Started By
Message
re: Auburn could claim 9 National Championships
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:35 am to USMC Gators
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:35 am to USMC Gators
Schools can count what they want to count.... It is part of the debate...
I personally think these guys do a good job (they give Bama 14 and Auburn 3)... Auburns 3 are 1913, 1957 and 2010... They do not give Bama credit for 41...
LINK
I personally think these guys do a good job (they give Bama 14 and Auburn 3)... Auburns 3 are 1913, 1957 and 2010... They do not give Bama credit for 41...
LINK
0
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:39 am to USMC Gators
quote:
Still rustled over 1/9/12 I see.
No, 1941.
Do try to keep up.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:40 am to WildTchoupitoulas
And yet you keep bringing up 2011. 
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:45 am to RollTide1987
quote:
In 1941 there was no system recognized by the major conferences that awarded a national championship
Irrelevant, the BCS isn't the only recognized championship awarded today. Also, the Houlgate was just as irrelevant in 1941 as it is today.
quote:
the BCS exists as a system agreed upon by all major conferences to award a national championship.
Irrelevant, see 2003 split championship.
The BCS is only a system designed to award the coaches trophy - the least objective award, imv.
But way to keep promoting that 1941 title!
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:48 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
is it now? let me see you breakout the formulas and proves
I doubt you could handle the third grade math concepts behind my assertion.
=======
Facts are facts, folks. Many of you complained that Oklahoma stole Bowling Green from Auburn's schedule and how the Tigers' game with Georgia Tech fell through. Do you think voters care? Do you think the computers care? Save the excuses. Auburn's schedule is what it is. Bottom line. Games fall through, rescheduling happens, Auburn isn't unique in that respect.
Many bragged, putrid non-conference schedule aside, the Tigers beat three top 10 teams: Georgia, Tennessee and LSU. Clearly these fans are living in the past. None of those teams was ranked in the top 10 going into last Saturday, and it wasn't just because Auburn beat them. Anyone who believes Tennessee and LSU are top 10 teams this season hasn't watched them play.
So let's be fair and say Auburn beat three Top 25 teams, and played only one other team with a winning record (Alabama). USC also has beaten four teams with winning records, three ranked in the Top 25, but Oklahoma had beaten five teams with winning records and four Top 25 teams, including three on the road.
"Oklahoma and USC have beaten better opponents," Wolfe said. "And it is not just the six algorithms represented in the BCS that 'think' that way, if you look at [the other ratings], you'll see that dozens of other rating systems say the same thing."
Overall, Auburn easily has the weakest schedule of the title contenders. Jeff Sagarin has USC at ninth, Oklahoma at 18th and Auburn at 74th. Kenneth Massey has USC at fourth, Oklahoma at ninth and Auburn at 58th. Wes Colley has Oklahoma at 29th, USC at 39th and Auburn at 48th.
"USC and Oklahoma are ranked in the top two because they have not taken essentially one-third of the season off, as Auburn has," said Jeff Anderson, who co-runs the Anderson and Hester computer rankings used in the BCS. "The Tigers have played I-AA Citadel, Louisiana-Monroe, Kentucky and Mississippi State. Between them, Oklahoma and USC have played only three teams as bad as these."
-Markazi
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:49 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Irrelevant, the BCS isn't the only recognized championship awarded today.
It's the only one that matters. Would you be more willing to accept a national championship awarded by the BCS or a national championship awarded by the NFF or FWAA?
quote:
Irrelevant, see 2003 split championship.
Irrelevant to 2011. The BCS took steps to make it so such a thing like that would more than likely never happen again.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:49 am to USMC Gators
quote:
And yet you keep bringing up 2011.
Yes, to show how ridiculous it is for Bama to claim 1941.
Let me try to spell this out for you who seems to look at the world through red-arse filters:
I do not think LSU should claim the 2011 title because they were not awarded one of the more pestigious awards, like the AP or Coaches trophies. For LSU to reach and say that they were the 2011 champions based on the Houlgate would be as ridiculous as Alabama claiming the 1941 title based only on the Houlgate.
Most Alabama fans agree that it is a bogus claim, yet they ccontinue to claim it.
It's funny.
Oh yeah, here are some emoticons for you:
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:51 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Irrelevant, see 2003 split championship.
