Who had the easiest Title run during the BCS?

[FSUmanager]

It was the easiest schedule of any champion and probably close to easiest of any participant of the BCSNCG. That was the question. Other teams lucked in to the game but had harder schedules.

I did not dispute what the premise is. Just the manner in which he is trying to downgrade Duke's accomplishments and Auburn's(your team).

 

[theSabanator20]

1. FSU 2013
2. Bama 2011
3. Auburn 2010

 

[The Authority]

Let's dissect this a bit.

To the bold. That little old Duke team who stayed right along with aTm who gave Bama fits. Duke this past year was actually pretty good.

To the underlined. That lucky team who happened to run ALL OVER and BEAT Bama? It only takes 1 season to turn around a team with the right coach. That was Auburn.

Cannot help that Miami and UF went belly up.

Was it a easy schedule? Yes it was, but the way you made it sound FSU played all high school teams.

And as Bobby Bowden said. "To win a national championship it takes skill and luck." Not for Oregon and Bama losing FSU would not have been in the game.

I didn't say those teams were bad. But when you look at it objectively, name a pathway that was easier.

There really isn't one. Has there been another team in the title game that turned around a 3- 9 year and then had two miracle wins to get them there along with a loss. Pretty sure there hasn't.

Duke had a great year for Duke. But they are still Duke. Look at their recruiting over the years.

 

[ckhokie]

Duke had a great year for Duke. But they are still Duke. Look at their recruiting over the years.

What does that mean?

Recruiting /= championships. Like was pointed out, you can say 'Duke is Duke' all you want, but they were right there with A&M, who you wouldn't question was a good team last year.

 

[The Authority]

What does that mean?

Recruiting /= championships. Like was pointed out, you can say 'Duke is Duke' all you want, but they were right there with A&M, who you wouldn't question was a good team last year.

But recruiting does mean talent.

Just because a team had an anomaly good year doesn't mean they are as good as other teams in other years that are consistently good.

Duke also lost to Pitt and GT. Were they good teams?

Like I said it was a good year for Duke. Most top 25 programs wouldn't be quite as happy with 4 losses where two of them were to Pitt and GT

 

[TexasExes98]

What does that mean?

Recruiting /= championships. Like was pointed out, you can say 'Duke is Duke' all you want, but they were right there with A&M, who you wouldn't question was a good team last year.

Aggy was not a good team last year, average at best. Fielded one of the worst defenses in NCAA history. Hell, Rice even scored 30 + and rolled over 500 yds of offense on Aggy. Not sure using Aggy is a great example to explain why Duke was good.

 

[ckhokie]

I think you're missing the point. It's not that Duke was that quality of a team last year. I am just saying you can't discount FSU's championship run (where they crushed basically everyone they played) because you want to say 'Duke is Duke.' Then siting recruiting is even less of an argument.

The obvious answer is 2011 Bama. They didn't have to play in a conference championship game, only beat two ranked teams, and were given a rematch to a team they lost to at home. All of those considered, that is about as easy a road to the Natty as you can get.

 

[BamaTee1]

Can I say several sec teams, or do I need to be more specific?

Sure you can! Makes you look like an idiot but that's ok! Considering the question there is a hell of a lot more SEC teams to choose from than any other conference. I think more than twice as many?

 

[The Authority]

I think you're missing the point. It's not that Duke was that quality of a team last year. I am just saying you can't discount FSU's championship run (where they crushed basically everyone they played) because you want to say 'Duke is Duke.' Then siting recruiting is even less of an argument.

The obvious answer is 2011 Bama. They didn't have to play in a conference championship game, only beat two ranked teams, and were given a rematch to a team they lost to at home. All of those considered, that is about as easy a road to the Natty as you can get.

First of all, who is discounting it. All I am saying is it was the easiest road out of all BCS champions.

Playing LSU in 2011 once was tougher than anything FSU had to do last year, let alone playing them twice.

Duke being Duke does make that road easier and Duke's recruiting is why they aren't considered that Great. Duke had a good year for their standards. But not the standards of most top teams. You have nothing to back up your argument. Whatever that argument is.

 

[BamaTee1]

I think you're missing the point. It's not that Duke was that quality of a team last year. I am just saying you can't discount FSU's championship run (where they crushed basically everyone they played) because you want to say 'Duke is Duke.' Then siting recruiting is even less of an argument.

The obvious answer is 2011 Bama. They didn't have to play in a conference championship game, only beat two ranked teams, and were given a rematch to a team they lost to at home. All of those considered, that is about as easy a road to the Natty as you can get.

