Auburn For 2004 National Champion? Why The Hell Not?
Auburn already has the ring. Let's make it official.
By War Eagle Atlanta
glg68@aol.com
With apologies to Kinky Friedman, but I just love that slogan! Okay, also keep in mind that the content of this thread is purely speculative in nature. USC has not yet been found guilty of any infractions or been required to vacate any games, but as of this moment, that stuff sticking to the wall is starting to dry...
But just supposing they are found guilty of infractions and are required to vacate games from 2004 and all of 2005, where is that going to leave college football? First of all, vacating wins is the new standard when it comes to NCAA penalties. In the old days, it used to be forfeiting games. The difference is that while an opponent forfeiting a game to you would give you a win, having them vacate their victory against you still gives you your loss. This distinction will be important later on...
So what's going to happen to the 2004 season if USC is forced to vacate their MNC? That year is already the most controversial in decades, and certainly in the BCS era. You had three BCS teams end the season undefeated, with a fourth non-BCS team added in the fray. But only two were able to square off, and we all know the fallout from that--an undefeated team from the nation's strongest conference is left out and the oldest wire poll disassociates from the BCS. And now this a few years later--the Reggie Bush Incident (RBI).
So, are we just to vacate the 2004 season from the MNC roles, or is Miss First-Runner Up going to get a chance to wear the crown? Maybe conference championships can be successfully vacated over the years, but not so with MNCs. Know and understand this: NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE TOO IMPORTANT IN OUR SPORT TO BE LEFT VACATED. It is one void that will always be filled. Look at the pitiful and underhanded means that some teams will take to achieve them. We're just not going to write 2004 off with a big goose egg...
Besides, it's a mythical national championship anyway. Throughout the history of the MNC, which only dates back truly to the mid 1930s, there's always been multiple claims for any given year not only by the teams, but by the myriad of selectors, too. Yes siree! Betcha didn't know that. There are more than just two selectors of champions in college football. There were 38 of them in 2004, and not all of them voted for USC. Granted, all of them are virtually insignificant, but it's proof that there's more than just one game in town.
So who's going to be the heir apparent? At first thought, you might look at Oklahoma, who was beaten by USC in the Orange Bowl. But if USC's win is simply vacated, that doesn't give the Sooners a victory at Miami. They still will have that loss. Besides, who knows a Sooner fan that would want to claim the prize like that? It's like the old analogy about un-ringing a bell.You can't do it. No do-overs in bell-ringing or college football.
So what about Miss Congeniality, Utah? Urban Meyer lead them to an undefeated season and a Fiesta bowl win, and earned himself a one-way ticket to Gainesville, Florida in the process. Sure, they're from the Mountain West, but they did have one selector out of thirty-eight choose them, so for the love of Ben Prather, why the hell not?
But that leads us to the poster child for playoff reform, the Auburn Tigers. Sure, bring up the weak OOC schedule for your first move, then I'll counter with the fact that they beat four teams ranked in the top fifteen during the season, compared to USC's two and Oklahoma's one. Their only problem was that they started the season ranked 17th, instead of 2nd, even though they did almost catch Oklahoma in the rankings to slip into the Orange Bowl. Regardless, all of this is irrelevant. It's over and done with--with the exception of this latest wrinkle--the RBI...
Two selectors out of thirty-eight chose Auburn as national champion that season, three if you include the People's Championship, which was evidently created at the last minute by some sympathetic Alabama fans. (who really know how to bootstrap these things) That's twice as many as any other team that didn't have to vacate any games. So how is this going to work?
To say for certain, we are in un-chartered waters. At no time in history has a national champion had to vacate their title. I'm not really sure how the polls and selectors will work. Some minor selectors may update their final polls and change their votes, but I suspect that most will probably ignore it or merely table the issue, letting their results stand. Doesn't matter. Auburn would have all the momentum they need after USC's abdication for their own coronation.
