Started By
Message
re: Why hasn't Auburn claimed the 2004 MNC?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 2:25 pm to Mithridates6
Posted on 5/11/20 at 2:25 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Why hasn't Auburn claimed the 2004 MNC?
Because they didn't win it, and not a single major poll named them a Champion that year.
quote:
a)this was relatively recent
Yeah. Which would make this even more embarrassing for them to do it. Everyone remembers it and they remember Auburn not winning it. It's one thing to retroactively claim a title from the 1910's, but to claim one that was not awarded to you just a few short years ago is lunacy.
quote:
b) if the NC was vacated, it doesn't seem right that there should be no one listed in the record books
It was not totally vacated. Not by the AP at least.
Auburn claiming it makes about as much sense as LSU retroactively claiming the 2011 National Title. Both teams had the best resume in college football when it was all said and done (especially when you factor in USC's scandal). Both teams got screwed. But the fact of the matter is that USC won the National Title in '03 and Alabama won it in '11. LSU would never claim the '11 title because everyone remembers what Bama did to them in the rematch. Likewise for Auburn. We all remember them getting left out, so to go back and act like you won it is just embarrassing.
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 2:26 pm
1
Posted on 5/11/20 at 2:32 pm to craigbiggio
quote:
Interesting
"We started out playing Southern Cal and I believe this Auburn team is better." - Frank Beamer.
Considering he is the only guy to coach a Big East school not named Miami to play for a national title, he might know what he is talking about.
That Barn team was as good as any team that year, and this is coming from a UGA fan.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 3:54 pm to 3down10
quote:
Yeah, I have no problem calling 1941 a bullshite claim. No idea why in the world that one was ever added. I don't believe in using math polls as a selector after 1936.
Yeah I agree. If after 1936 you didnt win the AP, UPI, BCS or CFP then you didnt win the title. If its prior to 1936 it should be at least somewhat legit. Auburn should definitely claim 1913
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:01 pm to Murph4HOF
You mean a coach talked up an opponent before he played them? That’s crazy. I can’t believe he didn’t say “This Auburn team is good but not as good as they think”
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:10 pm to craigbiggio
Beamer said that the day after he played AU dumbass
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:14 pm to Irons Puppet
quote:
I think claiming a leather helmet era championship would be more than appropriate. AUs 1913 Team should be recognized by the University and should be honored for their legacy to the program. In the 1913 teams sake, there were members of that team that fought in WWI and one player that was even killed in the War. AU honors Veterans every year at one game. What better time to recognize that team ? But again, we had Jay Jacobs as AD.
Disagree, CFB was highly regional at that time and teams from the sparsely populated South were lightly regarded until that Alabama team won the Rose Bowl
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:38 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
I think so too. I don't understand why the talent level at Auburn dropped off so dramatically after 2004. 2010 was Newton, Dyer, Fairley and an otherwise mediocre roster
Here's what happened. We actually had really good, SEC champion caliber teams in 05 and 06. If John Vaughn only missed 4 FGs instead of 5 in Tiger Stadium we play in Atlanta and had already beaten UGA in Athens that year. 2006 we beat top 5 LSU and eventual national champion Florida but we gagged at home to UGA as a top 5 team in late November and Arkansas had an amazing year.
2007 is when the talent started falling off. After the 2003 disaster season and it got leaked we were flying to Louisville to try and replace Tuberville our recruiting that year was abysmal as his job security was obviously a major issue. We basically had no senior class in 2007 and started a bunch of true freshmen (especially on the OL). Then Saban came in and took all the cruits for a few years. 2010 we didn't have a ton of talent but our lines had so much experience from starting together for 3 or 4 years and then we had the lightning strikes with Cam and true freshman Dyer.
Once that was all gone we were thin again from the 08 and 09 classes when Saban was mopping up and we were not good in 11 and were one of the worst teams ever in 12. Chizik actually recruited well which, when combined with Nick Marshall, laid the foundation for the 2013 and 2014 seasons where we were really good again.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:44 pm to mbogo
quote:
Did AU have many of the same players as the year before when USC beat AU 23-0?
Alabama could have easily beat AU over 100-0 if they wanted to in 2012. Auburn beat Alabama in 2013. Multiple other teams as well.
