ESPN on Bogus and controversial National Championship claims

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Apr 9, 1999
12,984
1,832
423
We should do like every other school and pretend there was no football until the AP declared there to be football in October 1936. We should only count AP & "legitimate" polls. We still have 12 ... how many you got?


My response to any aubie or domer or anybody else who wants to quibble about anything (like how bad they might have beaten us in a particular year, whether we have players who get hurt, suspended, expelled, or transfer, whether we change coaches or hear that Saban is getting old), is one - and only one - word: "seventeen." That word alone is enough to send them into slobbering and stupifying stutteration. Works every time. And, if it doesn't, the magic word is still "seventeen."
 

Con

All-American
Dec 19, 2006
4,274
588
128
South Alabama
ESPN is full of idiots that miss the story (which is a lot of why their "woke" nonsense leaves me cold - they're not even good at what they're SUPPOSED to to).

Before anyone anywhere can criticize ANYONE about anything - you FIRST, I repeat FIRST - you have to agree on the criteria BEFORE discussing the subject. Plain and simple. You have to spell out your assumptions BEFORE offering criticism. Let's look at a good one here.


1936: Minnesota, Pitt or ... Slippery Rock?
The AP Poll has become one of the pillars of college football rankings, standing side by side with the coaches' poll in many newspapers and websites, but that wasn't always the case.

In fact, the first championship the AP awarded to Minnesota in 1936 wasn't even unanimous. UPI -- another news gathering service -- instead ranked Pitt as No. 1. And the stats-based Boand and Duke Houlgate systems would back that assessment, bolstering the Panthers' argument for the seventh of its nine championships. Even a look at the final AP poll favors that conclusion: Whereas Minnesota (7-1) beat two ranked teams, Pitt (8-1-1) beat three, including a 21-0 rout of Washington in the Rose Bowl.

But those claims were child's play compared to the little known (and mostly satirical) campaign to crown unranked Slippery Rock as national champs that season. It is perhaps the first and most ridiculous application of the ever popular transitive theory to college football. The school's official website continues to tell the story of one brave journalist who was so disenchanted by the Minnesota-Pitt debate that he set about to compare the scores of the 1936 season and came to his own conclusion: "Slippery Rock beat Westminster, which beat West Virginia Wesleyan, which beat Duquesne, which beat Pitt, which beat Notre Dame, which beat Northwestern, which beat Minnesota."

So what if the Rock finished the season at 6-3? The math totally checks out.

1) Now I'm open to correction on this, but I'm not aware of UPI (now the coaches' poll) providing a ranking system before 1950. They MIGHT have "recognized" Pitt, but I don't see it anywhere on Pitt websites so.....

2) Why didn't these ignorant blowhards ask the more important question: why was Minnesota selected over Big Ten champion Northwestern as national champion?

RECORD
Northwestern 7-1 (lost to #11 Notre Dame, 26-6)
Minnesota 7-1 (lost to #3 Northwestern, 6-0)

Shouldn't the imbeciles who in this same article wrote - and I quote - "The Tide lost to Auburn in that year's Iron Bowl and missed the SEC championship game altogether"......have pointed out Minnesota wasn't even the Big Ten champion (something about conference championships mean something something)?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize Alabama for 1978, how in the world do you give Minnesota a pass in 1936? If you're gonna criticize Alabama as "didn't even win their conference," how do you not point this out about Minnesota?

And why not point out the nation's only unbeaten team in 1936 was 8-0-1 Alabama?

See, this is why I tire of this garbage. I will open admit my bias without shame, but I think my analytics and reviews show I can evaluate situations fairly EVEN when it involves my own team. But the problem is that most articles that offer such criticism START with the assumption the criticism is VALID. The criticisms of UCF in 2017 and Alabama in 1941 are FULLY legitimate and in the bounds of fairness. But for reasons that still tick me off royally, we have nonsense like the 1936 title, where if you applied the very same argument, you'd wind up with a different champion other years, too.

