According to this, if USC is stripped of it's '04 BCS Title...

[TexasTiger 14,070]

No, I don't want something that was handed to us like that. Besides, we did not even play in the BCS MNC game against them, do why would we get it anyway? Technically, doesn't Oklahoma have a better argument than us? Sure I think we got screwed and should have been in that game instead of OU, but we weren't, so I don't see how we could receive the MNC over them. A re-vote just exposes even more how ignorant the system is, because in a playoff system, with a situation like this, the runner-up would get the title, not a team that did not even play in the "championship" game.

Besides, USC will not lose the title, because it would just open up a huge the debate who should get the title, thus opening up the debate for a playoff even more. We all know that the NCAA does not want that for Div-1A football. They proved that when the created the two different Div-1 series, the Football Bowl Series and the Football Championship Series. So if anything they might keep the title for that year vacated.

If OU had played them closely, they might win such a vote, but they stunk up the joint.

[Hoopie 6]

Don't need recognition to know what we deserved. Don't want it now

Let's leave that type of needy, emotional gratification to the Bammers.

To act like you don't want it because you don't want to be like Bama fans and have "emotional gratification" is silly. If anything that's what makes Bama fans hypocrites. They constantly joke about Auburn only having half of a NC in our history yet 6 or 7 of their alleged "13" were split or half NC's.

I don't care if they vacate the title or award Auburn a share, I'm happy either way. At least there might be some justice and USC getting hit with probation is enough "emotional gratification" for me.

Edit: Even if they award Auburn a share, I'm sure the university wouldn't claim it anyway. It would just be like some of our other unclaimed titles.

Read my post closer. I didn't "act like you don't want it because you don't want to be like Bama fans" I don't suscribe to emotional needy gratification. I can't help it if the Bammers do. I don't think it's my bad for pointing it out.

Let's try it this way. Let's take the principles in the AU creed, move forward and not complain about the past.

That being said: I don't think they will, but I hope the NCAA pounds USuCk.

[AUgrad00 7]

Problem is until there is a playoff system this is not possible.

Screw it let Barbee win six games in March and the NCAA cant take that title away.

They can shove it as far as I'm concerned. Lets WIN one on the field (that is IF we don't get screwed AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!) :angry:

[AlabamaAggie 0]

I'm interested to see what happens. I think Auburn definitely should have played for the title but I'm not sure they should get the national championship without actually playing in the game.

[WarTiger 4,011]

NOBODY is gonna get this title if they strip USC of it. PERIOD. IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The title will simply be vacated for that year. NO CHAMPION.

[Mikey 16,781]

NOBODY is gonna get this title if they strip USC of it. PERIOD. IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The title will simply be vacated for that year. NO CHAMPION.

The smart money agrees with you. Every time I've seen a title vacated it stays, well, vacant. Period.

[Guest tigerman11]

With all the talk about Texas being one of the crown jewels in expansion, I have to ask are they worth it? They are most definitely a tantalizing prospect. They most definitely will increase the SEC profile and bring in huge sums of money. They open up new markets and would be a fun road trip. Problem is they are high maintenance. They will not be allowed to run the show like they do in the Bg12 and that could be a sore spot for them. Will they pitch a hissy fit every time things don't go their way? They are like the hot girl that every guy wants. Tantalizing, but has a mean bite.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Agreed, but there is a caveat. The BCS Title will certainly remain vacant. The AP is another story. It's championship would not be vacated, but a number of members of the AP think it would re-vote to remove a tainted champ from the books.

[Tigermike 3,657]

What should Auburn do six years later? Please. That’s easy. Accept it. Celebrate it. And never, ever apologize for it.

Scarbinsky: If elected, Auburn should serve as 2004 national champs

By Kevin Scarbinsky -- The Birmingham News

May 23, 2010, 5:30AM

The race for the 2004 national championship in college football is about to get interesting.

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.

Join the conversation by commenting below. Or write Kevin at kscarbinsky@bhamnews.com

Link

What should Auburn do six years later? Please. That’s easy. Accept it. Celebrate it. And never, ever apologize for it.

[Shire5k 19]

If you guys don't want it...can we accept and claim it on your behalf?

