The most barn thing ever

[FitToBeTide]

they would have to change their name to auburn state

Not necessary; they already are THE university of auburn.

 

[AlistarWills]

You mean like the half trophies we have for 1964, 1965, 1973, and 1978.

Oh....and 2017....

Who dis? New phone.

 

[BamaInBham]

You mean like the half trophies we have for 1964, 1965, 1973, and 1978.

Oh....and 2017....

No split in 1964 (at least the wire services) - Alabama won both the AP & UPI.

I assume 2017 reference is tongue-in-cheek.

 

[CrimsonTheory]

imagine celebrating a win by going outside and toilet papering the trees in your own front yard.

Twice in the last decade in different sports Booger Goobers roll the trees prematurely only to find out their team lost the game. That's so Auburn.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Who dis? New phone.

No.

Sometimes our fans and their manufactured ideas of championships amuse me.

They'll count a full one for us in 1941 but insist Auburn's 1957 or Michigan 1997 or USC 2003 is somehow "half a title."

Why only the "half" count when it's someone else?

And "they were on probation," well, nice to see some us suddenly thinking the NCAA deals fairly with people, LOL!

Auburn basically is who they are: an 8-4 team every year (on average) that can occasionally win a national championship and is basically Texas from about 1987 until 2022 record-wise and championship-wise (but people will insist Texas is a "blue blood", which is Carlin-esque level comedy).

 

[DawgAlum2054]

No.

Sometimes our fans and their manufactured ideas of championships amuse me.

They'll count a full one for us in 1941 but insist Auburn's 1957 or Michigan 1997 or USC 2003 is somehow "half a title."

Why only the "half" count when it's someone else?

And "they were on probation," well, nice to see some us suddenly thinking the NCAA deals fairly with people, LOL!

Auburn basically is who they are: an 8-4 team every year (on average) that can occasionally win a national championship and is basically Texas from about 1987 until 2022 record-wise and championship-wise (but people will insist Texas is a "blue blood", which is Carlin-esque level comedy).

by occasionally win a title, do you mean once every 50-60 years?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

by occasionally win a title, do you mean once every 50-60 years?

That's about it.

Granted, they got hosed in 1983 but oh well.

 

[MikeInBama]

They should have got a chance in 2004. Oklahoma blew away Colorado by 39 points in their conference "championship" game. I think Auburn would have put up a bigger fight to USC.

Auburn's ranked wins:
1 point over #5 LSU
24 points over #10 Tennessee
18 points over #8 Georgia
10 points over #15 Tennessee
3 points over #9 Virginia Tech

USC's ranked wins:
6 points over #7 California
38 points over #15 Arizona State
36 points over #2 Oklahoma

Oklahoma's ranked wins:
12 points over #5 Texas
3 points over #20 Oklahoma State
7 points over #22 Texas A&M

 

[selmaborntidefan]

No split in 1964 (at least the wire services) - Alabama won both the AP & UPI.

Arkansas' NFF in 1964 is just as legit as our 1941 citation of Houlgate.
The larger point is the Tide fans who want to go "halfsies" when it's Auburn but never when it's Alabama.

I assume 2017 reference is tongue-in-cheek.

Wow, it was in blue font wasn't it, so........

 

[Ledsteplin]

Where does one find 7,525 rolls of toilet paper in Auburn/Opelika area? That's 627 12-packs of TP. This absolutely is a barn thing of all barn things.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Where does one find 7,525 rolls of toilet paper in Auburn/Opelika area? That's 627 12-packs of TP. This absolutely is a barn thing of all barn things.

I had a colonoscopy a couple of years ago. I might have come close to that amount of TP during the prep.

 

[Bodhisattva]

The larger point is the Tide fans who want to go "halfsies" when it's Auburn but never when it's Alabama.

I'm ok with it.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

They should have got a chance in 2004. Oklahoma blew away Colorado by 39 points in their conference "championship" game. I think Auburn would have put up a bigger fight to USC.

