Started By
Message
re: Auburn May Add National Championships
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:46 am to WDE24
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:46 am to WDE24
quote:
The point in this conversation is that you can't exclude 1941. The University claimed it and set the low threshold for claiming titles that Bama fans can't get around in arguing what other's claim as titles without being hypocritical.
Seems to me 1941 makes it fair for other schools to claim a year they didn't earn. Go for it. Claim one.
To be honest, though, there are other seasons Bama could legitimately claim. Would be better if they dropped 41 and claimed those. Not sure why that decision was msde.
1
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:47 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
well when you set your own criteria, how can you chastise others for doing the same
What are you talking about? You all are the ones trying to be like Bama.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:47 am to imjustafatkid
quote:The guy that made the decision said because he can argue it and he wanted to compare Alabama more favorably to other schools.
Not sure why that decision was msde.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:47 am to Bama Bird
quote:
What I can tell you about 1941 is that a majority of fans hate it being claimed because it seriously delegitimizes the other claims
Totally agree. The vast majority on non-sidewalk Bama fans do not have their identity tied to a claim of 15 national titles. I would much rather claim 12 or 13 real ones with legitimate sources awarding them than have everyone think half of them are fake. Hell, we lead the nation if all we do is count AP titles.
If AU claims 2004 because the Eufaula Tribune put it on the front page......Jesus.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:50 am to SamGinn Cam
Pleeeease do this AU
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:54 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
Actually it is dead on there pen light. Why else would it even be a topic right now?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:56 am to lsusteve1
Bama got completely and utterly jobbed in 1966. Bama was the only undefeated, utied team in the country yet was not awarded either the AP nor UPI title. Bama does not claim this championship because of it.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:02 am to SamGinn Cam
This is like the perfect troll material. It's even better because it's real and so many bammers are booty bothered about it.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:39 am to SamGinn Cam
No. Just no.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:57 am to SamGinn Cam
1910 - no selection (s)
1913 - 1 retroactive selection
1914 - no selection (s)
1958 - no selection (s)
1983 - fewer selections than Miami and Nebraska
1993 - bowl ban/probation
2004 - no selection (s)
1913 - 1 retroactive selection
1914 - no selection (s)
1958 - no selection (s)
1983 - fewer selections than Miami and Nebraska
1993 - bowl ban/probation
2004 - no selection (s)
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:58 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
Bama does it and it's accepted. So why the heck not?
Auburn's trying to do it even in years where they didn't get a single selection though. Even Alabama doesn't do that.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:59 am to SamGinn Cam
Funny stuff, I hope it happens
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:00 am to Korin
quote:
1910 - no selection (s)
1913 - 1 retroactive selection
1914 - no selection (s)
1958 - no selection (s)
1983 - fewer selections than Miami and Nebraska
1993 - bowl ban/probation
2004 - no selection (s)
you would be incorrect
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:02 am to Korin
quote:
2004 - no selection (s)
people's champ
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:03 am to bona fide
quote:
2004 - no selection (s)
people's champ
Your champion!
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:04 am to Korin
quote:
Auburn's trying to do it even in years where they didn't get a single selection though. Even Alabama doesn't do that.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:05 am to bona fide
Hope we claim them.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:05 am to BamaDoc14
quote:
Auburn's trying to do it even in years where they didn't get a single selection though
which is incorrect
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:06 am to StopRobot
How did they get "jobbed"?
They were #3.
#1 and #2 played to a tie.
How does that make #3 better than either of them?
They were #3.
#1 and #2 played to a tie.
How does that make #3 better than either of them?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:07 am to NYCAuburn
It would be hard to justify claiming both 2004 and 1993. If the basis for claiming 2004 is USC's cheat mess, then you can't really turn right around and claim 1993 imho.
Page 7 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News