2004 BCS National Championship Question...

[The Prowler]

+1000000000000000000000

Exactly...

+1 Brazillian

[Birmingham]

Don't need to.

Nobody proved they were better than us on the field that year

So you believe all you have to do is go unbeaten?  That means that you're splitting the 2004 National Championship with Utah, right?  Nobody proved they were better than them on the field either.  And Oklahoma, the only team better than them was a team with professional athletes, making them unbeaten in collegiate games.  

So by your standards, you have 33 percent of a National Championship.

[Townhallsavoy]

So you believe all you have to do is go unbeaten?  That means that you're splitting the 2004 National Championship with Utah, right?  Nobody proved they were better than them on the field either.  And Oklahoma, the only team better than them was a team with professional athletes, making them unbeaten in collegiate games.  

So by your standards, you have 33 percent of a National Championship.

No, you dumbass.  He said we went unbeaten in the SEC.  That is more impressive than the Mountain West. 

[Birmingham]

No, you dumbass.  He said we went unbeaten in the SEC.  That is more impressive than the Mountain West. 

Wrong.  What he said was... "Nobody proved they were better than us on the field that year so I consider it a national championship for Auburn."  This is simple stuff, savoy.  Nobody proved they were better than Utah and no collegiate team proved they were better than Oklahoma.

[AUChizad]

2)  Even if you could somehow claim the win that USC is forced to vacate...Oklahoma was ranked #2 and Auburn #3 at the time of the BCS Game.  Oklahoma lost to the ineligible team for the Championship.  If any team is retroactively named the Champion it would be the team that played for the Championship against the ineligible team.

Who gives a fuck what they were ranked going into the BCS game (which is what they were ranked going into the season too). They played that last game and got their assholes blown out, proving they shouldn't have even been in the discussion. Why not just stop 8 games in and whoever's the #1 team then can be the champion?

When the season ended, Auburn was #2. And they proved it on the field by running the table in the SEC.

[AUChizad]

Wrong.  What he said was... "Nobody proved they were better than us on the field that year so I consider it a national championship for Auburn."  This is simple stuff, savoy.  Nobody proved they were better than Utah and no collegiate team proved they were better than Oklahoma.

Utah did not prove they were better than us on the field. You're thinking of your team.

Utah proved they were better than all of the teams in the Mountain West.

Auburn proved that they could go unbeaten in the SEC. A feat that has only happened a handful of times, and every one of those times, that team ended up the National Champion, besides us who got fucked by preseason rankings and media bias.

[Birmingham]

Who gives a phuk what they were ranked going into the BCS game (which is what they were ranked going into the season too). They played that last game and got their buttholes blown out, proving they shouldn't have even been in the discussion. Why not just stop 8 games in and whoever's the #1 team then can be the champion?

When the season ended, Auburn was #2. And they proved it on the field by running the table in the SEC.

Oklahoma most certainly did go undefeated in 2004.  When they played their exhibition game at the end of the season, against a professional USC team, they were both undefeated and ranked ahead of Auburn. 

Again, I think it's fine if you claim it, just claim the mother fucker.  But you'll just have to do it and stop claiming that Auburn actually proved it or won it on the field.  Auburn, if given the opportunity, may very well have proved it.  But they weren't given the opportunity and neither was Utah or what is a now unbeaten Oklahoma team.  They can't claim the game as a win because it was vacated.  Their loss is gone though, the same as everyone who lost to Alabama in 2005, 2006 and 2007 through textbook gate.

[djsimp]

Now that you have shown me this, I now remember seeing it. I have only lived here in Eufaula for bout 2 yrs so I am still catching up on things.

[AUChizad]

Oklahoma most certainly did go undefeated in 2004.  When they played their exhibition game at the end of the season, against a professional USC team, they were both undefeated and ranked ahead of Auburn. 

Again, I think it's fine if you claim it, just claim the mother fucker.  But you'll just have to do it and stop claiming that Auburn actually proved it or won it on the field.  Auburn, if given the opportunity, may very well have proved it.  But they weren't given the opportunity and neither was Utah or what is a now unbeaten Oklahoma team.  They can't claim the game as a win because it was vacated.  Their loss is gone though, the same as everyone who lost to Alabama in 2005, 2006 and 2007 through textbook gate.

Then by your admission, not only did we sweep the SEC (who has won every NC game they've played in) as opposed to the topheavy Big XII (which really just consists of them and Texas), but we also had 13 wins to their 12.

 

[Birmingham]

Then by your admission, not only did we sweep the SEC (who has won every NC game they've played in) as opposed to the topheavy Big XII (which really just consists of them and Texas), but we also had 13 wins to their 12.

 

Yep, seems Auburn should've had a shot.  Sucks that they didn't, I think they could've won.  I think they could've beaten Utah too. 

[Buzz Killington]

Thanks...that's the one.

[No Huddle]

Take it. That's cool.

[djsimp]

Thanks...that's the one.

Someone stole it. Bastards!

[Buzz Killington]

Someone stole it. Bastards!

Just like the '83 title.

[Snaggletiger]

Just like the '83 title.

