’s my disclaimer, I pull for both Auburn and Alabama.
Auburn definitely was the number two team in the country and should have been in the BCS championship game.
If the current system had been in play, Auburn would hav made the four team as number 2 and would have most likely defeated USC in the championship game.