UGA and LSU ram rodded Auburn in 2003 also, we beat both in 2004, UGA easily.
Sometimes I try to figure out which argument is worse the Citadel or the 2003 game result. Anyone who makes either is beyond retarded.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:44 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Disagree, CFB was highly regional at that time and teams from the sparsely populated South were lightly regarded until that Alabama team won the Rose Bowl
You do not think that CF in modern time isn’t highly regional? How did those other regions react to Bama’s mulligans? If not for 12 people, it wouldn’t have happened.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:56 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Auburn claiming it makes about as much sense as LSU retroactively claiming the 2011 National Title.
I'm trying to understand this comparison.
In 2004 USC won the BCS National Championship and finished #1 in both the coaches and AP polls. Auburn finished #2.
Years later, USC was penalized by the NCAA for violations. One of the penalties was for them to vacate the national championship (whether or not they actually do claim it now doesn't matter...they agreed to do it at the time). Therefore, the highest ranked team in all of the major polls after USC vacated the title was Auburn.
In 2011 Alabama won the BCS National Championship and finished #1 in both the coaches and AP polls. LSU finished #2.
Years later, Alabama is still the 2011 BCS National Champion after finishing the season #1 in both the coaches and AP polls.
Please explain in further detail how the two situations are similar.
Thanks in advance.
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 4:56 pm to Irons Puppet
CFB was widely viewed as a northern sport, Ivy League and such. The south didn't really care, that's why that Rose Bowl the gumps won is called "the game that changed the South:
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:15 pm to GusAU
The NCAA and Associated Press still recognize USC as the 2004 champion.
The BCS was garbage anyway and should have been blown up after 2003.
The BCS was garbage anyway and should have been blown up after 2003.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:17 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:
The NCAA and Associated Press still recognize USC as the 2004 champion.
Sources please. The AP is just one of the selectors recognized by the NCAA and I'd say the least valuable due to the inertia and name recognition factors
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:18 pm to Mithridates6
But that doesn’t explain why a Southern Team shouldn’t claim a title. Unless you are saying only the Northern Press had a right to claim who was the best. The Billingsley Report recognized them, but AU AD refused.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:21 pm to Irons Puppet
The billingsley report is some computer formula that a guy came up with decades after all this. It doesn't take into account the situation on the ground. Leave claiming those formula titles to desperate programs who really have no history like Aggy. I'd be ashamed if LSU claimed the 1908 NC
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:23 pm to Mithridates6
It's on the NCAA website under history.
Also USC still has AP trophies from 2003 and 2004.
Also USC still has AP trophies from 2003 and 2004.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:28 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:
The BCS was garbage anyway and should have been blown up after 2003.
So, because YOU think the BCS was garbage anyway and should have been blown up after 2003, is my question to BHMKyle not valid?
What did I put in my post that was not accurate?
FWIW, I never liked the BCS either, but that doesn't change my questions.
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:28 pm to Mithridates6
It is as good as any. They were the best in the South, but according to you the South didn’t play Football until a Rose Bowl won by Alabama. The logic sucks.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:34 pm to StopRobot
quote:
Yeah I agree. If after 1936 you didnt win the AP, UPI, BCS or CFP then you didnt win the title. If its prior to 1936 it should be at least somewhat legit. Auburn should definitely claim 1913
Agree - if your pre-bowl, pre-poll team went undefeated and gave up less than 20 points or something insane, have at it.
1941 being claimed is just so damn frustrating because it doesn't fall in with the logic of all the other titles. Every other title is either Rose Bowl win or AP/Coaches Title. And then it was like they wanted an even number or something and picked some year where we lost 2 games and won the fvckin Houlgate System. Just pathetic.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 5:46 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
1941 being claimed is just so damn frustrating because it doesn't fall in with the logic of all the other titles.
Yea, I've never understood that one. If there was a need to claim a questionable national championship, it absolutely should be the 1966 team. It is still absolutely unreal that the UNDEFEATED TWO TIME DEFENDING NATIONAL CHAMPION not only wasn't awarded the title, but finished #3. Despite my obvious disdain for bama, I've always considered that to be one of the more egregious final rankings ever.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News