Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:24 am to beatbammer
quote:
No I don't think that but OU doesn't have a loss due to USC being cheaters.
You might want to double-check your facts on that, kemo sabe.
That facts are USC cheated to beat OU in the Championship game. Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss. I don't care what the disfunctional NCAA says, vacate or forfit I don't count it as a loss. You can and will becuase it helps your agruement that Au should be ahead of OU. Look I really don't think OU nor Au should get the BCS that year but since OU played in the champ game and Au didn't then OU should get the nod.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:25 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
If aubie had gotten assraped by USC I wouldve still said it should be vacant. Nobody else should be given the BCS title if they didn't win the game. And damn sure shouldn't get it if they didn't even play in the game
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:26 am to spacewrangler
I believe AU deserves it for sure. Then they can actually claim they have 1 legit NC.
2010 will be taken away at some point anyway.
2010 will be taken away at some point anyway.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:29 am to MedDawg
Auburn got screwed in 2004 by not being able to play for the trophy. There is no way to really undo that. USC won it on the field and they are still the champs that year in my mind. If someone is going to get it, AU has the best argument, but it would be a little hollow to me to be awarded the championship now. I have no problem with it being left vacant and really wouldn't have a problem with USC keeping it.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:29 am to G8RnGA
Should stay vacated. Auburn didnt wint he NC game, so they are not the National Champs.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:34 am to spacewrangler
quote:
Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss. I don't care what the disfunctional NCAA says, vacate or forfit I don't count it as a loss. You can and will becuase it helps your agruement that Au should be ahead of OU. Look I really don't think OU nor Au should get the BCS that year but since OU played in the champ game and Au didn't then OU should get the nod
So it's okay for OU to get the benefit of USC cheating, but not AU?
If Bush didn't play vs UCLA, the championship game would have been OU vs AU.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:35 am to WDE24
Cliff notes? I'm not reading through 9 pages of 
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:37 am to AUnite
Nothing really worth reading. Just various opinions on who should be #1 in 2004. Votes range from AU, to OU, to USC, to Utah. Not many Utah votes though.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:39 am to AUnite
quote:
Cliff notes? I'm not reading through 9 pages of
Not really that much, Most people, even Aubs, say it should just be vacated, and awarded to no one. But if they had too, then most say Auburn, Bama says OK should get it. Few people saying Aub 04' was not nearly as good as either OK or USC
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:41 am to WDE24
quote:
Not many Utah votes though.
Shocker!
They should leave it vacant imo.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:42 am to spacewrangler
quote:
That facts are USC cheated to beat OU in the Championship game. Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss. I don't care what the disfunctional NCAA says, vacate or forfit I don't count it as a loss. You can and will becuase it helps your agruement that Au should be ahead of OU. Look I really don't think OU nor Au should get the BCS that year but since OU played in the champ game and Au didn't then OU should get the nod.
The FACT is that 2004 OU has a loss. Neither the NCAA nor the BCS have taken that loss away nor have they signalled any intent to take it away. THAT is the fact, not your wish and dream that you so badly want to be true.
I find it ironic that bama fans like you like to ignore all the "vacated" wins that the NCAA has punished bama with over the last 18 years because of bama's cheating, pretending that they still exist on your record books, while at the same time (with regard to issues like this) you like to pretend that the FACTUAL loss that OU *does* have on the record books doesn't count and never really happened.
Mighty convenient.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:44 am to spacewrangler
quote:Isn't also then a fact that USC cheated to keep AU out of the championship game?
That facts are USC cheated to beat OU in the Championship game. Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss. I don't care what the disfunctional NCAA says, vacate or forfit I don't count it as a loss. You can and will becuase it helps your agruement that Au should be ahead of OU. Look I really don't think OU nor Au should get the BCS that year but since OU played in the champ game and Au didn't then OU should get the nod.
So you can discredit USC enough to take away Oklahoma's loss to them, but not enough to take away USC's spot in the Championship game? Seems logical and consistent.
This post was edited on 6/7/11 at 9:46 am
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:46 am to spacewrangler
quote:
That facts are USC cheated to beat OU in the Championship game. Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss. I don't care what the disfunctional NCAA says, vacate or forfit I don't count it as a loss. You can and will becuase it helps your agruement that Au should be ahead of OU. Look I really don't think OU nor Au should get the BCS that year but since OU played in the champ game and Au didn't then OU should get the nod.
What is interesting is that Alabama's media guide still claims victories for all the games they had to vacate... Saban also counts them as victories... So are you sending a letter to the AD asking that this be corrected??? (Note: USC was the BCSNC that year, vacated or not)
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:49 am to spacewrangler
quote:Since you are not the official record keeper of college football I stopped reading right there.
Since they were cheating I don't count that as a loss.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 9:53 am to auburntiger77
They took those wins from us over fricking textbooks. Books that were returned after the classes. Over a little flaw in the distribution system. I would call bullshite on the NCAA even if it was auburn that got in trouble for something that silly
Posted on 6/7/11 at 10:06 am to bamaboy87
the texbook incident was rediculous in the highest manner. i thought the NCAA were morons for the punishment that was handed out.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 10:12 am to bamaboy87
quote:
They took those wins from us over fricking textbooks. Books that were returned after the classes. Over a little flaw in the distribution system. I would call bullshite on the NCAA even if it was auburn that got in trouble for something that silly
You need to check your facts. The book program didn't require the books to be returned.
Posted on 6/7/11 at 10:18 am to MedDawg
quote:
Do the rant posters think that Auburn DESERVES to be awarded the 2004 NC
Most AU fans - Yes
Most other fans - No
You'll have a few open minded AU fans who say no, and you'll get a few open minded other fans to say yes (by open minded I just mean willing to see the other point of view).
I tend to say no, but I'm a "bammer".
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News