Posing this question after I've been reading about Ohio State coach Ryan Day getting into more hot water as he's trying to downplay losing to Michigan for the 4th straight year by saying he's got his team in the playoffs and Michigan is not. There have been comments back and for saying most teams with big rivals, like the OSU-Michigan game or the Iron Bowl want to beat their rivals each year just as bad, or worse, than winning a conference title or national championship. There's just been a lot of talk about how college football is still about the rivalries and traditions and that's what sets it apart from the pro game. But I don't know. To me the landscape has changed so much the last few years the line between the two are getting very blurry.
So what about it? Does it mean more for Auburn to beat Bama as much as possible, or are we not worried about a loss to them if we still get to play of and win a national title? And should a head coach be judged more on how many title games he gets to and wins, or how many wins he has against his main rivals?
So what about it? Does it mean more for Auburn to beat Bama as much as possible, or are we not worried about a loss to them if we still get to play of and win a national title? And should a head coach be judged more on how many title games he gets to and wins, or how many wins he has against his main rivals?
