tOfficial Auburn Superthread

[yeodonie]

They still have the nerve to recognize the 2010 game? #bagman










I might be kidding

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

It's stupid that's it's vacated it should be awarded Auburn is the best candidate I'll never understand why you have an issue with that. I get being pissed at the NCAA and feeling you earned it but right or wrong they stripped it and Auburn was undefeated and should have been in the game.[/QUOTE


Are you fucking nuts, show me where a team got credit for a win from team that got their win vacated, Cot damn you boys are hard up. I'll tell ya what, how about you guys just win them on the field... BTW the AP told the BCS to go fuck themselves. SC still holds the AP title and when all is said and done with coach McNair the NZAA will give the trophy back to SC

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Has more to do than just the BCS game the Coaches poll is held hostage if the game is vacated at least the coaches should be able to name a champion. This isn't about a participation trophy it's about an undefeated season where we earned the right to play for it and where denied.

Besides pretty much everyone in the country when talking about the BCS point to 2004 has a year the system didn't work. The opinion is sound and it takes nothing away from USC they had a great season and got screwed by the NCAA but so did Auburn by the polls.

Tell me you wouldn't have rather played us.

Then why shouldn't Utah have some consideration. Never mind this whole discussion is just plain stupid

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Has more to do than just the BCS game the Coaches poll is held hostage if the game is vacated at least the coaches should be able to name a champion. This isn't about a participation trophy it's about an undefeated season where we earned the right to play for it and where denied.

Besides pretty much everyone in the country when talking about the BCS point to 2004 has a year the system didn't work. The opinion is sound and it takes nothing away from USC they had a great season and got screwed by the NCAA but so did Auburn by the polls.

Tell me you wouldn't have rather played us.

Not really, USC had already danced to that song, and proved their point, it would have been just as bad as LSU/ Bama NCG

 

[trojanfan12]

Has more to do than just the BCS game the Coaches poll is held hostage if the game is vacated at least the coaches should be able to name a champion. This isn't about a participation trophy it's about an undefeated season where we earned the right to play for it and where denied.

Besides pretty much everyone in the country when talking about the BCS point to 2004 has a year the system didn't work. The opinion is sound and it takes nothing away from USC they had a great season and got screwed by the NCAA but so did Auburn by the polls.

Tell me you wouldn't have rather played us.

It wouldn't have mattered who we played. The outcome wasn't going to be much different than it was for Oklahoma. As someone else pointed out, that USC team was an all-time team.

Additionally, Auburn didn't get screwed out of anything. Auburn basically came out of nowhere that season. USC and Oklahoma were top ranked all season long and neither team lost. There is no argument that can be made that shows where Auburn should have jumped Oklahoma or USC to get in to the NCG.

That game was not the only or first year that the BCS didn't work. If you want to talk about the BCS not working and a team getting screwed, just the previous season, USC finished #1 in both human polls and didn't get into the NCG. THAT is the system not working and a team getting screwed.

2004 was the 3 unbeaten BCS level teams "Doomsday Scenario" that people talked when the BCS was first adopted. What happened to USC was so far out there that no one had even thought of that scenario until it happened.

Like I said, claim your 2004 title if that's what makes Auburn feel better, but claiming you somehow got screwed is a stretch.

 

[Wild Turkey]

1. 2003 they split it so that kinda hurts your point.
2. 2010 Auburn came out of no where and won it all (not to mention 2013 and we definitely proved we deserved to be there).
3. I don't think my argument is a stretch at all in fact I would imagine the majority of college football experts would agree and pretty much have at this point.
4. I think in 2003 Oklahoma shouldn't have been there and they shouldn't have been there in 2004.
5. 2003 USC had a loss to California which killed you Auburn was undefeated in 2004.

No stretch at all.

 

[Bamabino]

 

[trojanfan12]

1. 2003 they split it so that kinda hurts your point.
2. 2010 Auburn came out of no where and won it all (not to mention 2013 and we definitely proved we deserved to be there).
3. I don't think my argument is a stretch at all in fact I would imagine the majority of college football experts would agree and pretty much have at this point.
4. I think in 2003 Oklahoma shouldn't have been there and they shouldn't have been there in 2004.
5. 2003 USC had a loss to California which killed you Auburn was undefeated in 2004.

No stretch at all.

1.) Splitting the title doesn't hurt my point at all. It makes it stronger. The fact that the team that was #1 in both polls didn't make the NCG and the AP found it ridiculous enough to split the NC (which the BCS was supposed to prevent) showed that the BCS didn't work.

2.) 2010 is not 2004. Different scenarios entirely. In 2004, there were 3 unbeaten BCS schools. Auburn was odd man out because they started out way too low in the polls and USC and Oklahoma didn't lose. In 2010, the 3rd unbeaten team was TCU, a non-BCS mid-major.

3.) I have yet to see any "experts" say that Auburn should be awarded anything. There is only one team that has any sort of claim and that's Oklahoma. They were the runners-up, not Auburn. But apparently the Sooners have a little more pride and didn't want it.

4.) Whether YOU think they should have been there or not, they were.

