Started By
Message
re: 1974 OU and 1993 Auburn
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:27 am to 14&Counting
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:27 am to 14&Counting
The real reason was the popularity by the press. That is why the NCAA doesn't recognize Football Championships. All you have to do is look at Mulligan University in the modern BCS era, they lose two home games in November and the press votes them in to the Championship Games.
1
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:34 am to Irons Puppet
quote:
The real reason was the popularity by the press. That is why the NCAA doesn't recognize Football Championships. All you have to do is look at Mulligan University in the modern BCS era, they lose two home games in November and the press votes them in to the Championship Games.
LSU only lost one home game that season. The other they lost at UK
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:24 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
WTF are you talking about?
That 2004 team played more teams ranked in the top 10, at the time of the game, than USC and OKL played top 25 teams.........combined.
Auburn's 2004 squad played 4 teams that finished better than .500.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:33 am to Huddie Leadbetter
quote:I'm beginning to think that Revisionist History is a required course at Bama.
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.
Antonio Langham received cash in exchange for singing a legal contract in his hotel room the day after the 1993 Sugar Bowl, which ended his eligibility. He then lied to his HC about it so he could play his senior season to enhance his draft status, a fact his HC and their compliance staff chose not to investigate, even after being contacted by the individual with whom Langham had signed said contract. Bama took an unfair competitive advantage by playing the entire 1993 regular season with an ineligible player (who happened to be an All-American). Oh, and Bama also provided impermissible loans to Gene Jelks, which were clearly documented.
AU was justly punished for its major violations, losing TV revenue for 1993 and postseason revenue (including the SECCG and a chance at the Sugar Bowl berth and a possible NC in '93, plus another major bowl in '94), in addition to a half-dozen scholarships over three years. For its multiple major violations, Bama was penalized with forfeiting 9 games in '93 and banned from postseason play (in 1995, when they were 8-3 and finished 3rd in the SEC West) and lost about 20 scholarships over two years. If memory serves, they received a full share of TV revenues from the SEC during the entire time they were on probation.
Frankly, I'd say the punishment fit the crimes in both cases.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:41 am to phil4bama
quote:This is the actual answer to the OP's question.
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.
BTW, despite being on NCAA probation in 1973, the Sooners entered '74 ranked #1 in the AP Preseason poll. They never fell below #3, and regained their #1 ranking in November: Oklahoma AP Poll ranking in 1974
Meanwhile, AU's highest position was #3 following their comeback win in the Iron Bowl, their final game of the season. They finished #4, with 5 first place votes, behind F$U, Notre Dame and Nebraska. AU in 1993 AP Poll
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 10:36 am to FourThreeForty
quote:
Anyone noticed how all of Auburn's best years in school history start with a 3 or 4....and if it's not 3 or 4 it's 3+4...
quote:
FourThreeForty
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:53 am to IAmReality
quote:
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.
So you are saying that on January 1, 1965 in Miami and December 31,1973 in New Orleans, Bear Bryant sent his teams out on the field as "mere exhibitions" not really caring if they won the ball game or not?
Now,of course Alabama should claim their 1964 and 1973 titles. But the hypocrisy my many gumps--not all--but certainly many on this board is amazing when it comes to bowls/titles. You peel away at other teams' claims but rationalize bowl losses as "meaningless" knowing full well you had one of the most competitive coaches of all time in those games.
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 11:29 am to DannyB
quote:you should be happy Oklahoma was in that game instead. Now you can talk about what if instead of remembering watching Southern Cal skull drag your team around the field again
2004 - AU should have been in the NC game against USC instead of OU.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:51 pm to llfshoals
quote:
you should be happy Oklahoma was in that game instead. Now you can talk about what if instead of remembering watching Southern Cal skull drag your team around the field again
We know AU 2004 was the more talented and superior team. We don't worry about such things as you mentioned. That USC team scraped by Stanford 4-7, Cal, Oregon State 7-5 and UCLA 6-6 that year...they also basically played VA Tech to the same score as Auburn despite VA Tech being a much better team when Auburn played them. USC didn't have that game in hand until late in the 4th quarter. VA Tech never had the ball against Auburn with a chance to take the lead in the 2nd half. Acting like that USC team was unbeatable is laughable.
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 2:49 pm to TailbackU
Actually AU could have pushed for a split and actually had media support to do so but Tater tot chose to stay out of Diddy Bowden's way so he could get back into the national championship hunt and get the monkey off his back. The two loudest voices that kept AU from gaining a legitimate chance at a split were...
1.Silence from Terry
2.Lee Corso lecturing voters not to vote AU in the top 25
Now the next year Terry oversold the 1994 team thinking he had a national championship team (Maybe the most talented AU team ever) and couldn't keep his mouth shut and lost focus leading to a 9-1-1 finish.
1.Silence from Terry
2.Lee Corso lecturing voters not to vote AU in the top 25
Now the next year Terry oversold the 1994 team thinking he had a national championship team (Maybe the most talented AU team ever) and couldn't keep his mouth shut and lost focus leading to a 9-1-1 finish.
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.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 5:11 pm to TailbackU
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!!
'66 and '77 Bama would like a word
'66 and '77 Bama would like a word
Posted on 7/27/17 at 6:50 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
We know AU 2004 was the more talented and superior team.
They skulldrug your team on their own field in 2003. Auburn got better, so did Southern Cal.
You might have actually scored if you played them in 2004.
The funniest thing is y'all talk about how good your running backs were.
On either Southern Cal or OU they'd be backups that year. Let that sink in.....backups.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:11 pm to llfshoals
quote:
The funniest thing is y'all talk about how good your running backs were.
Both were top 5 draft picks in the same draft. Yeah, they were pretty good.
quote:
On either Southern Cal or OU they'd be backups that year. Let that sink in.....backups.
Juuuuuuusstt a bit outside.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:05 pm to llfshoals
quote:
They skulldrug your team on their own field in 2003. Auburn got better, so did Southern Cal.
Actually the opposite is true. USC 2003 was better than USC 2004. Also, what happens one year has zero bearing on what happens the next year. Ask bama vs Auburn 2012 then bama vs Auburn 2013. It is a great example of your flawed logic.
To be clear, neither of those teams has a running back drafted higher than the two backs at Auburn. Neither USC running back had a better NFL career than one of the Auburn backs as a feature back. The other Auburn back was on his way to a better career than any of the backs including Ronnie Brown until injuries derailed it.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 10:26 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News