Started By
Message
1974 OU and 1993 Auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:07 pm
Both were on NCAA probation from televised games and bowls. However...
OU was eligible to win the Big Eight, which they did.
AU had the best record in the SEC but wasn't eligible for the SECCG.
OU won the AP national title and was the only undefeated team in college football.
AU was eligible for the AP title, and was the only undefeated team in college football; finished #4.
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974. Did the AP voters have more of an agenda, and would have faced backlash had they gone with AU in 1993?
Just curious to know, especially from the Auburn fans and what they remember.
OU was eligible to win the Big Eight, which they did.
AU had the best record in the SEC but wasn't eligible for the SECCG.
OU won the AP national title and was the only undefeated team in college football.
AU was eligible for the AP title, and was the only undefeated team in college football; finished #4.
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974. Did the AP voters have more of an agenda, and would have faced backlash had they gone with AU in 1993?
Just curious to know, especially from the Auburn fans and what they remember.
22
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:08 pm to Oklahomey
Because Auburn sucks.
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:11 pm to Oklahomey
You have the context for the times but what is the subtext?
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:25 pm to Oklahomey
Because... Auburn.
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:27 pm to Oklahomey
Because its fricking auburn
Posted on 7/26/17 at 11:32 pm to Oklahomey
I am an Auburn fan and concur with the consensus above me, "Because it's Auburn." That year is not the only example, either...
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
1983 - AU fricked out of NC.
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
1983 - AU fricked out of NC.
This post was edited on 7/26/17 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:12 am to Oklahomey
Florida State, Notre Dame, and Nebraska were just seen as better football teams than Auburn in '93, despite their undefeated season.
Auburn played just two ranked teams all year while FSU played seven.
Auburn played just two ranked teams all year while FSU played seven.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:14 am to Oklahomey
Another day...another shitty thread
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:20 am to Oklahomey
frick OU and Auburn
/thread
/thread
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:00 am to Oklahomey
Going undefeated without having played in a bowl game is a huge asterisk.
A bowl game (and the SEC title game) would have likely been Auburn's two toughest games of the entire year.
You really going to reward a team for sitting out the hardest games of the year while other teams go and play them?
Besides, it was clear they weren't the best team that year, almost no voters seriously considered them.
A bowl game (and the SEC title game) would have likely been Auburn's two toughest games of the entire year.
You really going to reward a team for sitting out the hardest games of the year while other teams go and play them?
Besides, it was clear they weren't the best team that year, almost no voters seriously considered them.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:42 am to Oklahomey
For 1993 Auburn:
The SEC had just added new teams and divisions and we were all over the news.
The "new" SEC just wanted a smooth transition so we "yielded".
Money was offered under the table. Enough to keep EVERYONE satisfied.
Same thing as today.
Keep people and fans (money sources) happy about college football and keep the "higher-ups" rich in doing so...with an exciting (yet fake, at times) product...and you will make you some money along the way.
Auburn had so much success in the late 80's and early 90's that any businessman would do anything to make a profit off of us, and any other team that they could find who was anywhere near successful at the time.
That was the 90's for you.
And it still happens today.
The SEC had just added new teams and divisions and we were all over the news.
The "new" SEC just wanted a smooth transition so we "yielded".
Money was offered under the table. Enough to keep EVERYONE satisfied.
Same thing as today.
Keep people and fans (money sources) happy about college football and keep the "higher-ups" rich in doing so...with an exciting (yet fake, at times) product...and you will make you some money along the way.
Auburn had so much success in the late 80's and early 90's that any businessman would do anything to make a profit off of us, and any other team that they could find who was anywhere near successful at the time.
That was the 90's for you.
And it still happens today.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 6:47 am to Oklahomey
quote:
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993
Because no one wants to reward a cheater. Auburn was basically Ole Miss paying players.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:06 am to Oklahomey
quote:
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974.
The answer is a point I've been making for years. The ncaa sanctions are very arbitrary. Around the same time that Auburn was busted and sanctioned with no tv games for penalties, including coaches paying players and lack of institutional control, Alabama was sanctioned with forfeiture of games because Antonio Langham signed a napkin for an agent in the celebratory aftermath of the national championship game. Coaches paying players will obviously undermine the college games more than a single player signing a napkin or even a contract. I would also note that in 1993, teams would have only a few games per year on tv, not like near every game now.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:33 am to Oklahomey
I wish I could chime in on this but at the time I was but a young teenager (14). Also, in my mind they were the 1985 Bears because I had to use my imagination listening to every game on the radio.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:12 am to Oklahomey
quote:
Because Auburn sucks.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:30 am to Oklahomey
quote:
1974 OU and 1993 Auburn by Oklahomey
Now other than the Gumps getting in their cheap shots, this wasn't that outrageous. Remember,Oklahoma was on probation in 1973, finished 10-0-1 and finished ranked 3rd. The Sooners were actually 2nd before the bowls,and finished a spot lower in the final polls.