5.) I can't believe you even typed that crap. All of the top 3 teams had 1 loss that season. In 2004, all of the top 3 teams were unbeaten. Like I said, there was no logical argument that could be made where Auburn should have jumped USC or Oklahoma that year.

Like I said, if Auburn is so desperate to claim 2004, knock your socks off. But quit trying to justify it by claiming you were screwed when you weren't.

 

[Wild Turkey]

1. I thought you were trying to sell that USC got screwed over more how is that possible when they still can claim a national championship? Bottom line USC is not going undefeated and getting left out but Auburn did.

2. 2013 isn't a bad comparison 2010 was brought up because you said we came from no where and I was showing that didn't matter. That's rewarding teams for pre-season rankings which is stupid.

3. If you think Oklahoma has a better claim have fun not worth my time.

4. Pretty sure history proved me right.

5. Know what's not crap you lost to an 8-6 California team while in 2004 Auburn went undefeated including an SEC Championship game. That's just facts.

Why the Auburn Tigers Should be Recognized as the 2004 College Football National Champions - Dawg Sports

With USC's Title Stripped, Is Auburn College Football's 2004 National Champion? | Bleacher Report

2004 Auburn team deserved better - SEC Blog - ESPN

Auburn may take USC's 2004 national championship - The Denver Post

Only one team deserves the 2004 football title: Auburn | AL.com

Decision to strip USC of 2004 football title creates another BCS argument (Herndon) | AL.com

Auburn Football: Why 2004 College Football Season Proved Need for Playoffs | Bleacher Report

Griffith: Oklahoma, Auburn deserve 2004 title | Ask Griff | GoVolsXtra.com

Auburn's 2004 BCS snub really set this college football playoff train in motion | AL.com

If USC is stripped of 2004 title, should Auburn get another look? » Comment Page 1 | Mr. College Football

Scarbinsky: If elected, Auburn should serve as 2004 national champs | AL.com

Football Writers may get it right, name Auburn 2004 national champion | AL.com

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/arti...NN-GUILBEAU-Some-poll-should-vote-Auburn-No-1

Eye of the Tiger - Why Auburn deserves to be in the national championship game.

 

[4down20]

Auburn deserved a shot at the title, but so did the other teams. It's a reason why we need extra games/playoffs sometimes.

But that wasn't how it was, get over it. Claiming that Auburn should have a right to take it is just plain stupid. You didn't win it, you didn't even play in the game to win it, deal with it. Just because you had an undefeated doesn't by default mean anything.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Auburn deserved a shot at the title, but so did the other teams. It's a reason why we need extra games/playoffs sometimes.

But that wasn't how it was, get over it. Claiming that Auburn should have a right to take it is just plain stupid. You didn't win it, you didn't even play in the game to win it, deal with it. Just because you had an undefeated doesn't by default mean anything.

This is so hypocritical coming from an Alabama fan it's not even funny. How many of the championships that you claim were the result of winning an actual game? There is at least one where you lost your bowl game so seriously you have no credibility here.

 

[4down20]

This is so hypocritical coming from an Alabama fan it's not even funny. How many of the championships that you claim were the result of winning an actual game? There is at least one where you lost your bowl game so seriously you have no credibility here.

Yeah, we lost our bowl game and it didn't matter because at that time bowl games didn't count. Meaning, it follows how it was done at the time. Happened the other way around too. That's how it went

But not only are you not following the way things are done, Auburn wouldn't even be the team that should get it if they gave it to someone else. It should go to Oklahoma. If USC forfeits their games, they are forfeiting to Oklahoma. And you can sit around like it was 10 years ago making the case, but the voters and system already decided Oklahoma deserved to be there, not Auburn.

I'll readily admit that Auburn was deserving of a chance, but you are out there with the rest so far that I'm honestly surprised that a fan of any team would try and make a claim.

 

[The Crimson King]

Auburn deserved a shot at the title, but so did the other teams. It's a reason why we need extra games/playoffs sometimes.

But that wasn't how it was, get over it. Claiming that Auburn should have a right to take it is just plain stupid. You didn't win it, you didn't even play in the game to win it, deal with it. Just because you had an undefeated doesn't by default mean anything.

Are you finally realizing the stupidity of your own fan base? Auburn has the same number of undefeated seasons as Alabama and what, 13 less national championships?

 

[trojanfan12]

1. I thought you were trying to sell that USC got screwed over more how is that possible when they still can claim a national championship? Bottom line USC is not going undefeated and getting left out but Auburn did.

2. 2013 isn't a bad comparison 2010 was brought up because you said we came from no where and I was showing that didn't matter. That's rewarding teams for pre-season rankings which is stupid.

3. If you think Oklahoma has a better claim have fun not worth my time.

4. Pretty sure history proved me right.

5. Know what's not crap you lost to an 8-6 California team while in 2004 Auburn went undefeated including an SEC Championship game. That's just facts.

