re: Do the rant posters think that Auburn DESERVES to be awarded the 2004 NC?

I have stated on this board that I have ALWAYS recognized AU as the "champs" for that year.



Until a SEC team loses in a BCS CG, then I will ALWAYS take an undefeated one.


i do NOT think the BCS should "award" it. Just leave it vacant. But, I have always maintained that AU was the "champions".

USC beat Choklahoma 55-19. Auburn beat Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl and finished #2 that year. Auburn gets the title, presser at 4:00

I'm pretty well rested so I;ll take a shot at an explanation.I think it's in reference to this.

quote:

---

How many NCAA football National Championships has Auburn University The Auburn Football Media Guide, produced by the Auburn University ... lists the 1913, 1983, 1993, and 2004 seasons as national championship seasons. ...

---

quote:

---

Give Auburn the 2004 , and take away the 2010

---

quote:

---

My vote is for the BCS to remain vacant and for the AP to give their title to AU.

---

I think this is probably the best and most logical compromise. USC still gets punished and Auburn still gets vindicated. It's fair.

There's no such thing as a "national champion" in football anyway. It's an entirely subjective and biased concept that the NCAA flatly refuses to recognize. Having said that...

The "BCS champion" is merely the team that won the BCS game. I don't see how Auburn could claim to have "won" a game it didn't play in. That would be like LSU claiming to have won the Iron Bowl just because they beat Auburn and Alabama in a given season. (Oklahoma, incidentally, can't claim to have won this game either because (a) they got demolished on the field, even if you remove Bush from the equation and (b) the game was vacated as opposed to forfeited, which, by clear definition, prevents the clean team from claiming an official victory in the record books). So technically, nobody won the BCS title.

On the other hand, the AP poll is simply an exercise in numbers. You can't rearrange the concept of numerical integers to fit your social desires. If a hotel decides it's going to eliminate the 13th floor for superstition reasons, that doesn't change the fact that there's still a 13th floor of the building right in between floor #12 and floor #15 - they just chose to skip it when applying the labels. It's still there - unable to be ignored in the basic structure of things. You can call it the 14th floor, or anything else, but anyone standing on the street counting upwards knows exactly what it is and the only thing it could ever be.

The same is true for Auburn. The polls seek to prove one thing - who is ranked #1 in the total chronology of all teams. If you remove one team from the list, the others are automatically elevated a spot according to the basic principles of mathematics.

quote:

---

OKLAHOMA, and we all know who was the best team that year.

---

Auburn.

the SEC is undefeated in 7 title games. This would have been 8, against USC or OKlahoma

Still this is AUBURN's fault. Dont get abused by USC at home in 2003 and they would have played for it on the field. (unless the refs dont screw LSU w/ the redo extrapoint)


and no, I wont let it go

quote:

---

and we all know who was the best team that year.

---

Maybe the team that played and won the harder schedule

quote:

---

Well actually the 2010 media guide does not list "National Champions" for any year except 1957, The do list every team and their record, along with poll standings, they do include and list national champion polls for those years(83',93',04'). However there is a big difference between those years and 1957 in the Media Guide, one has a large bolded "National Champion" the others not so much. A little different than actually claiming national champ for those years, like some other schools

---

OK.I haven't actually seen a Media Guide,just what I've read on Message Boards.Thanks for clarifying.