AUgrad00 7 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 If they do revote and the AP votes them National Champs that is legit. But I still think its lame to go rewrite history. They talked about this on College Football Live yesterday. Craig James said there has to be a champ. He and the other guy on set (don't know his name b/c I don't really watch the show) said the AP should re-vote if USC is vacated. They both said Auburn should be made the champ, and they said Auburn should hang banners, roll Toomer's, bring the team back. James, who played for an undefeated team that didn't get a title, said all those players could and should wear their title rings proudly. I, for one, would absolutely, unapologetically take it. I'd probably drive/fly back to Auburn to help roll Toomer's. Idea for a t-shirt: "We knew it then; you know it now. 2004 National Champions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUgrad00 7 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Uh no they didnt. Without a football playoff NOBODY Has earned it on the field. How is that retroactively claiming a title? That 2004 team earned a title on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weagle251 1 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 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? This is how xCTT would react Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiescottie 1 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Well its official, USC vacates wins in 2004 when Bush was ineligible (including the nat'l champ game). National Champions. Book it. Anyone at Toomers now? http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 4,042 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 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. allow me to help you understand... retroactively - Adverb - Meaning: After the fact. I don't dispute that we were the best team. That's not the point here. The point is I don't want to be awarded a title (RETROACTIVELY) AFTER THE FACT. It's exactly what the bammers "claim" to be titles and we make fun of them for it every day. It's no different than uat claiming the titles in the 20's that were given to them YEARS if not DECADES later. RETROACTIVELY....AFTER THE FACT. FTR, I've considered us National Champions for 2004 since the season was over, but we were NOT awarded anything for that accomplishment. To be awarded something now (which won't happen) would be RETROACTIVELY claiming a title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam 0 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 c'mon guys, don't tell me you wouldn't want a 2004 national champions banner in the place of that 2004 perfect season one?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 I don't base any of my decisions on what bama does. I would fly the banner proudly if it were awarded and screw anyuone who has an issue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
au2004ece 30 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 I don't base any of my decisions on what bama does. I would fly the banner proudly if it were awarded and screw anyuone who has an issue with it. I have no idea why we didn't put up a 2004 national championship banner instead of the perfect season banner to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 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. allow me to help you understand... retroactively - Adverb - Meaning: After the fact. I don't dispute that we were the best team. That's not the point here. The point is I don't want to be awarded a title (RETROACTIVELY) AFTER THE FACT. It's exactly what the bammers "claim" to be titles and we make fun of them for it every day. It's no different than uat claiming the titles in the 20's that were given to them YEARS if not DECADES later. RETROACTIVELY....AFTER THE FACT. FTR, I've considered us National Champions for 2004 since the season was over, but we were NOT awarded anything for that accomplishment. To be awarded something now (which won't happen) would be RETROACTIVELY claiming a title. Its a huge difference between what is being proposed and what Bama has done. 1. It would be retroactively declared AS RESULT OF modern actions. If the AP decides to re-vote the 04 title, THAT'S CURRENT HAPPENINGS. It's not like a committee of fat old slobs sat around reminiscing about the good ole days and arbitrarily picked their favorite. 2. THERE IS NO CHAMPION NOW FOR THE 2004 FOOTBALL SEASON. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. If others decide to give it to AU, AU would deserve it. 3. Auburn earned all they could on the field. AU? As deserving as anyone else. NOW, if Oklahoma decided to claim the championship by virtue of vacating that Championship, that would be a shameful MNC for their program. They'd all know they didn't deserve it. I see no shame in AU claiming their superiority to all other football teams in '04. They accomplished all they could accomplish. Give it to the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebdawg 5 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 We went undefeated in the toughest conference in football. Our strength of schedule was ranked #9 by the NCAA, USC was #10 and OU was #18 (and that was greatly improved by playing the #1 team in the bowl game). Auburn (once again playing in the toughest conference in football) only had one competitive game the entire season (a 10-9 win over defending national champion LSU) the rest were decided before the 4th quarter started. Auburn defeated five top 10 teams that year which is more than USC and OU played combined. Auburn averaged 30 something points a game despite playing 7 of the top 10 defenses in college football that year. Auburn only gave up 11 points a game which lead the nation. Auburn played a far better team in the Sugar Bowl than USC played in the Orange Bowl. Looking at what players from those three teams have done in the NFL, Auburn's '04 players have started more games than OU and USC combined. That '04 Auburn team has produced more stars than both the OU and USC teams combined as well. Given the choice between Jason Campbell or Matt Leinart who would you take? Bush or Brown? White or Cadillac? That Auburn team remains the best college football team of the 21st Century. The SEC has won four straight BCS championships and none of those four teams were as good as the '04 Auburn team. These young men deserve the title because they earned it. It is not their fault that politics and discrimination cheated them of a title that they did, in fact, win on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 4,042 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 We went undefeated in the toughest conference in football. Our strength of schedule was ranked #9 by the NCAA, USC was #10 and OU was #18 (and that was greatly improved by playing the #1 team in the bowl game). Auburn (once again playing in the toughest conference in football) only had one competitive game the entire season (a 10-9 win over defending national champion LSU) the rest were decided before the 4th quarter started. Auburn defeated five top 10 teams that year which is more than USC and OU played combined. Auburn averaged 30 something points a game despite playing 7 of the top 10 defenses in college football that year. Auburn only gave up 