Bear in mind: NO ONE WANTS TO WIN IT LIKE THIS. But someone has to step up into the void after the crown has been vacated, and no team is more deserving. Auburn has always taken the moral high-ground when it comes to officially claiming minor-selector national titles, but this is one I think they should proclaim openly, loudly and immediately. No Tuscaloosa chicanery by waiting a few decades when you hope no one is watching. I've even come up with my own Johnny Cochran-inspired battle cry: They Cheated, and We Were Undefeated!!
0 recs |
36 comments
Comments
The irony to that season.....(if memory serves correctly)
(again is memory serves correctly….correct me if I am wrong) We were blasted for our OOC schedule, mainly playing the Citadel. The irony is that we originally had scheduled 1A non-BCS cottender Bowling Green of the MAC. For whatever reason (Benjamins if I had to guess) in the months before the season started Bowling Greeen dropped us and left us scrambling for an opponent. Obviously I dont know all the details why or how but the Citadel was chosen to fill the opening. Now you ask, why and who did Bowling Green drop us to play…......non other than OKLAHOMA!!! How is that for irony!!!
Again, I stand corrected if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that is how the chips fell that year.
by WDE on
Aug 8, 2008 8:10 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
tell the BCS they can shove their trophy up their ass
i for one don’t want Auburn to try and claim the 2004 national title regardless of the NCAA’s ruling. USC won that national title and having it removed from the record books doesn’t rewrite reality. if the NCAA wants to retroactively award Auburn the BCS trophy then the Tigers can accept it, but for us to start hanging up banners and claiming titles for championships we didn’t win on the field is a short path down a dark road to Bamaland where every season is a title season in their minds. blah blah blah, win it on the damn field or don’t win it at all.
by suicidewatch on
Aug 8, 2008 9:14 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You don't seem...
...to have a firm understanding of how MNCs work. The NCAA doesn’t award or sanction anything regarding titles in Div 1-A. They are awarded by thirty-some odd independent organizations. While only two are widely considered legit, there’s more than one game in town.
Throughout the history of the MNC, there were some years where 6 or 7 different teams were awarded MNCs because of the sheer volume of MNC selectors and the inconsistency of their findings. And throughout history, many teams have used this ambiguity to bolster their claims. The reason why? BECAUSE NO ONE GOVERNS IT. It’s a free-for-all. Claims are made for decades, then eventually, they are accepted as FACT.
A who says that we didn’t win it on the field? Tell me where we lost it? Like I mentioned, this has never happened before-a team being forced to vacate a MNC-and if it does, SOMEONE will either step up into the limelight or be thrust into it. It’s going to happen. Either way, the likely candidate is us. We didn’t lose anything. USC may have won it on the field, but they didn’t win it against us. And now they may take it away.
Sure, we can be reluctant recipients, but there would be no shame in it.
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 8, 2008 10:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Slippery slope for sure.
I don’t like the smell of the retro NC because, as it has been mentioned before, it wreaks of bammer logic. On the otherside, we were robbed, plain and simple. I think accepting the trophy and putting up a big asteric beside it in the trophy case as well as not listing it in our record books may be the answer…....who knows. It shines as a big zit on the face of college football. I would, however, like to see USC lose about 8 or 10 scholarships in the process (something that would have already happened if they were an SEC team).
by Todd92 on
Aug 8, 2008 9:37 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Tough one for sure
On one hand i would love to be able to claim the championship. What our team did that year was great and extremely difficult to do in our conference. However i’d have to agree with suicidewatch on this one. If we didnt win it on the field then in all honesty it can’t be rightfully ours. And i still say that we would have won that game. And to any bammers that would disagree with that notion can just see their 1992 championship when no one gave them a snow balls’ chance in hell of beating Miami that year. But we’ll never know and that why we can’t just claim anything. Now if they decided to revote for the award and we were voted number 1 that year and they wanted to award us with the championship, well now thats a different story. Then and only then (in my mind) would it be ok to accept the MNC. But i will not sink my morals so low as to jump at the chance to claim something that wasn’t awarded to me. I believe thats one of the things that makes an Auburn fan different.