You say played rank teams? Is that the criteria? So a team that plays 4 ranked teams with a best ranking of #22 is more impressive than playing #1 twice and a #5 Arkansas. Beating the hell out of two of them and losing in OT to another in their worst played game? That's 3 ranked teams with my math. Also, Penn St was in poll all year and fell out the last week. If a team enters the last week are they some feather in the arrow for some team counting as ranked? So much more to all this than just how many ranked teams did a team play!

 

[Bamabino]

It's not even close. Bama SoS in 2011 per Sagarin= 15th in the country. FSU 2013= 62nd.

 

[Kid Vicarious]

FSU had the easiest schedule by far, but at least they played a team in the NC with a pulse.

 

[FSUmanager]

I didn't say those teams were bad. But when you look at it objectively, name a pathway that was easier.

There really isn't one. Has there been another team in the title game that turned around a 3- 9 year and then had two miracle wins to get them there along with a loss. Pretty sure there hasn't.

Duke had a great year for Duke. But they are still Duke. Look at their recruiting over the years.

The way the post reads it comes off s Auburn and Duke were not very good. Even though they both had great seasons respectively.

I never dismissed your premise. Just in the manner in the way you talked about FSU's schedule. The one part I did not bring up is the "regular season ranked teams". Since when do people take just the regular season end of year ranked teams? It is your thread so I guess we abide by your stipulations.

 

[FSUmanager]

You say played rank teams? Is that the criteria? So a team that plays 4 ranked teams with a best ranking of #22 is more impressive than playing #1 twice and a #5 Arkansas. Beating the hell out of two of them and losing in OT to another in their worst played game? That's 3 ranked teams with my math. Also, Penn St was in poll all year and fell out the last week. If a team enters the last week are they some feather in the arrow for some team counting as ranked? So much more to all this than just how many ranked teams did a team play!

He said BEAT two ranked teams. Not played.


Who is the bold about?

 

[BamaTee1]

Question: I keep reading how Bama did not play in 2011 SECCG. The SEC has played a championship game every year of the BCS. The Big 12 hasn't for several years. The Pac 12 and BIG just started. ACC 2005. Independents don't play one. Never have understood that complaint? The BCS has been going on since 1998, right? Is that equitable?

 

[The Authority]

The way the post reads it comes off s Auburn and Duke were not very good. Even though they both had great seasons respectively.

I never dismissed your premise. Just in the manner in the way you talked about FSU's schedule. The one part I did not bring up is the "regular season ranked teams". Since when do people take just the regular season end of year ranked teams? It is your thread so I guess we abide by your stipulations.

Well obviously you have to have somewhat of a great season to get into conference championship games and title games.

But compare those teams to conference championship and title game making teams and they are not as good.

Final rankings are the most true rankings of a team. That is what most people agree with

Again, Do you really think Auburn last year was as good as LSU in 2011?

 

[BamaTee1]

He said BEAT two ranked teams. Not played.


Who is the bold about?

No one. Just an example of arguing the more ranked teams doesn't always mean a tougher schedule. Another one would be team A plays 4 ranked teams, 2,4,6,7 and team B plays 6 ranked teams, 16,19,20,22,24,25.
You going to tell me Team B has tougher schedule? Someone can believe that all they want but not me!

 

[FSUmanager]

Well obviously you have to have somewhat of a great season to get into conference championship games and title games.

But compare those teams to conference championship and title game making teams and they are not as good.

Final rankings are the most true rankings of a team. That is what most people agree with

Again, Do you really think Auburn last year was as good as LSU in 2011?

Actually I think Auburn of 2013 would give LSU of 2011 everything they could handle. But that is just me.

As far as the ranking I have no problem with end of year rankings. Just the scalpel approach of using the regular season only. The CCG rankings should be considered as well. Also you cannot help if other supposedly going to be good teams go to complete shit. Looking at you VT, Miami, and UF. That goes for every team in every conference.

 

[The Authority]

Actually I think Auburn of 2013 would give LSU of 2011 everything they could handle. But that is just me.

As far as the ranking I have no problem with end of year rankings. Just the scalpel approach of using the regular season only. The CCG rankings should be considered as well. Also you cannot help if other supposedly going to be good teams go to complete shit. Looking at you VT, Miami, and UF. That goes for every team in every conference.

But you know as well as i do, on paper they weren't as good. Obviously paper doesn't always win games but thats all we have to go with in this discussion.

Auburn failed to beat a BCS team the previous year. Last year they had one loss and had a combination of two wins that would have to be the luckiest combination of wins ever seen.

Those are all facts that no other title game making team has. That makes Auburn not really as good as all of the other teams that have played in the title game, regardless of how well they did against FSU or any other one game scenario.

 

[Bamabino]

"Those are all facts that no other title game making team has. That makes Auburn not really as good as all of the other teams that have played in the title game."





I wouldn't quite take it that far. 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma both got blown out in their conference championship games.