Started By
Message
re: Auburn won't claim National Championships
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:08 am to BowlJackson
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:08 am to BowlJackson
Bowl. Can not claim 2013 although FSU sold themselves to the devil.
0
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:09 am to auburnphan23
quote:
bammer yard
My favorite type of Bammer
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:14 am to BowlJackson
quote:
The 9 listed in my sig
Why do you claim 2013?
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:14 am to Crimson Legend
Why isn't it just as legit?
In 2010 Auburn and Oregon were the clear cut two top teams. The only two with an argument to play for the title. In 2010 the BCS was legit and picked right.
In 2004 there was 3 teams tied at the top, all with an equal argument to play eachother for the title. The BCS made its selection and the two teams it picked both turned out to be frauds. Golf Digest awarded the NC to the only team of 3 that wasn't a fraud. That means in 2004 the BCS was wrong and Golf Digest was more legit.
Computers make mistakes. It was judging off of a human made formula, one that was often adjusted including right after 2004 because everybody knew Auburn was screwed over. The system doesn't always work and it's okay to admit it.
In 2010 Auburn and Oregon were the clear cut two top teams. The only two with an argument to play for the title. In 2010 the BCS was legit and picked right.
In 2004 there was 3 teams tied at the top, all with an equal argument to play eachother for the title. The BCS made its selection and the two teams it picked both turned out to be frauds. Golf Digest awarded the NC to the only team of 3 that wasn't a fraud. That means in 2004 the BCS was wrong and Golf Digest was more legit.
Computers make mistakes. It was judging off of a human made formula, one that was often adjusted including right after 2004 because everybody knew Auburn was screwed over. The system doesn't always work and it's okay to admit it.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:21 am to ATLdawg25
Because Jameis is a serial rapists and was protected by the school from suspension and the police from jail time solely so he could play in that game.
Its only a matter of time before FSU vacates it and in a game that came down to 17 seconds with him, and was a sure fire blow out without him, I'm claiming it.
Auburn was the team of destiny in 2013 and we were cheated out of our destiny.
But you don't accept 2013? That's fine, AU has legit claims for 1910 and 1988.
9-1+2=10 NCs for Auburn. Suck on that.
Its only a matter of time before FSU vacates it and in a game that came down to 17 seconds with him, and was a sure fire blow out without him, I'm claiming it.
Auburn was the team of destiny in 2013 and we were cheated out of our destiny.
But you don't accept 2013? That's fine, AU has legit claims for 1910 and 1988.
9-1+2=10 NCs for Auburn. Suck on that.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:24 am to BowlJackson
quote:
AU has legit claims for 1910 and 1988.
quote:
legit claims
quote:
legit
I'm not sure this word means what you think it means.
I bet every year your mom told you that you were the smartest kid in the class even though other kids had higher grades. Because you deserved it!
Posted on 5/28/15 at 8:30 am to BowlJackson
I fully admit that the system doesn't always work. I fully admit that the national champions in a given year are often less deserving than another team. I believe 1966 Alabama is an example of a team that SHOULD HAVE been named national champs based on the criteria of the time, but was not...so we didn't win the national championship in 1966.
Likewise, it was an unfair situation that auburn 2004 did not get the chance to play for a title that was later vacated, and calling them the best team of 2004 is a claim that you can make and back it up. But unless the AP poll, or some established, legitimate source names 2004 auburn the national champions (and a source that you are willing to stand by in other years as just as legitimate), then you were not the national champions.
The way you seem to be defining "national champions" means the same thing as "the team I think was the best". You can't use criteria involving premises like "we all knew that..." or "clearly the best team..." that's all purely opinion. And there's nothing wrong with opinion, but your personal opinion does not equate to a national championship.
Likewise, it was an unfair situation that auburn 2004 did not get the chance to play for a title that was later vacated, and calling them the best team of 2004 is a claim that you can make and back it up. But unless the AP poll, or some established, legitimate source names 2004 auburn the national champions (and a source that you are willing to stand by in other years as just as legitimate), then you were not the national champions.
The way you seem to be defining "national champions" means the same thing as "the team I think was the best". You can't use criteria involving premises like "we all knew that..." or "clearly the best team..." that's all purely opinion. And there's nothing wrong with opinion, but your personal opinion does not equate to a national championship.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:06 am to PeaRidgeWatash
quote:
If USC gets to for 03, Auburn should for 04
USC doesn't CLAIM a championship for 2003, they were actually AWARDED a championship by a reputable organization.
