Started By
Message
re: Auburn May Add National Championships
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:23 pm to Korin
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:23 pm to Korin
quote:I wouldn't, but there have been schools recently relying on Sagarin to make NC claims.
We actually got a selection in 85 despite being on a bowl ban and being ineligible to win the SEC. Honestly, would you claim this?
2
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:23 pm to SamGinn Cam
If they claim 2004, they may as well claim 2013. Or every year after '98. They are all seasons in which they did or did not win the BCS title game. 
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:24 pm to WDE24
quote:
Yes, but also just as hypocritical for Bama fans to try to argue against the legitimacy of the claimed titles.
If Auburn was just adding 1983 in their list of poll era titles you would have a point. But Auburn is adding four. The only dubious claim Alabama has in the poll era is 1941.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:25 pm to WDE24
quote:
I wouldn't, but there have been schools recently relying on Sagarin to make NC claims.
Here's another one, we got multiple selections despite, again, being on a bowl ban. I'd be embarrassed if the school put this up in the stadium.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:27 pm to WDE24
quote:
I wouldn't, but there have been schools recently relying on Sagarin to make NC claims.
Have these schools claimed a national championship in the poll era relying SOLELY on Sagarin?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:27 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
If Auburn was just adding 1983 in their list of poll era titles you would have a point. But Auburn is adding four. The only dubious claim Alabama has in the poll era is 1941.
Are you really this dumb? First, they haven't decided which, if any, they will claim. Second, Auburn isn't limited to claiming only one dubious title because RollTide1987 on TigerDroppings believes they are all dubious, but only 1 of Alabama's is.
There are a host of other schools besides Bama that have done this and JJ is simply stating AU is looking at it.
Claiming ones that are already acknowledged by the NCAA wouldn't be too crazy IMO, but like I said, it doesn't change anything in reality if AU claims them or they don't.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:29 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Not sure, but I don't know why that matters. You are creating your own set of qualifications. x poll is ok until the poll era + 15 years, then it is no longer acceptable. It is completely arbitrary based on your defense of Alabama's claimed titles.
Have these schools claimed a national championship in the poll era relying SOLELY on Sagarin?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:29 pm to WDE24
quote:
First, they haven't decided which, if any, they will claim.
Jacobs wants to claim 1913, 1983 and 1993.
quote:
There are a host of other schools besides Bama that have done this
I'm finally glad to see you acknowledge this.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 3:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Jacobs wants to claim 1913, 1983 and 1993.
quote:
“We don’t have a timeline,” Jacobs said. “It won’t be an athletic director decision, it will be an Auburn decision.
quote:Have I ever disputed it?
I'm finally glad to see you acknowledge this.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 4:21 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Jacobs wants to claim 1913, 1983 and 1993.
No problem with the first two, 1993 would be lame.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 4:32 pm to Ross
quote:.
quote:
Jacobs wants to claim 1913, 1983 and 1993.
No problem with the first two, 1993 would be lame
Agree. First two are for sure IMO. I would add 2004.
Can't claim 1993. We didn't play in the SECCG and FSU was better than we were anyway that year.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 5:13 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
What's the difference between 1957 and 1993? Other than some arbitrary decision by the AP, I can't see any.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 5:15 pm to LSUFOREVERAMEN
In 1957 we were selected by the upi as champs. Also in 1993 we did not play in the seccg.
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 1/31/14 at 6:36 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
I think it makes sense to examine the seasons and make a judgement call. Until there is a true playoff, there is a lot of subjectivity. I haven't looked at all of them, but I think at least some of these are legitimate. Any year that Auburn played a full schedule and went undefeated seems pretty reasonable to me.
1913: Auburn was 8-0 and only gave up 13 points the entire season. Recognize it.
1993: Auburn was undefeated, but did not play in the SECCG or a bowl game, so I don't think that one would be legitimate.
2004: Auburn was undefeated in the SEC and the "official" BCS champions later had their victories vacated. Recognize it.
1913: Auburn was 8-0 and only gave up 13 points the entire season. Recognize it.
1993: Auburn was undefeated, but did not play in the SECCG or a bowl game, so I don't think that one would be legitimate.
2004: Auburn was undefeated in the SEC and the "official" BCS champions later had their victories vacated. Recognize it.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 8:46 pm to GumBro Jackson
I am just fine with them recognizing as many as they want. I don't see why other fanbases have a problem with it. They definitely got robbed in '04. This is a topic that should only affect Auburn fans.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:01 pm to Rbama13
ESPN only recognizes AP and Coaches titles since 1936.
As such they give Alabama 10 and Auburn 2.
As such they give Alabama 10 and Auburn 2.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:04 pm to Rbama13
Them claiming 04 is very flawed for 1 simple reason. Why them over Oklahoma? We simply don't know what would have happened had Auburn played USC. USC could have destroyed them, maybe Auburn wins.
If Auburn played and lost then OU would have finished undefeated and would be trying to claim it.
You're penalizing OU for playing USC in the title game and losing and rewarding Auburn for getting left out and dodging having to play them.
The 1993 claim suffers the exact same flaw. Auburn didn't have to play a very tough Florida team again in the SEC title game and then didn't have to play in the bowl game.
You can't just claim a national title assuming you would have won both games. Those would have been 2 of the hardest games of the entire year and you're basically claiming them as W's without playing them.
If Auburn played and lost then OU would have finished undefeated and would be trying to claim it.
You're penalizing OU for playing USC in the title game and losing and rewarding Auburn for getting left out and dodging having to play them.
The 1993 claim suffers the exact same flaw. Auburn didn't have to play a very tough Florida team again in the SEC title game and then didn't have to play in the bowl game.
You can't just claim a national title assuming you would have won both games. Those would have been 2 of the hardest games of the entire year and you're basically claiming them as W's without playing them.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:12 pm to IAmReality
quote:There you go injecting logic into a perfectly good rationalization.
Them claiming 04 is very flawed for 1 simple reason. Why them over Oklahoma? We simply don't know what would have happened had Auburn played USC. USC could have destroyed them, maybe Auburn wins. If Auburn played and lost then OU would have finished undefeated and would be trying to claim it. You're penalizing OU for playing USC in the title game and losing and rewarding Auburn for getting left out and dodging having to play them. The 1993 claim suffers the exact same flaw. Auburn didn't have to play a very tough Florida team again in the SEC title game and then didn't have to play in the bowl game. You can't just claim a national title assuming you would have won both games. Those would have been 2 of the hardest games of the entire year and you're basically claiming them as W's without playing them.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:45 pm to IAmReality
quote:
You're penalizing OU for playing USC in the title game and losing and rewarding Auburn for getting left out and dodging having to play them.
No the ncaa did, otherwise they would have had USC forfeit
quote:
You can't just claim a national title assuming you would have won both games.
Except for the fact that the rationale has nothing to do with your assumption.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:49 pm to SamGinn Cam
Page 15 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News