There ARE legitimate reasons why Alabama did not win the 1936 title, but you find none of that discussed here or even hinted at that the writers even know about this. LSU had a legit claim, too, but nothing.


Alabama's 1964 title is often attacked with the old notion that we lost to Texas and Arkansas beat Texas and therefore if the polls were after the bowl games something something. Okay, fine. But my problem is you NEVER see those same writers mention the following:

1950 - Oklahoma voted national champ (loses to Bryant's Kentucky team in the bowl game, who ends the year with the same losses, one extra win, and a head-to-head bowl win. Either Kentucky or the Vols should be #1)

1951 - Vols win national title, lose to UNDEFEATED Maryland in bowl game by 15 points

1953 - Unbeaten Maryland loses Orange Bowl to #4 Oklahoma (9-1-1) after winning title.

Why don't these same writers pontificate about how Oklahoma and Tennessee and Maryland didn't REALLY win national titles? And who wins it in 1953? Unbeaten #2 Notre Dame? Or does Oklahoma pole vault Notre Dame using the "the team that beats #1 in the last game becomes #1 logic" of 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, and 1993 but set aside in 1989?

1973

"Alabama doesn't deserve that title because they lost to Notre Dame in the bowl game after the title was awarded."

Why don't these inconsistent idiots after say, "You know, Texas was given the 1970 UPI title and then lost their bowl to Notre Dame by a score of 24-11"?

Why don't they ever say, "You know, Michigan State was given the UPI title in 1965 and then lost the Rose Bowl to UCLA"?


There's an answer to this: their concern is NOT with fair and just outcomes or consistency, their concern is with ALABAMA.

You'd be amazed how many people I absolutely bury with that because they didn't bother to research anything beyond "How can I criticize Alabama." And just like everyone else, they'll never admit it.

Count it however you want. We're still on top.
I am going to try the feature in the corner "bookmark" to help me remember this post. It should be a lot of fun if I move from Alabama again.

The "Bookmark" feature is very easy to find. I like it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
We should do like every other school and pretend there was no football until the AP declared there to be football in October 1936. We should only count AP & "legitimate" polls. We still have 12 ... how many you got?


My response to any aubie or domer or anybody else who wants to quibble about anything (like how bad they might have beaten us in a particular year, whether we have players who get hurt, suspended, expelled, or transfer, whether we change coaches or hear that Saban is getting old), is one - and only one - word: "seventeen." That word alone is enough to send them into slobbering and stupifying stutteration. Works every time. And, if it doesn't, the magic word is still "seventeen."
Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that it's difficult to say teams who didn't even know they were national champions were actually national champions. It's even a bit stretching it to cite the 1926 newspaper because there was a sort of assumption in the pre-bowl era (when the Rose Bowl was the only game) to refer to the team that won that game as "national champions." And unless one is going to say the university doesn't even know it's own history, the fact the UA newspaper itself declared 1961 as the "first" national championship, I honestly don't have any problem with it one way or the other.

No, my problem is the motivational fallacy that is behind the entire discussion: it's simply a tactic to discredit Alabama and somehow pretend the distance between us and schools not named Notre Dame, USC, Ohio St, and Oklahoma is really close.
 

NoNC4Tubs

Hall of Fame
Nov 13, 2010
5,119
423
93
Honestly I don’t care and neither does Auburn. But they were the best team not to be put on probation that year. If they claim it down the line then I really wouldn’t care because we still claim 1941. But I doubt they claim it while Tubberville is still alive.
So Probation discounts a title? :unsure:

Like I said, the team received NC Rings for it... :cool:
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,564
3,166
178
Sylacauga,AL
So Probation discounts a title? :unsure:

Like I said, the team received NC Rings for it... :cool:
UCF received rings too. But outside a select few no one really accepts them. But to answer your question yes probation does disqualify USC of the 04 title and the NCAA officially ruled that it did. There are no official NC claims for 2004.

