Started By
Message
re: Auburn May Add National Championships
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:13 pm to coachcrisp
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:13 pm to coachcrisp
quote:
You've got a point. Everybody knows, as you've suggested, that Alabama is the leader in the SEC of most all things athletic.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:45 pm to allin2010
quote:
Some facts: From Toos.
AU uses the AP/Coaches/BCS standard and thus claims 2 NC's.
By that standard I will list how many NC's a school could claim and then how many total they do claim, using other selectors as my book proposes.
ND 8/11
Mich 2/11
MichSt 2/6
bama 10/15
Tenn 2/6
ole miss 0/3
Ga 1/2
TexAM 1/3
Ark 0/1
Ky 0/1
Pitt 2/9
Oh St 5/7
USC 7/11
Cal 0/5
Ga T 1/4
Minn 4/7
Illinois 0/5
Nice find. I think Auburn has a legitimate claim on some (not all) of those additional years.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:19 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
1983, Auburn played a much tougher schedule than Miami, they played like 5 top 10 teams.
And Miami didn't have the big L.
Auburn shouldn't have got embarrassed at home and then call it a screw job when their was an unbeaten Orange Bowl champ named NC.
Only top tier teams can pull that off.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:52 pm to northalabamacracker
Huh? Miami lost to us that year (and badly at that).
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:57 pm to northalabamacracker
quote:
And Miami didn't have the big L.
Did you not even read my post?
They got blown out by Florida, a Florida team that Auburn beat.
You shouldn't chime in on things you obviously didn't care enough about to even educate yourself on.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:07 pm to Ross
Oh well I was wrong about that. I guess all 2nd ranked teams who had that happen have a claim.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:14 pm to northalabamacracker
The team got hosed. The team with by far and away the best resume in the nation didn't win the AP title.
The claim you made earlier that Nebraska had a better claim was comical, but now it makes sense because you had absolutely no idea what the actual situation was in 1983.
The claim you made earlier that Nebraska had a better claim was comical, but now it makes sense because you had absolutely no idea what the actual situation was in 1983.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:18 pm to Ross
The same thing happened to Alabama in 77. They were #3 and got jumped by #5 Notre Dame after the bowls. Alabama's loss was to 9-3 Nebraska while Notre Dame had lost to 5-6 Ole Miss.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:18 pm to Ross
Bigger hose job? 1977 Alabama or 1983 Auburn? Seemed liked both years the polls didn't play by their own rules. Teams ahead of them lost and a team behind them overtook them in the final poll.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:20 pm to LSUFOREVERAMEN
Probably 83 Auburn because of their schedule.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:23 pm to LSUFOREVERAMEN
quote:
Bigger hose job? 1977 Alabama or 1983 Auburn?
'83 AU by a large margin. 1977 Bama played a weak schedule and the teams ahead of them played a tougher schedule and had the same record.
1983 AU played one of the toughest schedules in NCAA history. 5 straight victories against top 20 teams, 4 of them top ten.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:35 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
How many of those teams finished ranked?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:38 pm to Korin
All but Maryland with Boomer E. They finished 22 (only top 20 in 1983).
I believe 1983 AU is the only team in NCAA history to play and defeat 5 consecutive top 20 opponents. 9 of the 12 teams AU played in 1983 finished with a winning record as well. 4 finished top 10, 3 in the top 6.
I believe 1983 AU is the only team in NCAA history to play and defeat 5 consecutive top 20 opponents. 9 of the 12 teams AU played in 1983 finished with a winning record as well. 4 finished top 10, 3 in the top 6.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:38 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
For anyone that cares about Auburn's schedule from 1983
vs. Southern Miss 8-3-0
vs. #5 Texas 11-1-0 (8-0-0 SWC)
@ Tennessee 9-3-0 (4-2-0 SEC)
vs. Florida State 8-4-0
@ Kentucky 6-5-1 (2-4-0 SEC)
@ Georgia Tech 3-8-0 (3-5-0 ACC)
vs. Mississippi State 3-8-0 (3-5-0 SEC)
vs. #6 Florida 9-2-1 (4-2-0 SEC)
vs. #22 Maryland 8-4-0 (5-1-0 ACC)
@ #4 Georgia 10-1-1 (5-1-0 SEC)
@ #15 Alabama 8-4-0 (4-2-0 SEC) [finished #12 in Coaches Poll]
vs. #8 Michigan 9-3-0 (8-1-0 Big 10)
For those keeping count, Auburn played against ten teams with records above .500.
