Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:03 pm to AU24
Two I think.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:11 pm to AU24
Didn't take long for this to turn into a dick measuring contest.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:23 pm to GusAU
You'll get nothing and like it.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:29 pm to AU24
1993 shouldn't count because you couldn't play in the SECCG or a Bowl game.
1957 you didn't play in a bowl either but it's more legit because Shug won the NC and his only SECC.
1957 you didn't play in a bowl either but it's more legit because Shug won the NC and his only SECC.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:31 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
all those seasons and only 1 legit title to show for it.
Which one is that?
Posted on 7/22/16 at 6:10 pm to AU24
One..
Posted on 7/22/16 at 6:52 pm to AU24
As best I can tell Auburn has had 3 (or 5) true perfect seasons if you look at it honestly.
1913 8-0
2004 13-0
2010 14-0
All legit.
1957 and 1993 count in a sense that they played a full season and won all their games, however you have to put a small asterisk by them.
Your bowl game (or an SEC championship game) is typically one of a team's most challenging games. Sitting out the postseasons is obviously going to preserve an undefeated season some of the time you would have lost in the postseson.
Many teams have ended the regular season undefeated only to lose in the postseason.
1913 8-0
2004 13-0
2010 14-0
All legit.
1957 and 1993 count in a sense that they played a full season and won all their games, however you have to put a small asterisk by them.
Your bowl game (or an SEC championship game) is typically one of a team's most challenging games. Sitting out the postseasons is obviously going to preserve an undefeated season some of the time you would have lost in the postseson.
Many teams have ended the regular season undefeated only to lose in the postseason.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 6:59 pm to TailbackU
cat fight 
Posted on 7/22/16 at 7:00 pm to AU24
College football wasn't really "organized" till about 1906 (when the precursor to the NCAA standardized the rules and such). Prior to then different parts of the country played with different rules, slightly different scoring systems, stuff like that.
Pretty much all college football played in the 1800's was glorified intramurals, essentially like a club sport is today.
Alabama for example sometimes played high schools or things like freaking fire/ambulance department to even have opponents to play. That's why a lot of teams have mostly 2-5 game scheduled back in the early days. Some schools even played the same opponent 2-3 times in the same year.
By the early 1900's college football had grown to the point it was a national phenomenon and there was an interest in turning it a coherent sport, which is why the first conferences and bowl games began appearing about then too, and you'll notice almost everybody from then on had a full schedule (7-8+ games).
Pretty much all college football played in the 1800's was glorified intramurals, essentially like a club sport is today.
Alabama for example sometimes played high schools or things like freaking fire/ambulance department to even have opponents to play. That's why a lot of teams have mostly 2-5 game scheduled back in the early days. Some schools even played the same opponent 2-3 times in the same year.
By the early 1900's college football had grown to the point it was a national phenomenon and there was an interest in turning it a coherent sport, which is why the first conferences and bowl games began appearing about then too, and you'll notice almost everybody from then on had a full schedule (7-8+ games).
This post was edited on 7/23/16 at 1:22 am
Posted on 7/23/16 at 7:30 am to IAmReality
quote:
1957 and 1993 count in a sense that they played a full season and won all their games, however you have to put a small asterisk by them.
'57 is legit. Teams often didn't go to bowls back then.
'93 would have won against anybody. They had already proved that during the season.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 9:12 am to AU24
There is no such thing as a PERFECT season
Posted on 7/23/16 at 12:32 pm to LC412000
Posted on 7/23/16 at 12:33 pm to Decker
quote:
Undefeated seasons according to sports-reference.com, which apparently doesn't include the 1800
Sports-reference doesn't include a lot, and is not all that accurate in what it does include. It's a crap source.
Posted on 7/23/16 at 9:41 pm to LC412000
quote:
There is no such thing as a PERFECT season
For me, I've always looked at it as winning your division, conference, and bowl game (s). Undefeated seasons are nice I guess but it's not like you get a trophy or anything.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 7:09 am to cajunbama
quote:
1993 shouldn't count because you couldn't play in the SECCG or a Bowl game.
Really it should. They had already beaten UF earlier in the year. Unlike the '04 team, 1993 AU was legitimately the best team in the country and would have destroyed the two teams that played for the Natty that year.
Posted on 7/24/16 at 12:38 pm to Donkeypunch
quote:
Unlike the '04 team, 1993 AU was legitimately the best team in the country
Disagree about 04 not being the best. OU got raped in the title game. Everybody talks about how talented USC was that year, but if you go back and look at the rosters Auburn was more talented. We had more NFL players, better NFL players, and more talented depth. I've done a position by position break down of the two teams and Auburn had better players at every single position, except LB where USC may have been equal.
Another argument is that Auburn didn't blow out Virginia Tech. Well, neither did USC who opened that season with Va Tech. Auburn may have not blown out VT, but we controlled the game from start to finish and it was never in doubt, that was just Tuberville's conservative coaching style. USC only led by 1 halfway through the 4th.
USC also struggled with some mediocre and flat out bad teams.
- vs. 4-7 Stanford, USC was down by 11 at halftime and only took the lead late in the 4th to win by 3.
- vs. mediocre 7-5 Oregon State, USC started off down 13-0 and didn't put the game away until the 4th only winning by one score
- vs. 6-6 UCLA, USC only won by 5
The only games Auburn had in 2004 that were within one score were vs. defending National Champs LSU and in the Sugar Bowl vs ACC champs Virginia Tech
Posted on 7/24/16 at 1:13 pm to Donkeypunch
quote:
Really it should. They had already beaten UF earlier in the year. Unlike the '04 team, 1993 AU was legitimately the best team in the country and would have destroyed the two teams that played for the Natty that year.
Lost interest when you said...unlike the 2004 season. Do some research and you'll see which team was more talented? Winning national titles has long had more to do with perception than reality and USC '04 is another example.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News