Auburn's ranked wins:
1 point over #5 LSU
24 points over #10 Tennessee
18 points over #8 Georgia
10 points over #15 Tennessee
3 points over #9 Virginia Tech

USC's ranked wins:
6 points over #7 California
38 points over #15 Arizona State
36 points over #2 Oklahoma

Oklahoma's ranked wins:
12 points over #5 Texas
3 points over #20 Oklahoma State
7 points over #22 Texas A&M

But would have still lost...

awbern would have had a better chance to have made it to that game if they hadn't just squeeked by us in the IB.

But seriously, IIRC USC and OU went 1-2 wire to wire that year.

Hence my monicker.

 

[Ledsteplin]

I had a colonoscopy a couple of years ago. I might have come close to that amount of TP during the prep.

I can relate.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

awbern would have had a better chance to have made it to that game if they hadn't just squeeked by us in the IB.

But seriously, IIRC USC and OU went 1-2 wire to wire that year.

You're VERY close.

Miami was number 2 in the first BCS poll that year. Yes, USC and OU started 1-2 in both the AP/coach's polls and because Miami lost after the first poll, they were also 1-2 in all but the first BCS poll.

Does Auburn win it?
Probably not.

Did they deserve a chance, though?
Yes.

The BCS had already proven what a joke they were the previous year when (wait for it) OKLAHOMA was ranked #1 after losing to K-State, 35-7. The fact it was Oklahoma again benefiting from whatever was, well, ridiculous.

2004 is why I thought four teams was the perfect size - the only argument ever was over the 3rd team, never the fourth anyway. Think about what happens if 2005 Alabama doesn't lose Prothro and then we beat LSU and Auburn and then UGA to win the SEC.....only to be the 2nd straight SEC team to sit home and watch USC play a Big 12 unbeaten for the title.

(One particularly smart fan - most of the time -actually tried to tell me Alabama fans would accept that outcome while deriding Auburn's claim in 2004).

 

[BamaInBham]

Arkansas' NFF in 1964 is just as legit as our 1941 citation of Houlgate.
The larger point is the Tide fans who want to go "halfsies" when it's Auburn but never when it's Alabama.

IMO, Arkansas' claim is more legit than Bama's '41 claim, but I only accept wire service claims since 1935 and added the BCS & playoff winners since. I view Alabama as the only NC in 1964 since they won the AP and UP.

I also try to be objective and strict regarding NCs claimed. Since the AP began in 1935, I only count NCs given by the AP or since 1950, the UP/UPI/Coaches Poll also. Thus I do not count 1941, nor 1945 nor '66, nor '77, nor consider any split claim as a half NC. IMO, the current system is the best, but I don't want to ignore the past. I consider Alabama as having 17 NCs - 13 during the "wire service/playoff" era and 4 prior.

My argument for Bama's "early 4" is that Alabama was undefeated in all 4 and travelled across the country and beat the West Coast rep in the only bowl game in the country. (I realize 1926 had the tie with Stanford, who IMO, split the NC with Alabama that year. Both finished 9-0-1.) IMO, that is a valid claim, though it does not mean Bama was the best team or deserved it most, but IMO, it is a valid claim. Same as all of the other years. The only claim that makes me cringe is 1973 but I don't count '66 or 45 or '77 either, though there are entities that named them NC. In fact, there are ~30 seasons in which "someone" named them NC. But I stick with my wire service qualification, so IMO, they have 17.

I'm as unabashed Alabama homer, though I can be objective if I want. IMO, there is no foolproof system of which I'm aware for claiming NCs. (IMO, Alabama made a mistake in claiming 1941 and makes it easy for the simple or lazy or malicious to discredit Alabama's overall claim. I guess they wanted to span the gap between 1934 and 1961.) I choose a simple way.

Wow, it was in blue font wasn't it, so........

Sorry about that - I did not see the blue. My vision has declined in the last couple of years and I am usually on my Iphone. My bad.

Best wishes.

 

[arthurdawg]

There used to be a website called the College Football Data Warehouse that had an extensive database of all the national title selectors and reviews for each year. It made sense and it discounted our 1941 retrospective Houlgate title that wasn't claimed by us until the early 1980s when our sports department happened to write an article, not really thinking things through.

