Should a Petition Be Started to Clarify our National Championships?

[December05]

I don’t mean this to be a knee-jerk reaction to Auburn’s nonsense this week, but more a formal way to ensure we’re defending the legitimacy of the great majority of the titles we claim against uninformed, biased arguments from outside the University.

I bring this up because the NCAA is more powerless than ever to dictate what a program can and can’t do, which includes recognition of dubious past accomplishments apparently. If what Auburn started becomes a trend - and I could see this happening - of keeping up with the Joneses to where Georgia or LSU for instance begins digging back through “unclaimed championships” as a means to boost themselves, I believe we - as kings of some of the most egregious championship denials in the history of the game - declare what is ours as well.

Would the University listen if a fan-driven petition was started to clarify the legitimacy of the pre-AP poll “Rose Bowl era” championships, release claim of 1941 which is what most rivals use to assure themselves that most of the rest don’t really count either, and finally by rights claim the ‘45, ‘66 and ‘77 championships? Would anyone support that given the changing landscape of the game where we’re all largely making our own rules anyway?

I can see arguments for both sides.

 

[jthomas666]

Half the fun of college football is arguing about mythical championships.

 

[December05]

Half the fun of college football is arguing about mythical championships.

I agree to an extent. However, we’re in a unique position where we have a significantly higher amount in comparison to our rivals, and they’re to the point of not simply throwing digs but plastering championships on their stadium that no one else would agree with simply for appearance’s sake.

On one hand, I wouldn’t want this to be seen as a plea in a direct response to Auburn alone, but it’s worth monitoring. If Auburn catches such grief and embarrassment from this while other rivals hold true to their own claims that they back out of it, leaving things as is would be the route. However, if it signals a sea change where more schools simply decide which championships to claim throughout their history, we have a more viable stake in that than most anyone.

 

[arthurdawg]

I love the mythical championships... Much more fun that the current bonky system.

 

[Tide Rev]

IMHO, we don’t do that simply because we are BAMA!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If national championships don't really exist and are just beauty contests, Auburn had no reason to suddenly decide they won two of them before the term even existed.

If they really do exist, they are so far behind us that they won't catch us before nuclear Armageddon anyway.

I don't need a petition to explain that either way, Auburn has never been and never will be Alabama.
Ever.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

First rule of political commmnication (which this topic is): if you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Let’s not give the media and rival fans any reason to stop making Auburn explain this…

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

The answer to your question is NO.
Don't care what other teams do or claim.
We don't have to explain ourselves because little brother has hurt feelings.

 

[Elefantman]

Something needs to be done. An Auburn fan just found another NC trophy in their attic.

 

[arthurdawg]

Pffft. Just make sure to defend '41 while laughing in their faces and pointing out they have no legit NCs. Doesn't matter what the truth of a subject that has no answers, they'll freak out and you can laugh at them!

 

[jabcmb]

… Don't care what other teams do or claim. …

That part sums up how I feel. And I really don’t care about the disputed claims we make, they’re just not relevant. And I’m old. But I do know what I’ve seen in various stadiums, there’s Alabama— and there’s the rest.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Let me summarize:

THEY are the ones who have spent the last 60 years telling us national championships didn't exist.

THEY are the ones who have entire websites dedicated to dismissing our national championship claims EVEN IF YOU ONLY START IN 1961!

THEY are the ones who when they had a pair of Heisman winners pointed to that as evidence of superiority.

THEY are the ones so desperate to win one particular game that they have hired two head coaches in particular (Malzahn and Freeze) ENTIRELY on the basis of "this guy beat Alabama" (Malzahn as the OC in 2010 and "we almost won in 09!").

And THEY are the ones who when their basketball team went to the Final Four when we had never achieved that decided to declare themselves "a basketball school."

Now they've gone and decided "if you can't beat them join them" and "the Fambly" is now "all in" on "we have 9 national championships."

To any Auburn fans who come across here: there's nothing you could have done more than this act right here to drive home the fact you are the Little Brother, always have been and always will be.

=================================

I'm one of the (probably) few Alabama fans who has been consistent on this subject for over 40 years now.

1) I don't care that they were "on probation" in 1957, it counts.

They won it, it counts. And they deserve all the credit in the world for their phone call operation that landed them the votes necessary to win it. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, read this post.
Teams prior to Auburn had been on probation and yet Alabama fans consider some of those teams to be blue bloods and INCLUDE these national titles.

Don't be a hypocrite in your argument, save that for the NS board.

2) Auburn was 100% screwed by the process in 1983.

There is a 0% chance Auburn should not AT A MINIMUM won at least a SHARE of the 1983 national championship. None. If one wishes to argue "we really don't know who would win between Miami and Auburn," that's a legit point for CFB as it was then. But to arbitrarily award Miami - who played next to nobody but benefited from "the Huskers are the greatest ever" hype - and dismiss the HIGHER RANKED Auburn, who had played a MURDEROUS slate (that included 3 straight teams ranked at game time in the Top Ten), beaten the one team that had beaten Miami, beaten a Georgia team that from 1980-83 only lost five games just one year after overlooking Penn State's loss to 8-4 Alabama with "but they played a tougher schedule than SMU did" was shameful to put it mildly. The UPI poll AT LEAST should have said, "Meh, okay Miami, shared title."

