Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:27 pm to REBSontheRISE
I think the natty was still being voted before the bowl game? Maybe not but I know bowls weren't as important back then. Now seeing a 1972 SEC championship banner in Bryant Denny is embarrassing. That's AU's SEC championship without a doubt. Bryant scheduled an extra SEC game against Vandy and although AU won head to head Bama ended up with a 7-1 record and AU with 6-1 so Bama claims it.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:39 pm to TIGERSPIKE
quote:
Now seeing a 1972 SEC championship banner in Bryant Denny is embarrassing. That's AU's SEC championship without a doubt. Bryant scheduled an extra SEC game against Vandy and although AU won head to head Bama ended up with a 7-1 record and AU with 6-1 so Bama claims it.
Coach Bryant scheduled an extra game in September knowing au would be 6-1 at the end of the season? He was a wizard
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:40 pm to jatebe
quote:
1978
In a situation like that I think a split title is probably fair.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 12:42 pm to jatebe
quote:
That was the past and the teams played by the rules then.
Agree to disagree I guess, the rules made no sense. Largely in that there were different sets of rules. Handing out titles at different points in the season, teams winning conferences on technicalities like 72 etc.. There are a lot of cases where simple common sense can be applied to recognize which team was the most deserving of a title in a given year. The year of this thread being one glaringly obvious example.
This post was edited on 5/1/17 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:04 pm to REBSontheRISE
Thank God we have the playoffs, so all these fake champ nonsense goes the way of the Commodore 64
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:47 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Agree to disagree I guess, the rules made no sense. Largely in that there were different sets of rules. Handing out titles at different points in the season, teams winning conferences on technicalities like 72 etc.. There are a lot of cases where simple common sense can be applied to recognize which team was the most deserving of a title in a given year. The year of this thread being one glaringly obvious example.
You got thoroughly owned in this thread especially considering that your school claims a title where they didnt even play in a bowl game. You need to take a break from the internets.
This post was edited on 5/1/17 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:49 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Agree to disagree I guess, the rules made no sense. Largely in that there were different sets of rules. Handing out titles at different points in the season, teams winning conferences on technicalities like 72 etc.. There are a lot of cases where simple common sense can be applied to recognize which team was the most deserving of a title in a given year. The year of this thread being one glaringly obvious example.
At first I thought you were doing an excellent job trolling everyone but it has become apparent you believe the blather you are spewing. The ‘Bama NC controversy’ can be split up nicely between pre and post poll era. The entire unbiased sporting world recognizes all AP and Coaches Poll NC's, you can't point to any examples otherwise. You can call the 1973 title cheap all you want, and I wouldn't dispute you there. Nevertheless, it was won with the rules in place at the time, and the trophy is in the case. Who knows, maybe Bama wins that game if they hadn’t gotten the big head from being awarded that trophy? Just because you wish something wasn't the case, or you don’t like it, doesn't mean it's not true. Bless your poor tortured heart. Most Auburn fans who are triggered by this issue correctly point out that the pre poll era NC's Bama claims were awarded retroactively. It is a compelling argument, and one I would wager you ascribe to. Ironically, you want to retroactively change history now for the poll era ones you just don't like. Where does it end? Do the BCS era titles count that were won with the system in place or did those come off the books when we went to a ‘playoff?’ Perhaps you can introduce the “RandySavage Revised Comprehensive Index of National Champions in Football and Fairness” poll which will better suit your personal needs?
On a somewhat related note I’m nearly certain you would count Auburn’s 1957 NC, which you can’t do virtuously if you want to discredit Bama’s 1973. Incidentally, I count 1957 as well- it’s just a little cheap, just like ’73. The mental gymnastics and hypocrisy required by someone such as yourself is a fascinating display of sports fanaticism and lunacy. In short, whatever affliction it is that you have, I hope I never catch it.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:53 pm to StopRobot
quote:I'd like to know who the hell put hand-cuffs on Auburn and prevented them from scheduling an extra SEC game every year?
Coach Bryant scheduled an extra game in September knowing au would be 6-1 at the end of the season? He was a wizard
Posted on 5/1/17 at 1:58 pm to RT1941
So I guess this means Auburn is back to 1 national championship?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 3:53 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Impressive amounts of rustle seeping from the Bama fans here.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:13 pm to StopRobot
Yes coach Bryant scheduled Vandy as an extra SEC game knowing that would give him a better chance at SEC championship and a Sugar Bowl bid. This is common knowledge.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:19 pm to RandySavage
Would it have been ok if we went undefeated while on probation but didn't play in a bowl game?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:25 pm to RollTiger1987
Says the person who created this alter just because he was rustled 
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:30 pm to TIGERSPIKE
quote:
Yes coach Bryant scheduled Vandy as an extra SEC game knowing that would give him a better chance at SEC championship and a Sugar Bowl bid. This is common knowledge.
You realize that Alabama had played Vandy every year since 1926?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:33 pm to StopRobot
quote:
You got thoroughly owned in this thread
That's adorable you think so.
How everyone in the country sees it.
How people in Tuscaloosa see it...
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:37 pm to thatthang
quote:
Most Auburn fans who are triggered by this issue correctly point out that the pre poll era NC's Bama claims were awarded retroactively.
lol, they weren't "awarded" they were made up by magically by someone in the bama athletic dept.
quote:
Ironically, you want to retroactively change history now for the poll era ones you just don't like
Not true, I just want justice so that championships aren't cheapened.
quote:
“RandySavage Revised Comprehensive Index of National Champions in Football and Fairness” poll
Yes I should and like I said earlier in said poll bama would be awarded the 1966 title they deserve.
quote:
On a somewhat related note I’m nearly certain you would count Auburn’s 1957 NC, which you can’t do virtuously if you want to discredit Bama’s 1973.
Of course I would, we were the only perfect team in the country.
*Sidenote, am I the only one who didn't know Oregon used to be the Webfoots?
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:39 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
So I guess this means Auburn is back to 1 national championship?
Actually probably up to at least 5 or 6.
1913, 1957, 1983, 2004, 2010 for sure. 1993 is probably a weak claim but definitely one to be made and much stronger than many of the others out there.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:44 pm to RandySavage
Lol
Posted on 5/1/17 at 4:48 pm to RandySavage
Make an argument for any of those years we weren't the best team/most impressive resume. If it's compelling I'll consider removing it from my list.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News