Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/16/21 at 3:06 pm to UndercoverBryologist
USC 04 was legit paying their players and still claim it. Until their is an agreed upon method and metrics for past championship, it is as legit as anyone else's claimed title.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 11:58 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Aubbies always claim this one. You were on probation. Get over it.
1983 and 2004 were way more egregious.
2004 wasn't that impressive of a season; that is why the voters and the computers did not give them a shot at the NC.
2004-Auburn (SEC)
9/4 vs. Louisiana-Monroe (5-6) W 31 0
9/11 @ *Mississippi State (3-8) W 43 14
9/18 vs. *Louisiana State (9-3) W 10 9
9/25 vs. Citadel (non-IA) W 33 3
10/2 @ *Tennessee (10-3) W 34 10
10/9 vs. Louisiana Tech (6-6) W 52 7
10/16 vs. *Arkansas (5-6) W 38 20
10/23 vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 42 10
10/30 @ *Mississippi (4-7) W 35 14
11/13 vs. *Georgia (10-2) W 24 6
11/20 @ *Alabama (6-6) W 21 13
12/4 vs. *Tennessee (10-3) W 38 28
They played 6 teams with losing seasons, one Double A team, a 3-8 Ms. State, a 2-9 Kentucky, a 4-7 Mississippi, a 5-6 Arkansas, 2 teams with break even seasons, and played one good team twice.
Finally, they scheduled Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Monroe, & Citadel all in the same season.
Impressive season? I don't think so, and not many voters did either.
This post was edited on 5/17/21 at 12:01 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News