Why the Auburn Tigers Should be Recognized as the 2004 College Football National Champions - Dawg Sports

With USC's Title Stripped, Is Auburn College Football's 2004 National Champion? | Bleacher Report

2004 Auburn team deserved better - SEC Blog - ESPN

Auburn may take USC's 2004 national championship - The Denver Post

Only one team deserves the 2004 football title: Auburn | AL.com

Decision to strip USC of 2004 football title creates another BCS argument (Herndon) | AL.com

Auburn Football: Why 2004 College Football Season Proved Need for Playoffs | Bleacher Report

Griffith: Oklahoma, Auburn deserve 2004 title | Ask Griff | GoVolsXtra.com

Auburn's 2004 BCS snub really set this college football playoff train in motion | AL.com

If USC is stripped of 2004 title, should Auburn get another look? » Comment Page 1 | Mr. College Football

Scarbinsky: If elected, Auburn should serve as 2004 national champs | AL.com

Football Writers may get it right, name Auburn 2004 national champion | AL.com

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/arti...NN-GUILBEAU-Some-poll-should-vote-Auburn-No-1

Eye of the Tiger - Why Auburn deserves to be in the national championship game.

1.) USC did get screwed more than Auburn. Bottom line is: USC was ranked #1 in both human polls and didn't get into the game. Also, your "Auburn was undefeated and USC wasn't" argument is a lame strawman argument. None of the top 3 teams were undefeated that season. In 2004, all 3 of the top 3 teams were undefeated. The difference is that USC was #1 in both human polls and got left out. It never happened before and hasn't happened since. Auburn got left out as the #3 team.

2.) It did matter because the 3rd unbeaten in 2010 was a non-BCS mid-major. Of course an unbeaten team from a BCS conference was going to jump them and make the NCG. What wasn't going to happen and didn't in 2004, was coming out of nowhere and jumping a BCS conference team. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

3.) Oklahoma does have a better claim. They were IN the game, Auburn wasn't. They were the runners-up, not Auburn. It really is that simple.

4.) History didn't prove you right. Just because the team that got in ahead of you lost, doesn't mean they didn't belong and it doesn't mean that your team would have fared any better.

5.) More strawman arguments. In both seasons, the top 3 teams had the same record. It doesn't matter that in one season, they all had one loss and in the other season the top 3 were all unbeaten. They are different seasons.

You really should quit. These weak arguments are making Auburn fans look bad. What's next from Auburn, the "we're gonna hold our breath until we turn blue" argument?

 

[Camfantasy]

Auburn fans will be whining about that season 40 years from now. The two best teams that year played in the title. Auburn wasn't one of those teams. Get over it.

 

[Wild Turkey]

1.) USC did get screwed more than Auburn. Bottom line is: USC was ranked #1 in both human polls and didn't get into the game. Also, your "Auburn was undefeated and USC wasn't" argument is a lame strawman argument. None of the top 3 teams were undefeated that season. In 2004, all 3 of the top 3 teams were undefeated. The difference is that USC was #1 in both human polls and got left out. It never happened before and hasn't happened since. Auburn got left out as the #3 team.

2.) It did matter because the 3rd unbeaten in 2010 was a non-BCS mid-major. Of course an unbeaten team from a BCS conference was going to jump them and make the NCG. What wasn't going to happen and didn't in 2004, was coming out of nowhere and jumping a BCS conference team. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

3.) Oklahoma does have a better claim. They were IN the game, Auburn wasn't. They were the runners-up, not Auburn. It really is that simple.

4.) History didn't prove you right. Just because the team that got in ahead of you lost, doesn't mean they didn't belong and it doesn't mean that your team would have fared any better.

5.) More strawman arguments. In both seasons, the top 3 teams had the same record. It doesn't matter that in one season, they all had one loss and in the other season the top 3 were all unbeaten. They are different seasons.

You really should quit. These weak arguments are making Auburn fans look bad. What's next from Auburn, the "we're gonna hold our breath until we turn blue" argument?

Question: Can you ever imagine a situation where USC is undefeated and not in the national championship game (assuming no NCAA sanctions of course)? My guess is no and that is the problem with ALL the above because it basically says because Oklahoma was higher ranked in the preseason polls and therefore they deserved the opportunity more. It's a crap argument.

 

[4down20]

Question: Can you ever imagine a situation where USC is undefeated and not in the national championship game (assuming no NCAA sanctions of course)? My guess is no and that is the problem with ALL the above because it basically says because Oklahoma was higher ranked in the preseason polls and therefore they deserved the opportunity more. It's a crap argument.

That doesn't mean you should be the national champion or have any real claim to it.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Auburn fans will be whining about that season 40 years from now. The two best teams that year played in the title. Auburn wasn't one of those teams. Get over it.

Oklahoma wasn't better that's your opinion and your biased anyway because you hate both Auburn and Alabama (which is fine but be honest).

 

[4down20]

Are you finally realizing the stupidity of your own fan base? Auburn has the same number of undefeated seasons as Alabama and what, 13 less national championships?

If that Alabama fan is trying to claim 66...

still no.

 

[Wild Turkey]

That doesn't mean you should be the national champion or have any real claim to it.

Actually the stupid way national championships have been determined/claimed an undefeated season ending up number two with the NCAA stripping number one of their wins is about as good as any and better than many that are currently claimed by other schools.