After all the Insults thrown at Auburn for 2004 Rings...

[FootballFanatic 4]

And to the Bammers go SEC WEST rings, not even SEC champs...

Nick Saban talks about Alabama's SEC West rings...

Posted by Ian R. Rapoport -- The Birmingham News April 30, 2009 6:38 PM

Categories: Football

This one is Auburn's version of an SEC West ring, circa 2002, earned for sharing the titleHello from Birmingham's version of the Crimson Caravan, the second stop on our tour of speaking engagements in large cities. Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban said a bunch of interesting things, and we'll get to all that later tonight or tomorrow morning. Anthony Grant stopped by and chatted, too.

But one thing I thought was noteworthy: Did you know that Alabama received SEC West championship rings?

I didn't either. Not that it's rare or anything -- or even really surprising -- but it was just something I hadn't been aware of.

"Well, rings to me are for winning something," Saban said. "We did win our division. So, part of the bowl gift was that our players did get rings for that."

Apparently, as part of the allotment players are allowed to receive for their bowl gift, the team collectively can choose to spend some of that on rings (rather than iPods or whatever). And the players are part of the decision whether or not to get them.

This time, they said they wanted them. After earning the first title game spot since 1999, I don't think it's a terrible idea. What do you think?

By the way, before Saban finished talking, he clarified the goals just in case anyone had it twisted.

"Obviously the goal is to win the SEC championship," Saban said. "If we can do that, we'll obviously be in the running for the BCS and have an opportunity to do that, I hope, sometime. But there is some great competition in our league right now. And some very good teams. Focus needs to be and our inspiration needs to be on what we need to do to do as well as those teams and what it takes to beat those teams on a day-in and day-out basis. Not the day you play them. The 365 days in preparation to play 'em."

OK, back to writing my story...

http://blog.al.com/rapsheet/2009/04/nick_s...ut_alabama.html

Best part is all the bama fans jumping on board saying its a great idea.

[SouthLink02 8]

I don't really see a problem with what Alabama did. Winning the West and making rings isn't really a terrible idea, imo.

Alabama fans mocked your 2004 rings because of the National Title part, not because of winning the West/SEC.

[FootballFanatic 4]

I see your point, but in reality it is the same thing.

Its celebrating a minor achievement that isn't really an achievement. SEC champ rings is an achievement. Playing in the game is a shot.

Winning the NCG is an achievement, being undefeated is just giving it your best shot.

I know Auburn has had SEC west shared title rings. I think its a bit silly but in the end giving people something in recognition of a solid effort isn't stupid.

The problem is when one group thinks its okay to reward a mediocre achievement and then points fingers at someone else doing the same.

If anything, an SEC champ + Undefeated season is more deserving of a ring to celebrate it, but neither is dumb. Both have merit. Its the duplicity of the idea. Bama fan thinks its okay to reward rings to players that went undefeated in the regular season and then failed both Post season showings and Auburn felt it was okay to reward a complete season + post season undefeated team with rings.

[BamaGrad03 0]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't even try that crap. We made fun of you when you passed out West rings and didn't even go to Atlanta.

Bama didn't SHARE the West with anybody.

For the record, I have ZERO issue with Auburn handing out west champ rings for the years they represented the west in Atlanta.

[AU Cav 0]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't even try that crap. We made fun of you when you passed out West rings and didn't even go to Atlanta.

Bama didn't SHARE the West with anybody.

Ah, so I see... and non-shared West Championship is ring worthy but not a shared. Glad you cleared that up.

Read what you wrote out loud and then consider a deletion.

[BamaGrad03 0]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't even try that crap. We made fun of you when you passed out West rings and didn't even go to Atlanta.

Bama didn't SHARE the West with anybody.

Ah, so I see... and non-shared West Championship is ring worthy but not a shared. Glad you cleared that up.

Read what you wrote out loud and then consider a deletion.

I think it's silly to pass out "SEC West Champion" rings when your team stays and home and watches the "SEC CHAMPIONSHIP" game on TV...yes, yes I do.

[AU Cav 0]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't even try that crap. We made fun of you when you passed out West rings and didn't even go to Atlanta.

Bama didn't SHARE the West with anybody.

