Started By
Message
re: Auburn May Add National Championships
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:09 am to Old Hellen Yeller
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:09 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
If the basis for claiming 2004 is USC's cheat mess,
The basis, as stated in the op, were undefeated seasons and at least one selector deciding so.
0
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:10 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
If the basis for claiming 2004 is USC's cheat mess, then you can't really turn right around and claim 1993
1993 didnt cheat.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:11 am to SamGinn Cam
I'm all for it. Count em however you want.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:12 am to BammerDelendaEst
quote:
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?
Because they were the only undefeated untied team! FURTHER. Notre Dame and Michigan State both failed to play in a bowl game
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:12 am to BammerDelendaEst
quote:
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?
Becuase Bama was back-to back defending national champions, went undefeated, crushed their bowl opponent Nebraska while ND and Sparty wound up with a tie
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:14 am to SamGinn Cam
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:16 am to SamGinn Cam
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:16 am to SamGinn Cam
If they're going to do this, they should just add the old ones. Seems dumb to add championships for years where people can remember you not winning the championship.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:17 am to ohiovol
quote:People will forget or die off eventually.
Seems dumb to add championships for years where people can remember you not winning the championship.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:19 am to SamGinn Cam
Ftr, 1913, 1983, and 2004 are nobrainers. Unlike mny of the titles Bama claims, AU has a stronger claim in each one of those years than any other team in the given yr.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:21 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Unlike mny of the titles Bama claims
all Bama, all the time
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:24 am to NYCAuburn
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:25 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
which is incorrect
Wrong again. Read the link I just posted, that's the latest NCAA FBS record (s) book.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:26 am to BammerDelendaEst
quote:
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?
You're talking about 66, right? Michigan State and Notre Dame both declined to play in a bowl game, how lame is that?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:27 am to Korin
quote:
No I'm not
yes you are. Each of those years has selectors for Auburn. The problem with your link is it is only selectors that the NCAA has said are more popular selectors and does not include all .
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:28 am to Choctaw
quote:Alabama could claim 28.
bama could claim 19.
28 Total Major College National Championship Year(s)
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:28 am to NYCAuburn
The link's right there. 
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:28 am to Korin
quote:
Wrong again.
I agree you are. you should read more on the topic.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:29 am to Korin
quote:
The link's right there.
and you should know more about it
Page 8 of 24
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News