Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: AUChizad on May 17, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
-
http://trackemtigers.com/?p=27108 (http://trackemtigers.com/?p=27108)
1913, 1983, & 1993.
-
Bah.
This displeases me.
-
Bah.
This displeases me.
Me too.
We should claim more.
-
Bah.
This displeases me.
seconded
-
seconded
Same here, our program needs no validating. We ARE what the others aspire to be.
-
You bitches that have two, look at my FIVE. I got 5, bitch.
-
1913 yes. But the other toe are the least viable of the ones we listed. 1993? No. 2004? Yeah.
-
I feel like...i've read this thread before...guess I'll claim 10.
-
1913 yes. But the other toe are the least viable of the ones we listed. 1993? No. 2004? Yeah.
Says the lawn mower blade.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws)
-
Claim em all...let God sort them out.
Or something like that.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws)
:thumsup:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSC9cgvtkRs#ws)
(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/59/596811.jpg)
-
(http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/59/596811.jpg)
He was on the synthetic shit...not the same thing.
-
@bmarcello
Auburn updated page on 5 national titles w/ clear NCAA record book citation. School still only claims 2 titles. No change.
-
All of this really doesn't matter. People can claim whatever they wish. I mean, Chad claims to have a dick.
-
Chizad Retweeterz
What the hell does that mean?
-
What the hell does that mean?
He says he's in great pain and wants to know if you can help him
-
He says he's in great pain and wants to know if you can help him
What it is, big mama?
-
What the hell does that mean?
http://theplainsman.com/view/full_story/25126913/article-Auburn-recognizes--but-does-not-claim--three-more-national-championships?instance=home_news_lead_story (http://theplainsman.com/view/full_story/25126913/article-Auburn-recognizes--but-does-not-claim--three-more-national-championships?instance=home_news_lead_story)
AD Jacobs clarifies national championship confusion; says subject up for discussion in the Auburn Family
by Eric Wallace
It may be the offseason, but that hasn’t stopped controversy from finding its way to the Auburn football program.
Confusion and ridicule were abound on social media Thursday as wording on Auburn athletics’ official website supposedly indicated that Auburn was claiming three more national championships, in addition to the two (1957, 2010) that it had previously claimed.
In a statement made available to The Auburn Plainsman Saturday afternoon, Auburn athletics director Jay Jacobs clarified the situation, stating that no national championships had been formally claimed and that the issue was still up for discussion amongst the Auburn Family.
"Information shared across social media platforms is often inaccurate or incomplete. To the subject of National Champions, the NCAA record book has Auburn documented as National Champions in 2010, 1993, 1983, 1957 and 1913 (Source: NCAA Record Book). While Auburn does not currently formally recognize additional national champions other than 1957 and 2010, the subject of doing so is still open for consideration and discussion among the Auburn Family regarding how we choose to recognize the great accomplishments of our student athletes. That being said, Auburn will never claim anything we did not earn. To that, the discussion is based solely on how to formally acknowledge the honor and National Champion distinction that has been previously documented and bestowed upon these teams in the NCAA Record Book."
Here is the statement from the Auburn athletics’ website:
“The NCAA recognizes Auburn as National Champions in 2010, 1993, 1983, 1957 and 1913.â€
Though it is not the clearest wording, Auburn has not formally claimed national championships in 1993, 1983 and 1913; it is merely pointing out that the FBS record book recognizes Auburn was selected as national champion in those years by various services.
Auburn’s 1913 team, which went 8-0, was selected as national champion retroactively by the Billingsley computer formula.
The 1983 team, which controversially finished No. 3 in the Associated Press rankings after going 11-1 and winning the Sugar Bowl, was selected by The New York Times as national champion and then retroactively selected by the Billingsley and Sagarin computer formulas, among others.
Auburn’s 1993 team, which went undefeated but was ineligible for postseason play due to NCAA probation, was retroactively selected as a split-national champion by the National Championship Foundation.
Retroactively claiming national championships is nothing new in the college football world.
Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Alabama and USC have all retroactively added championships to their record books in recent seasons.
College football’s murky and disorganized early years have made it relatively easy for programs to retroactively claim titles.
The lack of a central body to select a national champion meant individual organizations could select their own champions, even if they differed from the champions selected by other organizations.
“What you don’t want to do is make somebody think you’re making something up,†Jacobs told Kevin Scarbinsky of al.com. “But if other schools are claiming their championships, why shouldn’t we claim ours?â€
Jacobs has made his feelings clear about how he thinks Auburn should handle the issue.
“I think we should go back and claim them,†Jacobs said. “I think we should count our national championships just as our peers do.â€
For Jacobs, it’s a matter of respecting and honoring the accomplishments of the top teams in Auburn football history.
