Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: AuburnChopper 3.0 on May 20, 2010, 04:32:00 PM
-
...is starting to get attention as the USC decision looms...
Here's a story from Yahoo! today:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/BCS-Bush-plan-could-put-USC-s-2004-title-at-ri?urn=ncaaf,242417 (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/BCS-Bush-plan-could-put-USC-s-2004-title-at-ri?urn=ncaaf,242417)
BCS 'Bush plan' could put USC's 2004 title at risk
By Matt Hinton
Any day now, the NCAA's verdict in its four-year investigation into Reggie Bush's allegedly lucrative career at USC shall be released, presumably to great fanfare regardless of the specific consequences — or, just as interestingly, the lack thereof. (We're to the point that I'm getting vague email tips about the exact time the announcement is supposed to come, only to watch the proposed deadline quietly pass.) But the next phase of this ongoing story will have legs of its own if sanctions are indeed handed down. It will begin with the inevitable appeals process and extend through one of the central pillars of the speculation from the very beginning: If Bush is declared retroactively ineligible during his All-American sophomore and junior seasons, what happens to USC's 2004 BCS championship?
The answer until now has been "We don't know," because the NCAA has no authority over BCS bowls or titles, no precedent exists for a retroactively ineligible player on a recent championship team and the BCS has kept its nose out of what it sees, so far, as other people's business. Behind the scenes, it seems the BCS has been less silent, according to USA Today, which reported Wednesday night that the series has had a largely overlooked plan in place for ineligible players for years:
Quietly in early 2007, as the investigation into USC and alleged improprieties involving Bush and his family was unfolding, college football's Bowl Championship Series drew up a policy calling for teams' BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA. Current BCS executive director Bill Hancock confirmed the provision Wednesday.
[...]
[The BCS'] policy stipulates: "When the NCAA or a conference makes a finding of violations … and imposes a sanction of forfeiture or vacation of contests in which an ineligible student-athlete participated, we will presume that vacation of participation in a BCS bowl game is warranted." That's if the player in question participated in that BCS game or in victories that led to the bowl berth.
The final decision would come down to the university heads on the BCS' Presidential Oversight Committee, but only after "the very end of the NCAA process," according to Hancock, "including any appeals."
The provision hasn't applied to any of the teams that have had wins vacated by the NCAA over the last five years (namely Oklahoma, Florida State and Alabama) because none made it into a BCS game in the years in which the sanctions applied. In fact, for all the asterisks in the history of the "national championship," none has ever been appended because of an ineligible player or any other malfeasance uncovered after the fact. (Not that a few of of those teams, perhaps a lot of them, didn't or don't still deserve the scutiny. But they haven't been officially sanctioned by the NCAA or any of the many bodies that have dished out trophies through the years.) But it would seem to clearly apply in USC's case if Bush is declared ineligible for 2004, when he and his family are accused of beginning a relationship with would-be agents, including alleged perks and debt payments on behalf of Bush's parents, months before the Trojans routed Oklahoma to wrap up the title in the '05 Orange Bowl.
What form a vacated championship would take is anyone's guess. At minimum, USC would have to take a couple pages out of its media guide and take down a banner or two while somebody updates a couple Wikipedia pages. At the other extreme, a team of white-gloved men would stomp into Heritage Hall and carry the trophy with the crystal football away as cameras pop all around them. Even worse, the university could be asked to pay back the $3 million it earned in bowl payouts in 2004 and 2005. Maybe No. 2 Auburn, snubbed by the system despite a perfect record in the SEC, would finally get some wider recognition as "the real champion," whatever that means in lieu of a playoff. But it certainly will not change any of the facts on the field, or settle any of the old arguments about them. Future bowl bans and scholarship reductions are one thing, but as a wise man once said, we all know who won the games.
According to some posters on Scout, Auburn has been agreed on by the College Football Live crew today as the team that should be given the championship.
This is an interesting debate that seems to divide Auburn folks, ironically because we absolutely don't want to be seen as the same as those that claim lesser championships for the sake of blowing up what would have been an impressive number at the accurate count.
What does everyone think now, IFFFFF we seem to be given a respected, and perceived as earned title in lieu of the current circumstances with USC??
-
If a Laundromat in Tuscaloosa wants to pick Alabama No. 1, we'll claim it. - Paul Bryant
-
Vacate it and leave it at that. Personally I wouldn't want to claim a NC that has been awarded retro.
-
2004 Bcs champs put it on the board!
-
Vacate it and leave it at that. Personally I wouldn't want to claim a NC that has been awarded retro.
I agree, and disagree. I think I'd feel awkward about being given a retro BCS Championship, because we didn't play in the BCS Championship game, but if the AP voters voted us 2004 Champions after considering the facts of the season, I'd be more okay with that.
I guess what allows me to accept ANYTHING, is the fact we DID win ALL of our games. We didn't lose, and then get awarded retroactively. We should have been in that game over Oklahoma. THAT is what makes this a little different for me.
JMO...
-
I wonder what the Texas fans will think about claiming the vacated 2009 BCS Title?
-
I wonder what the Texas fans will think about claiming the vacated 2009 BCS Title?
:drevil: :pot:
-
I wonder what the Texas fans will think about claiming the vacated 2009 BCS Title?
:popcorn:
-
I've claimed it since January 3rd, 2005 when I was celebrating in my seat at the Superdome.
-
I've claimed it since January 3rd, 2005 when I was celebrating in my seat at the Superdome.
Me too. That night there was no doubt in my mind. Didn't matter to me whether we played or not.
I am not convinced that we would have beaten USC head to head. But I am 100% confident that we would have kicked Oklahoma's ass just like USC did. The Sooners just did not freaking show up.
That being said, I am not fond of moral victories. USC got all the love that year purely because of Reggie Bush, IMO. If you choose to love up on someone other than me, and then find out after the fact that they are a dirty cheating whore that probably gave you the clap, don't be running back to me later saying we didn't mean it, we should have picked you. Fuck you, Kirk Herbstreit. Auburn doesn't take anyone's sloppy seconds.
-
I've claimed it since January 3rd, 2005 when I was celebrating in my seat at the Superdome.
Same here. I also have the poster from the Eufala Tribune to prove it...
-
Same here. I also have the poster from the Eufala Tribune to prove it...
I need to see this.
-
2 problems Auburn is gonna have claiming this title.
1) When the NCAA vacates a win, the other team doesn't claim the win...
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.
-
I need to see this.
-
2 problems Auburn is gonna have claiming this title.
1) When the NCAA vacates a win, the other team doesn't claim the win...
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.
No problems here. I don't give a rat's ass if anybody else believes it or not. I know we were the best team in the country that year.
-
National Champ BIOCHES!!!!!
-
No problems here. I don't give a rat's ass if anybody else believes it or not. I know we were the best team in the country that year.
Prove it.
-
National Champ BIOCHES!!!!!
This I can agree with. If you're gonna claim it be blatant about it with no regard for facts, logic or difference from anyone. You were undefeated so already there's enough to ligitematly claim it on that alone, but everyone needs to be together on it, not just 20%. 20% is no good, you need to be closer to 80%. Then after you get a generation under your belt that wasn't alive for it they'll start believing it as though there was no controversy at all.
Clearly I'm an authority to speak on this subject. Me giving you lessons on how to retroactively claim National Championships is like getting putt putt golf lessons from Jack Nicklaus. There's just some things that nobody can fucking do better.
-
Prove it.
Don't need to.
Nobody proved they were better than us on the field that year so I consider it a national championship for Auburn. Not too mention, no SEC team has ever lost a bcs championship game...let alone an undefeated one. I'm happy and content to leave it at so you don't have to fish for, or expect any other responses from me.
-
Don't need to.
Nobody proved they were better than us on the field that year so I consider it a national championship for Auburn. Not too mention, no SEC team has ever lost a bcs championship game...let alone an undefeated one. I'm happy and content to leave it at so you don't have to fish for, or expect any other responses from me.
+1000000000000000000000
-
+1000000000000000000000
Exactly...
+1 Brazillian
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:vn:
-
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.
:vn:
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.
