Started By
Message
1974 OU and 1993 Auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:07 pm
Both were on NCAA probation from televised games and bowls. However...
OU was eligible to win the Big Eight, which they did.
AU had the best record in the SEC but wasn't eligible for the SECCG.
OU won the AP national title and was the only undefeated team in college football.
AU was eligible for the AP title, and was the only undefeated team in college football; finished #4.
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974. Did the AP voters have more of an agenda, and would have faced backlash had they gone with AU in 1993?
Just curious to know, especially from the Auburn fans and what they remember.
OU was eligible to win the Big Eight, which they did.
AU had the best record in the SEC but wasn't eligible for the SECCG.
OU won the AP national title and was the only undefeated team in college football.
AU was eligible for the AP title, and was the only undefeated team in college football; finished #4.
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974. Did the AP voters have more of an agenda, and would have faced backlash had they gone with AU in 1993?
Just curious to know, especially from the Auburn fans and what they remember.
22
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:08 pm to Oklahomey
Because Auburn sucks.
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:11 pm to Oklahomey
You have the context for the times but what is the subtext?
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:25 pm to Oklahomey
Because... Auburn.
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:27 pm to Oklahomey
Because its fricking auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:30 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
Because its fricking auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:32 pm to Oklahomey
I am an Auburn fan and concur with the consensus above me, "Because it's Auburn." That year is not the only example, either...
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
1983 - AU fricked out of NC.
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
1983 - AU fricked out of NC.
This post was edited on 7/26/17 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:34 pm to WestCoastAg
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:38 pm to texag7
Anyone noticed how all of Auburn's best years in school history start with a 3 or 4....and if it's not 3 or 4 it's 3+4...
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:40 pm to FourThreeForty
2010
2 + 0 + 1 + 0
2 + 0 + 1 + 0
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:45 pm to texag7
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:47 pm to DannyB
2004 and 1983 AU's misfortunes have nothing to do with the topic.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:10 am to phil4bama
quote:
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
So NC's aren't a yearly award. NC's are awarded because of an accumulation of years? That is some sound logic you have there.
The truth of the matter...........NC's were awarded as much for the name on the front of the jersey as for the merit of an individual school.
Auburn's 2004 team had some bama fan, who was a voter, not putting Auburn in his top 25......trying to manipulate the vote. There used to be a lot of that when we used the poll system.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:12 am to Oklahomey
Florida State, Notre Dame, and Nebraska were just seen as better football teams than Auburn in '93, despite their undefeated season.
Auburn played just two ranked teams all year while FSU played seven.
Auburn played just two ranked teams all year while FSU played seven.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:14 am to Oklahomey
Another day...another shitty thread
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:20 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
Auburn's 2004 team played 4 teams that finished better than .500
FIFY.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:20 am to Oklahomey
frick OU and Auburn
/thread
/thread
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:29 am to Tuscaloosa
Back in the 90s if you didnt start out ranked top 10 or 15 you didnt have a true shot of winning the title. Thats why they started the BCS and now playoffs. You just couldnt climb over legacy teams back then
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:35 am to Tuscaloosa
So we should be punished because Bama cheated and their program was a dumpster fire that was "staring down the barrel of a gun"?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:43 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Auburn's 2004 team played 4 teams that finished better than .500
FIFY.
WTF are you talking about?
That 2004 team played more teams ranked in the top 10, at the time of the game, than USC and OKL played top 25 teams.........combined.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News