Started By
Message
re: 2004 National Chumps= USC?
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:11 pm to Bench McElroy
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:11 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
There was an Auburn poster who said he didn't even want a ceremony if Auburn is awarded the title. Just give it away at halftime and get it over with. I don't know how any program can be satisfied with being awarded a national title five years after the fact. It's like being the silver medalist given the gold medal after the gold medalist is stripped of the medal. Yes, the silver medalist get the gold but it's just not the same. All the enjoyment of winning it live was taken away.
Typical Bama hypocrisy...you guys accept titles given before the season is over...claim'em proudly even...
0
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:14 pm to gorillaballin
BCS would likely be just vacated since neither OU nor Auburn actually won the BCS title game (Orange Bowl).
Now, the AP could have a re-vote, I guess since it's not tied to a single game.
Now, the AP could have a re-vote, I guess since it's not tied to a single game.
This post was edited on 5/21/10 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:14 pm to TxTiger82
The biggest difference is that Alabama actually beat the second best team in college football on a neutral field. And in the end, what's the difference between '04 Auburn and '08 Utah? They both finished second in the polls. They both went undefeated. They both never got the chance to play for a national title. It's all the same to me.
This post was edited on 5/21/10 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:15 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Auburn was awesome when Bama was down. Now Bama is awesome and Auburn is a little down.
When did Auburn have 21 scholarships taken away? Auburn being down wasn't due to sanctions or restrictions. It had to do with being satisfied with a coach who could beat Mike Shula.
Do I feel sorry for them? No. But the basis of their success had more to do with our struggles than anything else. They've gotten progressively better with the arrival of Chiz/Gus, but they will never be at the level of domination that they achieved due to Alabama's probation combined with the reign of Shula.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:16 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
The biggest difference is that Alabama actually beat the second best team in college football on a neutral field.
Auburn never got the chance because they didn't get deferential treatment over USC and OU, two members of the college football aristocracy.
Alabama is in said aristocracy, and thus got the benefit of the doubt (not that Boise or TCU would have gotten in over Auburn....but you know what I'm saying).
quote:
what's the difference between '04 Auburn and '08 Utah?
Good question. What is the difference between 09 Bama and 08 Utah, beyond the subjective?
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:17 pm to AHM21
quote:
It had to do with being satisfied with a coach who could beat Mike Shula.
They did a lot more than just beat Bama when they were good, idiot.
They beat everybody.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:18 pm to AHM21
quote:
But the basis of their success had more to do with our struggles than anything else
Again, Bama wasn't the only team they had to overcome. For example, they beat LSU every other year for a little while there.
You saying that had something to do with Bama sucking? I call bullshite.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:19 pm to TxTiger82
They did? And yet all they have to show is one SEC title and two title game appearances.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:19 pm to AHM21
Is it funnier for you to claim the 1925 title 13 years after the fact...when Bama was awarded it in 1933?
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:19 pm to AHM21
Is it funnier for you to claim the 1925 title 7 years after the fact...when Bama was awarded it in 1933?
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:20 pm to TxTiger82
I'm saying that it's no coincidence that Auburn's successes coincided with Alabama's struggles (Shula, sanctions, and scholarship restrictions).
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:21 pm to Aubie83
I agree that in this scenario, the 2004 national champion should be Auburn.
They finished #2 in the final poll, and obviously had a better case to be in that title game than Oklahoma, which phoned in a shameful performance that night against USC.
I'm not a big Auburn sympathizer. LSU has plenty of reason to be sore about the 2004 game, in particular. But they were the best team in the SEC, and deserved the shot more than any other.
I can put aside the hate. Auburn is the rightful champ in 2004 if USC cheated.
Going back 6 years to claim it is hardly a pathetic action when you consider the decades-spanning revisionism that results in several schools claiming national championships with dubious origins.
(Not naming names... you know who you are)
They finished #2 in the final poll, and obviously had a better case to be in that title game than Oklahoma, which phoned in a shameful performance that night against USC.
I'm not a big Auburn sympathizer. LSU has plenty of reason to be sore about the 2004 game, in particular. But they were the best team in the SEC, and deserved the shot more than any other.
I can put aside the hate. Auburn is the rightful champ in 2004 if USC cheated.
Going back 6 years to claim it is hardly a pathetic action when you consider the decades-spanning revisionism that results in several schools claiming national championships with dubious origins.
(Not naming names... you know who you are)
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:21 pm to AHM21
quote:
I'm saying that it's no coincidence that Auburn's successes coincided with Alabama's struggles (Shula, sanctions, and scholarship restrictions).
Its all tied to who wins the west every year, 2nd place won't get you too far
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:29 pm to TxTiger82
Auburn didn't get the chance because they played an extremely weak nonconference schedule. Do you know why Oklahoma keeps getting chance after chance to play in the BCS national championship game? It's because they usually have a tough nonconference schedule. Oklahoma isn't afraid to play anybody anytime anywhere. '09 Alabama played a top ten Virginia Tech team on a neutral field. Auburn getting screwed has nothing to do with aristocracy or not being an elite program or any of this other BS. It was due to the fact that they had a nonconference schedule so weak that it would have made Bill Snyder double over in laughter.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:30 pm to gorillaballin
To be fair I was the Auburn poster who thinks we shouldn't celebrate it if awarded. Just bring the team back and do something small at halftime. The award has lost its luster for 2004, it just feels like a smack in the face.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:36 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
They finished #2 in the final poll, and obviously had a better case to be in that title game than Oklahoma, which phoned in a shameful performance that night against USC
Uh not IMO, OU's shameful performance, as you put it, had more to do with USC being that much better than anyone and everyone that year! OU was #2 prior to the game, If USC cheated then OU should move to #1 and Au would stay at #2. Au had a great year and a great team but USC & OU were better as reflected by all the Coaches and AP voters the entire year. That's my take on it, FWIW.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:39 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
they had a nonconference schedule so weak
This
They would have been there if they took care of business scheduling a strong OOC team or two. Starting the season ranked so low didn't help either.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:58 pm to AHM21
quote:
I'm saying that it's no coincidence that Auburn's successes coincided with Alabama's struggles (Shula, sanctions, and scholarship restrictions).
You have no evidence to support this claim. It is fricking bullshite.
Auburn doesn't even depend solely on Alabama players. They get guys from Georgia, Florida, and all over the southeast.
The recruited the same way then they do now. Bama didn't affect them in the least.
What happened to them is that the league changed and they tried to change with it but failed.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 2:01 pm to TxTiger82
Alabama's going through turmoil, Auburn has their best stint ever.
Alabama goes 12-0, beating Auburn 36-0, and Auburn fires their coach
Makes sense to me.
Alabama goes 12-0, beating Auburn 36-0, and Auburn fires their coach
Makes sense to me.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 2:02 pm to AHM21
quote:
Alabama's going through turmoil, Auburn has their best stint ever.
Alabama goes 12-0, beating Auburn 36-0, and Auburn fires their coach
That is circumstantial. It isn't proof of anything.
quote:
Makes sense to me
Not surprising.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News