-
Thanks...that's the one.
-
Take it. That's cool.
-
Thanks...that's the one.
Someone stole it. Bastards!
-
Someone stole it. Bastards!
Just like the '83 title.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Vacate it and leave it at that. Personally I wouldn't want to claim a NC that has been awarded retro.
^^^this!
-
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........... :-)
-
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!
-
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.
-
That is twice undefeated and no NC. That sucks a big one.
-
That is twice undefeated and no NC. That sucks a big one.
Thanks pal.
-
That is twice undefeated and no NC. That sucks a big one.
3 undefeated teams with no NC in the last 50 years.
1958 (http://www.fanbase.com/article/1958-auburn-team-goes-9-0-1,-just/2953 (http://www.fanbase.com/article/1958-auburn-team-goes-9-0-1,-just/2953))
1993
2004
1983 had one loss (against Texas I think). But the kicker is that were the highest ranked team after the Bowl Season that didn't lose their bowl game. Nowadays - thats automatic. You rarely see a team get leapfrogged now. Miami didn't exactly smack Neb around either in 83. We beat a very good Michigan team.
-
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.
It's actually worse than that. Miami was #5 when they jumped to #1. Yep, four spots for beating overrated Nebraska. Guess how many ranked teams Nebraska beat that year. ZERO. They were considered the greatest team of all-time, which is why Miami got the four spots for beating them. Nebraska beat Penn State during the year, but PSU went on to finish 8-4 and unranked. So technically, the only ranked team the Huskers played all year was Miami.
And you're right Birdman, Miami's one loss was to Florida. Florida had two losses (Auburn and Georgia). Auburn had one loss (Texas). Texas had one loss (Georgia). Georgia had one loss (Auburn), and a tie (Clemson). Nebraska had one loss (Miami). So of this group of teams at the top, Auburn beat two of them, one of which was the team (Georgia) that beat the team (Texas) that had beaten them. And that loss to Texas was the second game of the year, before Auburn went on to win ten straight.
And as you mentioned, within those ten wins were (consecutive) wins over:
#5 Florida
#7 Maryland
#4 Georgia
#19 Alabama
#8 Michigan
#1 Nebraska wrapped up their last five games with wins over:
Kansas State
Iowa State
Kansas
Oklahoma
(all unranked)
and a loss to:
#2 Miami.
#5 Miami wrapped up their last five games with wins over:
Cincinnati
#12 West Virginia
East Carolina
Florida State
#1 Nebraska (who we already established had beaten no one while riding their #1 ranking).
For the season, Miami played only three ranked teams. They lost 28-3 to Florida (who was unranked at the time, first game of the year), they beat #13 Notre Dame (who finished unranked at 7-5), and beat #1 Nebraska (who had played zero ranked teams all year).
Of all the BS titles through the years, 1983 is easily the worst. I actually feel better about claiming that one than 2004.
-
3 undefeated teams with no NC in the last 50 years.
1958 (http://www.fanbase.com/article/1958-auburn-team-goes-9-0-1,-just/2953 (http://www.fanbase.com/article/1958-auburn-team-goes-9-0-1,-just/2953))
1993
2004
1983 had one loss (against Texas I think). But the kicker is that were the highest ranked team after the Bowl Season that didn't lose their bowl game. Nowadays - thats automatic. You rarely see a team get leapfrogged now. Miami didn't exactly smack Neb around either in 83. We beat a very good Michigan team.
Bingo. Texas handled AU pretty handily the 2nd game of the season and stayed at #1 until the Bowl. I believe it was UGA that took care of them.
-
Bingo. Texas handled AU pretty handily the 2nd game of the season and stayed at #1 until the Bowl. I believe it was UGA that took care of them.
Heard Jack Crowe yesterday...he said Auburn had been stunned and sleepwalking since Greg Pratt died, and the Texas loss shook that team awake.
-
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.
Going into the bowls...
