Started By
Message
re: Where do you rank Auburn as a football program within the SEC?
Posted on 4/24/17 at 3:50 pm to GeauxWarTigers
Posted on 4/24/17 at 3:50 pm to GeauxWarTigers
Bless your little heart. Jameis says hello by the way!
0
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:04 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
Where does it say I'm butt hurt? I said 2-6 are interchangeable. Are you butt hurt? Use Preparation H; you'll feel better.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:12 pm to RandySavage
Auburn is not a better football program than LSU historically. That's just inaccurate.
LSU is 3rd behind bama and tenn.
LSU is 3rd behind bama and tenn.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:14 pm to ImayGoLesMiles
Well this thread went about as planned 
.
Kudos to the people who brought some great points to the discussion complete with stats and facts
. Kudos to the people who brought some great points to the discussion complete with stats and facts
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:17 pm to CBandits82
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:23 pm to ImayGoLesMiles
Winsipedia is quite inaccurate when you look at how they recognize national championships.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:26 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Auburn has been close to several other National Titles but has come up just short. However, the same can be said for most any other program.
Auburn finished #3 in 1983
Auburn finished #2 in 2004
Auburn finished #2 in 2013
The 2013 came up short.
The 1983 and 2004 team got flat out robbed. Big difference.
I'll take our 1983, 1993, and 2004 season over 2007 LSU all day everyday based on actual on field performance and accomplishment. 2007 LSU was actually a huge underachiever. That team was stacked and lost to Arkansas and Kentucky. gtfo
All the minuscule win differential and percentage is easily due to the difference in schedule strength over the year. Had the schedules been reversed the numbers would be virtually identical.
The only real advantage LSU has over AU is the head to head thing.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:31 pm to CBandits82
Actually some decent responses ITT.
I'm satisfied that AU is in the Big6. I don't believe you can argue that we're clearly #3, nor can you support a claim that we're obviously #6. But we're in that range.
I do sometimes wonder if living in the shadow of the obvious #1 program has prevented us from being more successful. I wonder what our history would be like if we had essentially no in-state competition.
I'm satisfied that AU is in the Big6. I don't believe you can argue that we're clearly #3, nor can you support a claim that we're obviously #6. But we're in that range.
I do sometimes wonder if living in the shadow of the obvious #1 program has prevented us from being more successful. I wonder what our history would be like if we had essentially no in-state competition.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:39 pm to CBandits82
They are in the top 6 
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:47 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
I do sometimes wonder if living in the shadow of the obvious #1 program has prevented us from being more successful. I wonder what our history would be like if we had essentially no in-state competition.
I think in some ways you can argue that it has helped in different areas. That being said, you certainly would be higher up if there was no in-state competition.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:47 pm to ImayGoLesMiles
It's pretty easy to walk it through comparing their best years:
National Championship Seasons:
3- LSU
2- Auburn
Seasons with a Top 5 Finish:
9- Auburn
9- LSU
Seasons with a Finish between #6 and #15
18- Auburn
23- LSU
Seasons with a Finish between #16 and #25:
11- Auburn
7- LSU
The only real difference is that LSU has an extra National Title. And while Auburn has more seasons that resulted in a #16-#25 finish, LSU had more seasons with a slightly higher #6-#15 finish.
The number of Top 5 seasons are the same.
The number of Top 25 seasons are nearly the same... 39 for LSU and 38 for Auburn.
The difference is that one extra National Championship for LSU and the fact LSU's average final ranking is just a bit higher because they have more Top 15 finishes than Auburn does.
Auburn needs one more National Title and a few more Top 15 finishes while hoping LSU enters into an era of mediocrity to catch up. It's totally doable in not much time.... but at the same time, LSU is a National Title away from completely leaving Auburn in the dust.
National Championship Seasons:
3- LSU
2- Auburn
Seasons with a Top 5 Finish:
9- Auburn
9- LSU
Seasons with a Finish between #6 and #15
18- Auburn
23- LSU
Seasons with a Finish between #16 and #25:
11- Auburn
7- LSU
The only real difference is that LSU has an extra National Title. And while Auburn has more seasons that resulted in a #16-#25 finish, LSU had more seasons with a slightly higher #6-#15 finish.
The number of Top 5 seasons are the same.
The number of Top 25 seasons are nearly the same... 39 for LSU and 38 for Auburn.
The difference is that one extra National Championship for LSU and the fact LSU's average final ranking is just a bit higher because they have more Top 15 finishes than Auburn does.
Auburn needs one more National Title and a few more Top 15 finishes while hoping LSU enters into an era of mediocrity to catch up. It's totally doable in not much time.... but at the same time, LSU is a National Title away from completely leaving Auburn in the dust.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:51 pm to RandySavage
quote:
The 1983 and 2004 team got flat out robbed. Big difference.