Point in Case….
You better believe that if bama was in our position right now, they would already be planning a parade. Not only that, but they would probably be crying to the NCAA everyday about how they had better take it away from USC because of how hard alabama got dealt with when they got in trouble. And about how “its only fair”. You know, to help their cause even more. Its so sad…..
by Paratiger on
Aug 8, 2008 10:16 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
No, If Bamma was in this position they would have already claimed the championship on day one, not 3.5 years later…
by jimithing78 on
Aug 8, 2008 12:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
You guys are absolutely right. Which is the exact reason why BAMA never got to be the first and only college football team to be a 3-peat national champion in 1964, ‘65, and (‘66)*, when a Notre Dame and Michigan State team each with a loss jumped an undefeated Alabama team in the major news polls. And if you guys really wanted to do some research (assuming you know how) the NCAA actually recognizes the University of Alabama with 17, count em, 17 (that would be 16 more than AU) football national championships, but since the major news services (yes the totally unbiased media) only recognize 12 ncs, Alabama only claims that many. So you guys can quit bitchin’ about one measly nc, when in all honesty, I would have loved for AU to play a juggernaut 2004 USC team. 2003 score: USC – 23 AU – 0. and USC had a much better team in ‘04.
by LOL@AU on
Aug 9, 2008 11:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're a little off...
Literally and figuratively… Although I agree that Alabama got hosed in 1966, your facts are in typical Bama fashion—a little off. Alabama was never ahead of Michigan State and Notre Dame at any point during that season, even after those two teams tied each other with 2 weeks left to go (they didn’t each have a loss per your comment) The better question is why Alabama didn’t go ahead and claim a national title anyway, being that they did get a few selectors to choose them…
Alabama has had 25 seasons where at least one MNC selector chose them as champion, (including back-dated titles) not 17 as you mentioned. Again, the mystery is why they don’t claim them all, considering some of the week sh*t they’ve deposited into the trophy case over the years.
I hope you’ve enjoyed the lesson I just gave you. This one’s on the house, but if you’re going to come over more often, I’ll have to give you my paypal account so I can start charging. But please don’t come bringing that weak crap again…
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 10, 2008 3:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank you so much
First, how do you spell the literary term that opposes “strong”. is it “week” or “weak”? Now im not sure. Second, i dont remember saying how many titles the MNC selectors recognized us having, I said the NCAA, which is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, not a major news selective service. Two very different things, would’nt you say? And as I distinctly remember, Texas was ranked no. 1, Bama no. 2, followed by Mich State and Notre Dame in the majority of the polls. So there goes your “Alabama was never ahead of Mich. State and Notre Dame at any poing during that season”assumption. Texas lost, Bama didnt, Mich State and Notre Dame each with a TIE (regardless a worst record) jumped over the undefeated and untied Alabama program. So thank you teacher, but next time when you want to take me to school, make sure you get all the facts right as well, so you don’t sound like a pious douchebag in front of all my other classmates.
by LOL@AU on
Aug 10, 2008 9:05 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Texas not even ranked in 1966
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present_d.html
It’s not hard to do a little Googling to find this stuff.
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 10:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just re-read what you wrote
I originally thought you said that the final poll had Texas as #1. My mistake. However, I looked throughout the season in the AP poll and never once found anything suggesting what you described. Check it out here, you can play around all you want.
http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=1966
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 10:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I should have included that link in my post above...
...but this guy thinks he’s intitled to his own facts, too. I originally looked at every single week of the 1966 AP poll and Alabama was never ahead of either team, but it doesn’t matter because as is typical with Bammers, they already know everything…
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 11, 2008 1:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just my opinion
no i get how the MNC works. i just don’t want any part of a retroactive title. i believe the term kissing your sister would apply to a hand me down trophy. if Auburn ever wins a national title in my lifetime i want to see it happen in a championship game against another team.
in all honesty i’m just sick of listening to people talk about 2004. yes, we got screwed. college football is always screwing over someone. be it national titles or bowl games or heismans or whatever. it’s time to move on and quit dwelling on that season. nothing can take away the memories of an incredible year like that. we were undefeated. we won the SEC (something that’s actual and tangible…not like a MNC) let’s just leave it at that and quit worrying about the past.
by suicidewatch on
Aug 8, 2008 11:50 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Truth be known...