Ah, so I see... and non-shared West Championship is ring worthy but not a shared. Glad you cleared that up.

Read what you wrote out loud and then consider a deletion.

I think it's silly to pass out "SEC West Champion" rings when your team stays and home and watches the "SEC CHAMPIONSHIP" game on TV...yes, yes I do.

You should get off the meds. Being the co-champion of a league and sitting home is no different than going and losing the championship game... neither are SEC champs but one got to celebrate losing so they get a ring. Do you really believe this crap or are you just trying to support an untenable position 'for kicks.'

In 89, three teams tied for the SEC championship. Only one team went to the Sugar Bowl.. the tie breaker came down to who hadn't been recently, if I recall correctly. Did the team that got to go play in the Sugar Bowl get a ring while the other two teams watched it on TV because they'd been more successful than the third team not get rings?

Division championship rings are silly in the first place, but to argue that the team that got to lose the championship game is ring worthy while teams that didn't get to lose aren't is absurd.

[woody 11]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't even try that crap. We made fun of you when you passed out West rings and didn't even go to Atlanta.

Bama didn't SHARE the West with anybody.

Ah, so I see... and non-shared West Championship is ring worthy but not a shared. Glad you cleared that up.

Read what you wrote out loud and then consider a deletion.

I think it's silly to pass out "SEC West Champion" rings when your team stays and home and watches the "SEC CHAMPIONSHIP" game on TV...yes, yes I do.

I think I would have rather watched from home, Than to get run over like you did in both your post season games! Just sayin

[Bama My Heart 5]

I see your point, but in reality it is the same thing.

Its celebrating a minor achievement that isn't really an achievement. SEC champ rings is an achievement. Playing in the game is a shot.

Winning the NCG is an achievement, being undefeated is just giving it your best shot.

I know Auburn has had SEC west shared title rings. I think its a bit silly but in the end giving people something in recognition of a solid effort isn't stupid.

The problem is when one group thinks its okay to reward a mediocre achievement and then points fingers at someone else doing the same.

If anything, an SEC champ + Undefeated season is more deserving of a ring to celebrate it, but neither is dumb. Both have merit. Its the duplicity of the idea. Bama fan thinks its okay to reward rings to players that went undefeated in the regular season and then failed both Post season showings and Auburn felt it was okay to reward a complete season + post season undefeated team with rings.

As a Bama fan, no I do not think that we should give out rings for winning the West. It was stated that the players wanted the rings as part of their Bowl package(the amount that they are able to accept). If the players want them, then I would have to say that is fine with me, because even though they really won nothing last year because they won no form of championship, they worked hard and won 12 games, and that deserves something. That is how I feel about it, and if Auburn wants to award rings to their players for whatever reason, then do so. It is none of our business. I personally would not want a National Championship ring unless we won the Crystal football, but those are my feelings, and everyone is entitled to their own.

[Ashandarei 0]

but to argue that the team that got to lose the championship game is ring worthy while teams that didn't get to lose aren't is absurd.

Here's the thing... If you don't go to represent your division in the SEC title game, why should you get a ring? "We sat home and didn't lose, unlike Alabama, so we should get one too!" This just in, you didn't play in the game, just like you didn't win the title in 04, despite the fact you should have played for it.

It's a pretty stupid argument anyway... we think everything you do is stupid, and it's the same the other way around.

[SouthLink02 8]

Being the co-champion of a league and sitting home is no different than going and losing the championship game

You can say that all you want, everyone (including yourself) knows there is

[aumd03 2]

So does Alabama not get to claim shared national championships. I think we can find plenty of examples of those.

[AU Cav 0]

Being the co-champion of a league and sitting home is no different than going and losing the championship game

You can say that all you want, everyone (including yourself) knows there is

No, I don't think there is. Rings shouldn't be given away for west or east conference championship, be it shared or solely owned. Time to stop giving out 'you participated' trophies.

[AU Cav 0]

but to argue that the team that got to lose the championship game is ring worthy while teams that didn't get to lose aren't is absurd.

Here's the thing... If you don't go to represent your division in the SEC title game, why should you get a ring? "We sat home and didn't lose, unlike Alabama, so we should get one too!" This just in, you didn't play in the game, just like you didn't win the title in 04, despite the fact you should have played for it.