You had to bring it up, didn't you?  I was down to one therapy session a month and had my medication leveled off.  Why don't you just change your avatar to a picture of Dax too while you're at it.

Bastard.

[Snaggletiger]

All kidding aside...83' is a prime example of the problems with both systems that college football has used to crown a champion.  No need to spend time breaking down the pile of shit that is the BCS.  That's a given.  The Bowl system and opinion polls used prior was nothing more than a popularity contest.  In 83' Auburn played what was easily one of the toughest schedules in the history of college football.  I saw one publication that had it at #6 all time.  The teams they played that were undefeated and ranked in the top 10 at the time was a murderers row. FSU, Texas, Florida, Maryland (Boomer Esiason), and Georgia.  Then a top 10 Michigan in the Sugar...not to mention playing the usual suspects in the SEC like Bama and UT.

Anywho...Auburn goes into the Sugar ranked #3.  They beat Michigan in a defensive struggle while #1 and #2 lose in front of them.  The final polls keep AU at #3 while #4 Miami vaults to #1 and they keep Nebraska (Who lost to Miami) #2.  BTDub, I bleieve the only loss on Miami's slate that year was ugly at the hands of Florida...who Auburn beat.

Wasn't it the next year that BYU played a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl....for the national championship?

Having said all that, I'm still of the opinion that if they make USC vacate the championship, I'd prefer it be left at that.  I want to see Auburn on the field with their hands raised and the confetti raining down.  I don't want to be guilty of the same thing we constantly accuse Bama fans of, claiming numerous, obscure championships.  I want no doubt.

[JR4AU]

Vacate it and leave it at that.  Personally I wouldn't want to claim a NC that has been awarded retro.

^^^this!

[AUTiger1]

All kidding aside...83' is a prime example of the problems with both systems that college football has used to crown a champion.  No need to spend time breaking down the pile of poop that is the BCS.  That's a given.  The Bowl system and opinion polls used prior was nothing more than a popularity contest.  In 83' Auburn played what was easily one of the toughest schedules in the history of college football.  I saw one publication that had it at #6 all time.  The teams they played that were undefeated and ranked in the top 10 at the time was a murderers row. FSU, Texas, Florida, Maryland (Boomer Esiason), and Georgia.  Then a top 10 Michigan in the Sugar...not to mention playing the usual suspects in the SEC like Bama and UT.

Anywho...Auburn goes into the Sugar ranked #3.  They beat Michigan in a defensive struggle while #1 and #2 lose in front of them.  The final polls keep AU at #3 while #4 Miami vaults to #1 and they keep Nebraska (Who lost to Miami) #2.  BTDub, I bleieve the only loss on Miami's slate that year was ugly at the hands of Florida...who Auburn beat.

Wasn't it the next year that BYU played a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl....for the national championship?

Having said all that, I'm still of the opinion that if they make USC vacate the championship, I'd prefer it be left at that.  I want to see Auburn on the field with their hands raised and the confetti raining down.  I don't want to be guilty of the same thing we constantly accuse Bama fans of, claiming numerous, obscure championships.  I want no doubt.

Yeah that is what I meant...........  :-)

[Godfather]

Its mythical anyways.  What is interesting to me is that the NCAA says they are going to strip USC of the championship yet they do not recognize the championship as a championship game, that makes a whole lot of sense....just like the NCAA!

[GH2001]

All kidding aside...83' is a prime example of the problems with both systems that college football has used to crown a champion.  No need to spend time breaking down the pile of poop that is the BCS.  That's a given.  The Bowl system and opinion polls used prior was nothing more than a popularity contest.  In 83' Auburn played what was easily one of the toughest schedules in the history of college football.  I saw one publication that had it at #6 all time.  The teams they played that were undefeated and ranked in the top 10 at the time was a murderers row. FSU, Texas, Florida, Maryland (Boomer Esiason), and Georgia.  Then a top 10 Michigan in the Sugar...not to mention playing the usual suspects in the SEC like Bama and UT.

Anywho...Auburn goes into the Sugar ranked #3.  They beat Michigan in a defensive struggle while #1 and #2 lose in front of them.  The final polls keep AU at #3 while #4 Miami vaults to #1 and they keep Nebraska (Who lost to Miami) #2.  BTDub, I bleieve the only loss on Miami's slate that year was ugly at the hands of Florida...who Auburn beat.

Wasn't it the next year that BYU played a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl....for the national championship?

Having said all that, I'm still of the opinion that if they make USC vacate the championship, I'd prefer it be left at that.  I want to see Auburn on the field with their hands raised and the confetti raining down.  I don't want to be guilty of the same thing we constantly accuse Bama fans of, claiming numerous, obscure championships.  I want no doubt.

I was thinking we were #2 going in.

1 - Neb - lost
2 - Aub - won
3 - Miami - won
4 - Mich -  lost

Thats what I remembered anyway. Either way - we got leap frogged. Have a friend that was in the Marching Band that year (83). He said they got plastered on Bourbon Street that night thinking we had the NC. Even had shirts printed up. What a rip off.