“We’re so competitive. We compare ourselves to other schools,†Jacobs told Bryan Matthews of 247sports. “If they’re counting something that we’re not counting, and we’re on equal footing, wouldn’t it be wise to count it?â€
-
I'm alone in the wilderness again, but I say if someone awarded us champions take it.
I'd go further and claim 04 as well. USC can't.
-
I'm on the count 'em all bus too.
2004. 1983. 1913. 1958.
I would go further.
I'd like the SEC to go back and strip away all the titles Alabama "won" by Bryant scheduling Vanderbilt in addition to the regular SEC schedule and then claiming titles because they had one more win than the others in the league. Take 1972 for instance. Alabama was 6-1 +Vandy in conference. Lost to Auburn. Auburn was 6-1 (no Vandy) in conference. Beat Alabama. Who was SEC champion? Oh, yeah. They claim it. .875 winning percentage "beats" .857. Seven wins "beats" six. That's nonsense.
I read somewhere once that if you made the SEC even by not allowing them to "win" by having an extra game, they'd lose 12 of their SEC titles or some obnoxious number like that.
-
I'm on the count 'em all bus too.
2004. 1983. 1913. 1958.
I would go further.
I'd like the SEC to go back and strip away all the titles Alabama "won" by Bryant scheduling Vanderbilt in addition to the regular SEC schedule and then claiming titles because they had one more win than the others in the league. Take 1972 for instance. Alabama was 6-1 +Vandy in conference. Lost to Auburn. Auburn was 6-1 (no Vandy) in conference. Beat Alabama. Who was SEC champion? Oh, yeah. They claim it. .875 winning percentage "beats" .857. Seven wins "beats" six. That's nonsense.
I read somewhere once that if you made the SEC even by not allowing them to "win" by having an extra game, they'd lose 12 of their SEC titles or some obnoxious number like that.
The way the SEC currently awards championships is the fairest thing in college football.
EXCEPT what we've talked about on the board, which is that Bama has had the luxury of having their schedule cherry picked for them by the SEC.
As discussed here: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/2014-sec-strength-of-schedule/ (http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/2014-sec-strength-of-schedule/)
And more in depth here: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=6&f=1010&t=12846255 (http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=6&f=1010&t=12846255)
-
I read this from JJ:
“We’re so competitive. We compare ourselves to other schools,†Jacobs told Bryan Matthews of 247sports. “If they’re counting something that we’re not counting, and we’re on equal footing, wouldn’t it be wise to count it?â€
...and what I hear in my head is:
“We’re so competitive against the Bammers. We compare ourselves to other schools, especially Alabama†Jacobs told Bryan Matthews of 247sports. “If 'Bama is counting something that we’re not counting, and we’re on equal footing, wouldn’t it be wise to count it so we can be just like the Bammers?â€
.
-
I read this from JJ:
...and what I hear in my head is:
.
They're not the only University who ever retroactively claimed a championship. Or claimed championships that are disputed. They are the undisputed kings of this practice with the least discretion, but that doesn't mean the practice as a whole is uniquely theirs or shouldn't be done because of the abusive way that they do it.
-
They're not the only University who ever retroactively claimed a championship. Or claimed championships that are disputed. They are the undisputed kings of this practice with the least discretion, but that doesn't mean the practice as a whole is uniquely theirs or shouldn't be done because of the abusive way that they do it.
Ole Miss and A&M are the more recent transgressors. Neither have ever won one, but both now claim multiples.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/29/auburn-football-national-championships-tommy-tuberville/9744503/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/29/auburn-football-national-championships-tommy-tuberville/9744503/)
Tuberville says Auburn obviously should claim USC's vacated 2004 title
Dan Wolken, USA TODAY Sports 8:56 p.m. EDT May 29, 2014
KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. — Auburn is exploring the possibility of claiming more national titles in football, but former coach Tommy Tuberville said he was disappointed to get "no help" from the Auburn administration when he wanted the school to make a push to claim the 2004 title after it was stripped from Southern California because of NCAA violations.
"They didn't step up and say anything," Tuberville, currently coaching at Cincinnati, told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday.
Auburn's 2004 team finished 13-0, including a victory against Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, and finished No. 2 in the final polls. Auburn never got a chance to play for the national title, however, because there were three unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season, and Oklahoma edged out the Tigers for No. 2 in the BCS rankings.
USC dominated Oklahoma 55-19, and few dispute that Auburn, which beat four top-10 teams that year, would have given the Trojans a much better game.
In 2011 the BCS stripped USC of its national title after the NCAA determined that star running back Reggie Bush had received illegal benefits. Thus, the BCS doesn't officially recognize a national champion in 2004.
