re: Do you view the Auburn football program as a national power?

In all seriousness, it depends on how you look at it… Auburn plays as many relevant games on a national level late in the season as any team in the country. Which by definition means we are relevant on the national level along with 10 to 12 other teams not named Alabama. Alabama has transcended the argument altogether, But as for the rest of the mere mortals teams out there, Auburn is a national power.

quote:

---

Other than getting a hundred or so wins before Auburn even had a team, what is the difference between Michigan and Auburn? Michigan has like 1 national championship since WW1

---

Nah. Michigan is still way ahead, even if you do take away those games played before football started in the South.

Auburn had some decent success in the early 1900s but beginning in the late 1920s up through the early 1950s, they were pretty horrid. Auburn's real success as a program began with Shug Jordan in the mid 1950s.

So even if you pick a starting date that is favorable to Auburn, Michigan still comes out better:

Since 1955- AP POLL POINTS:
1. Alabama- 875
2. Ohio St.- 863
3. Oklahoma- 855
4. Nebraska- 715
5. Michigan- 713
6. USC- 708
7. Penn St.- 642
8. Texas- 621
9. Notre Dame- 614
10. Florida St.- 562
11. LSU- 545
12. Auburn- 540

So as you can see, even picking 1955 which works to Auburn's advantage, Michigan still comes out way ahead. Michigan has 44 AP Top 25 finishes during this span compared to Auburn's 36... there's your reason.

Auburn had some very good teams from the mid 1950s up through the early 1970s, but the mid-to-late 1970s up through 1981 were abysmal for the Tigers.

So again, you could pick the year 1982 as another favorable year to measure for Auburn:

SINCE 1982- AP POLL POINTS:
1. Florida St.- 509
2. Ohio St.- 498
3. Alabama- 443
4. Oklahoma- 437
5. Miami- 429
5. Florida- 429
7. Michigan- 404
8. Nebraska- 394
9. Auburn- 346
10. USC- 346

Again, even picking the year most favorable for Auburn to begin measuring from, Michigan still comes out ahead. Again, mainly because of more successful seasons. Over this time period, Michigan has 27 AP Top 25 finishes compared to 24 for Auburn.

Auburn is a solid program, and though Michigan has accomplished less with more compared to any other program in America over the past 75 years, they are still an elite program that is worthy of "Blue Blood" status.

That's why the operative term is "might". For a slogan to resonate, it must be rooted in truth.

quote:

---

WG_Dawg

---

Surprisingly correct on all aspects.

quote:

---

So a program is "irrelevant" if they're not playing in or winning a NC game?So you're saying AU was irrelevant between '57 amd 2010,correct?

---

Not correct. 1983, 1993, & 2004 were all championship seasons

I think everyone being honest agrees that Auburn is a top 10-15ish program all time and is therefore a national power, but that there is a 5-7 program "elite" category that Auburn falls just outside.

quote:

---

One instance of back to back 10 win seasons in their entire history.

---

How embarrassing that must be for them

quote:

---

Auburn's real success as a program began with Shug Jordan in the mid 1950s

---

Won exactly 1 SEC Championship.

quote:

---

Not correct. 1983, 1993, & 2004 were all championship seasons

---

Since when?And please explain why your team didn't go to a bowl in '93?

And why does your own school recognize '57 and '10?

quote:

---

Auburn University only formally recognizes championships for the 1957 Auburn Tigers football team and 2010 Auburn Tigers football team seasons,[

---

quote:

---

Now you've done it. They hate it when this is brought up.

---

Not really. Look who's right behind. And we've been clean as a whistle for 25 years.