If Auburn wants to claim 04 or 83 then I doubt many would really care or challenge the claim. But it’s more likely that they claim 83 than 04 because they would have to pay Tubberville a crap load of money if they officially claim it.
 

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Apr 9, 1999
12,984
1,832
423
ESPN is full of idiots that miss the story (which is a lot of why their "woke" nonsense leaves me cold - they're not even good at what they're SUPPOSED to to).

Before anyone anywhere can criticize ANYONE about anything - you FIRST, I repeat FIRST - you have to agree on the criteria BEFORE discussing the subject. Plain and simple. You have to spell out your assumptions BEFORE offering criticism. Let's look at a good one here.


1936: Minnesota, Pitt or ... Slippery Rock?
The AP Poll has become one of the pillars of college football rankings, standing side by side with the coaches' poll in many newspapers and websites, but that wasn't always the case.

In fact, the first championship the AP awarded to Minnesota in 1936 wasn't even unanimous. UPI -- another news gathering service -- instead ranked Pitt as No. 1. And the stats-based Boand and Duke Houlgate systems would back that assessment, bolstering the Panthers' argument for the seventh of its nine championships. Even a look at the final AP poll favors that conclusion: Whereas Minnesota (7-1) beat two ranked teams, Pitt (8-1-1) beat three, including a 21-0 rout of Washington in the Rose Bowl.

But those claims were child's play compared to the little known (and mostly satirical) campaign to crown unranked Slippery Rock as national champs that season. It is perhaps the first and most ridiculous application of the ever popular transitive theory to college football. The school's official website continues to tell the story of one brave journalist who was so disenchanted by the Minnesota-Pitt debate that he set about to compare the scores of the 1936 season and came to his own conclusion: "Slippery Rock beat Westminster, which beat West Virginia Wesleyan, which beat Duquesne, which beat Pitt, which beat Notre Dame, which beat Northwestern, which beat Minnesota."

So what if the Rock finished the season at 6-3? The math totally checks out.

1) Now I'm open to correction on this, but I'm not aware of UPI (now the coaches' poll) providing a ranking system before 1950. They MIGHT have "recognized" Pitt, but I don't see it anywhere on Pitt websites so.....

2) Why didn't these ignorant blowhards ask the more important question: why was Minnesota selected over Big Ten champion Northwestern as national champion?

RECORD
Northwestern 7-1 (lost to #11 Notre Dame, 26-6)
Minnesota 7-1 (lost to #3 Northwestern, 6-0)

Shouldn't the imbeciles who in this same article wrote - and I quote - "The Tide lost to Auburn in that year's Iron Bowl and missed the SEC championship game altogether"......have pointed out Minnesota wasn't even the Big Ten champion (something about conference championships mean something something)?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize Alabama for 1978, how in the world do you give Minnesota a pass in 1936? If you're gonna criticize Alabama as "didn't even win their conference," how do you not point this out about Minnesota?

And why not point out the nation's only unbeaten team in 1936 was 8-0-1 Alabama?

See, this is why I tire of this garbage. I will open admit my bias without shame, but I think my analytics and reviews show I can evaluate situations fairly EVEN when it involves my own team. But the problem is that most articles that offer such criticism START with the assumption the criticism is VALID. The criticisms of UCF in 2017 and Alabama in 1941 are FULLY legitimate and in the bounds of fairness. But for reasons that still tick me off royally, we have nonsense like the 1936 title, where if you applied the very same argument, you'd wind up with a different champion other years, too.

There ARE legitimate reasons why Alabama did not win the 1936 title, but you find none of that discussed here or even hinted at that the writers even know about this. LSU had a legit claim, too, but nothing.