Though Auburn laying claim to a national title that year would get into tricky territory since there was a designated championship game in 2004 and the Tigers weren't selected to play in it, they were an undefeated champion of a major conference and won a significant bowl game.
"What I was disappointed with is we didn't have the media step up and say, 'OK, there's got to be a champion so who is it? It obviously should have been us," Tuberville said. "Oklahoma lost. Maybe they could say it should be split because they played in the game. But Auburn went undefeated.
"If it'd been Michigan, if it had been Alabama, there would have been more of a push toward saying, hey they should be named No. 1. But Auburn, for some reason, we never got to first base on it. There was no support out of the administration."
That could be changing.
Jay Jacobs told AL.com that a committee will meet in June to discuss whether the school should officially recognize more than the two national titles for which it officially hangs banners.
On Auburn's Web site, under the "Football Tradition" banner, it notes 1913, 1983 and 1993 as "championship teams," citing the NCAA record book. The NCAA does not name national champions in football, but it recognizes "champions" from a number of sources. In 1993, for instance, Auburn (despite serving NCAA probation and being ineligible for a bowl game) is listed as a "national champion" alongside Nebraska, Notre Dame and Florida State based on the results of the National Championship Foundation, which the NCAA used primarily to help determine national champions pre-1950. Florida State's sole claim to the 1993 national championship has never been argued against by any legitimate source.
-
Put me in the absolutely not column. Do....Not....Want!!! Sorry we got screwed out of a chance to play for it in 2004. Sorry we got hosed in 83'. But Boo freakin' Hoo. Some team has a beef just about every year. If the confetti rains down and we raise the trophy, put it in the books. Otherwise, we're just being them.
-
Put me in the absolutely not column. Do....Not....Want!!! Sorry we got screwed out of a chance to play for it in 2004. Sorry we got hosed in 83'. But Boo freakin' Hoo. Some team has a beef just about every year. If the confetti rains down and we raise the trophy, put it in the books. Otherwise, we're just being them.
4thd
-
Put me in the absolutely not column. Do....Not....Want!!! Sorry we got screwed out of a chance to play for it in 2004. Sorry we got hosed in 83'. But Boo freakin' Hoo. Some team has a beef just about every year. If the confetti rains down and we raise the trophy, put it in the books. Otherwise, we're just being them.
O.k., got it. But I have 5, bitch. Got five? Oh, I'm sorry. Obviously not. And I played a big part in AU reaching this number. That's why I will wear the tee shirt.
-
Otherwise, we're just being them.
The Illuminati?
Bear Force One?
-
The Illuminati?
Bear Force One?
Uh huh!
-
Call me fifthin. Don't want the disputed or forfeitures, only earned. I think we all knew we had the best team last season so we have to win the close ones and slam the door on the rest...like UGA. BTW, when's the last time we laid waste to an important rival excluding USCe back to back which doesn't qualify?
-
Call me fifthin. Don't want the disputed or forfeitures, only earned. I think we all knew we had the best team last season so we have to win the close ones and slam the door on the rest...like UGA. BTW, when's the last time we laid waste to an important rival excluding USCe back to back which doesn't qualify?
Alabama only beats us when we're down
-
Alabama only beats us when we're down
I'm 55 and well past the winning with honor bit. I've got Gus now and wish to witness some skull fuckings and then drag 'em in the gravel for good measure.
-
I'm 55 and well past the winning with honor bit. I've got Gus now and wish to witness some skull fudgeings and then drag 'em in the gravel for good measure.
Regardless of the scores, if we even the series, it will be huge. If we keep Gus, I expect us to take the lead.
-
I say Gus entertains the NFL before another in the college ranks. Buf I fhink he could stat for two decades.
-
I say Gus entertains the NFL before another in the college ranks. Buf I fhink he could stat for two decades.
I fhink you could be right. But I don't know how long he may stat.
-
Regardless of the scores, if we even the series, it will be huge. If we keep Gus, I expect us to take the lead.
I would expect them to try and get out of the series before that happens.
-
A move to the SEC East would benefit all.
-
I would expect them to try and get out of the series before that happens.
They already are.
-
But I just have one question.
Can Auburn win right away this year?
-
My question is: can anybody but Bamer beat Bamer?
I hang up an lissen.
-
My question is: can anybody but Bamer beat Bamer?
I hang up an lissen.
In the infamous words of the crusty old retired Bammer truck driver who calls our local sports talk show every morning....
Phil, I've looked at the schedule and I can tell you one thang for sure. The only thang that can beat Allubahma....is Allubahma.
