Started By
Message
2
Posted on 2/25/13 at 6:44 pm to Weagle25
quote:
quote:
AU fans aren't arguing about 2004?
No not really.
I don't argue 2004 like I do 1983. In 2004, it is not clear whether AU or USC was better and more deserving of the claim of the best team in the country.
1983 is pretty clear cut. Far and away the toughest schedule, ranked by some sites as the 4th toughest in the history of college football played by any team (regardless of whether a team was a NC contender) and ended tied for the best record with the only loss coming in early September.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 6:46 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
I agree with this
Posted on 2/25/13 at 6:53 pm to Big_Sur
quote:
I would disagree, certainly there is a discussion LINK
No one outside of Auburn fans think we should claim it that year. A lot of Auburn fans don't even claim it including me.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:08 pm to Big_Sur
quote:
I don't claim it and I didn't say you did. How about stop being a dick. Here's a Georgia site claiming it for us LINK
How am I being a dick? I'm just saying there's not much of a argument about it.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:10 pm to USMC Gators
1913, 1957, 1983, and 2010 I think are our 4 claims that we should make. Nothing more, and nothing less except if AU just refuses to claim '83, which I don't think would be fair, but I could see their point.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:11 pm to Weagle25
quote:I respect your opinion, but to say there is no argument is a bit ridiculous.
there's not much of a argument about it.
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:12 pm to Weagle25
I haven't read this book but maybe you should? LINK
I dunno, maybe nobody has ever discussed the possibility of claiming 2004 before. I don't claim it, you don't claim it....
quote:
The book that explains why Auburn University should claim a National Championship for the 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993, and 2004 seasons in addition to the 1957 and 2010 National Championships.
I dunno, maybe nobody has ever discussed the possibility of claiming 2004 before. I don't claim it, you don't claim it....
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:13 pm to Big_Sur
quote:
I would disagree, certainly there is a discussion
Here's what I know:
USC started 2004 ranked #1
Oklahoma started 2004 ranked #2
Auburn started 2004 ranked #17
USC and OU did not lose. You had a chance to edge OU in the BCS standings until you struggled against an overmatched 6-4 Alabama team in the Iron Bowl. We led 6-0 at the half but ended up losing 21-13.
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:14 pm to RollTide1987
LINK = discussion
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:17 pm to Big_Sur
That's not a discussion. That is a blog arguing a point of view. What we are having right now is what is classified as a discussion.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:18 pm to Big_Sur
quote:
I dunno, maybe nobody has ever discussed the possibility of claiming 2004 before. I don't claim it, you don't claim it....
I know there is discussion about how we should claim it but there's not much of an argument that says we were the best team that year. There's certainly not enough to say its been argued ad nauseum which is what you originally said.
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:22 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Then you only have 10
10 poll titles + 4 Rose Bowl titles before the poll era = 14.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:23 pm to RollTide1987
Eh, there is such a thing as a national discussion on an issue, not all discussions occur via anonymous message boards....if I'm being trolled, so be it!
This doesn't constitute a discussion of counting 2004?
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
This doesn't constitute a discussion of counting 2004?
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:25 pm to Weagle25
quote:
I know there is discussion about how we should claim it but there's not much of an argument that says we were the best team that year.
I feel for AU fans regarding 2004. Absolute shame, but you play by the system that's in place. 2004 was no more of a travesty for AU than 1966 and 1977 were for Bama, and we don't claim either of those years although we were clearly the best team in the nation. Just the way the cookie crumbles some years. That's why a 4 team playoff is going to be a good thing for CFB.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:27 pm to SpartyGator
Auburn certainly got screwed in 83, but I'm not so sure about 04. The SEC wasn't as good then, and they played a really bad 1AA team.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:33 pm to USMC Gators
quote:
Auburn certainly got screwed in 83, but I'm not so sure about 04. The SEC wasn't as good then, and they played a really bad 1AA team.
I think the point is, any time you go 14-0 in the SEC you deserve a shot at it on the field. I think USC was better that year, but people thought Miami would kill Alabama in 1992...that's why they play the games and AU earned the right at a shot at it.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 7:35 pm to USMC Gators
quote:The only reason we would even think about it is the team who won it was proven to have been cheating and had to strip their title. That leaves us and Utah as the only undefeated teams, in which we would take it over Utah. I don't agree and I think we should not claim it, but there is certainly an argument for both sides.
Auburn certainly got screwed in 83, but I'm not so sure about 04. The SEC wasn't as good then, and they played a really bad 1AA team.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News