...I’m sick of rehashing it, too, and the last thing I wanted to do with this thread is debate who deserved what that year. But this RBI is coming to a head soon, either in the courts or with the NCAA or both, and the debate may come to the forefront again.
Think of it like this: you’re a kid surrounded by all his Christmas gifts, and in the frenzy to open them all, one gets slid under the couch. You then find it in the spring. Do you open it, throw it away, or give it back to your mom and dad and say ‘no thanks’?
Or do you ask your mom what took her so long to vacuum under the couch? Hmmm….
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 8, 2008 1:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow
Jay I have been reading your posts for some time now and have never found a desire to reply…......... untill now. After reading your post on 8/5 I found it rather funny that you stated:
“The title will likely be vacated, but with Auburn finishing second and undefeated they can certainly make a claim. My guess is Auburn is much too classy to make a play for the title this many years later.”
Hmmmm now don’t get me wrong, I think any team in the SEC that goes undefeated should be handed the NC regardless of post season play, but are you now pulling a Obama flip flop on me or what? Just curious.
by dansfriend on
Aug 8, 2008 1:20 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Because...
Jay Coulter wrote those former words, and I, WEA, wrote this column. Jay’s name appears at the top of each cloumn posted, and Acid Reign’s or mine appear in a byline beneath it if it’s ours.
We Auburn fans can differ on opinion. I figured that most of us would be opposed to claiming it, because, after all, we’re polite people who don’t share our Tuscaloosa cousins’ bootstrapping ways. My point is that if this happens-USC vacating it- the title will be claimed by somebody eventually. Are we just going to sit around and let Utah do it? That would be a bigger travesty than the season itself…
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 8, 2008 1:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Come On
Should we really go into how many nat’l championships the University of Alabama could ACTUALLY claim if they ever desired to. Take a look into how many national championships the NCAA (not just the completely unbiased major media polls) recognizes Alabama having and you might just change your opinion on your cousins’ “bootstrapping ways.” And in no way, shape, or form are we related, unless you’re in fact that fat girl with the three teeth, the neon blonde hair, and the rebel flag tat preceding the misspelled words ” The Sowth will Rise Agen”, who always wears that Tasmanian Devil t-shirt w/ the Auburn hat on its head, that keeps showing up uninvited @ the family reunion.
by LOL@AU on
Aug 10, 2008 12:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lesson #2
The NCAA does not sanction any national championship in Division 1-A football. NONE! Never has, probably never will. Any MNC claims are done solely by the school and not the NCAA.
Okay, send $5 to paypal acct: carguysatlanta@aol.com
Sorry, guys, for feeding the trolls…
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 10, 2008 3:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not an english professor are you
Since when does recognize and sanction mean the same thing Teach? You might look like a genius (note the picture) in front of all your Aubie friends, (trust me, its not too hard) but you should really do your homework. And make sure you take a look at a dictionary sometime when you’re not busy making false assumptions so you know what difficult words mean like “recognize” and “sanction”. I’m still waiting for class to begin by the way.
by LOL@AU on
Aug 10, 2008 9:29 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nah, I just look like a genius compared to you..
But regardless, the NCAA doesn’t recognize them either. Or before you ask again, the NCAA doesn’t authorize, endorse, ratify, consent, or vouch for them, so you are WRONG.
Sorry if those are big words for you, or you’re unable to grasp the concept of synonyms, perhaps you are a graduate of UAT or one of the fine trade schools established in the state during the Wallace administration…
Whether you get it from me or not, get some knowledge of the history of the game before you bring your knife back to this intellectual gun fight.