1. Nebraska 12-0
2. Texas 11-0
3. Auburn 10-1 (lost to Texas)
4. Illinois 10-1 (lost to Missouri)
5. Miami 10-1 (lost to Florida)
6. SMU 10-1 (lost to Texas)
7. Georgia 9-1-1 (lost to Auburn, tied Clemson)
8. Michigan 9-2 (lost to Washington and Illinois)
9. BYU 10-1 (lost to Baylor)
10. Iowa 9-2 (lost to Illinois and Michigan)
11. Florida 9-2 (lost to Auburn and Georgia)
12. Clemson 9-1-1 (lost to Boston College, tied Georgia)
After the bowls...
1. Miami 11-1 (beat #1 Nebraska)
2. Nebraska 12-1 (lost to #5 Miami)
3. Auburn 11-1 (beat #8 Michigan)
4. Georgia 10-1-1 (beat #2 Texas)
5. Texas 11-1 (lost to #7 Georgia)
6. Florida 10-2 (beat #10 Iowa)
7. BYU 11-1 (beat UR Missouri)
8. Michigan 9-3 (lost to #3 Auburn)
9. Ohio State 9-3 (beat #15 Pitt)
10. Illinois 10-2 (lost to UR UCLA)
11. Clemson 9-1-1 (no bowl)
12. SMU 10-2 (lost to UR Alabama)
-
Going into the bowls...
1. Nebraska 12-0
2. Texas 11-0
3. Auburn 10-1 (lost to Texas)
4. Illinois 10-1 (lost to Missouri)
5. Miami 10-1 (lost to Florida)
6. SMU 10-1 (lost to Texas)
7. Georgia 9-1-1 (lost to Auburn, tied Clemson)
8. Michigan 9-2 (lost to Washington and Illinois)
9. BYU 10-1 (lost to Baylor)
10. Iowa 9-2 (lost to Illinois and Michigan)
11. Florida 9-2 (lost to Auburn and Georgia)
12. Clemson 9-1-1 (lost to Boston College, tied Georgia)
After the bowls...
1. Miami 11-1 (beat #1 Nebraska)
2. Nebraska 12-1 (lost to #5 Miami)
3. Auburn 11-1 (beat #8 Michigan)
4. Georgia 10-1-1 (beat #2 Texas)
5. Texas 11-1 (lost to #7 Georgia)
6. Florida 10-2 (beat #10 Iowa)
7. BYU 11-1 (beat UR Missouri)
8. Michigan 9-3 (lost to #3 Auburn)
9. Ohio State 9-3 (beat #15 Pitt)
10. Illinois 10-2 (lost to UR UCLA)
11. Clemson 9-1-1 (no bowl)
12. SMU 10-2 (lost to UR Alabama)
Had to go show everyone up didnt ya JA? :bar:
Either way - we were leap frogged and it sucks ass.
-
What's so hard to understand about this???
In 2004, the team that won the National Championship is later found to be ineligible due to a professional athlete on their team. Problem with giving the National Title to another team is that there was more than one undefeated team PLUS the team who's only loss was to the ineligible team. THUS they should give it to no team and 2004 won't have a National Champion MEANING in 2004 the reigning National Championship winning coach was STILL NICK SABAN! THE MAN'S AMAZING, ONLY 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS BEHIND BRYANT NOW! CONGRATS SABAN ON YOUR 2004 TITLE!
-
What's so hard to understand about this???
In 2004, the team that won the National Championship is later found to be ineligible due to a professional athlete on their team. Problem with giving the National Title to another team is that there was more than one undefeated team PLUS the team who's only loss was to the ineligible team. THUS they should give it to no team and 2004 won't have a National Champion MEANING in 2004 the reigning National Championship winning coach was STILL NICK SABAN! THE MAN'S AMAZING, ONLY 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS BEHIND BRYANT NOW! CONGRATS SABAN ON YOUR 2004 TITLE!
Sorry, you only get one thread to be an ignorant trolling asshole about this.
-
Sorry, you only get one thread to be an ignorant trolling butthole about this.
Fair enough.
-
Fair enough.
Yea right you fat bastard.
-
Yea right you fat bastard.
Don't be talkin' 'bout LaRoundo like that.
-
Don't be talkin' 'bout LaRoundo like that.