-
Updated my memorabilia this weekend
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIyVYcCYAAHq7Z.jpg)
-
http://auburnsunclaimed.com/ (http://auburnsunclaimed.com/)
Auburn’s 1993 National Championship and the “National Championship Foundation.â€
Posted on June 1, 2014
The Auburn University Athletic Department recently modified the content on its website for the football program to include a reference to the fact that the 1913, 1983, and 1993 teams have each been named a national champion by NCAA-recognized national championship selectors. When the change was identified by someone, it apparently caused a stir with persons who were indignant that Auburn should have the gall to claim national championships based on the same standards used by other football programs nationally, including in the SEC. Of course, while Auburn may decide to claim additional national titles, it had not done so at that time, but had just more prominently featured information about those three teams that had long been noted in Auburn’s football media guides. The web site for the University of Georgia’s football program does much the same regarding several of its teams.
However, none of that prevented fans and sports media personalities from offering fast-paced put-downs in response via twitter commentary. I offer the following tweets from USA Today writer Dan Wolken, a Vanderbilt graduate, who sought to especially debunk any Auburn claim to a national championship for the 1993 season. His tweets were not anything remarkable, but because they are representative of the types of comments made by hand-wringing media persons, they are worth discussing.
@DanWolken
From Auburn’s Web site: “The NCAA recognizes Auburn as National Champions in 2010, 1993…†Yo, Auburn, the NCAA doesn’t crown national titles
While it is true that the NCAA doesn’t award national championships in what was once called Division I college football, that is the problem. Since 1926 there have been many entities, often called “selectors†that name national champions (both contemporaneously and retroactively), and in many years, if not most, more than one team has been awarded that title. The Official Record Book of the NCAA lists a large number of selectors that it has found credible and provides the teams those selectors have named as national champions. Thus, while the NCAA has not itself awarded any team the title of national champion, it has recognized Auburn as a national champion for 1993, 1983, and 1913, in addition to the national championships claimed by Auburn for 1957 and 2010.
The standard of an NCAA-recognized national championship is the standard used by most universities to claim national championships, whether it be the 15 claimed by the University of Alabama or the 3 claimed by Texas A&M University. If other universities used the same overly strict standard of counting just A.P. Poll/Coaches Poll/BCS currently used by Auburn’s Athletic Department then Alabama would claim 10 instead of 15, the University of Michigan could claim just 2 instead of 11, the University of Pittsburgh could claim just 2 instead of 9, Ohio State University could claim just 5 instead of 7, the University of Tennessee could claim just 2 instead of 6, and the University of Mississippi could claim none, but claims 3 national championships. So when Auburn Athletic Director Jay Jacobs has talked about Auburn possibly beginning to count national championships in the same manner as peer institutions, he is correct that to this time Auburn has used a different standard. A stricter standard. And that is the point of my book.
Mr. Wolken apparently took great umbrage in particular at the possibility of Auburn claiming a national championship for the 1993 season. He stated in colorful terms that he didn’t believe the National Championship Foundation — the selector that named Auburn a national champion for the 1993 season — had any credibility.
@DanWolken
If you do a little bit of research the National Championship Foundation is only slightly more of a real thing than The Human Fund
For those unfamiliar with the “Human Fund,†it is a make-believe charity invented by the character George Costanza in the popular television comedy series “Seinfeld.†Instead of giving gifts, George would give persons a card stating that a donation had been made in their name to the Human Fund. George would then spend the money on himself. In Seinfeld, hilarity ensued following George’s creation of the Human Fund, and through his attempting-to-be-clever tweet, Mr. Wolken sought by comparison to ridicule any claim to a national championship based on an award of the National Championship Foundation.
However, perhaps it is Dan Wolken and others who would attack the NCF that actually lack credibility. After all, a fictitious or shoddy organization is not going to pass muster and become an NCAA-recognized national championship selector listed in the Official NCAA Records Book. Moreover, if Mr. Wolken had actually contacted the NCAA or undertaken a bit of the research he described in his tweet he would have discovered that the NCF was actually a substantial organization that contemporaneously named Auburn a national champion for the 1993 football season and that Auburn has been recognized as such by the NCAA since that time.
The National Championship Foundation was created in 1980 for the sole purpose of addressing the historical controversy of college football’s national champions. During its existence the NCF established a 13 member panel that investigated past seasons and retroactively named national champions for the years 1869 through 1979. It then contemporaneously named college football national champions from 1980 through the year 2001. In his 2007 book, “Who’s # 1,†Christopher Walsh describes the NCF as having “more than 120 chapters in 47 states, with a membership base of more than 12,000.â€
I don’t know about Mr. Wolken or other sportswriters and media personalities, but to me that sounds like the NCF was a substantial organization worthy of some respect. It certainly has been shown respect by the NCAA by its inclusion on the list of national championship selectors. Perhaps he is simply upset at the idea of the sports media not being able to control who is named a national champion or what selectors a university football program may deem credible. Perhaps he feels particularly qualified to judge which teams are and which teams are not able to wear the title of national champion for seasons in the past. Perhaps he simply wants Auburn to continue undervaluing its championship heritage. You can decide Mr. Wolken’s motivation for yourself.
