The Bodda Getta

Curiously, where would Alabama rank if they win?

Jadennis, the question of how the 2004 Auburn team compares is intriguing. Would you please do a similar analysis of it and one for the 2011 uat team, just in case evil triumphs and they beat LSU in the BCS national title game?

shhhhhh

Herbstreet says that uat is in a league of their own. bspn agrees. Don't mess with Spanky...

The 2004 Auburn team would have 132 points in this evaluation.

The main thing that held them back is that not playing in the national title game means they didn't have any wins verses a Top 5 team. The only other team on the list to do that was Miami in 2001 (because Nebraska was already #4 since they lost their conference title game, then also lost in the national title game, therefore not finishing in the Top 5).

That is worth 20 points alone.

Then, the other thing about that team....they did have 5 wins against ranked teams, which is about average for the other champs, but unfortunately those were the only five teams on the whole schedule that even had a winning record. Only USC from that same year played as few "winning" teams as Auburn did.

Auburn of 2004 also had among the most negative points due to playing four teams that won 4 games or less. Those teams were Citadel, Mississippi St, Kentucky, and Ole Miss. Those three SEC teams also only won 6 conference games combined.

You'll notice that USC of that same year had 144 points. Most of the difference came from USC beating Top 5 OU in the title game, as well as playing three Top 10 teams as opposed to Auburn's two.

Remember, this is about what a team had the opportunity to prove on the field. To me, the fact that Auburn handled five ranked teams (four in the Top 15) the way they did, I have no doubt they would have beaten Ole Miss, MSU, and Kentucky even if they all had 8 wins instead of "4 or fewer". But, they were what they were. Auburn also couldn't help that they played Virginia Tech in a bowl game. Tech was ranked #9 at game time. Had Tech been #4, it's possible they would have stayed in the Top 5. But as it was, it cost Auburn the opportunity to have beaten a Top 5 team that year.

Our closest Top 5 win that year was #7 Georgia (with Tech being the other Top 10 team).

I kinda think that Tennessee was probably closer to being a Top 10 team as well, they just had the unfortunate scenario of having to play Auburn twice, which accounted for two of their three losses. They finished #13 with three losses. Had they played us only once, there's a chance they finish 11-2 instead of 10-3, which surely would have put them in the Top 10.

But, this list is all about what actually happened, how many wins your opponents ended up with, and where your opponents ended up at seasons end. So for the 2004 team, it is what it is.

The better comparison of USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn in 2004 would be to calculate their numbers prior to the bowls. Maybe I'll get to that later....

EDIT:
Okay, here are the pre-bowl numbers for those three teams...

Vs Top 25:
USC - 3 wins (15)
OU - 2 wins (10)
AU - 4 wins (20)

Vs Top 15:
USC - 2 (20)
OU - 1 (10)
AU - 3 (30)

Vs Top 10:
USC - 2 (30)
OU - 1 (15)
AU - 1 (15)

Vs Top 5:
USC - 0 (0)
OU - 1 (20)
AU - 0 (0)

Vs winning teams:
USC - 4 (8)
OU - 6 (12)
AU - 4 (8)

Vs 10-win teams:
USC - 2 (10)
OU - 1 (5)
AU - 3 (15)

Vs 8-win teams:
USC - 3 (9)
OU - 4 (12)
AU - 4 (12)

Vs 4 or fewer wins
USC - 4 (-8)
OU - 4 (-8)
AU - 4 (-8)

TOTALS:
Auburn - 92 pts
USC - 84 pts
Okla - 76 pts

And their you have it...according to my incredibly simplistic formula, Auburn and USC would have been the match up.

Fascinating and an amazing amount of work, imagination and expertise to get those numbers. Thanks for sharing. Seems like it needs to go to SI or a broader audience. I enjoy your "what ifs?" ... or "lets look at the numbers".