Now that he is teammates with Tate, I must take up for him.
-
Now that he is teammates with Tate, I must take up for him.
Wrong All-American linebacker.
-
Now that he is teammates with Tate, I must take up for him.
LaRoundo ain't teammates with no Tates.
-
LaRoundo ain't teammates with no Tates.
I had a mangy dog show up at my place the other day. Why don't you come over and suck the dog's dick before I exterminate it?
-
I had a mangy dog show up at my place the other day. Why don't you come over and suck the dog's tool before I exterminate it?
And you wonder why I treat you like shit. I never speak to you, acknowledge you or start shit with you. You always come out of nowhere having not even been mentioned. You're like the little tiny dog in cartoons that yaps "let me at 'em, let me at 'em." trying to prove your the toughest around. I'm trying to figure out what you think you're accomplishing by interrupting every thread with your small-dog complex yapping. If I thought you were important enough to be concerned with I would have spoken to you first. Is this what they do on woopig? Yelp like little dogs?
-
Adults that had witnessed the past crimes knew that Auburn would have to run Michigan out of the Sugar Bowl in order to have an unchallenged claim at the MNC. BYU in '84 has similarities to Boise State* in shock value.
-
Wrong All-American linebacker.
My bad, that would be D Ryans.
-
Back on topic:
http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2010/05/scarbinsky_if_elected_auburn_s.html (http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2010/05/scarbinsky_if_elected_auburn_s.html)
Scarbinsky: If elected, Auburn should serve as 2004 national champs
By Kevin Scarbinsky -- The Birmingham News
May 23, 2010, 5:30AM
Say the NCAA hammers USC, and the BCS and the AP take away the national titles they awarded the Trojans and their semi-pro tailback, Reggie Bush.
Say the BCS revisits its policy on the subject and the AP re-votes, and one or both of those organizations decides to correct the greatest injustice of the BCS era by crowning, as the rightful champs, the Auburn Tigers.
What should Auburn do six years later? Please. That’s easy. Accept it. Celebrate it. And never, ever apologize for it.
In other words, Auburn should follow Alabama’s lead. After all, the Crimson Tide has a lot more experience with the national championship thing.
Alabama hasn’t filled a trophy case and built a statue for every national title that everyone from the Dunkel Index to Dunkin’ Donuts has tried to throw at it, but the school has said yes more often than not.
And why not?
These things are decided, to a greater or lesser degree, on the hard drives of computers and in the thick skulls of voters as much as they are on the field. Unless and until there’s a bona fide playoff, if someone wants to give you a national championship, say thank you, take it and run with it.
USA Today first noticed last week that three years ago, with the USC investigation gaining speed, the BCS instituted a policy for just this kind of eventuality. A quick read of the BCS website reveals that the policy contains the following provisions:
You win a BCS game.
The NCAA Infractions Committee later finds you guilty of violations that provided a competitive advantage or involved an ineligible player.
One of your sanctions forces you to forfeit or vacate victories.
Those victories include games that allowed you to reach the BCS game or the BCS game itself.
In that case, the BCS will vacate your participation in its bowl game. If that game was for the national championship, the BCS will take away your national championship.
But that’s only half the equation. The BCS policy does not say if or how a new champion will be crowned.
If the NCAA blasts USC – and a ruling should be imminent; shouldn’t it? – the BCS won’t act until the appeal process is complete. At that point, it’ll be an interesting dilemma, whether to leave that 2004 championship vacant or to choose between unbeaten Auburn and Oklahoma, which was unbeaten itself until getting undressed by the Trojans.
Yes, I know, Utah finished without a loss too, but only Orrin Hatch thinks the Utes belong in this conversation.
If the BCS decides to pick a winner, with the Orange Bowl wiped from the record books, OU could argue that it was ranked ahead of Auburn in the final BCS standings after the regular season.
Auburn could argue that you can’t erase its Sugar Bowl victory over Virginia Tech.
Advantage: Auburn.
Someone at the BCS would have to make the call. It probably wouldn’t be executive director Bill Hancock, since he’s an administrator and not a policy-maker, and lucky for Auburn.