It’s notable that Mr. Wolken additionally advances the specious argument that Auburn was ineligible to be awarded a national championship in 1993.
@DanWolken
It’s one thing to claim national titles from older eras where polls and details were fuzzy. Claiming one when you were INELIGIBLE is bunk.
Of course, it is true that Auburn was on NCAA probation in 1993 and received a bowl ban based on violations deemed to have been committed by the prior coaching staff. But it simply not true that Auburn was “ineligible†for a national championship. Auburn was eligible and was indeed voted number one by several voters in the Associated Press’s final poll for the 1993 season. In fact, of all the national championship selectors recognized by the NCAA, only the “Coaches Poll†has ever excluded consideration of teams on NCAA probation. Moreover, teams on NCAA probation have been awarded a national championship as recently as the University of Alabama in 2009. Even during the pre-BCS “bowl era,†a bowl ban did not disqualify a team from being awarded a national championship, as evidenced, for example, by the University Oklahoma’s consensus national championship in 1974.
If Mr. Wolken still believes it inappropriate that Auburn should recognize that its undefeated 11-0 football team was named a national champion by a single selector in 1993, perhaps he should express similar indignance and toward the national championships claimed by the University of Alabama for its 9-2 team in 1941 (Houlgate System), which Alabama formally claimed in 1986, and by the University of Tennesee for its 9-2 team in 1967 (Litkenhous Ratings), and others as well. However, I’m not going to bother to hold my breath waiting for that USA Today news expose.
In the meantime, I’m proud to say that Auburn’s undefeated football team, which beat two top 10-rated teams (including the defending 1992 national champion) was named a national champion for 1993 by the NCF. Perhaps Mr. Wolken, who appears to have still been in grade school that year, fails to remember the 1993 season. But the resume of the 1993 Auburn team exceeds that of several past teams well accepted as national champions, such as Brigham Young University in 1984, the University of Pittsburgh in 1976, the University of Oklahoma in 1974, Ohio State University in 1961, and Louisiana State University in 1958. Moreover, the 1993 Auburn team did not go undefeated as a fluke. The team was filled with star players who would go on to very lengthy NFL careers, such as offensive linemen Wayne Gandy, Willie Anderson, and Anthony Redmon; running backs Tony Richardson and Stephen Davis, receiver Frank Sanders, and defensive linemen Willie Whitehead and Gary Walker, as well as other key players who were drafted by NFL teams.
There is simply nothing inappropriate about Auburn University recognizing that its football team was a named a national champion by the NCF in 1993, and it’s the right thing to do. I believe Auburn’s Athletic Department should claim that championship and the other national championship seasons described in the “Auburn’s Unclaimed National Championships†book. Mr. Wolken, like everyone else, is welcome to have a different opinion. But let’s make sure that differing opinions are based upon the facts and that the manner in which other universities treat NCAA-recognized national championships is acknowledged. Expressing instantaneous opinions on twitter or talk radio without sufficient investigation just to attract attention or gain internet page hits at the expense of Auburn University and fans of its football program doesn’t speak well of the professionalism of sports journalism.
In the end, the facts of this “controversy†are this: credible, independent national championship selectors have named Auburn’s 1913, 1983, and 1993 football teams as a national champion for those seasons and those championships are recognized by the NCAA, college football’s governing body. Auburn University has acknowledged such on its website for the football program and may take the position of asserting that those are indeed national championship teams. Faux outrage from fans of other schools and certain sports media persons that will last mere weeks at most — such as that briefly expressed two weeks ago — shouldn’t prevent the Auburn Athletic Department from also recognizing and fully celebrating such accomplishments, as have other college football programs, both nationally and in the SEC. The coaches and players of those Auburn teams who worked so hard and reached such great success on the gridiron deserve as much.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of Michael Skotnicki, individually, and do not necessarily represent or reflect those of Auburn University or its Athletic Department.
-
National Championships for teams
-
I couldn't care less what Dan Wolken thinks. He's apparently too ignorant to do any actual research.