But seriously...gift horse...mouth. Don't look at it.

[auburn freak 2014 0]

we could have beat the living hell out of oklahoma. usc on the other hand would be a good game, but we would probably have won by a touchdown. the way i see this, a title is a title, and if someone wants to give you one, take it and celebrate it.i think we should have played for the title first place, and why we didn't is beyond me. i dont care what anyone says, we ARE the 2004 national champions no matter what some dumbass for the bcs says. ive been saying for 5 years, and im not gonna stop saying it now, no matter what the bcs or ap says. as a side note, i think if the 2004 auburn team played the 2009 bama team, we would win by 3 scores of some form or another

[Mikey 16,781]

I think we'd have beaten Oklahoma pretty much the same way we beat UAT and Georgia that season. Good games, but the outcome not in serious doubt. USC, I'm not so sure. I am confident that if we didn't win, we'd have at least given them a great game, unlike the Okies.

But, USC is not the question, they were cheating. Auburn was clearly better than Oklahoma.

[Bama My Heart 5]

we could have beat the living hell out of oklahoma. usc on the other hand would be a good game, but we would probably have won by a touchdown. the way i see this, a title is a title, and if someone wants to give you one, take it and celebrate it.i think we should have played for the title first place, and why we didn't is beyond me. i dont care what anyone says, we ARE the 2004 national champions no matter what some dumbass for the bcs says. ive been saying for 5 years, and im not gonna stop saying it now, no matter what the bcs or ap says. as a side note, i think if the 2004 auburn team played the 2009 bama team, we would win by 3 scores of some form or another

I just have a question. Why did the AP give USC the championship back in 2003, when LSU is the one that won the championship game? Seems like they had already set a pattern, and should have awarded it to Auburn in 2004 based on the same logic. I could see them correcting that now, to try and look like they always do things right. Then Utah will whine because they weren't given a 1/3 of the title, so to me it only proves how much a play off is needed, but that would mean that they care about the schools, and they don't. They can feel like this would make Auburn happy, and they wouldn't have to hear about it every year about how Auburn was left out of the game, but it won't make you happy, because it's not the same as getting a chance to play in the big game. Your players deserved it, and your fans deserved it. Win or lose, it's something to get to be there.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

It wouldn't be as good as playing in the National Title game, but this would make me pretty dang happy.

I've had this conversation with BG before. The season stands alone. It was perfect, and I'd prefer that over winning a title with one or two losses. That said, if we can be perfect AND get the recognition we deserve for it (even if that recognition is a little late arriving), that's even better. So yeah, I'd love to get a re-voted championship. It won't make my memories of the season or the team any better, but it'd be a great excuse to get them all together again and celebrate! Plus, they'd be properly remembered in the annals of college football.

[tgr4lfe 220]

It wouldn't be as good as playing in the National Title game, but this would make me pretty dang happy.

I've had this conversation with BG before. The season stands alone. It was perfect, and I'd prefer that over winning a title with one or two losses. That said, if we can be perfect AND get the recognition we deserve for it (even if that recognition is a little late arriving), that's even better. So yeah, I'd love to get a re-voted championship. It won't make my memories of the season or the team any better, but it'd be a great excuse to get them all together again and celebrate! Plus, they'd be properly remembered in the annals of college football.

I completely agree!!

I think all of us would say that the 2004 Auburn Tigers were a championship team, agreed? The problem was the system in place didn't give us the chance b/c of no playoff. The 2004 Auburn Tigers did what they had to do all year, beating top 10 ranked teams week in week out unlike no other that year. Winning the SEC championship and then beating the ACC champ in the Sugar Bowl. The 2004 Tigers would have had one helluva battle with USC that year. OU wasn't that good and most everyone knew it, and it showed in the BCS MNC game. What ever the voted outcome by the AP, fine, but if the vote is AU #1 then I am taking it and celebrating what I already knew!!!!