The methodology established major and minor titles and did a nice job of cutting through the confusion.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

There used to be a website called the College Football Data Warehouse that had an extensive database of all the national title selectors and reviews for each year. It made sense and it discounted our 1941 retrospective Houlgate title that wasn't claimed by us until the early 1980s when our sports department happened to write an article, not really thinking things through.

The methodology established major and minor titles and did a nice job of cutting through the confusion.

Here's what's funny: the first team to CLAIM a retroactive national championship (per John McCallum, who wrote histories of nearly every major college football conference) was NOTRE DAME, who claimed their first championship (1924) several months after the fact by Dickinson.

Wayne Atcheson's stunt would have been defensible - when our national title count miraculously rose from six to 11 in 1986 - IF he had simply let 1941 go and not let his zeal to "somehow we have to have more than Notre Dame" get the best of him.

Bear (pardon the pun) in mind....I don't think anyone should be taking any national championship prior to 1960 or so seriously anyway. That's just my personal take on it, but aside from the fact it turns into a manhood measuring contest anyway, the problem is that prior to the mid-50s, the polls were shamelessly biased in favor of the Eastern and Midwestern (re: Big Ten) teams and had no oversight. I composed a rather long Tidefans thread that covered the inside and outside of every single national championship in the poll era at the time I wrote it. I'm sure a lot of Auburn fans - and this is rich coming from them of all people - would characterize my objection as, "You conveniently start to exclude our 1957 title" but that isn't really the reason why. I have no objection to any Auburn fan who want to say they won a title before we did since if you look at journalism AT THE TIME (and not after Atcheson's magic act), they did.

But it should also be noted they won their title by the purely legal (this is why it had to change) tactic of stuffing the Associated Press ballot box. As I stated in one post in that thread, the SEC had no fewer than ten teams run the table undefeated in the first 22 years of poll voting that got hosed in the final ballot. AUBURN changed all of that with a tactic that was both sleazy but fair game at the same time. Ironically, their way of winning a national championship made ALL of ours more legitimate despite the carping online of a few obsessed fans of Little Brother.

I personally think the whole "let's find something that makes us the equal of Notre Dame" was wrong, short-sighted, and vulnerable to the point where the 1941 claim is so monumentally absurd that nobody should be defending it nor should be come up with the excuse "we should count 1945" just because some Bama fans also have a complex.

My take is simple: I have a hard time recognizing a team years later as a national champion when that team themselves never even knew they won a national title. No ring, no trophy, no banner, no parade, nothing - but all of a sudden a guy with research tools and a shameless bias rewrites history. The 1961 team KNEW they had been awarded a national title - and in my mind such is legitimate. But given the way titles could be haphazardly awarded prior to the rules revision that quantified the poll votes in 1960, I have a hard time taking any NATIONAL title in football prior to that with any seriousness at all.

It would be like the US retroactively saying that "since you never defeated us on the field of battle" and "since no war was declared," the USA won the Vietnam War. It's ridiculous to say that and how I feel personally about the whole thing. And I know most Tide fans don't agree with me - but I can live with that.

 

[81usaf92]

The larger point is the Tide fans who want to go "halfsies" when it's Auburn but never when it's Alabama.

Well it’s like when Alabama fans treat the argument of SOS or number of losses.

2011 Oklahoma St’s SOS>>>> Alabama SOS
2017 Ohio ST SOS>>> USC SOS>>> Alabama SOS

I mean we still have people bash TCU’s inclusion into the playoffs yet defend 2003 Oklahoma’s inclusion into the de facto NCG.

Alabama fans are like every other sports fans in that they will say one thing and go the totally opposite when it’s beneficial to them. But when someone they hate does the exact same thing it’s suddenly “You need the context” or “it’s not the same”.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Alabama fans are like every other sports fans in that they will say one thing and go the totally opposite when it’s beneficial to them. But when someone they hate does the exact same thing it’s suddenly “You need the context” or “it’s not the same”.

Reminds me of some subjects on the NS board - and I'll leave it at that.