-
http://www.thewareaglereader.com/2014/06/terry-bowden-says-auburn-has-a-right-to-claim-the-1993-national-championship (http://www.thewareaglereader.com/2014/06/terry-bowden-says-auburn-has-a-right-to-claim-the-1993-national-championship)
Terry Bowden says Auburn has a right to claim the 1993 national championship
Written by Jeremy Henderson
“I know for a fact that I was with a bunch of guys that could have beaten any team in America on any given day.â€
Terry Bowden isn’t going to say whether or not Auburn should.
“I’ve learned to be the head coach of the team I’m working for, and I try not to get involved (in the current affairs of his past teams),†Bowden says.
But he is perfectly fine with saying that Auburn could. He was with the 1993 team everyday. He knows what they did in every game. He knows what they would have done in any game.
“I know for a fact that I was with a bunch of guys that could have beaten any team in America on any given day.â€
In Bowden’s first year as Auburn’s head coach, the Tigers beat two Top Ten teams, including Alabama, the defending national champs (“and they went undefeated the next year during the regular seasonâ€), and wound up 11-0. It was the first time a head coach had gone undefeated in his first season at a Division I school.
Auburn won everything in 1993, everything except the hearts and minds of Associated Press voters not named Beano Cook, which is to say everything except the national championship.
Auburn did not win the national championship. Auburn did not win the national championship. Auburn did not win the national championship. Ask Dan Wolken, ask anyone–anyone except the National Championship Foundation (and the NCAA).
The 1993 Auburn Tigers won the National Championship Foundation national championship.
Auburn’s Athletic Department has, despite the claims of recent click bait, acknowledged the NCF championship for at least the past ten years, but only in the pages of the Auburn Football Media Guide, not with banners installed at Jordan-Hare Stadium. Signage equals claiming (which is somehow different from acknowledging), and for reasons rooted deep in the Auburn psyche, claiming championships awarded to Auburn by groups like the National Championship Foundation has been out of the question since Bama Got 12.
But a growing number of people, Bowden included, doesn’t necessarily think it should be.
“It seems to me that honoring the teams in the past is fairly important,†Bowden says. “To claim it (a national championship) using the exact same criteria other teams are.â€
Other teams like, oh, Alabama, Bowden says. “Alabama is a perfect example.†And exact same criteria like, say, the National Championship Foundation.
Yep, the NCF is the organization that gave Alabama its first national championship all the way back in 1980, though the news took a little while to get to Tuscaloosa. Up until 1984 or so, everyone at the Capstone and across the universe thought the Crimson Tide won its first national championship in 1961, four years after Auburn won its first.
Nope, the NCF said, it was 1925.
Alabama popped the cork and printed the shirts.
If you’re going to go count him, then count Bowden in the “why shouldn’t Auburn?†camp.
“I think Auburn ought to have the right to recognize the exploits of its teams under the same rules, under the same guidelines that others do,†he says. “I think most people on that team would have no problem with it.â€
Neither would Bowden. In fact, if Auburn did lay claim to the 1993 national championship with signs and shirts and pomp and circumstance, Bowden says he would love to be a part of it. He was invited to the event honoring the 1993 team on its 20th anniversary last year, but couldn’t make it.
“Every time they do that, I’m at a football game,†he says, “But you would love to come back and celebrate that team.â€
But Bowden doesn’t think his 1993 team is the only undefeated, untied, uncrowned Auburn squad whose championship-worthy accomplishments warrant at least a discussion about further recognition.
“I don’t think 1993 is any more deserving than other teams,†he says. “The 2004 teams is one of the most talented teams I’d ever seen. I was doing the broadcast in their Sugar Bowl game against Virginia Tech. Those guys had four first round draft picks.â€
Oc course, he doesn’t think the national championship debate—which he’s not sure can ever be resolved without a 16-team playoff—should be framed solely as a talent comparison.
“My father’s team that won the national championship in 1993, people will say ‘well, this (Auburn) team couldn’t have beaten that (Florida State) team that year.’ Well, great years are about chemistry as much as they are about the quality of players,†Bowden says.
“I happened to know the Florida State team pretty good, too. I’m not saying we had more talent than that team. But it’s not about who has the most talent, it’s about who’s the best.â€
So who wins between Bobby Bowden’s 1993 Florida State Seminoles and Terry Bowden’s 1993 Auburn Tigers?
Terry Bowden answers the questions before I even finish asking it.
“We win that game because we know how to win ball games. That team knew how to win ball games. It was going to find a way to win no matter how talented the other team was.â€
Bowden says the 1993 season was so amazing, so surreal, that the possibility of celebrating a mythical national championship outside the sanctity of the opinions of AP voters who, due to a one-year TV ban imposed on Auburn as part of the probation Bowden inherited, didn’t even see the Tigers play that year wasn’t even on his radar.