Alabama's 1964 title is often attacked with the old notion that we lost to Texas and Arkansas beat Texas and therefore if the polls were after the bowl games something something. Okay, fine. But my problem is you NEVER see those same writers mention the following:

1950 - Oklahoma voted national champ (loses to Bryant's Kentucky team in the bowl game, who ends the year with the same losses, one extra win, and a head-to-head bowl win. Either Kentucky or the Vols should be #1)

1951 - Vols win national title, lose to UNDEFEATED Maryland in bowl game by 15 points

1953 - Unbeaten Maryland loses Orange Bowl to #4 Oklahoma (9-1-1) after winning title.

Why don't these same writers pontificate about how Oklahoma and Tennessee and Maryland didn't REALLY win national titles? And who wins it in 1953? Unbeaten #2 Notre Dame? Or does Oklahoma pole vault Notre Dame using the "the team that beats #1 in the last game becomes #1 logic" of 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, and 1993 but set aside in 1989?

1973

"Alabama doesn't deserve that title because they lost to Notre Dame in the bowl game after the title was awarded."

Why don't these inconsistent idiots after say, "You know, Texas was given the 1970 UPI title and then lost their bowl to Notre Dame by a score of 24-11"?

Why don't they ever say, "You know, Michigan State was given the UPI title in 1965 and then lost the Rose Bowl to UCLA"?


There's an answer to this: their concern is NOT with fair and just outcomes or consistency, their concern is with ALABAMA.

You'd be amazed how many people I absolutely bury with that because they didn't bother to research anything beyond "How can I criticize Alabama." And just like everyone else, they'll never admit it.

Count it however you want. We're still on top.

 
  • Like
Reactions: FaninLA and Gr8hope

NoNC4Tubs

Hall of Fame
Nov 13, 2010
5,119
423
93
UCF received rings too. But outside a select few no one really accepts them. But to answer your question yes probation does disqualify USC of the 04 title and the NCAA officially ruled that it did. There are no official NC claims for 2004.

If Auburn wants to claim 04 or 83 then I doubt many would really care or challenge the claim. But it’s more likely that they claim 83 than 04 because they would have to pay Tubberville a crap load of money if they officially claim it.
A friend told me about a barn player proudly waving his ring around in a Waffle House at 3 am many years ago. :ROFLMAO:

Ok, then 1957 is out the window. :cool:

Pay Tubby for what...?
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,564
3,166
178
Sylacauga,AL
Pay Tubby for what...?
Modern contracts have championship incentives. That started in the BCS era. If Auburn claims a BCS championship then they would have to back pay Tubberville for it. Just like UCF had to pay Frost.

But worrying about Auburn claiming 1910, 1983, or 2004 is kinda silly when we claim 1941. Atleast Auburn had legitimate claims in all of those years.

But personally I don’t care about anyone claiming Semi reasonable title claims unless it’s Notre Dame.
 

NoNC4Tubs

Hall of Fame
Nov 13, 2010
5,119
423
93
Modern contracts have championship incentives. That started in the BCS era. If Auburn claims a BCS championship then they would have to back pay Tubberville for it. Just like UCF had to pay Frost.

But worrying about Auburn claiming 1910, 1983, or 2004 is kinda silly when we claim 1941. Atleast Auburn had legitimate claims in all of those years.

But personally I don’t care about anyone claiming Semi reasonable title claims unless it’s Notre Dame.
"Claiming" one would in no way constitute winning one. Any body that would have put that wording in an incentive clause would be thrown out of their law office. The barn's lawyers are better than that... :cool:
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,564
3,166
178
Sylacauga,AL
"Claiming" one would in no way constitute winning one. Any body that would have put that wording in an incentive clause would be thrown out of their law office. The barn's lawyers are better than that... :cool:
Lets just say that Tubberville had a hand in them not adding other championships a few years back.

Plus again Frost got championship incentives for that bogus claim. Tubberville would take Auburn to court if they start claiming that. So there is precedent to schools not having traditional claims of paying coaches championship incentives.

