Should Auburn have played USC in 2004 for the National Championship instead of Oklahoma?

Question

Shouldn't you take into consideration going undefeated in the SEC? What's wrong with those voters?

Dont forget Cadillac Williams7th pick , Ronnie Brown 2nd pick, Jason Campbell and Carlos Rogers were first round picks in the NFL draft that same year.

People say auburn was screwed by the system , but doesn't the system have people voting for the rankings and don't those votes count like 2/3 of the BCS ranking? I just don't get it.

Wrong.....Auburns out of conference schedule was about as tough as the Big12 conference. For the SEC to schedule 8 sec teams and tough outofconference opponents would be suicide, especially with the bcs system.

Answer 1

This is rather opionated. Much like the coaches poll which accounts for so much of who goes to the title game. Since the coaches decide who goes to the title game it's not settled on the field.

The year before USC didn't make it to the title game. Then LSU blew out the competition. Blame the system, not the teams who play.

Answer 2

Whether Auburn and USC would have made a better game (and, really, how could they not have) is immaterial. The matchup was an impossibility because OU was #1 and USC was #2. Because the game was so one-sided it's easy to forget the fact that OU was actually favored in that game. The only way Auburn could have gotten into that game would have been by bumping out USC. If you recall, a lot of people at the time lobbied for exactly that because of the reason you brought up! In restrospect, USC was a good choice right? Auburn was a very good team but, let's get this straight, no one was beating USC that year. Auburn v. Utah on the other hand... now that would have been a great game! It might have even approached the legendary heights of Boise v. Oklahama. Which reminds me...

DrBuns - You're right about one thing: there was a 7 pt. spread for the Fiesta Bowl, but OU was the favorite. Boise wasn't as much of a dog as people might think, but they were a dog.

Answer 3

Actually, Boise was picked to beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl by 7 points by nearly all odds-makers.

To get to the point, Oklahoma vs. USC is the way it should have been for the title. They were #1 and #2 all season, and both obliterated the opposing teams all season. Auburn was much weaker during the season up to the BCS title game, even playing in close games. Look up the statistics for the 2004 season, and you will see OU and USC were head and shoulders above the rest of the NCAA. Remember that both teams were being talked about as possibly being the "best team of all time" during that season. Nobody could have predicted OU losing so big, but that is life.

I think Auburn fans have a reason to be upset about being left out, but it is the system's fault, not OU or USC's fault. If Margin of Victory were still in the BCS formula, it STILL would have been OU and USC in the Rose Bowl.

Listing off Auburn's players is silly.
OU and USC each had a Heisman winner at QB, and each had a Heisman winner or Runner-up at RB, for crying out loud.

Face it, USC and OU were better teams all around.

Answer 4

Wow. Half of these answerers are retards. As a die hard OU fan, I can easily give you the answer to this question. It's NO. First, the rules of the BCS don't allow it. Second, they didn't win it. The most common response you'll see, is "Auburn should get it". This also can't be true for the same reasons. Auburn won their bowl game (barely) in the Rose Bowl against Virginia Tech that year. They went 12-0 in the SEC, but they had one of the weakest non-conference schedules in all of college football that year. Utah, also 12-0 that year, had a weak schedule that year, too. To cap it off, though, neither played in a bowl game for the National Championship. USC and OU did, and the Trojans won. Now that the win has been vacated because of the infractions, nobody gets it.

Answer 5

I think Auburn should have played USC in 2004 it would have been a better game . BCS voters don't know what they are doing . Like this year Ohio State and Florida ?? Come on or how about Boise State and Oklahoma .BSU was voted to lose to Oklahoma. I think there needs to a new system .

Answer 6

Yes, because I feel Oklahoma was not even in the same league as USC or Auburn. It would have been different had Auburn lost their bowl game, but alas they didn't and the debate continues.

Answer 7

Nah. USC wuz #1, and OU #2 all year, and it wasn't gonna change. Who saw the 55 - 19 blowout coming. They were both undefeated. Lemme tell ya, the Pac 10 is worse than the SEC and Big 12. Maybe OU - Auburn woulda been a better game.

Answer 8

maybe what I would have perfered, atleast, was to have the 4 undefeated teams play each other

if USC was goning to play oklahoma, at least let Auburn play Utah(the undefeated team everyone forgets about)

I mean the year finnished with 3 undefeated teams, yet they still crown USC That made no sense to me

Answer 9

the reason people blame it on the system is because the voters were not 2/3 of the system that year...at that time, every computer ranking was taken into account individually and not as an average, like they do today...and no i don't think auburn should have played because their out of conference schedule was horrendous and the big 12 was about as good as the sec that year

Answer 10

yeah especially since USC blew Oklahoma out and Auburn would of at least gave them a good game