Toggle sidebar

If AP re-votes their 2004 NC, should Auburn win it?

First of all, I can't imagine that if the title is stripped from USC that any team would be named champion retroactively. However, in the event that did happen, I think it should go to Auburn.

What's interesting about this is if Auburn had played USC they most likely would have lost. I'm not trying to take anything away from Auburn, but that 2004 USC team was one of the best ever. Therefore, this potential turn of events actually works in favor of Auburn by having not had played USC.
 
Another moral victory for the Barn!

Auburn2004.jpg
 
It is a moot point. Unlike the Coaches Poll, the AP has always ignored NCAA sanctions. Therefore, they will not revote or vacate or revoke the 2004 USC NC. This is why au won the NC in '57 and OU in '74 even though on probation. This is why Bama was num 11 in '02 in the AP but not ranked in the Coaches Poll. i.e., Bama could have won the AP NC in '02 and '03.

Please remember that one of the reasons au did not get in the top 2 in '04 was that USC had humiliated them in '03 at Auburn 23-0. The game was not as close as the score indicated. And that was Matt Lienhart's first game. They kept him under wraps, he was much better later that year and of course in '04. That was the game after which Tuberville said, "they kept slanting their DL" :).

In summary, the 2004 BCS NC might be vacated, it certainly won't be awarded to AU, they did not play for it. The AP NC will remain with USC.

The bottom line is that AU will remain without a NC for over a half century, over 5 decades, since 1957.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, this question should be in poll format.

Then, TideFans could be the good guys and join the Eufala Eagle in crowning the WarEagles 2004 national champions. :biggrin:
 
This is a moot point. A vacated win just means that the team that won cannot count it as a victory. In other words, USC wouldn't actually lose the game, they just can't count the win. There would still be a loss showing for that game in Oklahoma's record book. It changes nothing at all with repect to Auburn.
 
I'd like to see any Auburn fans start talking about Alabama's revisionist history when it comes to NCs if they do claim it.

Revotes from six years old events seem a little silly to me.
 
If we found out that Notre Dame was cheating back in 1977, us Bama fans would be screaming very loudly that Bama should be awarded the title. Although we should have been awarded that title to begin with, so that isn't completely an apples to apples comparison. Still, if we went undefeated in 2004 and were shut out of the title game, we would be saying the same thing as them. The one benefit that we would have is that the SEC would now have 6 straight titles, which would ALMOST make up for the fact that Auburn won it. :biggrin2:

However, the fact is that we don't know if Auburn is better than Oklahoma. That USC team was dominant. It is very possible that Auburn would have been crushed too.

I have a solution though...let them play! The 2004 Auburn team vs. the 2004 Oklahoma team. All those players are out of school now, so the NCAA can't stop them from doing it. I am not joking.
 
Last edited:
Like the above poster said, there will be no re-vote. OU won it on probation back in 74. Auburn did in 57. There will be no do-over on this one.
 
Bama323 said:
This is a moot point. A vacated win just means that the team that won cannot count it as a victory. In other words, USC wouldn't actually lose the game, they just can't count the win. There would still be a loss showing for that game in Oklahoma's record book. It changes nothing at all with repect to Auburn.
Click to expand...

Only if the AP re-votes on the 1966 championship and Bama wins it. ;)
 
Let them have it. They would take it and they should take it. This way, they have two tainted national championships. One in 2004 given to them years after the fact and by default and one in 1957 when they were on probation. :biggrin2:

Seriously, though, I'd rather them get it than anybody else from that year who was eligible.

We would take it if it were offered to us. If tomorrow someone came to their senses and awarded us the 1966 national championship we'd be all over that like gay on Elton John.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
JohnnyCache said:
Let them have it. They would take it and they should take it. This way, they have two tainted national championships. One in 2004 given to them years after the fact and by default and one in 1957 when they were on probation. :biggrin2:

Seriously, though, I'd rather them get it than anybody else from that year who was eligible.

We would take it if it were offered to us. If tomorrow someone came to their senses and awarded us the 1966 national championship we'd be all over that like gay on Elton John.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...

As explained above, it is not going to be offered to them. The AP will not change (they have not regarded sanctions in the past even when someone was on probation when the vote was FIRST taken) unless they change their policy. The BCS title will not be given to au since they didn't even play in the game. Most likely it will be vacated - almost certainly not given to au.
 
Not in a million years should they go back and give anyone not just the barn a NC because you finished runner up......

If they vacate the wins then that leaves OK and UT undefeated but OK was ranked ahead of the barn BEFORE their loss so in all actuality it should go to OK....

IMO it should just be left vacant but not to worry if usc gets hammered they will claim it hell they already did with that stupid people champ thingy... What a sad bunch they got over there~!~
 
BAMA504 said:
Not in a million years should they go back and give anyone not just the barn a NC because you finished runner up......

If they vacate the wins then that leaves OK and UT undefeated but OK was ranked ahead of the barn BEFORE their loss so in all actuality it should go to OK....

IMO it should just be left vacant but not to worry if usc gets hammered they will claim it hell they already did with that stupid people champ thingy... What a sad bunch they got over there~!~
Click to expand...


No, a vacated win does NOT leave OU undefeated. Only a forfeit would do that. If the AP vacates their 2004 Championship (possible but improbable) AND moves #2 up to #1 (VERY improbable) then that #2 to # 1 would be Auburn. I do not see a revote under any circumstance. Who the Hell is going to vote? Are all of the guys who voted in 2004 even still alive?
 
BamaInBham said:
Please remember that one of the reasons au did not get in the top 2 in '04 was that USC had humiliated them in '03 at Auburn 23-0. The game was not as close as the score indicated.:).
Click to expand...

That is flawed logic. What does 2003 season have to do with 2004 season? With that line of reasoning Utah would be national champs since they beat us in 2008 season. Teams can change completely from one year to the next. In fact Auburn lost to Georgia Tech ( not close game), LSU (humiliated them), Ole Miss and than got blasted by Georgia. The very next year they beat those teams and blasted Georgia. If you think back to that year there was a huge pr campaign by OK and the Big 12 to get in that championship game. I can remember Bob Stoops saying that if Auburn got in that game it would be because ESPN had a tv deal with the SEC. Mean while the SEC took the high road and said nothing. The good thing that came out of that is after that game the nation knew they would never again leave an undefeated SEC team out of the big game. For all we know if Auburn had played USC that year it just would have been one more loss they would have avenged.
 
IF it is awarded to anyone, Auburn is the most deserving. 13-0 with an SEC Title is a pretty good arguement. But it should just be vacated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back