Yes but LSU should never have had to face Alabama again in 2011. They had already beaten them head-to-head in Tuscaloosa for goodness sake. They had an OOC win over Top 5 Oregon. And they had an extra game against the SEC East Champ, Georgia.
Alabama may have been the best team of 2011. But in my opinion, LSU's 13-0 record heading into the bowls should have been rewarded by not giving Alabama a do-over.
So in that sense, they were robbed just like those Auburn teams.
And furthermore, Auburn was robbed by not getting a *CHANCE* to play for the Title in 2004. That doesn't mean they would have won the title. Big difference.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 4:58 pm to RandySavage
quote:
'll take our 1983, 1993, and 2004 season over 2007 LSU all day everyday based on actual on field performance and accomplishment. 2007 LSU was actually a huge underachiever.
1993 Auburn only played 2 decent teams. Sure they won them both. But they were both at home, and both close games. Outside of beating Bama and Florida, here were Auburn's 1993 opponents:
5-6 Ole Miss
1AA Samford
5-6 LSU
2-8-1 Southern Miss
4-7 Vanderbilt
3-6-2 Mississippi St.
5-5-1 Arkansas
5-6 New Mexico State
5-6 Georgia
Auburn literally played two Division 1 opponents with winning records.
2007 LSU beat #5 Ohio State, #9 Virginia Tech, #12 Tennessee, #13 Florida, and #15 Auburn
That's 5 wins against the Final Top 15.
Not saying that 2007 was the most deserving National Champ ever... but that was a weird year and they ended up the best team once they destroyed Ohio State.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 5:27 pm to CBandits82
Who are they above? Vandy, KY, Ole Miss, MSU, USC
Who are they below? Alabama
Where would you personally rank Auburn historically as a football program in the SEC? No lower than 6; maybe as high 3.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 5:31 pm to makersmark1
It's really hard to judge any SEC team "historically". The SEC has changed so much over the years. Since expansion/modern day SEC is probably the easiest way to judge programs now.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 5:35 pm to craigbiggio
quote:
2. Tennessee
Posted on 4/24/17 at 5:51 pm to BHMKyle
I agree LSU got shafted in 2011 so we'll call that and 07 a wash. NC or not 2004 AU > 07 LSU though no question.
1983 easily makes up for the "extra national championship" based on what Auburn actually did on the field. Played what has been ranked the toughest schedule in CFB history as of a couple of years ago and was behind a team that beat one ranked team all season before the bowl game.
Miami's lost to Florida 28-3, Auburn beat Florida.
Especially given LSU didn't even have to play the #1 team and thus shared the 03 title.
1983 easily makes up for the "extra national championship" based on what Auburn actually did on the field. Played what has been ranked the toughest schedule in CFB history as of a couple of years ago and was behind a team that beat one ranked team all season before the bowl game.
Miami's lost to Florida 28-3, Auburn beat Florida.
Especially given LSU didn't even have to play the #1 team and thus shared the 03 title.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:09 pm to RandySavage
LSU has had two unbeaten seasons
Auburn has had 12 with 7 being perfect seasons.
Other big 6 members...
Alabama with 12 and 10
UT with 7 and 4
UGA with 3 and 2
FLorida with 1 and 0 with the 1 being in 1911 lol
Quick, easy summary...
AU has one less number of unbeaten and perfect seasons as the rest of of the pack combined.
Big 6? It's clearly the Big 2 and then the rest.
My work is done here, thread can be anchored now.
Auburn has had 12 with 7 being perfect seasons.
Other big 6 members...
Alabama with 12 and 10
UT with 7 and 4
UGA with 3 and 2
FLorida with 1 and 0 with the 1 being in 1911 lol
Quick, easy summary...
AU has one less number of unbeaten and perfect seasons as the rest of of the pack combined.
Big 6? It's clearly the Big 2 and then the rest.
My work is done here, thread can be anchored now.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:22 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
And furthermore, Auburn was robbed by not getting a *CHANCE* to play for the Title in 2004. That doesn't mean they would have won the title. Big difference.
Agree and it doesnt mean LSU would have won if they had not played Alabama in 2011...
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:12 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Alabama may have been the best team of 2011. But in my opinion, LSU's 13-0 record heading into the bowls should have been rewarded by not giving Alabama a do-over.
So in that sense, they were robbed just like those Auburn teams.
And furthermore, Auburn was robbed by not getting a *CHANCE* to play for the Title in 2004. That doesn't mean they would have won the title. Big difference.
What happened to LSU sucked, there is no doubt. I think people often frame the issue differently though. The issue in that case is that I think it was hard to argue any other team deserved a shot more than Alabama (after LSU of course).
I hate to admit it, but the number one team in 2004 was probably the ones who won it all, but it did suck that Auburn did not get the chance to win or lose on the field.
Again, I have no problem saying LSU might be above Auburn in the SEC. But I think 2-6 of the Big Six are all close enough that the next "big" season could shift the argument again.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News