Less corruption, more filling (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Wednesday, 5 January 2005

Less corruption, more filling

Contrary to my suspicions, the AP poll voters resisted the all-out lobbying effort by Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville (enabled by ABC—allegedly a partner of the BCS—who gave the coach opportunites at both the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl to manufacture controversy) and actually payed attention to what happened on the field: Auburn hung on by the skin of its teeth (taking three straight sacks to run out the clock) to defeat Virginia Tech, while Southern Cal destroyed Oklahoma, in a game whose 55–19 margin probably overstates matters, as the Sooners scored a touchdown and a safety in garbage time. Congrats to the Trojans; no dap for the Tigers here. And, you have to wonder about the Sooners in bowl games—they’re 3–3 in bowls under Bob Stoops since 1999.

3 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. Bryan wrote @ Wed, 5 Jan 2005, 9:08 pm CST:

Sorry, Chris, but that’s a non-starter. Oklahoma’s defense has been suspect all year, while Southern Cal barely beat Va. Tech as well in the first game of the season. I’ll grant you that Auburn hung on to win by the skin of their teeth, but they were basically playing “four corners” for the fourth quarter.

No matter what Southern Cal says and all the BCS folks say, Auburn handled a far tougher conference schedule than SC, and has an identical record at the end of the season. Ergo, also deserving of a national championship.

Go Playoffs!

2. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Wed, 5 Jan 2005, 9:52 pm CST:

I’ll grant that Auburn handled a tougher conference schedule—although only LSU and Auburn had winning conference records in the West—but Southern Cal faced a more credible non-conference schedule. I have to say, though, it’s not Auburn’s fault that Bowling Green bailed for the Sooners—but I suspect they could have bribed someone better than The Citadel to come down to the Plains (Louisiana-Lafayette is always available for a price ☺).

I’d also say that Southern Cal handled Virginia Tech more decisively than Auburn did—especially when you consider that Southern Cal was essentially playing a road game, while the well-lubricated Tiger fans probably had ¾ of the seats in the Superdome—although the Trojans did benefit from a couple of suspect calls.

3. bryan wrote @ Thu, 6 Jan 2005, 9:50 pm CST:

I’d be curious as to how many of the Auburn non-conference foes were home-and-home contracts. Sometimes, a schedule is set up several years in advance with an agreement that the bigger team (Auburn in this case) play a game at the lesser team’s stadium. If so, it may have been out of tuberville’s hands there.

And I don’t know that SoCal did handle VaTech more decisively, give n thaat Auburn basically played the four-corners run-out-the-clock for the fourth quarter. Tuberville probably should have put a little more effort into that fourth. Maybe they would have gotten more than three no. 1 votes.

Disclaimer: I’m not an auburn fan, necessarily. I just hate the BCS with a passion and anythign I can do to throw a wrench into their little love-fest abou ta consensus no. 1 is my civic football-lovin’ duty. :-)

Comments are now closed on this post.