Nine of these teams had 8 wins or more. Five of these teams had 9 wins or more.
vs. Southern Miss 8-3-0
vs. #5 Texas 11-1-0 (8-0-0 SWC)
@ Tennessee 9-3-0 (4-2-0 SEC)
vs. Florida State 8-4-0
@ Kentucky 6-5-1 (2-4-0 SEC)
@ Georgia Tech 3-8-0 (3-5-0 ACC)
vs. Mississippi State 3-8-0 (3-5-0 SEC)
vs. #6 Florida 9-2-1 (4-2-0 SEC)
vs. #22 Maryland 8-4-0 (5-1-0 ACC)
@ #4 Georgia 10-1-1 (5-1-0 SEC)
@ #15 Alabama 8-4-0 (4-2-0 SEC) [finished #12 in Coaches Poll]
vs. #8 Michigan 9-3-0 (8-1-0 Big 10)
For those keeping count, Auburn played against ten teams with records above .500.
Nine of these teams had 8 wins or more. Five of these teams had 9 wins or more.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:44 pm to Ross
quote:
vs. #6 Florida 9-2-1 (4-2-0 SEC)
vs. #22 Maryland 8-4-0 (5-1-0 ACC)
@ #4 Georgia 10-1-1 (5-1-0 SEC)
@ #15 Alabama 8-4-0 (4-2-0 SEC) [finished #12 in Coaches Poll]
vs. #8 Michigan 9-3-0 (8-1-0 Big 10)
These are final rankings as well. AU beat all these teams late in the season and everyone of them was ranked even higher when AU played and beat them. That FSU team was really good as well. There record is very misleading. They had 5 all-americans and all of their losses but 1 came against top 6 teams.
And hell, Tennessee was good that year as well and probably should have finished ranked as well at 9-3. They had 6 players taken in the NFL draft after the season including Reggie White. Two first rounders.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:46 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
It looks absolutely insane when you use where the teams were ranked when we played them. Maryland got up to #7 before dropping three of their last five games.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:48 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
That's nice and all, but they were not awarded by either the AP or Coaches. It'd be the same thing as Bama's 1941 claim, if Au claimed this. Exact. Same. Thing.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:49 pm to Ross
Yep. Maryland lost to Tenn in the bowl game as well. Apparently I was at the AU-Maryland game that year. Was talking to my dad last night and he said I was there. Too young to remember, I was 2 when my parents started taking me to games. 
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:50 pm to Alahunter
Fixing the 1983 AP Poll
We shall not stand for this injustice.
We shall not stand for this injustice.
quote:
Miami vs. Auburn
So Auburn went 11-1 against the toughest schedule in the country, and in fact the 4th toughest ever faced, and no one else went unbeaten. Yet they are ranked #3. How is this possible?
Miami jumped past Auburn in the final poll because they beat #1 Nebraska, a team that a lot of people had been saying was the greatest in college football history. Miami's argument for #1, then, rests on the assumption that their victory over Nebraska was such an incredible achievement that it overrode Auburn's huge strength of schedule advantage. This argument has potential merit, if Miami's Orange Bowl win really was such an incredible achievement.
Miami's Incredible Achievement
Nebraska was so highly esteemed because of an offense that featured 3 Heisman candidates: QB Turner Gill, WR Irving Fryar, and RB Mike Rozier (who won the Heisman). They worked behind a line that featured Dean Steinkuhler, who won the Outland and Lombardi awards. Nebraska ended up averaging 52 points per game, the most since Army's 1944 team averaged 56. They destroyed Penn State 44-6, Minnesota 84-13, UCLA 42-10, Syracuse 63-7, Colorado 69-19, Iowa State 72-29, and Kansas 67-13.
However, according to the AP's own poll, Nebraska only played 1 rated opponent before the Orange Bowl, and not a highly rated one-- #17 UCLA. And they did not stomp all of their opponents. They only beat 8-4 Oklahoma State 14-10 mid-season, then needed a 2 touchdown rally and a late pass break-up in the end zone to hold off 8-4 Oklahoma 28-21 in their finale, and neither of those opponents finished rated (nor will they in the fixed top 25). So what we have here is a team that ran up impressive scores against a very weak schedule, but still showed itself vulnerable against 2 unrated opponents (Miami and Auburn each had just one close win over an unrated opponent, both against 7-5 Florida State).
Furthermore, Miami played Nebraska on their home field. And the green-painted sand of the Orange Bowl was no ordinary home field advantage. Miami would go on to break the NCAA record for consecutive home victories. Since 1983, Miami is 7-1 in bowl games played on their home field, but only 7-10 in the rest. And the site was not Miami's only good fortune.
Miami beat Nebraska 31-30 because Nebraska went for 2 at the end. If Nebraska had simply kicked the extra point, we would not even be discussing Miami's argument for #1.