The BCS is only a system designed to award the coaches trophy - the least objective award, imv.
But way to keep promoting that 1941 title!
The AP was still part of the BCS then.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:51 am to iglass
quote:
iglass
so you cant provide an actual answer to your assertation? I am still waiting on if citadel is removed for any div 1 team, Auburn would have been in there. I thought it was a fact. why not show it
This post was edited on 2/14/13 at 10:52 am
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:51 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
For LSU to reach and say that they were the 2011 champions based on the Houlgate would be even more ridiculous than Alabama claiming the 1941 title based only on the Houlgate
FIFY.
And, by the way, no Alabama fan is in this thread promoting our '41 title claim because - at least in my view - the '41 title is a BS claim. 1945 is much stronger.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:52 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
WildTchoupitoulas
You seem to have an obsession with Bama...
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:53 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
so you cant provide an actual answer to your assertation? I am still waiting on if citadel is removed for any div 1 team, Auburn would have been in there. I thought it was a fact. why not show it
Well, it is a fact that neither OU or USC played a 1AA team that season like Auburn.
This post was edited on 2/14/13 at 10:54 am
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:55 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
do not think LSU should claim the 2011 title because they were not awarded one of the more pestigious awards, like the AP or Coaches trophies. For LSU to reach and say that they were the 2011 champions based on the Houlgate would be as ridiculous as Alabama claiming the 1941 title based only on the Houlgate.
The Houlgate went extinct in the late 50's or early 60's.....in its day, it was one if not the main poll that decided the NC since there was not a consesus or methodology in place in 1941...
In 1941 Bama had two losses (vandy and Ole Miss) and didn't win the SEC and finished outside the Top 10 (19th I think....). Minnesota and Duke were the only undefeated teams remaining that year and most of the polls selected Minnesota. For some inexpilcable reason, the Houlegate did in fact select Bama...hence the claim. My understanding is that there has been some internal discussion at Bama regarding dropping this one.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:56 am to RollTide1987
quote:
It's the only one that matters.
No it isn't, the AP matters. See 2003.
quote:
The BCS took steps to make it so such a thing like that would more than likely never happen again.
The BCS doesn't control the AP - kind of why I still have respect for the AP.
The BCS exists soley to award the Coaches trophy. Once the playoffs begin, none of this poll stuff will matter. But in the meantime, it's kind of fun. I've always liked having the polls determine the champion. It sets college football apart from all other sports.
I've been leaning on Bama fans for YEARS over that '41 claim. I would think such a presitigious program wouldn't have to play those kinds of games - maybe Auburn, but not Alabama. But then to have Houlgate award LSU the 2011 title is just like some kind of weird licorice icing on a shite cake.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:56 am to USMC Gators
quote:
Well, it is a fact that neither OU or USC played a 1AA team that season like Auburn.
And what seems to get lost in the whole '04 debate is the fact USC and OU started the regular season ranked #1 and #2 respectively. USC finished the '03 season 12-1 while OU finished the same season 12-2. Auburn finished 2003 with a record of 8-5.
Nearly 10 years later, I kind of understand why Auburn was left out of the title game.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:57 am to USMC Gators
quote:
Well, it is a fact that neither OU or USC played a 1AA team that season like Auburn.
never said they didnt. But if someone is going to claim fact several times in a post they might not want to pull that fact from inside their colon
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:58 am to USMC Gators
quote:
The AP was still part of the BCS then.
Not that they agreed to. The BCS just put their poll in the formula without consent. The AP never agreed to award their trophy to the BCS winner.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:58 am to RollTide1987
quote:
And what seems to get lost in the whole '04 debate is the fact USC and OU started the regular season ranked #1 and #2 respectively.
This is the reason why, no other. voters wouldnt change their vote like they will now
Posted on 2/14/13 at 10:59 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
No it isn't, the AP matters. See 2003.
AP stopped being relevant when the major conferences agreed to have the BCS award the national championship in 1998. They are no where near as prestigious an award as they were in 1997.
Posted on 2/14/13 at 11:00 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
This is the reason why, no other. voters wouldnt change their vote like they will now
That's because the SEC wasn't as highly thought of by voters in 2004 as they are in 2013.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News