But Oklahoma finished 2nd in the polls in '71 and '72. Had Auburn at least had winning seasons in 1991 and 1992 they may have been ranked to start the 1993 season. That's what killed them.
Penn State went unbeaten in 1968,1969 and 1973 and didn't win the title, in fact in the aforementioned 1973 season they finished 5th.
SEC changed its rule involving champions on probation in the Spring of 1985 stemming from Florida's case. The Gators had the best SEC football record in 1984 and had initially won the title but couldn't go to the Sugar--or any bowl.At the SEC meetings the following Spring a motion led by Tennessee stripped the Gators of their title and the rule was put in place involving teams on probation not being eligible for the title. (Evidently the NCAA must have jumped in with Kentucky in 1977 not getting a share of the football title). This has applied to basketball,too, as Kentucky's 14-4 mark in 1990-1991 was better than LSU and State's 13-5,but they were co-champs as UK was ineligible.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 10:37 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:56 am to Oklahomey
quote:
Just curious to know, especially from the Auburn fans and what they remember.
Winning titles pre-BCS and honestly pre-playoff to a lesser degree was mostly about making money off the top teams. In the 70's and 90's you'd sell more newspapers etc...if you talked about Oklahoma or Ohio State or insert blue blood than Auburn. Auburn is easily a top 15 all-time program but I bet when you compare our TV numbers to the blue bloods we struggle, I bet the same is true when an article is posted on a website when you compare clicks of Auburn vs a blue blood.
So if you are a voter...and your vote will determine the number of papers sold circa old school, website clicks today, etc... What would you do within reason? Vote for someone who will make you more money? or less money? Many of the titles won pre-BCS aren't as much about who was the best team, they were about who helped make the most money. I believe since the inception of the playoff the #1 team has yet to win it, correct?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:58 am to Oklahomey
In 1993, AU started the season with no expectations and unranked.
AU won very close games with Vanderbilt, Florida and Alabama.
AU won very close games with Vanderbilt, Florida and Alabama.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:50 pm to Oklahomey
We lead the nation in teams that have gotten fricked out of National Championships thats for sure! 2004 was bad, but 1983 was the biggest frick job though. That is the frick job of all frick jobs. So frick all you fricking fricks. frick!!
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:33 pm to Oklahomey
quote:
I can't seem to understand why the AP didn't crown Auburn as their national champion in 1993 when Oklahoma was under the same restrictions in 1974. Did the AP voters have more of an agenda, and would have faced backlash had they gone with AU in 1993?
A few reasons:
1) The SEC was super weak that year, and Auburn's OOC schedule was atrocious.
2) Auburn only beat two decent teams all season long. Both of those wins were close games at home.
3) They did not have to play in the SEC Championship Game nor in a bowl game.
Had Auburn gone to *Birmingham* and beat Florida in the SEC Championship Game for the 2nd time that season, then gone on to the Sugar Bowl and beaten an undefeated West Virginia squad, there is a chance they could have convinced the AP voters to split the title and give them the AP Championship.
Had Auburn not been on probation, and had they been able to beat Florida for a 2nd time (a very big "if"), here's how the nation's best teams would have looked going into the bowl games:
FIVE TITLE CONTENDERS:
*Auburn (undefeated)
*Nebraska (undefeated)
*West Virginia (undefeated)
*Florida State (only loss to Notre Dame)
*Notre Dame (only loss to Boston College)
Plus there was Florida who's only losses would have been to Florida State and Auburn (in this hypothetical case x2)
The problem is that in that season, the media and the voters were convinced that the two best teams were truly Florida State and Notre Dame. Everyone was obsessed with this game (1st College Gameday campus visit if I remember) and the general consensus was that those two teams were far better than everyone else. The problem was that Notre Dame then lost to Boston College, so then the media had to just treat that as a fluke.
I think it would have taken Auburn pounding Florida in the SEC Championship Game and then following that up with pounding undefeated West Virginia in New Orleans. But had that happened, I could see Auburn getting a share of the title.
Funny thing is that's not that out of the realm of possibility. Beating Florida would have been a difficult task, but the Gators went on to destroy West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl, 41-7... so Auburn very well could have done what it took.
In the end though, Florida State was most deserving that year. They had by far the best resume.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News