But again, if Auburn claimed 1983 or 2004 it would be a better claim than our 1941. So what difference would it make, and why should we whine about it. The only claim Auburn tried that I had issues with was 1993.
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Modern contracts have championship incentives. That started in the BCS era. If Auburn claims a BCS championship then they would have to back pay Tubberville for it. Just like UCF had to pay Frost.

But worrying about Auburn claiming 1910, 1983, or 2004 is kinda silly when we claim 1941. Atleast Auburn had legitimate claims in all of those years.

But personally I don’t care about anyone claiming Semi reasonable title claims unless it’s Notre Dame.
Actually, I care about it but for maybe different reasons.

Back when Alabama was winning national titles about as often as a hooker changes her underwear, a huge contingent of Auburn fans (hell, it seemed like all of them) came to a conclusion: national championships don't "really" exist, it's a popularity contest. And - if Tide fans are honest with themselves - IN LARGE PART they were just that. Alabama had an advantage in that the Southern voters in the AP would "block vote" for the Southern power as national champion. Also, the AP was very fast and loose and their vote. It was not - for many years - very structured or organized, and you'd sometimes have voters who only voted in the final tally.

As long as Alabama was winning them and Auburn wasn't even close, the explanation from West Georgia was that these didn't actually exist - followed (usually) by the citation of the NCAA not recognizing CFB titles and a general disparaging of everything except the 1961 and 1979 titles. In this way, they could narrow the gap in their own minds to just "2 to 1" and hope they caught us when Bryant left.

I get a ton of grief about it, but I've said time and again that 1983 Auburn was FLAT OUT ROBBED of the national championship, and the only actual difference in their 1983 victimization and ours in 1977 is that Auburn faced a murderer's row of competition the likes of which were (probably) never seen before the playoff era if then. The reality? They were royally hosed by the voting system based largely on the insane hype that followed Nebraska throughout the 1983 season.

But when they began toying with the idea of "recognizing past champions," the only thing that I could think was this: "you folks spent decades crying about getting passed over unjustly by Miami for a championship and after all the letters you've written to sports publications - many of them which no longer exist - you're now going to step out and say you actually WON it? Well if you won it then, why were you crying?"

A lot of people don't realize that Auburn actually got more first-place votes in the final AP poll than Nebraska did. Of course, why Nebraska got ANY first-place votes at all is a fair question, but the fact is that what messed Auburn over is that Nebraska got a ton of second-place votes, magically transferring the Huskers from "the best team in the country" to "the best one-loss team in the country." The part that is still amazing is that Texas got NONE of those votes despite losing to a probably BETTER team (Georgia) by the same margin.

Why? Because Nebraska got the hype for their powerhouse offense and Texas didn't.

Hell, when Texas beat Auburn that year (20-7 in Auburn), they beat more good teams than Nebraska even played in 1983.

Texas beat Auburn, final #12 SMU, 8-4 Oklahoma by 12 points, and lost to UGA
Nebraska blew out UCLA (who wasn't ranked until they beat Illinois in the Rose Bowl), survived 8-4 and unranked Okie State, survived (thanks to a missed pass interference call) 8-4 OU by a TD, and lost to Miami.

Of course, Nebraska's SOS looks better because Texas was saddled with the riffraff of the SWC while Nebraska opened against an overrated Penn State then thumped a six-win Syracuse, and a seven-win Mizzou.

(Maybe the most impressive thing is that Nebraska had what the most prolific offense in history at that time, Texas had a so-so one - and they both scored 28 points against their only common opponent).

(Has anyone else figured out I'm still PTSDing my 9th grade year from 1983???)
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,564
3,166
178
Sylacauga,AL
Actually, I care about it but for maybe different reasons.

Back when Alabama was winning national titles about as often as a hooker changes her underwear, a huge contingent of Auburn fans (hell, it seemed like all of them) came to a conclusion: national championships don't "really" exist, it's a popularity contest. And - if Tide fans are honest with themselves - IN LARGE PART they were just that. Alabama had an advantage in that the Southern voters in the AP would "block vote" for the Southern power as national champion. Also, the AP was very fast and loose and their vote. It was not - for many years - very structured or organized, and you'd sometimes have voters who only voted in the final tally.

