Started By
Message
re: 1974 OU and 1993 Auburn
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:54 am to kbrake37
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:54 am to kbrake37
quote:
Back in the 90s if you didnt start out ranked top 10 or 15 you didnt have a true shot of winning the title.
Tell that to 1990 Georgia Tech. The Yellow Jackets started the season unranked and finished #1 in the Coaches Poll.
1
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 1:15 am to IAmReality
quote:
You really going to reward a team for sitting out the hardest games of the year while other teams go and play them?
bama "claims" NC's when the lost their last game of the year. So what's the difference?
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 1:51 am to RollTide1987
Didnt say it was impossible but it was much harder then. Didnt they share the title with washington or colorado that year?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:32 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
bama "claims" NC's when the lost their last game of the year. So what's the difference?
The difference one of the major polling organization gave it to Bama. It was also during the era where bowl games were mostly seen as exhibition games, which is why the polls gave out their national champion before the bowls.
Also in 1993 there was an "official" national championship game under the Bowl Coalition and Auburn wasn't eligible to play in. Kinda hard to win the national championship when you aren't playing in the national championship game.
Since 92, the year "official" national championship games started, only twice did teams get a share of the title without having played int he game and both times resulted in major changes to prevent it from happening again.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 4:36 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 6:19 am to IAmReality
We beat both teams that was in the SEC champ game.
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 6:49 am to BigRDawg17
You're a Georgia fan. You have enough issues with only 1 national title.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 6:52 am to Oklahomey
quote:
2004 and 1983 AU's misfortunes have nothing to do with the topic.
2004 most certainly does. After that hosing no other SEC team has been screwed and has been given every benefit of the doubt since that BS!!
shite, just a short 3 years later LSU got into the NC game with 2 losses.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 7:10 am
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 7:16 am to kbrake37
OU started 2000 #19. Didn't hurt to beat the (then) #11, #2 & #1 teams consecutively.
I know, GTFO with anything about non-SEC teams. By the way, I too agree most of my Sooner brethren are a little over the top on your island. I (mostly) just stop by for the very interesting thread topics.
I know, GTFO with anything about non-SEC teams. By the way, I too agree most of my Sooner brethren are a little over the top on your island. I (mostly) just stop by for the very interesting thread topics.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 7:18 am
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 7:41 am to phil4bama
quote:
Maybe because 1974 Oklahoma had lost 2 games in 4 years and had a record over that period of 44-2-1. They were also in the midst of one of the greatest runs in college football history during the 70's and were considered a perennial top 5 team.
Auburn's record over their previous 4 years was 29-14-2 and were transitioning from Pat Dye to Tater Tot and were considered a fluke or a flash in the pan; a good team, but nothing special. They were coming off consecutive non-winning seasons. Big difference.
Yeah, #4 was a completely fair ranking for that 1993 team.
1983 and 2004, however, were complete fricking-overs from top to bottom.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:42 am to RollTide1987
quote:
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.
Correct.
Now do 1983 Auburn and Miami.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:45 am to Huddie Leadbetter
quote:
Alabama was sanctioned with forfeiture of games because Antonio Langham signed a napkin for an agent
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:49 am to DannyB
quote:
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
Bowling Green pulling out in the summer and scheduling with OU leaving AU scrambling and filling with the citadel is what fricked us. We played some great teams and the rules that year kept us slightly out of the game. it is what it is. That year was a catalyst for the playoffs though.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:19 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
Auburn's 2004 team had some bama fan, who was a voter, not putting Auburn in his top 25
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:20 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
bama "claims" NC's when the lost their last game of the year. So what's the difference?
Correction. Bama was AWARDED those championships. The trophies are in Tuscaloosa. You can even go by and see them. Notre Dame has NCs when they refused to play in a bowl game as do other schools
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:24 am to Spock_4_AU
quote:
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.
You got a link that explains how this works?
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News