It's a pretty stupid argument anyway... we think everything you do is stupid, and it's the same the other way around.

So teams that beat out 5 other teams should get rings? If that is as high as you want to aim, good on you. I think it's ridiculous to give awards for winning half of the SEC. But Bama is known for claiming less than admirable feats (cough '41 cough)

Why on earth should anyone get a ring just for going to the SEC CG? ANYONE. be it Auburn or Alabama.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So does Alabama not get to claim shared national championships. I think we can find plenty of examples of those.

Isn't that a little different? I mean in the SEC West everyone plays everyone. And I'm pretty sure in one of AU's co-champ ring years, they had the same record as the champ but LOST to the champ on the field.

I think head to head says a lot.

[SouthLink02 8]

No, I don't think there is.

Let me get this straight

You are saying that there is "no difference" between getting to the SECCG and not getting there?

Who the hell would actually believe that?

Maybe you are happy if AU ties a team and the other team goes to the SECCG, I prefer actually being in the game.

[outoftowntiger 0]

I think winning the west, tying for the west, being second runner up in the west...it's all weak sauce for rings. Win the conference get a ring. Alabama, Auburn, doesn't matter.

[Nay4AU 2]

I think winning the west, tying for the west, being second runner up in the west...it's all weak sauce for rings. Win the conference get a ring. Alabama, Auburn, doesn't matter.

I agree! I think rings should only be awarded for conference and national championships. That goes for Auburn, Alabama, or anybody else. To me it kind of takes away from the importance of a championship ring to award them to division winners. It’s not that I think they don’t deserve something. Give the players a watch but not a ring.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So does Alabama not get to claim shared national championships. I think we can find plenty of examples of those.

They already claim several of those. If I'm not mistaken (I don't care enough to look up) but I think more of their MNCs are shared than won outright.

[AU Cav 0]

No, I don't think there is.

Let me get this straight

You are saying that there is "no difference" between getting to the SECCG and not getting there?

Who the hell would actually believe that?

Maybe you are happy if AU ties a team and the other team goes to the SECCG, I prefer actually being in the game.

NO, what I think is that when it comes to getting a ring for half a conference championship, you shouldn't, thus there is no difference between losing a tie-breaker or winning it out-right. It's ridiculous to get a ring for half a conference championship, no matter what the claim on said half is.

[E'Town4Bama 177]

So does Alabama not get to claim shared national championships. I think we can find plenty of examples of those.

Bama does have shared national title's along with a lot of other teams but notice that Auburn is not one of those other teams.

[AUloggerhead 2,529]

It's the bammie way: rings & t-shirts for every kind of 'championship':

http://www.cafepress.com/schoolcolors

LMAO!

[ECEstudentUA 9]

I think winning the west, tying for the west, being second runner up in the west...it's all weak sauce for rings. Win the conference get a ring. Alabama, Auburn, doesn't matter.

I agree.

To the other poster that said sitting at home and not playing the SECCG is the same as losing it........what meds are you on? You can play to sit at home during the SECCG. I want my team to be there every year, even if they lose it every time.

[SKCAUB 0]

I don't really see a problem with what Alabama did. Winning the West and making rings isn't really a terrible idea, imo.

Alabama fans mocked your 2004 rings because of the National Title part, not because of winning the West/SEC.

Slink, it's not even for what they "Did"...it's for being hypocrites.... They do all of the things that they make fun of when someone else does it.... Never met a good idea they wouldn't steal....

[quietfan 233]

I don't really see a problem with what Alabama did. Winning the West and making rings isn't really a terrible idea, imo.

Alabama fans mocked your 2004 rings because of the National Title part, not because of winning the West/SEC.

For what it's worth, I have never claimed a "People's National Championship" for 2004. For that matter, I think ANY internet poll is meaningless and rather silly, since all they measure is who has a computer and motivation to respond on line. I do say USC's title from 2004 is not be "undisputed" since the best two teams of 2004 never met on the field. As a general rule, however, I'm willing to acknowledge the BCS title as being as close to a legitimate national championship as we're able to get these days with no playoff.

But for the record, Auburn's rings from 2004 do not say "National Champions", they say "Championship Season", and it truly was an undisputed Conference Championship season.