As long as Alabama was winning them and Auburn wasn't even close, the explanation from West Georgia was that these didn't actually exist - followed (usually) by the citation of the NCAA not recognizing CFB titles and a general disparaging of everything except the 1961 and 1979 titles. In this way, they could narrow the gap in their own minds to just "2 to 1" and hope they caught us when Bryant left.

I get a ton of grief about it, but I've said time and again that 1983 Auburn was FLAT OUT ROBBED of the national championship, and the only actual difference in their 1983 victimization and ours in 1977 is that Auburn faced a murderer's row of competition the likes of which were (probably) never seen before the playoff era if then. The reality? They were royally hosed by the voting system based largely on the insane hype that followed Nebraska throughout the 1983 season.

But when they began toying with the idea of "recognizing past champions," the only thing that I could think was this: "you folks spent decades crying about getting passed over unjustly by Miami for a championship and after all the letters you've written to sports publications - many of them which no longer exist - you're now going to step out and say you actually WON it? Well if you won it then, why were you crying?"

A lot of people don't realize that Auburn actually got more first-place votes in the final AP poll than Nebraska did. Of course, why Nebraska got ANY first-place votes at all is a fair question, but the fact is that what messed Auburn over is that Nebraska got a ton of second-place votes, magically transferring the Huskers from "the best team in the country" to "the best one-loss team in the country." The part that is still amazing is that Texas got NONE of those votes despite losing to a probably BETTER team (Georgia) by the same margin.

Why? Because Nebraska got the hype for their powerhouse offense and Texas didn't.

Hell, when Texas beat Auburn that year (20-7 in Auburn), they beat more good teams than Nebraska even played in 1983.

Texas beat Auburn, final #12 SMU, 8-4 Oklahoma by 12 points, and lost to UGA
Nebraska blew out UCLA (who wasn't ranked until they beat Illinois in the Rose Bowl), survived 8-4 and unranked Okie State, survived (thanks to a missed pass interference call) 8-4 OU by a TD, and lost to Miami.

Of course, Nebraska's SOS looks better because Texas was saddled with the riffraff of the SWC while Nebraska opened against an overrated Penn State then thumped a six-win Syracuse, and a seven-win Mizzou.

(Maybe the most impressive thing is that Nebraska had what the most prolific offense in history at that time, Texas had a so-so one - and they both scored 28 points against their only common opponent).

(Has anyone else figured out I'm still PTSDing my 9th grade year from 1983???)
I think my issue is that for some it seems they want to give Auburn hell for when they tried to claim 1910,1983,1993, and/or 2004 but we out of the blue claimed non AP championships and in that probably one of the worst of all time in 1941. My point is I don’t think we can point the finger at others when we are still claiming 17 with 1941.

I really don’t have an issue with them claiming 1910 and 1983. I have some issues with 2004 but there are far worse claims. 1993 I do have serious issues especially if you want to claim 2004. But otherwise that is 5 to 17 and makes no real difference in terms of programs. Like I said I would have far more of an issue if Notre Dame or USC started doing it because there are obvious reasons for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I think my issue is that for some it seems they want to give Auburn hell for when they tried to claim 1910,1983,1993, and/or 2004 but we out of the blue claimed non AP championships and in that probably one of the worst of all time in 1941. My point is I don’t think we can point the finger at others when we are still claiming 17 with 1941.

I really don’t have an issue with them claiming 1910 and 1983. I have some issues with 2004 but there are far worse claims. 1993 I do have serious issues especially if you want to claim 2004. But otherwise that is 5 to 17 and makes no real difference in terms of programs. Like I said I would have far more of an issue if Notre Dame or USC started doing it because there are obvious reasons for it.