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Aug 11, 2008 10:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Goodbye
This will indeed be my last comment, one b/c you obviously do not understand the meaning of “recognize”. If you noted earlier that Alabama could actually claim a share of 25 nat’l championships, how in the hell can the NCAA not recognize 17 of them. They would not authorize or permit them you idiot, thats common knowledge, but they clearly RECOGNIZE them having a claim of @ least 17 national titles. And the second reason I will never visit this website again is clearly because I have a life, which does not consist of reading pointless blogs with blabbering, asinine fools posting them everyday. Note to self, reconsider your own state of intelligence, you can’t be too damn smart if you resort to posting blogs on TRACKEMTIGERS.COM, a site I regretfully discovered by chance when a fellow Bama fan was making fun of one of this sites’ articles on finebaum.com one day (and now I know why). So there you have it, call me when you start writing blogs on sites that have some merit. Oh wait, you never will because your blogs suck and have absolutely no point; and the information you so strongly believe in is very poorly researched. So go ahead, respond back with another smartass, but completely wrong and pious comment, no one cares b/c you’re a blogger for trackemtigers.com (what a joke….i mean you should be very proud), only 3 or 4 people will see it anyway, and I know for sure I will not be one of them. And why should I? To see more poorly written and overly biased blogs written by middle-aged failures who must resort to trackemtigers.com for minimum exposure, I think not. (strike a nerve you self-righteous loser). Weagle Weagle, WAR DAMN EAGLE! I’ll take 25 anyday to ya’lls 1 1/2
by LOL@AU on
Aug 11, 2008 4:16 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, CLEARLY you have a life
Everyone with a life gets involved in flame wars on opposing teams’ blogs. Peace out man. Just remember, U.S. senators have longer terms than the time it’s been since Alabama last beat Auburn.
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 4:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Guess you put
your awesome life on hold for like the last 4 or 5 days. Time to get back to groping your sister. Bama is so awesome you have to reference the last 30 years to feel good about your team. Some of the saddest posts I’ve ever seen and I’m so glad I logged on the last couple of days so I could see firsthand the maturity and tact of Bama fans. Just when I think, “Maybe bammers really aren’t that bad” here you come. From the bottom of my heart thank you for your posts and War Eagle. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out, douche.
by GumptownTiger on
Aug 12, 2008 9:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just so you know
Take a drive through rural Alabama. For every “fat girl with the three teeth, the neon blonde hair, and the rebel flag tat preceding the misspelled (sic) words " The Sowth will Rise Agen", who always wears that Tasmanian Devil t-shirt” (your words not mine) that is wearing an Auburn hat, I’ll buy you a coke. For every one that is wearing an Alabama hat, you’ll buy me a coke. I wonder who will come out on top?
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We were undefeated; played the 5th toughest schedule (even with Citadel); beat the ACC Champion in the Sugar Bowl; beat TN twice (handily); ran the SEC conference schedule; beat the bammers on the road…we were the best…I’ll take it!!!
by bamasux on
Aug 9, 2008 4:04 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
1) Didn’t your players cheat to remain eligible to play that season?
2) Didn’t you cheat to defeat LSU by 1 point?
3) During your best season in modern day history, you barely escaped a Mike Shula led, NCAA and injury beleaguered Alabama team, with a third string quarterback taking the snaps and 6 starters setting that game out due to injuries.
4) The same USC team DEMOLISHED the same API team in the two years prior to 2004.
5) You defeated the almighty ACC Champions by 3 points, after a close game until the end.
Either way, it appears to me you guys are no more deserving of that national championship than USC was!
by AlabamaPolytechnicInstitute on
Aug 9, 2008 2:25 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What do they teach over there, in Tuscaloosa?
1. When did you stop beating your wife?
2. Is she ok with that? (Similar loaded questions.)
3. “Setting?” Most people sit. Of course, some dogs are “setters.” “I done set in th’ sofa, on mah front porch, in Tuscalooser!”
