Started By
Message
re: Auburn May Add National Championships
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:06 am to SamGinn Cam
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:06 am to SamGinn Cam
Damage control from losing championship game?
1
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:07 am to OldPete
quote:
The 1983 Auburn team got robbed that year
It doesn't matter if they did or not..in the end they were not the champs. I could say UGA was jobbed in the 01 postseason due to the fact we were 8-3 after the reg season, arkansas was 7-4, and we beat arky head to head..while they got to go to the cotton bowl while we went to to the music city. Should UGA claim a cotton bowl anyway? Of course not.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:07 am to WDE24
quote:
So you agree then that AU claiming these title's would be along the same line's as Alabama.
Along the same lines of Bama's '41 title claim. Yes.
And nothing in the above quoted says anything about Notre Dame.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:08 am to Bama Bird
quote:
Alabama could add another 10 if they used the same criteria. The pre-AP ones are all Rose Bowl champion teams. Other than 1941, all the post-AP champions were appointed by either the UPI or AP.
LOL no. Multiple SEC schools would add championships immediately using even conservative Bama criteria.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:12 am to parkjas2001
quote:
As for 2004, there is no champion from that year currently recognized and Auburn is the only undefeated team from that year...so why not.
because that's not how things work. They didn't just hand the heisman over to vince young simply because reggie had to forfeit his.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:13 am to WG_Dawg
Plus Oklahoma was the #2 team in the land going into the Orange Bowl that year. It stands to reason that, if anyone should get the '04 title, it should be the Sooners.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:13 am to skrayper
quote:
I think you mean 2004. Auburn DID win the 2010 National Championship. Cam Newton and all that.
In regards to 2004 - if USC forfeits, then Oklahoma, as the #2, gets the nod.
Your right I meant 2004. That is also a good point Oklahoma would get a nod over Auburn.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:15 am to RollTide1987
quote:
It stands to reason that, if anyone should get the '04 title, it should be the Sooners
Yes, because they actually played in the national title game.
But auburn fans will tell you since they lost that AU should take precedence.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:15 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
because that's not how things work.
If the school decides to claim it, it does.
quote:
They didn't just hand the heisman over to vince young simply because reggie had to forfeit his.
Heisman Trophys have nothing to do with national titles.
They are determined by the Downtown Athletic Club in NY and if they wanted to give it someone else, they could.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:15 am to skrayper
quote:
your link even proves it.
quote:
No, it doesn't.
In your link can you tell me where the NCAA recognizes NC's? Now if you take a closer look, who is actually recognizing the NC
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:16 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Plus Oklahoma was the #2 team in the land going into the Orange Bowl that year. It stands to reason that, if anyone should get the '04 title, it should be the Sooners.
Did they finish with a loss?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:17 am to SamGinn Cam
I love the SEC!
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:19 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
But auburn fans will tell you since they lost that AU should take precedence
Sure...as the #2 team
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:20 am to Bama Bird
The 1913 years do as well.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:21 am to DaBama
quote:
Auburn has always considered itself above the pettiness of claiming "false" championships.
I still do. I think y'all are retarded for doing it, and I think JJ is retarded for thinking about it.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:23 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Did they finish with a loss?
To a team who turned out to be cheating. In the Olympics that usually means the gold medal goes to the runner-up. Since Oklahoma actually played in the game, the position of runner-up belongs to them.
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:23 am to nc14
quote:
Damage control from losing championship game?
you're not the brightest bulb in the room, but t least you try.
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:24 am to SamGinn Cam
I could give a rats arse about any NC's before I was alive furthermore I could care less about any that came before I was an Auburn football fan. From 1997 on, I have been through the lowest of the lows and highest of the highs. I don't need some totally ignorant "we were national champs 90 years ago!" BS to make me feel better about our team. Hell even the 57 is a "oh thats cool that they did that" NC to me.
Why do people gravitate towards this so much?
Why do people gravitate towards this so much?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:24 am to RollTide1987
quote:
In the Olympics that usually means the gold medal goes to the runner-up.
This is not the Olympics.
quote:
Since Oklahoma actually played in the game, the position of runner-up belongs to them.
Runner up usually goes to #2...the silver medalist, right?
Posted on 1/31/14 at 9:25 am to SamGinn Cam
I wouldn't claim 2004. I'd claim 1983, and 1993 is iffy. As for the others, i wasn't alive then so i'm not going to be so brash as to make a statement about something i know nothing about. I'll leave that to the bama fans to tell me why we shouldn't.
For the record, i'm not a fan of claiming any championships retroactively.
For the record, i'm not a fan of claiming any championships retroactively.
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 9:28 am
Page 5 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News