NO ONE awarded Auburn a championship for the 2004 season.
If you're going to "claim" a championship, it helps to have an actual, you know, TROPHY.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:20 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
If you're going to "claim" a championship, it helps to have an actual, you know, TROPHY.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:39 am to BowlJackson
You get a national championship! You get a national championship! You get a national championship! EVERYBODY GETS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:46 am to BowlJackson
quote:
It's not like we were given the chance and lost
No, and its not like we won it. Just because USC and Oklahoma are not the champions, that does not give it to us by default.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:55 am to pvilleguru
Why would you not count UT twice? They finished at #13. So AU beat the final #7, #10, #13 x 2, at the #16 team.
Oklahoma on the other hand beat 3 teams that finished in the top-25, and didn't beat their tougher competition as badly as some revision. AU had the more impressive résumé, we know that now. But in the words of the great Pat Dye, hindsight is 50/50.
Oklahoma on the other hand beat 3 teams that finished in the top-25, and didn't beat their tougher competition as badly as some revision. AU had the more impressive résumé, we know that now. But in the words of the great Pat Dye, hindsight is 50/50.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 9:55 am to BowlJackson
Perhaps you missed this part:
"The Peoples National Championship" sounds like something out of Communist China.
Does that come with a free bowl of won-ton soup?
quote:
AWARDED a championship by a reputable organization
"The Peoples National Championship" sounds like something out of Communist China.
Does that come with a free bowl of won-ton soup?
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:05 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
"The Peoples National Championship" sounds like something out of Communist China.
Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), that's more legitimate than some of the other titles this clown claims for Auburn.
In his post from the other "Championships" thread:
quote:
-1958: 9-0-1... completed two straight seasons and only one tie, 7-7 to SEC rival Georgia Tech in Atlanta, en route to a Montgomery Full Season Press National Championship
-1993...11-0. Beat both teams that played for the SECCG, but was banned from post season play after being railroaded by the NCAA with false allegations in a scheme thought up and paid for by Alabama boosters looking to bring down the Auburn football dynasty of the late 80's. Auburn was still recognized as National Football Champions by those recognizing the injustice done to AU, including by the National Championship Foundation
The "National Championship Foundation" sounds like a non-profit that raises proceeds to cure second-rate programs of butthurt.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:08 am to ATLdawg25
quote:
ATLdawg25
quote:
The "National Championship Foundation" sounds like a non-profit that raises proceeds to cure second-rate programs of butthurt.
Irony.
This post was edited on 5/28/15 at 10:09 am
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:26 am to AUbagman
Lord this thread!
Can some AU poster tell us why the hell Jay Jacobs felt pressured to make a media announcement about the possibility of claiming NC's, got a committee to research the pulse of the AU fanbase, all to come back after the pressure is relieved and decides to keep things status quo?
Jacobs did a horrible job of making this whole ordeal a public spectacle.
Can some AU poster tell us why the hell Jay Jacobs felt pressured to make a media announcement about the possibility of claiming NC's, got a committee to research the pulse of the AU fanbase, all to come back after the pressure is relieved and decides to keep things status quo?
Jacobs did a horrible job of making this whole ordeal a public spectacle.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:30 am to AUbagman
quote:
Irony.
Is it ironic because I tried to claim a national title for UGA that was given by some random publication that no one's ever heard of? That would be pretty ironic, wouldn't it.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:36 am to RT1941
Actually agree. Jacobs should've never even started this. IMO I didn't want to start retro claiming because let's face it.... The AU fan base was never going to go for that.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:49 am to Tigers of War
quote:Who was putting pressue on Jacobs to even broach the subject though? What made him feel the need to go to the media with statements that AU was "considering" claiming titles? And who urged him to form a committee to test the waters with the AU fanbase to see how y'all felt about the possiblity?
Actually agree. Jacobs should've never even started this. IMO I didn't want to start retro claiming because let's face it.... The AU fan base was never going to go for that.
He just out of the blue takes this thing public, all to turn around and do absolutely nothing a year later.
Posted on 5/28/15 at 10:52 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Because Jameis is a serial rapists and was protected by the school from suspension and the police from jail time solely so he could play in that game.
Its only a matter of time before FSU vacates it and in a game that came down to 17 seconds with him, and was a sure fire blow out without him, I'm claiming it.
Oh the irony....2010 says hello
Page 7 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News