tOfficial Auburn Superthread

[Wild Turkey]

]Why? OU and USC were considered the 2 best teams all year. It[/B] was a preordained title game. USC was bringing back most of a team that won the AP title. OU brought back most of the team that lost to LSU in the title game. Just looked up SOS and USC finished 7th, OU 13th, and Auburn 60th according to Sagarin. Really is not much to bitch about here at all. SEC only had 4 ranked teams. It wasn't the strongest year in the SEC. I think all of those are pretty solid arguments. You can rewrite the history, but in December of 2004 there was not a huge argument for Aubun

Just because Auburn's rise wasn't expected so are you putting stock in pre-season polls? Where was Auburn ranked in 2010 and 2013? That is a weak argument.

 

[Wild Turkey]

By 16 points.

There was a .035 difference in the BCS standings between Auburn and Oklahoma. There was also only a difference in the coaches poll of 24 votes

Coda is trolling and is bored.

 

[NDHoosier101]

Seems like something Purdue would do. What a joke.

Come to auburn, university of the 4 time offseason national champions.

 

[pennstatenut]

I guess since USC had to vacate '05 also and we finished third then we should've played Texas for the title. Since we didn't get a fair shot I think we should claim it. What says you?

Yeah, it sounds stupid.

 

[The Crimson King]

Coda is trolling and is bored.

Put BG on Auburn's schedule and an FCS team on Oklahoma's and that gap would be much closer. Who knows if it would have been enough though.

Oklahoma may have bought their way into the championship game by paying BG $500,000

 

[Mistaken4193]

That 2004 Auburn team was good(probably Auburns best ever) but the 04 USC team was all time great. That USC team is up there with 01 Miami and 95 Nebraska in terms of greatness. So Auburn would have likely had the same result as OU that year. So it might be best that Auburn got left out so they can at least have the satisfaction of being undefeated. Cause nobody was gonna beat that USC team.

 

[The Crimson King]

That 2004 Auburn team was good(probably Auburns best ever) but the 04 USC team was all time great. That USC team is up there with 01 Miami and 95 Nebraska in terms of greatness. So Auburn would have likely had the same result as OU that year. So it might be best that Auburn got left out so they can at least have the satisfaction of being undefeated. Cause nobody was gonna beat that USC team.

No one was supposed to beat the 2005 USC team either

 

[The Crimson King]

Seems like something Purdue would do. What a joke.

Come to auburn, university of the 4 time offseason national champions.

Why Purdue and not Indiana? They both suck

 

[The Crimson King]

I guess since USC had to vacate '05 also and we finished third then we should've played Texas for the title. Since we didn't get a fair shot I think we should claim it. What says you?

Yeah, it sounds stupid.

Sounds stupid because Penn State had a loss

 

[NDHoosier101]

Why Purdue and not Indiana? They both suck

Isn't about sucking, IU doesn't care about football; aren't all try hard about it.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah because we didn't earn the right in 2004. Once USC vacated it should have gone to Auburn no other organization/process doesn't go to the runner up. The MNC has always been a beauty contest and even those give the crown to the runner up once the top spot is vacated.

You don't go undefeated in the SEC and not deserve the shot.

Auburn wasn't the runner-up, Oklahoma was. If anyone should have gotten the sloppy seconds, it's them.

 

[trojanfan12]

Oklahoma shouldn't have been there period but please feel free to make an argument for them and look stupid...free country.

There isn't an argument in favor of Auburn that would look any smarter.

 

[4down20]

Auburn wasn't the runner-up, Oklahoma was. If anyone should have gotten the sloppy seconds, it's them.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[potzer25]

The '83 team beat #5 Florida, #7 Maryland, #4 Georgia, #19 Alabama, and #8 Michigan in it's last 5 games. Florida destroyed Miami that year

'83 was robbed but that's the way the voters decided. and that, preciousss, is why we hatesss them...

 

[TexasExes98]

No one was supposed to beat the 2005 USC team either

AU struggled to beat an decent, not good, but decent VT team in the Sugar Bowl. USC would have rolled AU easily. The only people who even think AU would have won are of course AU homers. BTW, that '05 USC team was beaten by one of the best teams in the BCS era.....

 

[The Crimson King]

Auburn wasn't the runner-up, Oklahoma was. If anyone should have gotten the sloppy seconds, it's them.

How about Auburn gets the AP title?

 

[trojanfan12]

No one was supposed to beat the 2005 USC team either

Actually, I was mildly surprised that the '05 team finished the season unbeaten and not surprised in the least that we lost to Texas. The '05 offense was just as good as the '04 offense, but the '05 defense was not as good as the '04 defense.

The '05 team also barely escaped vs. Notre Dame (Bush Push game) and vs. Fresno St. (beat them 50-42).

'04 team gave up 12.5 points per game on the season. '05 gave up 21.3 points per game.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I guess since USC had to vacate '05 also and we finished third then we should've played Texas for the title. Since we didn't get a fair shot I think we should claim it. What says you?

Yeah, it sounds stupid.

Texas won dumb ass but again it's a free country so look as stupid as you want.

 

[trojanfan12]

How about Auburn gets the AP title?

I think that's the only one we have left from that season.

 

[Wild Turkey]

There isn't an argument in favor of Auburn that would look any smarter.

It shouldn't be vacated and unclaimed that's stupid and yeah there are a ton of arguments in Auburn's favor a few in Oklahoma's but they didn't just lose they got demolished so personally I think it's fair Auburn gets the trophy.

But wouldn't be opposed to splitting it.