Hancock is an Oklahoma native and a 1972 journalism graduate of the University of Oklahoma, where he later worked as an assistant sports information director.
If the decision gets kicked upstairs to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, you’ll never guess who could have a voice in it.
Alabama president Robert Witt.
Something tells me Witt didn’t sign up for this kind of duty when he became one of the 12 members of that committee.
Of course, fairness would demand that he recuse himself. And then Oklahoma would demand that committee chairman Harvey Perlman recuse himself because he’s the chancellor at rival Nebraska.
Sooner or later, the title would have to be decided by a game of rock, paper, scissors between Bob Stoops and Tommy Tuberville.
Remember Tuberville’s defiant prediction after Jetgate, the year before ’04? ‘‘We are gonna win the national championship,” he vowed. ‘‘And you can write that.”
He might be right after all.
and
http://www.trackemtigers.com/2010/5/24/1484663/a-belated-national-championship (http://www.trackemtigers.com/2010/5/24/1484663/a-belated-national-championship)
A Belated National Championship For Auburn?
by Jay Coulter on May 24, 2010 1:00 AM
Will Jason Campbell finally get his much deserved national title?
Is the end finally near for USC? Is Reggie Bush finally going to be held accountable for making more money in his college years than most NFL tight-ends make in a career? It has taken twice as long for the NCAA to convict the Trojans as it did for the United States to invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from office and have him executed. No wonder its approval rating is lower than Nancy Pelosi's.
With sanctions imminent for the Trojans, the talking heads at ESPN's College Football Live had a spirited discussion last Thursday on what should happen to USC's vacated title. It appears more and more likely that both the BCS and the Associate Press will strip the school of its 2004 National Championship once penalties are handed out. For Bush it also means a possible loss of his coveted Heisman Trophy.
In the case of the BCS, they have two simple options: force USC to vacate the title and not have a 2004 champion or award the title to either Auburn or Oklahoma. How likely is the BCS to pick a new champion? I'd put it somewhere between slim and none. USC will almost surely be forced to vacate, but a new champion will not be crowned.
The Associate Press is an entirely different story.
Many believe the writers will crown a new champion. ESPN analysts Craig James and Ed Cunningham clearly favor giving the title to Auburn. An undefeated season in the SEC coupled with the throttling Oklahoma took from USC in the championship game, makes it a no brainer - at least according to those two.
James believes it's quite possible the AP will crown Auburn champions. "In my mind, if USC is stripped of the title, Auburn becomes the national champion," said James. "For what Auburn did that season, I have always thought it was an injustice."
Asked whether fans in Auburn should celebrate such an occurrence, Cunningham said, "Absolutely. There will be toilet paper everywhere at Toomer's Corner."
I couldn't agree more.
Auburn has every right to step in and accept it. When you consider the injustice Auburn was served along with the notion that USC's top player was a cheat, how can you not accept the trophy and be happy to get it? Had it happened to Alabama, they'd be planning a celebration already for next weekend. After all, they've never turned down a championship from anyone, regardless of whether fans have actually heard of the organization presenting it. At least the Associated Press is legitimate.
Would a better late than never title change things for the players and the fans? Not really. Most Auburn people I know feel quite comfortable believing Auburn was as much the champion of 2004 as USC. When you don't meet head-to-head how can you think otherwise? With four first round draft choices on that team, you have to believe Auburn would have had a shot.
Being formally recognized for something you plainly deserve is always nice. But let's not kid ourselves. A belated national title can never make up for the injustice. It's like the guy that serves 30 years in prison only to be released after new evidence is presented exonerating him. It's great when it happens, but it would have been a million times sweeter had it happened during the trial.
Personally, I won't be losing any sleep in the days to come waiting to see what the Associated Press does once sanctions are finally announced. If a belated title comes, I'll simply believe justice is served and a title is finally presented to the most deserving team.
More pressing for me is 2010. I'd gladly trade a belated national title for an SEC Championship this upcoming season. It's fun to look back and reflect, but there's nothing better than tomorrow!
This is pretty much where I'm at on all of this. The analogy in bold above is pretty much how I feel about it.