Started By
Message
re: Auburn could claim 9 National Championships
Posted on 2/13/13 at 8:51 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
Posted on 2/13/13 at 8:51 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
It's not a matter of being "mad". It's just common sense. You can claim to be the best team all you want, but how do you claim to be national champions when nobody awarded you that title?
0
Posted on 2/13/13 at 8:52 pm to NYCAuburn
36-0 was the salve that soothed the thumb soreness.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 8:53 pm to NBamaAlum
BD = juuuuurdan hare west
Boom?
Boom?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 8:54 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
BD = juuuuurdan hare west
quote:
Boom?
That was a string of Black Cats that was left out in the rain...
Posted on 2/13/13 at 9:05 pm to NBamaAlum
Dye's record was 6-5 vs Bama while we had 4 different coaches during that time period. We were very unstable during that time. Calling that arse whuppings is a bit of a stretch
Posted on 2/13/13 at 9:08 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Fear the thumb, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
49-0
Quit living in the past.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 9:44 pm to weagle99
So you are saying they were Confederate Champions ?
I will buy it.
No doubt in my opinion Auburn played by far the toughest schedule in 1983 and shoild have been named the National Champs.
They played like 6 top 10 teams.
I will buy it.
No doubt in my opinion Auburn played by far the toughest schedule in 1983 and shoild have been named the National Champs.
They played like 6 top 10 teams.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 9:58 pm to weagle99
Not reading the whole re-tread thread.
This has been shot down plenty of times before. Using the thinking to get Auburn to 9 NCs, Bama could claim upwards of 20.
This has been shot down plenty of times before. Using the thinking to get Auburn to 9 NCs, Bama could claim upwards of 20.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:03 pm to deaux68
According to the record book, they've only been selected 5 times. Not sure where the 9 comes from.
1913 (retroactive)
1957 (claimed)
1983
1993
2010 (claimed)
1913 (retroactive)
1957 (claimed)
1983
1993
2010 (claimed)
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:05 pm to USMC Gators
quote:*
2010 (claimed)
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:11 pm to Golgi Apparatus
quote:
This exactly. It's embarrassing how many comparisons to alabama are made in that article.
I thought the article was doing pretty good about not mentioning Alabama until about halfway down. And then they really jumped the shark when actually showed an image of Alabama's media guide from 1983. Supposedly to prove that it's possible to claim all retroactive championships in one year, but it really just proved how Bamassed they are.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:14 pm to TT9
quote:Not you again.
TT9
:aubsessed: quote:
According to the record book, they've only been selected 5 times. Not sure where the 9 comes from. 1913 (retroactive) 1957 (claimed) 1983 1993 2010 (claimed)
1904, 1914, 1958, 2004. But I don't think we should claim any of them except the 2 we currently have, 1913, and 1983. People on here who were following football in '83 know that we deserved that NC. And 1913 speaks for itself.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:16 pm to WDE85
quote:
1904, 1914, 1958, 2004. But I don't think we should claim any of them except the 2 we currently have, 1913, and 1983. People on here who were following football in '83 know that we deserved that NC. And 1913 speaks for itself
Y'all didn't have any selectors in those years though.
LINK (starts on page 71)
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 10:17 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:23 pm to USMC Gators
My bad. Not 1904, 1910. And they were likely not major selectors, but they were all selected by some sort of selection committee.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:33 pm to WDE85
quote:
My bad. Not 1904, 1910. And they were likely not major selectors, but they were all selected by some sort of selection committee.
Reaching.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:35 pm to Golgi Apparatus
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:36 pm to WDE85
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the record book, they've only been selected 5 times. Not sure where the 9 comes from. 1913 (retroactive) 1957 (claimed) 1983 1993 2010 (claimed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1904, 1914, 1958, 2004. But I don't think we should claim any of them except the 2 we currently have, 1913, and 1983. People on here who were following football in '83 know that we deserved that NC. And 1913 speaks for itself.
Why can't people just be happy with the accomplishments of their team instead of trying to diminish the loftier accomplishments of a more successful rival?It denotes envy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the record book, they've only been selected 5 times. Not sure where the 9 comes from. 1913 (retroactive) 1957 (claimed) 1983 1993 2010 (claimed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1904, 1914, 1958, 2004. But I don't think we should claim any of them except the 2 we currently have, 1913, and 1983. People on here who were following football in '83 know that we deserved that NC. And 1913 speaks for itself.
Why can't people just be happy with the accomplishments of their team instead of trying to diminish the loftier accomplishments of a more successful rival?It denotes envy.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:36 pm to WDE85
Ok, I have a serious question. The article quotes the author as "In fact, the issue is a “slam dunk” for some years, such as 1913, 1983, and 2004."
How is 2004 a slam dunk without being awarded an AP or BCS championship? Regardless of how must of us feel Auburn should have had an opportunity, the fact remains that they didn't get it.
How is 2004 a slam dunk without being awarded an AP or BCS championship? Regardless of how must of us feel Auburn should have had an opportunity, the fact remains that they didn't get it.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:41 pm to Merck
I guess USC cheated, OU lost, and that leaves Utah and Auburn. Nobody owns 2004 championship(technically USC owns it because AP doesn't take away titles, but still don't deserve it), so I guess the writers feels AU should get it instead of nobody. Posted on 2/13/13 at 10:42 pm to weagle99
Nice bait a-hole, I am sure you will catch the limit.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News