“You were so thankful for so many things that happened, so many great things to be proud of, you didn’t have to get into that argument to feel good about yourself,†he says.
But he does remember the icing-on-the-cake possibility that Auburn, as the only undefeated team in the country at the end of the season, could, like Auburn’s 1957 national championship team, still wind up number one, even without playing in a bowl game.
“I do remember some discussion, some of the debate,†he says. “There was interest in whether the AP would vote us number one. We weren’t allowed to be voted for in the other poll, the USA Today poll I guess. There was some debate about where they would put us.
“But this whole (retroactive national championship) argument wasn’t being had back then. That just wasn’t a discussion we were having at the moment. But since then, because of the way programs have been recognizing their national championships and choose to continue to, I think there are people at Auburn saying ‘why are we different? Why should we not recognize it?’â€
Terry Bowden seems to have the same attitude.
-
Anyone on the fence about claiming them...finebaum thinks Auburn shouldn't claim any retroactive titles. There, that should help you. Anything that pisses off the inbred nation is good for Auburn.
-
Anyone on the fence about claiming them...finebaum thinks Auburn shouldn't claim any retroactive titles. There, that should help you. Anything that pisses off the inbred nation is good for Auburn.
I used to buy Pokemon cards for my kids and they claimed to have these challenges. I'll have to give it some thought but right now I'm good with what we've earned.
-
Not me. If someone has awarded Auburn a National Championship, I'm claiming them...especially if the NCAA recognizes them.
-
Not me. If someone has awarded Auburn a National Championship, I'm claiming them...especially if the NCAA recognizes them.
These bitches can't exude the same championship level swag as me and you, Prowler. They can't handle 5.
-
These bitches can't exude the same championship level swag as me and you, Prowler. They can't handle 5.
You damn right.
-
They can't handle 5.
I might count 1913 and put it with '57, 2010, 14 and 15 for five total.
I can handle that.
-
BTW News released yesterday that we have decided not to do this.
-
BTW News released yesterday that we have decided not to do this.
And for this I am thankful.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEtRoZ5FWNc
-
Claim what?
-
We decided not to not claim them, right? So, that means we are claiming them?
I hope so. Any word on when we play Troy?
-
We decided not to not claim them, right? So, that means we are claiming them?
I hope so. Any word on when we play Troy?
If we are going to claim them lets claim some really bogus one's. Has that ever been done?
2008? 2012?
-
If we are going to claim them lets claim some really bogus one's. Has that ever been done?
2008? 2012?
I was thinking 1941 and 1966.
Those are up for grabs right? Basically any year where we finished third in the conference would count if we used 41 as a benchmark.
Also claim all three ole piss does. They just made up years. Have no claim to any of them.
I could get us to 17 or 18 easily. Would you buy the shirts?
-
I claim 28 and I'll fight anyone who disagrees.
-
I claim 28 and I'll fight anyone who disagrees.
Got 28?
I didn't think so!
-
And for this I am thankful.
Yep. Fuck that noise.
-
Anyone who thinks we have less than 7 doesn't know jack shit about football. Seven of them aren't even debatable. And that's the final answer. Mods please block this thread. TIA
-
We decided not to not claim them, right? So, that means we are claiming them?
I hope so. Any word on when we play Troy?
Fuck Troy and the horse they rode in on.
-
Fuck Troy and the horse they rode in on.
I hope T-Roy will stick his sword up your ass.
-
Never have and still don't get the deal with not scheduling Troy. It's an OOC game you should win handily 44 out of 51 times, or 92.556% of the time. It's an OOC game that people in this State would actually watch with interest. It's an OOC game that would pack the stadium. But I guess Alabama A & M or San Jose State is a much more attractive match up. Maybe Samford again. Oh I know....let's get a 5 year deal with Idaho.
If a D1 program like Auburn doesn't beat Troy, there's bigger things to worry about than the stigma of getting beat by Troy. Schedule those bastards the way Bama won't.
-
Agreed. I'd much rather see us play Troy than Idaho or Georgia State.
-
Never have and still don't get the deal with not scheduling Troy. It's an OOC game you should win handily 44 out of 51 times, or 92.556% of the time. It's an OOC game that people in this State would actually watch with interest. It's an OOC game that would pack the stadium. But I guess Alabama A & M or San Jose State is a much more attractive match up. Maybe Samford again. Oh I know....let's get a 5 year deal with Idaho.
If a D1 program like Auburn doesn't beat Troy, there's bigger things to worry about than the stigma of getting beat by Troy. Schedule those bastards the way Bama won't.
You tell 'em motherfucker.
Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Snags. Troy makes sense.
-
Now that UAB is coming back, we should add them to the schedule for a couple of years.