I wouldn't give most teams grief - INCLUDING Auburn - for retro recognition.

But how do you claim retroactively a title you spent years whining about losing? It would be like us - seriously - claiming that since some obscure publication in 1966 recognized us as champions, we will NOW claim it.

Does Keith Dunnavant then have to write a new book called "The Missing Document: How a Discovered Papyrus in Ancient Tuscaloosa Added A National Title Not Even Wayne Atcheson Was Crazy Enough to Claim"?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UAllday

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I think my issue is that for some it seems they want to give Auburn hell for when they tried to claim 1910,1983,1993, and/or 2004 but we out of the blue claimed non AP championships and in that probably one of the worst of all time in 1941. My point is I don’t think we can point the finger at others when we are still claiming 17 with 1941.

I really don’t have an issue with them claiming 1910 and 1983. I have some issues with 2004 but there are far worse claims. 1993 I do have serious issues especially if you want to claim 2004. But otherwise that is 5 to 17 and makes no real difference in terms of programs. Like I said I would have far more of an issue if Notre Dame or USC started doing it because there are obvious reasons for it.

1910 - fine
1983 - no, it's part of your legend you got robbed
1993 - something about conference championships
2004 - I recall watching a game for the championship.....I don't recall Auburn being on the field in that game....
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
My argument is what does it matter how many we claim? I mean we have more in the last 10 years then 95% of you so why I are we discussing this. Thanks for playing have a nice day. ..

Thank you for not actually reading my first post in this thread where I said:

Before anyone anywhere can criticize ANYONE about anything - you FIRST, I repeat FIRST - you have to agree on the criteria BEFORE discussing the subject. Plain and simple. You have to spell out your assumptions BEFORE offering criticism.
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,492
1,487
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Both USC and OU went wire to wire as the #1 and #2 teams in the country.
"Dear Auburn,

Too bad that we underrated you. Sucks to be you.

Sincerely,

The Rankings"


Besides - Alabama was ranked #1 in the 1966 pre-season poll and dropped.


Had awbern played either of them, they would have lost anyways... :cool:
Maybe.

But we'll never know.

Alabama had no chance against SMU in the 1983 Sun Bowl.
Utah had no chance against Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl.
Alabama couldn't possibly beat Miami and didn't even belong in the game in the 1993 Sugar Bowl.
Nobody can beat Nebraska, best team ever - 1983.

I mean, I haven't even scraped the surface at this point on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Con

Blindside17

1st Team
Aug 13, 2019
333
233
43
Phenix City, AL
Thank you for not actually reading my first post in this thread where I said:

Before anyone anywhere can criticize ANYONE about anything - you FIRST, I repeat FIRST - you have to agree on the criteria BEFORE discussing the subject. Plain and simple. You have to spell out your assumptions BEFORE offering criticism.
No I did not read your post or any other post for that matter so don't feel like you got left out. I posted my comment and moved on to other threads
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,564
3,166
178
Sylacauga,AL
Both USC and OU went wire to wire as the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Had awbern played either of them, they would have lost anyways... :cool:
USC yes, but Oklahoma was the biggest joke of a team in 2004. The reason Auburn wasn’t in that game was because of the previous two years of playing USC. Auburn was a better team than Oklahoma, and that much is pretty clear when you start to compare schedules and scores. Plus when a team gets blown out 55-19 in a NC, and it even wasn’t that close, it’s hard to make an argument that team would’ve beaten the #3 team if they never played


Oklahoma also gets a lot of Michigan and Notre Dame credit for decades old championships. Oklahoma to this day gets credit for the 2000 NC, and is a reason that I will never cheer for them to win another title unless it’s 3 worse fan bases and teams in the playoffs. Which almost happened last year.

But anyways, the 2004 claim is the only icky semi reasonable (1910, 1983, 2004)claims they floated around imo. But again I’m in the “who cares it’s Auburn” camp, but I see it’s more important to your name if they did claim it 😏.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.