Auburn Does NOT Deserve a BCS Title Bid Over Ohio State ... And That's The Problem

After 11-1 Auburn won on a miracle, should they leap-frog
undefeated Ohio State for a BCS title shot?

Today, Auburn fans and SEC lovers are all over the place barking that the Auburn Tigers (and to a certain extent, a Missouri Tigers team that would win the SEC with a win over Auburn next week) should get a BCS Championship Game bid over undefeated Ohio State.  They claim that Auburn is better than Ohio State.  They claim that their body of work is more impressive than Ohio State.  That coming out of the SEC with one loss is more impressive than going undefeated in the Big Ten.  That the SEC's run of 7 straight championships (several with a 1-loss record and one with 2 losses) should mean something.

Maybe they are right.

Too bad.  This is what college football is.

At times, I love chaos in sports. I love when there are these kind of controversies.  Where things that these rule makers decide is best gets ruined by some loophole.  I especially love it when it happens to college football because it is usually their own fault.

I hate the BCS.  It sucks.  As long as it has existed, it has been rammed down my throat about how great it is despite all the constant tinkering that it has undergone.  It got to the point where the selling point was "well, it is better than what we had."  That argument tends to never work.

If Florida State (ACC), Ohio State (Big Ten) and Auburn (SEC) win their conference championship games, then the Seminoles and Buckeyes should play for the national championship.  Auburn sits out in the Sugar Bowl.  FSU and OSU finished undefeated while Auburn lost to LSU by 14 points back on September 21st.  In a sport where the tag line is "every game counts" then that loss to LSU counts a lot.  It counts just like that big ZERO counts in the loss column for both the Noles and the Buckeyes.

Do I think Auburn is better than either of those teams?  Maybe.  Truth be told, I still think Alabama is the best team in the nation.  I mean, Auburn's argument can be used against them in the fact that Bama has lost once and that was on a last second missed field goal attempt that was returned for a touchdown.  That win, plus the "Prayer at Jordan-Hare" two weeks ago kept Auburn from sitting at 9-3 right now.

Ohio State could be the kind of fake title game representative that Notre Dame was last year.  No, the Irish weren't one of the two best teams in the country last year, but they played their way into that game.  Of course, Ohio State hasn't lost a game over the last two seasons.  Does that count for something?

If so, then it should count that Auburn and Missouri ... the two teams fighting for the SEC title game ... were a combined 2-14 in SEC play last year.  One season later and they dominate a down SEC.  An SEC that is still very, very good but isn't as good as it has been over the past several seasons.  I mean, what was the best non conference win for the SEC???  Probably yesterday's South Carolina win over Clemson.  After that, maybe Ole Miss win over Texas.  Not really anything that impressive in the non-conference.

Truth be told, neither Ohio State nor Florida State have any non-conference wins of any note.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, next year we get a playoff which will solve absolutely nothing if not make it worse.  I mean, a four team playoff will have way more controversies that this.  Pitting a title game with two undefeated teams is pretty easy compared to picking who should be the two other teams in a playoff next year.  Sure, if the playoff was this season the Auburn-Missouri winner would be the third team in.  Who would be the fourth?  The Auburn-Missou loser?  Not likely.  Alabama?  Could very well be.  Oklahoma State has a great case.  How do you go through that?

Who cares.  More chaos for me!