[CCTAU 3,465]

I really do not care what the fans think. If there is a question as to accept of not accept, let the players from that team decide.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

I just have a question. Why did the AP give USC the championship back in 2003, when LSU is the one that won the championship game? Seems like they had already set a pattern, and should have awarded it to Auburn in 2004 based on the same logic. I could see them correcting that now, to try and look like they always do things right. Then Utah will whine because they weren't given a 1/3 of the title, so to me it only proves how much a play off is needed, but that would mean that they care about the schools, and they don't. They can feel like this would make Auburn happy, and they wouldn't have to hear about it every year about how Auburn was left out of the game, but it won't make you happy, because it's not the same as getting a chance to play in the big game. Your players deserved it, and your fans deserved it. Win or lose, it's something to get to be there.

USC was ranked #1 in the AP and Coaches poll going into the bowl games but Oklahoma was still ranked #1 in the BCS poll because even though they got beat 35-7 to Kansas State in the Big XII title game Oklahoma stayed at #1 in the BCS standings. Oklahoma had a better strength of schedule than USC and LSU and the computers used that to keep them at #1 in the BCS.

Oklahoma lost to LSU in the Sugar Bowl and USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. The BCS already crowned LSU as champions because they beat Oklahoma but the AP decided to keep USC at #1 like they had before the bowl games. Even though LSU won the BCS title and had the trophy, USC still got a split because the AP kept them #1.

In 2004, the BCS took out strength of schedule so that actually hurt Auburn because Auburn had a better strength of schedule than USC and Oklahoma. Auburn was tied with Oklahoma at #2 in the AP for one week. http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/year/2004/week/13

Auburn dropped back down to #3 in the AP the next week after Auburn struggled with Alabama.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/year/2004/week/14

Edit: I should have posted this earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88dH6XIAq7Q

It's at the 0:59 mark.

[E'Town4Bama 170]

Personally, I agree with a few of y'all and believe the title will be vacated but if there is a re-vote with the AP and AU is awarded the title, do you guys think CTT will come for the celebration and if he does, how do you think he will be received?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Personally, I agree with a few of y'all and believe the title will be vacated but if there is a re-vote with the AP and AU is awarded the title, do you guys think CTT will come for the celebration and if he does, how do you think he will be received?

IF it happens, he should come and will be well received.

[Mikey 16,781]

Personally, I agree with a few of y'all and believe the title will be vacated but if there is a re-vote with the AP and AU is awarded the title, do you guys think CTT will come for the celebration and if he does, how do you think he will be received?

He'll come if it's not on a TT game day. He'll get a standing "O" with along and loud cheer.

[ECEstudentUA 9]

Just claim the stupid thing......Auburn should have played USC in 04 anyway. If its get taken away from USC and is vacated, I dont see why Auburn shouldnt at the very least get a share. Im sure Oklahoma will lobby for a share also.

[aucanucktiger 1,858]

Auburn's the only group of fans IMO in the country that would even CONSIDER turning down a retro nat'l championship in this scenario. Whether that makes us classy or just bent on not being like Bama I don't know (e.g. Bama actively claims the 1942 MNC although they lost their last 2 regular season games of 1942 to Vandy and Miss. St and were ranked 15th in the final poll that year...but in the 1970s an accountant (Sagarin?) w/ a "new" system awarded them 1942 so....)

[WarTiger 4,011]

Auburn's the only group of fans IMO in the country that would even CONSIDER turning down a retro nat'l championship in this scenario. Whether that makes us classy or just bent on not being like Bama I don't know (e.g. Bama actively claims the 1942 MNC although they lost their last 2 regular season games of 1942 to Vandy and Miss. St and were ranked 15th in the final poll that year...but in the 1970s an accountant (Sagarin?) w/ a "new" system awarded them 1942 so....)

you are thinking of 1941 not 42. they didn't lose their last two games either. They lost on Oct. 4 to MSU 14-0 and Nov. 22 to Vanderbilt 7-0..

[DCWarEagle 0]

The team deserved it in 2004 and they deserve it now. If they are belatedly officially recognized, that is the closest we can come to fixing an injustice. Fly that flag proudly.

BTW, I like mcgufcm's idea for a "We knew it then, you know it now" shirt. Well said!

War Eagle!!

[Guest tigerman11]

I really don't want this. Vacate the championship and leave it vacated. This just as that bammerish stink to it. Let uat be the one to claim retroactive titles, not us.

How is that retroactively claiming a title? That 2004 team earned a title on the field.