As I said a few days ago, Auburn has a better claim to 1983 than Alabama does to 1977.

3) I honestly don't care that Cam Newton was paid, either.

Folks, get mad all you want, but Newton was paid the same amount of money when Auburn was down to Alabama in Tuscaloosa by 24 points as he was when they won the game. Dollar bills don't make passes, catches, or tackles, and the reality is that Auburn won the damn thing on the field. Plus, do you remember who Auburn beat in the national title game?

Oregon, whose cheating was in (wait for it) 2010.

4) As far as 2004, well, them's the rules....

While I think a case can be made Auburn at least deserved the opportunity in 2004, the fact is there were games played that were explicitly called the national championship game. Thus, this claim - no matter how legit or sincere - is as bad as UCF's claim to the title. Auburn can't even claim "but we beat the team who beat the teams" nonsense on this one.

Was it maybe unfair?

Yeah.

But that doesn't change the fact the game was played on the field just as Auburn fans insisted it should be for years when it involved Alabama, either.

 

[22Musso22]

GIVE US 66!

 

[BamaMoon]

I watched one of the Saturdays in the South Documentaries and the one that covered AU's '93 season said they "could not" claim the SEC or NC due to their probation. I know everyone knows that was the case then, but it just reminded me of how silly their new "claims' are!

Ironically, that '93 team couldn't be on TV that year. That's the kind of punishment the NCAA "used" to dish out!

 

[BamaNation]

Let the awbies have their fun claiming national championships just because.

the only thing that matters this year is performance on the field … we have a chance to legitimately up our total. They do not.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I watched one of the Saturdays in the South Documentaries and the one that covered AU's '93 season said they "could not" claim the SEC or NC due to their probation. I know everyone knows that was the case then, but it just reminded me of how silly their new "claims' are!

Ironically, that '93 team couldn't be on TV that year. That's the kind of punishment the NCAA "used" to dish out!

They are truly crazy to claim 1993

Even throwing out probation they had a common opponent with FSU.

Florida

AU beat Fla at home by 3 points

FSU went into the Swamp and beat Fla by 12 points

FSU also had both the #1 Offense and #1 Defense and a Top 20 SOS with a #1 SOR

AU was #18 in Offense and #20 in Defense with a SOS of 68th and a SOR of 17th

FSU was just better and was better against a tougher schedule.

ND complains about this one because they beat FSU and finished #2 but that's because the next game they choked and lost to BC.

But ND was also better than AU and #3 Nebraska was also better.

The AP ranked AU #4 and that was probably correct.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

They are truly crazy to claim 1993

Even throwing out probation they had a common opponent with FSU.

Florida

AU beat Fla at home by 3 points

FSU went into the Swamp and beat Fla by 12 points

FSU also had both the #1 Offense and #1 Defense and a Top 20 SOS with a #1 SOR

AU was #18 in Offense and #20 in Defense with a SOS of 68th and a SOR of 17th

FSU was just better and was better against a tougher schedule.

I don't dispute any of this.

Plus, Florida had 560 yards of total offense against Auburn in that game - and the AVERAGE PER GAME was around 378, so Florida moved almost at will. That entire game came down to a 96-yard Pick Six that Auburn had. It was a case of "Florida beat Auburn everywhere except where it mattered. (Seriously - the only thing Auburn did better that game was win the turnover battle, 3-2, and made up a bunch of the yardage deficit in return yards).

ND complains about this one because they beat FSU and finished #2 but that's because the next game they choked and lost to BC.

As much as I hate Notre Dame, they're right on this one. Losing a letdown game to Boston College doesn't miraculously turn the Florida State loss into a win. Plus...West Virginia was unbeaten and BEAT Boston College, but I sure don't recall FSU mentioning THAT inconvenient to their argument point.

But ND was also better than AU and #3 Nebraska was also better.

The AP ranked AU #4 and that was probably correct.

Auburn did not beat a single team with a winning record ON THE ROAD in 1993. They also didn't play in the conference championship game.

And - here's the kicker - THEY WEREN'T PLAYING FOR REAL ANYWAY!!!

A team on probation with no hope at the national title can do insane things that they'd never do otherwise and they might work. Remember the 2002 Oklahoma game when Franchione did onside kicks in BOTH HALVES? Does anyone really think he does that if we're not ineligible?

A team protected from its own mistakes by the lack of ability to be the champion doesn't beat anyone with a winning record on the road and gets a two-game pass - and claims a national title?

And remember: they were on probation for an INDISPUTABLE reality that they did pay Eric Ramsey.

They weren't some poor little Andy Dufresne sent to jail because their lawyer was lousy. They committed the crime on tape and tried to play victim afterwards.

 

[Cruloc]

No

 

[dayhiker]

Starting a petition won’t go well for us. We have some questionable ones too. A petition feels like about the Karenest thing UA could do. I honestly could not care less what Auburn does.

An Auburn grad coworker sent this to me. I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[Tideflyer]

Oh hell no. IMO it just makes us look butt hurt over something silly that Auburn’s doing. That should NEVER be a reason for Alabama to do ANYTHING.