BCS Rankings: If Auburn Loses, Should SEC Still Be in the Title Game?
The BCS rankings for Week 14 were released Sunday, and there was a minor surprise at the top of the table.
The Auburn Tigers, who narrowly escaped Bryant-Denney Stadium with a win, were ranked number one overall, jumping the also-undefeated Oregon Ducks in the polls.
This presents an interesting scenario for War Eagle, as they face a tough test in the SEC title game. If they should lose to no. 18 South Carolina (I'm not saying they will, but it is a possibility), Auburn is logically eliminated from BCS title contention, right? Not so fast. Should we kick the Tigers out of the game with a loss?
We're giving you five reasons why they should get the boot, and five reasons why they shouldn't, and figuring out whether or not the SEC still deserves a bid to Glendale.
Why They Should Get In 5: Cam Newton
1 of 11
Auburn paid good money to get him; they deserve a shot at the title before he becomes a real pro, right? One little loss shouldn't stand in the way of a legend in the making.
Why They Should Get The Axe 5: They Didn't Win Their Conference
2 of 11
Shouldn't one of the qualifications for the BCS title game be that the contenders won their conferences? The only way a non-conference champ should play in the title tilt is if their conference's winner is the other team in the game.
And while South Carolina's good, they haven't sniffed a national title in their program's history, much less this season. In other words, if the Tigers can't win the conference, why should they be allowed to play for the national title?
Why They Should Get In 4: Nebraska, 2001
3 of 11
Remember 2001? One of the BCS' formative years was a screwy one, indeed. The Huskers lost to Colorado in the Big 12 title game, then got a shot at the national crown against the Miami Hurricanes.
Granted, Nebraska was routed 37-14, but they got a shot. If the Huskers could get one, so can the Tigers.
.jpg?w=256 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
Why They Should Get The Axe 4: Wisconsin
4 of 11
Let's say Auburn loses to South Carolina. We don't want a second Pac-10 team in the title game (Stanford), and we don't want a non-AQ (TCU). What about the Badgers? They've been blowing good teams out of the water in recent weeks, and their only loss was to a strong Michigan State team earlier in the year.
Wouldn't the Badgers, who won the a share of the Big Ten crown, be a more fitting title contender than Auburn? At the very least, they should get a chance before the Tigers, should War Eagle stumble.
Why They Should Get In 3: 2004-2005
5 of 11
Maybe this is why Auburn jumped despite such an unconvincing victory. In 2004, the Tigers ran the table, going a perfect 12-0 and winning the SEC title. But the Tigers were stuck on the outside looking in, unable to pass the Oklahoma Sooners to get into the title game.
Perhaps, the Tigers are this season's team of destiny, who the BCS has pre-ordained as a national title contender, regardless of their conference title game's results.
Why They Should Get The Axe 3: South Carolina
6 of 11
This isn't a dig at the Gamecocks, but the fact of the matter is, South Carolina is the weakest SEC East champ in recent memory. They're 9-3, and the losses came to Auburn, Kentucky and Arkansas. They're ranked 19th in the country right now, which sounds about right for them.
If the Tigers can't beat the Gamecocks, they don't deserve a title shot.
Why They Should Get In 2: Their Body Of Work
7 of 11
The Tigers have amassed one of the most impressive bodies of work in college football in 2010 en route to going 12-0.
They've beaten good teams in Mississippi State, Clemson, then no. 12 South Carolina, then- no. 12 Arkansas, then-no.6 LSU, and then-no.11 Alabama. That's quite a few quality victories, many more than just about anyone else could boast. It's a resume that is just about good enough to keep the Tigers in the title hunt, even if they lose a close one to South Carolina.
Why They Should Get The Axe 2: The SEC's In a Down Year
8 of 11
The SEC is not the force of nature it's been in years past. Nine of the 12 teams have at least three losses, and only Auburn has fewer than two.
While many of those wounds were self inflicted, it's tough to justify sending a one-loss, non-conference champ to the title game out of a conference that's anything less than dominant.
Why They Should Get In 1: Strength of The SEC
9 of 11
Despite the fact that the SEC has so many middle-of-the-pack teams, the conference is still the strongest in the country overall, according to most metrics.
To go 12-1 in the SEC, even this season, is quite an accomplishment, and it's one that merits giving the Tigers a good, hard look regardless of what happens in Atlanta.
Why They Should Get The Axe 1: TCU
10 of 11
The Horned Frogs are the biggest reason why Auburn shouldn't be in the title game, should they lose the SEC championship. They're undefeated, are easily the Mountain West Conference champs, and own convincing wins over then-fifth-ranked Utah (47-7) and then-number 24 Oregon State.
If the Tigers lose (and that's a big if), the Horned Frogs should undoubtedly move into the title game ahead of them, or any one-loss team, for that matter. They've taken care of business all season long, and deserve a shot at the title.
Conclusion: Should They Stay Or Should They Go?
11 of 11
In a word, no. If the Tigers lose, they haven't been nearly dominant enough to merit keeping their BCS berth. None of their big wins have been terribly convincing, and the SEC isn't strong enough to boost Auburn's profile in the event of a loss.
Add to that a lackluster title game opponent in South Carolina, and a third undefeated team in TCU, and it would be indefensible to put a one-loss Auburn team in the BCS championship ahead of any undefeated team. If they do, it proves what we've all suspected for years: the BCS is rigged for the BCS conferences, specifically the SEC.
Now, if Oregon can't get past Oregon State, Auburn's case improves, but not enough to merit putting them in the title game.
.jpg?w=480 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
.jpg?w=600 "Colts Release Kenny Moore")