4. Two years prior, USC won 24-17. That’s the same margin as the Louisiana Monroe debacle, last year…
5. Those were the same ACC Champions that lost a very close one to USC that year, on very questionable calls by the refs.
......You know, the sad thing is that Tuscaloosa used to be a good place to go, to get an English degree. Evidently, not any more! What an embarrassing post for “The University…”
by Acid Reign on
Aug 9, 2008 9:19 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
And one more little tidbit
In 2002, USC beat the Auburn Tiger Eagles (w/e) 24-17. So Mr. Acid was right. “HOWEVAAA” – Steven A. Smith, in 2003 USC defeated the hapless War TIgers 23-0. Don’t 4get that one so easily. And USC had a much better team in ‘04 btw.
by LOL@AU on
Aug 9, 2008 11:26 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you're willing to point out that USC had a much better team in '04
Why are you reluctant to point out that Auburn had a much better team in ‘04? I’ve said ever since then that I didn’t think we would have beaten USC in the national championship game. However, had we gotten the chance to play Oklahoma, I think we would have beaten them handily. That is the crux of the issue. If USC is deemed ineligible for its 2004 MNC, then would you award it to Oklahoma or Auburn (Or Utah, I guess)?
And for API above: The LSU game was not cheating. The rule was called the right way, as voted on by no other than then-LSU coach Nick Saban. Even if the kick hadn’t been called that way, the game would have headed to overtime, and nobody can say for certain what would have happened in that game.
All I know is that we beat Tennessee 34-10 in Knoxville, Arkansas 38-20, Georgia 24-6, and your “beleaguered Alabama team” 21-13, which was 21-6 until a late, meaningless touchdown. It was 6-0 at halftime after some sloppy play on our part, but we dominated the second half.
Good grief.
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 11:12 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Question?
Aubies still teach their young how to properly not get a cow pregnant?
by LOL@AU on
Aug 9, 2008 11:16 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
And one more for Mr. Acid
You dont have to tell us whose hot dogs you like to sit on okay. @ the Capstone, excuse me, ” The University,” we look down on those kinds of things. And “TuscaLOOSER” makes absolutely no sense, what do you do, drop your pants every time you see us…ewww. LOSER is spelled with one O English major.
“LOOSE, FOOTLOOSE, PICK UP YOUR SUNDAY SHOES…”
by LOL@AU on
Aug 9, 2008 11:35 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's more of a matter of
Changing the last “a” in Tuscaloosa to an “er” so that he keeps the spelling of the word close to the original. In one post you accuse us of cow beastiality, and then in the next you call our grammar and mastery of the English language into question. That’s the juxtaposition of the two sides of the Alabama psyche if I’ve ever seen it. You say you’re better than us, then don’t act like it. You call yourselves ” (sic) The University” and then stoop to a level of childish insults and mockery. I guess I’ll just never understand what it’s like to be an Alabama fan.
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 11:18 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nope
You never will until you experience your own team being awarded a national championship. And yes, we are better than you, except in farming. Got us there big guy
by LOL@AU on
Aug 11, 2008 4:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Farming, engineerinig, veterinary medicine, pharmacy...
But keep gloating about that awesome business school.
War Damn Eagle!
by PowerOfDixieland on
Aug 11, 2008 4:30 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmmm....
.....The quotes indicate that those aren’t my own words. Rather, I heard them in T-town, from the lips of an Alabama grad student, at a party. His idea of fun was to sit on a rain-soaked old sofa on the front porch, and drink Coors, with Montezuma chasers. Ick. The sofa in question smelled like a mix of old newpapers, and dog urine.
.....And no, I wasn’t an English major. Kenny Loggins was OK, but I was more into Ozzy, Scorpions, AC/DC, Judas Priest, and Motorhead, in that era.
......We absolutely stunk against USC, in 2003, no arguments there. Wow. Not a good start for Nall-ball, at all.
by Acid Reign on
Aug 10, 2008 11:58 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs










