Started By
Message
David Housel's column
Posted on 11/23/12 at 10:42 am
Posted on 11/23/12 at 10:42 am
LINK
Interesting read if you wish to forget this season and need something to FAP to. Seems like an exercise in Gump logic to me, but whatever.
Interesting read if you wish to forget this season and need something to FAP to. Seems like an exercise in Gump logic to me, but whatever.
This post was edited on 11/23/12 at 10:43 am
2
Posted on 11/23/12 at 10:55 am to AUTiger83
Very interesting we should claim them heck Bama claims claims titles that Dog Fancy awarded them. 
Posted on 11/23/12 at 10:59 am to wartiger2004
Posted on 11/23/12 at 11:12 am to AUTiger83
quote:
Auburn's Unclaimed National Championships
The book that explains why Auburn University should claim a National Championship for the 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993, and 2004 seasons in addition to the 1957 and 2010 National Championships.
1913 is 100% legit. 1958 is iffy. We were undefeated and had not lost a game in 2 years, but we did have a tie and LSU was also undefeated. Maybe a split title.
1983 = 100% legit
1993 = No. We didn't play in a bowl against FSU due to probation.
2004 = 100% legit. Split title that year.
I will give us 5 or 6.
2010, 2004, 1983, 1957, 1913 with 1958 as a maybe.
Posted on 11/23/12 at 11:18 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
BTW, just read the article.
Seems the author of the book and AU's media guide recognizes 6 as well, but recognizes 1993 instead of 1958.
The author of the book notes AU has been named NC 9 times in the various polling organizations. There are pretty good arguments for 1910 and 1914. AU was clearly the best team in the south those years, but teams from the south did not really play northern teams then so saying who the best was is not possible.
Anyway, maybe we just go with the author of the book. 9 NCs. All 9 teams were undefeated and named national champs (most by multiple polling organizations) so sounds good.
quote:
Being undefeated or winning a conference championship is not enough to be included on Skotnicki’s client list. To make his list, a team has to be named or designated National Champion by at least one recognized selector, and there are many from which to choose. One might argue too many, but that is another discussion for another day. Suffice it to say each of these teams, as Skotnicki notes, was named National Champion by someone or by some entity. Recognition could come from an individual, mathematical formula or some other evaluation, but the designation was made.
What, if anything, should Auburn do about it? That, too, is a question for another day. It is not as if Auburn doesn’t already recognize some of these teams as national champions, four of the seven (1913, 1983, 1993 and 2004) are listed as national champions in the Year-By-Year Record section of the media guide
Seems the author of the book and AU's media guide recognizes 6 as well, but recognizes 1993 instead of 1958.
The author of the book notes AU has been named NC 9 times in the various polling organizations. There are pretty good arguments for 1910 and 1914. AU was clearly the best team in the south those years, but teams from the south did not really play northern teams then so saying who the best was is not possible.
Anyway, maybe we just go with the author of the book. 9 NCs. All 9 teams were undefeated and named national champs (most by multiple polling organizations) so sounds good.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News