11 points a game which lead the nation. Auburn played a far better team in the Sugar Bowl than USC played in the Orange Bowl. Looking at what players from those three teams have done in the NFL, Auburn's '04 players have started more games than OU and USC combined. That '04 Auburn team has produced more stars than both the OU and USC teams combined as well. Given the choice between Jason Campbell or Matt Leinart who would you take? Bush or Brown? White or Cadillac? That Auburn team remains the best college football team of the 21st Century. The SEC has won four straight BCS championships and none of those four teams were as good as the '04 Auburn team. These young men deserve the title because they earned it. It is not their fault that politics and discrimination cheated them of a title that they did, in fact, win on the field. Actually, I'm pretty sure that our Strength of Schedule for 2004 was #5. I know I saw it in an official NCAA document somewhere but haven't been able to find the link recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebdawg 5 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 We went undefeated in the toughest conference in football. Our strength of schedule was ranked #9 by the NCAA, USC was #10 and OU was #18 (and that was greatly improved by playing the #1 team in the bowl game). Auburn (once again playing in the toughest conference in football) only had one competitive game the entire season (a 10-9 win over defending national champion LSU) the rest were decided before the 4th quarter started. Auburn defeated five top 10 teams that year which is more than USC and OU played combined. Auburn averaged 30 something points a game despite playing 7 of the top 10 defenses in college football that year. Auburn only gave up 11 points a game which lead the nation. Auburn played a far better team in the Sugar Bowl than USC played in the Orange Bowl. Looking at what players from those three teams have done in the NFL, Auburn's '04 players have started more games than OU and USC combined. That '04 Auburn team has produced more stars than both the OU and USC teams combined as well. Given the choice between Jason Campbell or Matt Leinart who would you take? Bush or Brown? White or Cadillac? That Auburn team remains the best college football team of the 21st Century. The SEC has won four straight BCS championships and none of those four teams were as good as the '04 Auburn team. These young men deserve the title because they earned it. It is not their fault that politics and discrimination cheated them of a title that they did, in fact, win on the field. Actually, I'm pretty sure that our Strength of Schedule for 2004 was #5. I know I saw it in an official NCAA document somewhere but haven't been able to find the link recently. Even better. I checked it after the NCAA first posted it in early '05 but haven't looked at it since. I could be suffering from 40-year-old-memory-syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUgrad00 7 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Can I ask one question? Who cares. There is nothing with any less legitimacy then a College Football or BCS National Championship. Under the current system winning the karaoke contest at the local watering hole has more merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 I can care less what the BCS does with their championship. That thing has had so many flaws in it throughout the years. Oregon should of been in instead of Nebraska, USC should of been in instead of Oklahoma, Miami instead of FSU, the list goes on with it without even putting a Auburn bias into it. If the AP goes back and they re-vote and say Auburn is number one then I will take it. I view that differently than the university itself going back and reviewing something 50 years ago and claiming one when there are teams with better records. As stated above until the NCAA starts recognizing a D-1 football champion through a legit and fair as can be system (resembling what they do with their other sports) the legitimacy will always be in question a majority of the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,408 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Actually, I'm pretty sure that our Strength of Schedule for 2004 was #5. I know I saw it in an official NCAA document somewhere but haven't been able to find the link recently. I went and found the link in another thread in the rivals forum. http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2004/Internet/toughest%20schedule/ia_9games_cumm.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 4,042 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Actually, I'm pretty sure that our Strength of Schedule for 2004 was #5. I know I saw it in an official NCAA document somewhere but haven't been able to find the link recently. I went and found the link in another thread in the rivals forum. http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2004/Internet/toughest%20schedule/ia_9games_cumm.pdf That's not the one I saw, but its the same info and larger so its easier to read. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle76 1 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 The way I see it and this is just my opinion - IF we should we awarded the #1 ranking by a new vote whether by AP or the BCS, we should happily and humbly accept it. If USC had not been playing with ineligible players, then they would not have had the #1 ranking going into the bowls. That being said, Okla and Auburn would have been #1 & 2. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that we could/would have beaten Okla? That being supposed, then we would have been voted #1 then. So, I say humbly accept the award and celebrate for one day and not rub any noses with it like northport/bryce trade school. We deserved the chance then and with the knowledge that USC cheated, then we still deserve it now. WDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam 0 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 ESPN is reporting that USC is keeping the BCS title anyways so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,575 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 ESPN is reporting that USC is keeping the BCS title anyways so... Are you sure you didn't hear they are keeping the AP title, not the BCS title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam 0 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 ESPN is reporting that USC is keeping the BCS title anyways so... Are you sure you didn't hear they are keeping the AP title, not the BCS title? You're right, BCS will announce soon rather or not they will keep the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,408 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 The AP has decided to not re-vote and keep USC's AP title. The BCS is going to wait until USC appeals to the NCAA about the probation and more than likely the BCS will just vacate the championship so there won't be a BCS Champion for 2004. http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5277555 This means that since USC had 2 wins vacted they finished 11-0 and Oklahoma finsihed 12-1 because the Orange Bowl game still counts as loss because the win was vacated not a forfeit. So Auburn is the only 13-0 team in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.