Given all that-- Nebraska's very weak schedule, their struggles against unrated teams, Miami's home field advantage, winning because Nebraska would not settle for a tie-- was this one win really better than Auburn beating #4 Georgia AND #6 Florida (who beat Miami 28-3) AND #8 Michigan? Nebraska is the only top ten team Miami defeated.
The Case for Auburn
Miami beat the #2, #16, and #20 teams. Auburn beat the #4, #6, #8, and #15 teams. That may not look like much of a difference, but Auburn also beat 9-3 Tennessee, who should have been rated ahead of 8-4 Alabama (#15), whom Tennessee defeated. Auburn also beat 8-4 Maryland, who lost only to rated teams and to Tennessee, and who defeated #18 Boston College. That's 6 teams Auburn beat that should have been rated in the top 20, and it leaves Miami with only 2, because #20 East Carolina (8-3) did not belong in the top 20 in the first place (they lost to an unranked opponent, and their best win came over 7-5 Missouri). And East Carolina brings up another issue, because Miami only beat them 12-7, late in the season and at home. Auburn beat Tennessee 37-14 and Maryland 35-23.
10 of Auburn's 12 opponents had winning records. They beat 3 top 10 teams to Miami's 1, and they beat twice as many teams who finished 8-4 or better.
Other than Nebraska, the best team Miami beat was #16 West Virginia. And it is highly unlikely that they would have beaten Nebraska had that game been played in any other bowl, or if Nebraska had kicked the tying extra point. I think Auburn's defeat of 3 top 10 teams is more impressive, especially since those 3 games came in a season-ending streak of 5 consecutive tough games that also included 8-4 Maryland and #15 Alabama. That 5-game gauntlet alone is more impressive than the best opponents of Miami's entire season.
Therefore, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Auburn should have been #1. But that's just my mind. Let's look closer and see if there is a case for what was in the majority of sportswriters' minds at the time.
The Case for Miami
First of all, one team is not automatically better than another just because they played a tougher schedule. Auburn's case would be more compelling if they had outperformed Miami, but they didn't. Both teams needed a dramatic late drive to beat 7-5 Florida State, Miami winning 17-16 at FSU, Auburn 24-21 at home. Auburn struggled to beat #15 Alabama 23-20, and Miami struggled to beat #20 East Carolina 12-7. The only other close wins either team posted were over top 10 teams. Miami lost their opener 28-3 at #6 Florida, and Auburn lost their second game 20-7 to #5 Texas at home. Performance-wise, these two teams were twins.
Auburn's 3 big wins over top 10 teams came by 6, 7, and 2 points, so they were not as impressive as they could be. And the last of those, won 9-7 on a last minute field goal in the Sugar Bowl, came over a 9-3 Michigan team that is lucky to be ranked in the top 10 at all. The toughest team Michigan faced other than Auburn was #10 Illinois, and they lost that game 16-6. If Auburn had crushed Michigan like a #1 team should have, maybe they wouldn't have been passed up by Miami in the first place.
Another look at Nebraska's opponents helps Miami's case too. 7-4-1 UCLA was ranked #17, but they beat #10 Illinois 45-9 in the Rose Bowl, and could be ranked as high as #9. #4 Georgia beat them by 9, and #7 Brigham Young beat them by 2, but Nebraska destroyed them 42-10. 8-4-1 Penn State is unranked, but they beat #15 Alabama (8-4), and will move into the fixed poll at #16. Nebraska whipped them 44-6, and no one else beat them by more than 11 points. That gives Nebraska 2 ranked opponents rather than one, and they beat both very impressively.
Then there's 6-5 Syracuse, who beat #16 West Virginia 27-16 and #19 Boston College 21-10, and will finish just outside the fixed and expanded AP top 25. Syracuse also lost to Penn State by 11 and to #18 Pitt by just 3. But Nebraska beat them 63-7. So at this point, Miami's win over Nebraska does look like a remarkable achievement, wherever or however that win occurred.
As I said, I would rank Auburn #1. 11-1 against the 4th toughest schedule ever? That's a no-brainer for me. But Miami is a logically viable choice too, so the AP poll can keep them #1. And once that choice is made, Nebraska is fine at #2, since their only loss came at #1 Miami, and by a single point, whereas Auburn took their loss to #5 Texas, at home, by 2 touchdowns.
Regardless of which team you choose to rank #1, however, in my opinion Miami and Auburn are co-national champions for 1983. On that there can surely be no reasonable debate.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:50 pm to Alahunter
In your opinion.
I'll stick with mine that AU was both the best and most deserving team in the nation in 1983 and therefore the national champ as far as I am concerned.
I'll stick with mine that AU was both the best and most deserving team in the nation in 1983 and therefore the national champ as far as I am concerned.
Popular
Back to top


0