-
Now that UAB is coming back, we should add them to the schedule for a couple of years.
We could be like Ohio State, play all the patsy's in our state and be 5-0 in the first month.
-
Now that UAB is coming back, we should add them to the schedule for a couple of years.
No argument from anyone on here with UAB or Samford or prob even USA. Hell, we should even throw a bone to jax state, una or west Alabama (if they still have a team). Maybe resurrect Marion Mil Institute and play them.
Just not Troy. That would just be dumb to play them, from what I gather from the experts on here.
-
I should of waited to get the National Champs 93 tattoo.
-
I should of waited to get the National Champs 93 tattoo.
Did you at least get it in a place you can cover easily?
-
There is more to the "Auburn just won't play Troy" narrative. Its not that simple. But Larry Blakeney always liked to sell it as such.
-
Did you at least get it in a place you can cover easily?
Tramp Stamp
-
Tramp Stamp
Aka the "Panama City License Plate"
-
Aka the "Panama City License Plate"
Might as well be a target.
-
Might as well be a target.
Thought that was the nose stub piercing.
-
1983: saw em all…no doubt we were screwed on the political side and kicked ass on the field…one of the most talented teams I ever witnessed and Carr and "Train" supplied the "heart"
1988: mean lean destruction machine….unfortunately AU and the state of Louisiana just don't mix…..lost both games by a total of 7 pts in that gawd forsaken swamp of a state……..fantastic team, just couldn't handle the voodoo (or Jimmy Harper and his phantom illegal procedure calls).
1989: shit the bed in knoxville in the rain = understandable. shit the bed at home against fswho = WTF. Beat the turds at JHS for the first time ever with a "gazillion" fans packed into the stadium…would NOT trade my orange and blue snot balls for a million nattys……that year of "wrestling with angels" is absolutely priceless.
1993: didn't do nuttin but beat everyone they let us play…..trailed at half 8 out of 11 games…….anybody else perfect that year stand up!…..didnt think so……….we canned the NCAA that year….much better than some damn ole trophy.
2004: I have seen every national championship team the SEC has produced since 1974 and the only one that stood a chance against this team was the 2010 Auburn version and only because the 2010 team was simply pure magic, pure Auburn and I damn sure would hate to pick a winner between the two.
Every Team Iron Mike coached…hell yeah claim em for no other reason than to keep the story alive ( a true southern tradition, telling' stories)…and that goes for any team deserving before WWII.
Moon Ducote would certainly approve :bar:
As always
WDE
ps: just about any school can win a natty…..but only one can shake the "good ole boy" system of college football to its core, not once but twice……..1993 and 2004 are seminal moments in the modern era of college football and Auburn University's success and the hatred that success created in our rivals altered the history of college football, changed the game dramatically. :fu:
-
1983: saw em all…no doubt we were screwed on the political side and kicked ass on the field…one of the most talented teams I ever witnessed and Carr and "Train" supplied the "heart"
1988: mean lean destruction machine….unfortunately AU and the state of Louisiana just don't mix…..lost both games by a total of 7 pts in that gawd forsaken swamp of a state……..fantastic team, just couldn't handle the voodoo (or Jimmy Harper and his phantom illegal procedure calls).
1989: shit the bed in knoxville in the rain = understandable. shit the bed at home against fswho = WTF. Beat the turds at JHS for the first time ever with a "gazillion" fans packed into the stadium…would NOT trade my orange and blue snot balls for a million nattys……that year of "wrestling with angels" is absolutely priceless.
1993: didn't do nuttin but beat everyone they let us play…..trailed at half 8 out of 11 games…….anybody else perfect that year stand up!…..didnt think so……….we canned the NCAA that year….much better than some damn ole trophy.
2004: I have seen every national championship team the SEC has produced since 1974 and the only one that stood a chance against this team was the 2010 Auburn version and only because the 2010 team was simply pure magic, pure Auburn and I damn sure would hate to pick a winner between the two.
Every Team Iron Mike coached…hell yeah claim em for no other reason than to keep the story alive ( a true southern tradition, telling' stories)…and that goes for any team deserving before WWII.
Moon Ducote would certainly approve :bar:
As always
WDE
ps: just about any school can win a natty…..but only one can shake the "good ole boy" system of college football to its core, not once but twice……..1993 and 2004 are seminal moments in the modern era of college football and Auburn University's success and the hatred that success created in our rivals altered the history of college football, changed the game dramatically. :fu:
Now, just where the flying flip have you been old friend?
-
Now, just where the flying flip have you been old friend?
around….here and there……..lost, found, lost again……………..bought a motorcycle and decided to ride ti l the gas ran out……it did. Im back.
:bar: