A Belated National Championship For Auburn?
by Jay Coulter on May 24, 2010 1:00 AM CDT
in Football
Email
Print
Is the end finally near for USC? Is Reggie Bush finally going to be held accountable for making more money in his college years than most NFL tight-ends make in a career? It has taken twice as long for the NCAA to convict the Trojans as it did for the United States to invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from office and have him executed. No wonder its approval rating is lower than Nancy Pelosi's.
With sanctions imminent for the Trojans, the talking heads at ESPN's College Football Live had a spirited discussion last Thursday on what should happen to USC's vacated title. It appears more and more likely that both the BCS and the Associate Press will strip the school of its 2004 National Championship once penalties are handed out. For Bush it also means a possible loss of his coveted Heisman Trophy.
In the case of the BCS, they have two simple options: force USC to vacate the title and not have a 2004 champion or award the title to either Auburn or Oklahoma. How likely is the BCS to pick a new champion? I'd put it somewhere between slim and none. USC will almost surely be forced to vacate, but a new champion will not be crowned.
The Associate Press is an entirely different story.
Many believe the writers will crown a new champion. ESPN analysts Craig James and Ed Cunningham clearly favor giving the title to Auburn. An undefeated season in the SEC coupled with the throttling Oklahoma took from USC in the championship game, makes it a no brainer - at least according to those two.
James believes it's quite possible the AP will crown Auburn champions. "In my mind, if USC is stripped of the title, Auburn becomes the national champion," said James. "For what Auburn did that season, I have always thought it was an injustice."
Asked whether fans in Auburn should celebrate such an occurrence, Cunningham said, "Absolutely. There will be toilet paper everywhere at Toomer's Corner."
I couldn't agree more.
Auburn has every right to step in and accept it. When you consider the injustice Auburn was served along with the notion that USC's top player was a cheat, how can you not accept the trophy and be happy to get it? Had it happened to Alabama, they'd be planning a celebration already for next weekend. After all, they've never turned down a championship from anyone, regardless of whether fans have actually heard of the organization presenting it. At least the Associated Press is legitimate.
Would a better late than never title change things for the players and the fans? Not really. Most Auburn people I know feel quite comfortable believing Auburn was as much the champion of 2004 as USC. When you don't meet head-to-head how can you think otherwise? With four first round draft choices on that team, you have to believe Auburn would have had a shot.
Being formally recognized for something you plainly deserve is always nice. But let's not kid ourselves. A belated national title can never make up for the injustice. It's like the guy that serves 30 years in prison only to be released after new evidence is presented exonerating him. It's great when it happens, but it would have been a million times sweeter had it happened during the trial.
Personally, I won't be losing any sleep in the days to come waiting to see what the Associated Press does once sanctions are finally announced. If a belated title comes, I'll simply believe justice is served and a title is finally presented to the most deserving team.
More pressing for me is 2010. I'd gladly trade a belated national title for an SEC Championship this upcoming season. It's fun to look back and reflect, but there's nothing better than tomorrow!
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As long as it's taken them to follow up on U of Spoiled Children
It’s still much sooner than the date they declare Corey Maggette ineligible for getting paid in HS and strip Duke of its 1999 honors: 12th of Never, Year 500 of the Millennium.
I agree completely.
If the AP awards AU the 2004 national title, I will gladly accept it. I will buy a t-shirt and a sticker for my car. But it’s not enough for me. I want to actually go to the BCS game and watch us win it on the field in the coming years.
The 2004 team will always mean a lot to me though. It was a great way to start my time as a student at AU!
CHIZIK + BARBEE + FORTNER + PAWLOWSKI = CHAMPIONSHIPS.
I don't think we should claim it if it is awarded to us.
Do I think we were robbed in 2004? Hell yes I do. But we didn’t win it on the field and it would be awarded to us retroactively. If Auburn were to claim it, then we would be no better than other schools (not to be named) that claim bogus MNC’s.
by Jumpn_JackFlash on May 24, 2010 1:50 AM CDT reply actions
Completely disagree.
Any AP title is legitimate. If you go by your argument, then the 1957 title is bogus too because we didn’t go to a bowl game and therefore (in your opinion) we “didn’t win it on the field.” I don’t know how you can say that. WE DID win it on the field. We won EVERY SINGLE GAME we played. You can’t ask for anything more than that. Any AP national title is legit and should be claimed.
CHIZIK + BARBEE + FORTNER + PAWLOWSKI = CHAMPIONSHIPS.
And before someone jumps on me for contradicting myself, I didn’t. In my post above, what I meant by “win it on the field” is win it at that time on the field where the BCS game is being played. I think the 2004 title should be claimed by AU if the AP awards it to us. However, I don’t think that should take away one bit from AU pushing forward to win another one ASAP, this time in the BCS title game. WDE
CHIZIK + BARBEE + FORTNER + PAWLOWSKI = CHAMPIONSHIPS.
In ’57, the NC was awarded before the bowl games were played. So yes, that team won it on the field according to the accepted rules of that time period.
In my opinion (and many others), the ’04 Tigers were the best team in the country. But that team did not get a chance to prove it in the title game. I would love for them to have been given that chance, but it is what it is, and a retroactively awarded title will not make up for what happened. What good is a MNC if you can not celebrate it at the time it was won? To me, it means nothing, and if anything would only make me even more bitter about what happened.
WDE
by Jumpn_JackFlash on May 24, 2010 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree
Shit happened, it sucked. If we hold a celebration for being retroactively awarded a national championship, that would be totally lame. Just accept it, smile, and move on.
by jd is legend on May 24, 2010 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
That's the way I hope it goes down JD.....
with humility and lacking any of the gaudiness that we have witnessed from other….ahem…..fanbases in the state.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Winning a title game..
and getting a title awarded retro style is completely different.
There are at least two titles the AP handed out that are questionable in this state already. Another one handed out, for the 1983 season, was an injustice.
I have mixed feelings here, so I’ll accept an apology from the two organizations Jay mentioned, and hang my hat where it already is. I know Auburn was the best team in the USA during the 2004 season, and that’s all that matters to me.
Come and join me at http://tigerbloggin.blogspot.com
What
are these two unjust AP titles of which you speak?
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Well put KoolBell .... well put !
Do I believe we were No. 1… I sure do and so did a ton of other people outside of the state of Alabama. However,I still hurt over the ’83 title “injustice”. For the younger ones reading this : In 2004 you had 2 teams finish the season undefeated. It still hurt but we were not by passed over by a team ranked below us in the polls. We were ranked No.3 and No. 1 and 2 both lost in the bowls.
Then the writters incredously leaped froged Miami over us to the top. That NC had a big impact for the next 10 – 15 years on their program. We still had a great decade in the 80’s (4 SEC Championships) but I will always wonder how much more we may have accomplished had it not been for the larceny perpetrated agaist us in 1983. I’m of the opinion, had we won that one, we may have won a couple more later and we may have been perceived as more worthy by some voters in 2004, simply because we had a few in the cupboard already.
Having said all that, the very fact that national talking heads are still discussing the 2004 team’s is even further indication to me that they will forever go down in history as one of the all time great nationally recognized college football teams. War Eagle !
aubtigerman
"The reason you come to Auburn is because of Auburn people.This is a special place, from the coaches all the way to the fans" - Andrew McCain OT
yeah autigerman ... the 1983 AU team was in my top 3 all-time AU teams ...
The irony of voting to determine a (so-called) champion of a sports league can be demonstrated in a bezillion ways by a bezillion fans of bezillion teams.
The mother of all ironies happened in 1983.
Fast forward to the 21st century and the BCS has done the impossible … they have united friends and foes all over the fruited plain against this con job they’re trying to do on the college football fans of America.
Never turn anything you want done right to a committee.
As
I said two years ago, a vacation of games will lead to the vacation of the title and a national championship is too big to be left voided. Although I openly advocate pressing our own case, having the rest of the CFB world beat out drum for us wouldn’t hurt.
Vacation of wins is the key to it. It differs from a forfeit. A forfeit means the accused team loses the game. A vacation means that the win is vacated, but that the other team still has a loss. Vacation would mean that Oklahoma would still have their loss, leaving Auburn and Utah as the only undefeateds that year.
While most Auburn fans would like to have some validation/vindication for that season, the hosing of Auburn in 2004 has already paid huge dividends for the conference, as the SEC champ is now virtually a lock for the MNC CG.
And not to beat a dead Crimson horse, but the Bammers would be sporting new Got 14? T-shirts by next week.
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 9:25 AM CDT reply actions
Hi guys,
This popped up on my daily USC Google News search, so I don’t want you to feel like I came looking to aggravate you, I just stumbled upon this and felt I had to say something.
There has been a lot of talk in the last week or two about the vacation of the 2004/05 title, despite no new word from the NCAA. Why is this? It’s because of the rediscovery of a BCS rule change that was quietly passed in 2007 that states the title can be rescinded if the winning team committed major violations in that year.
Thus, bloggers and columnists have been making a big deal about it, because it’s a great debate! If USC forfeits the BCS title, what happens to it? And what happens to the AP title? Certainly makes great conversation! But, it’s just conversation.
Those of us who have been following this whole Reggie Bush cluster**** day-by-day for several years know that Bush and his family aren’t accused of receiving improper benefits until the 2005 calendar year, after the 2004 season and the Orange Bowl. Only wins from the 2005 season are really at stake here. If we had beat Texas we’d have to worry about losing a title, but we didn’t.
I wanted to remind you all of this because your conversation seems to have moved beyond speculative to a serious emotional argument. You’re buying into the buzz, and I really wish you wouldn’t. I expounded upon this in much greater detail over at the LSU blog, so I’ll stop here…
Best,
Rabbit
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
Most
analysts seem to indicate that games in 2004 will be part of the group of games involving ineligible players. If none are involved, then the scenario you described will prevail.
Also, most believe that the NCAA will order games to be vacated rather than forfeited. There is a sizable difference between the two.
The NCAA doesn’t sanction a national championship in the FBS. So what they can’t give, they can’t take away. National titles are doled out by thirty-something different selectors, although only two are deemed legitimate these days. Even if the AP and BCS were NOT to revise their final polls, which might be stretching it with the AP, who severed their ties with the BCS as a result of this very season, many other selectors would change their votes, and Auburn, using the example of many boot-strapping teams in CFB, could claim it as a MNC. Over time, it would gain the full-force of credibility of other accepted titles that many teams continue to promote conspicuously.
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions
The AP severed their ties with the BCS as a result of 2003, not 2004
by jd is legend on May 24, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions
They gave official notice
in December 2004, and thus did not have any ties starting in the 2005 season, so I think it was mainly the 2004 season. However, in 2003, with USC being #1 in both human polls but #3 in the computer polls, that certainly factored in.
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
But AU was #3 in the AP as well as the BCS in 2004
USC was #1 in the AP and out in 2003. 2004 wouldn’t have mattered for the AP wanting to be independent of the BCS because they had it the same way the BCS did.
by jd is legend on May 24, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
For the 2004 season
the weighting of both the human polls was increased, and the AP didn’t like the extra scrutiny it brought and thought that it threatened the independence of the poll, thus terminating it from being used further. Hence, 2004 was the linch pin.
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
And why was the weighting of the human polls increased?
Because of the split national championship in 2003. The decision may have happened in 2004, but the events of the 2003 season put everything in motion that caused the AP to drop out.
by jd is legend on May 24, 2010 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions
And
you and Frued could probably blame it all the way back to their mothers, JD.
Alas, I still disagree. The AP exercised more independence by bucking conventional wisdom in 2003. They showed everyone up with their dissenting vote. Why would that anger them? By having their sovereignty marginalized in 2004 did the AP feel threatened.
Ok—last word is yours!
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 24, 2010 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't see how that would affect their sovereignty
The AP always had the option to crown a different national champion than the winner of the BCSNC game. In other words, they always had sovereignty.
Imagine this scenario: The 2004 season occurs in the 2003 calendar year, and the 2003 season occurs in the 2004 calendar year. How would that change things? The AP wouldn’t back out of the BCS after the 2004 season, because they wouldn’t have had a different result than the BCS, and wouldn’t have had a previous instance where they went against the BCS. The key to the whole situation was 2003.
Auburn was #3 in 2004 in every poll: AP, Coaches, BCS. There was no real controversy over which two teams would play. It sucks that our team wasn’t picked, but they were the unanimous #3 team in the country to everyone who mattered in the selection process. To all of them, there was no controversy. We can argue until we’re blue in the face that we were better than OU (we were), but that had no bearing on the selection. In 2003, USC was #1 in all polls but #3 according to the computer rankings. This was the crux of the controversies that ended the AP’s alignment with the BCS.
I don’t see why you need to pollute your arguments with a logical fallacy and a passive-aggressive insult, BTW.
by jd is legend on May 25, 2010 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Where was the insult?
Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...
by War Eagle Atlanta on May 25, 2010 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
So yea…they def just stripped away the national title from USC…sorry buddy , them cheating ass niggas would of gotten their ass’s handed to them that year if Auburn would of went anyway…but too much politics and too many people wanted USC to win that year , thats y Auburn didn’t go.And sorry ass OU went , that was the worst game iv ever seen.
by Antonio Paoli on Jun 10, 2010 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Not me...
I don’t want it to be honest. A retro-ed championship isn’t what we are looking for. Not only that, but Oklahoma played in that game and not Auburn. They deserve the retro. Sure Auburn got hosed in 2004. They fielded an incredible team and would have gone toe to toe with either of the teams playing in the Championship game. To say that we would have done better or worse in that game against either one of the opponents is subjective and totally speculative at best. I have looked down on bama and the other universities that retro-ed trophies since I can remember. They didn’t win them on the field and therefore don’t deserve to claim anything. By claiming this title if the chance is given, It would make us no better than alabama or any of the other universities that claimed retro-ed trophies. Just because they jumped off that bridge with the other idiots doesn’t make it right for us to follow. Especially using the logic that “well they did it first”. Auburn deserves to win it on the field. Not in the minds of the people who think its whats right. I don’t want a trophy with an astrick next to it.
The AP isn’t apart of the discussion anymore. Every Major Conference signed the BCS contract. And as such must adhere their decision. Just like LSU is the only ’03 champion. USC has no right to claim the AP tilte that year. They like everyone else signed into the BCS. The BCS is the only one that can award that trophy. Hopefully they will just let it stay vacated and prove the point that if your gonna cheat then The BCS will take it away from you and it will forever be in the record books that no one won it because you cheated!
I do wish that Auburn would have gotten the opportunity to play for it though. It would have been a great game, IMHO…..
National Championship? What National Championship?
Before any meaningful discussion can take place on this subject, those who wish to participate should establish and stipulate the meanings of the terms they use in the discussion … so, here goes:
1. Division I FBS (formerly Division I-A) football is the only NCAA sport in which a yearly champion is not determined by an NCAA sanctioned championship event. There is no NCAA Division I FBS National Champion.
2. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is five individual, unrelated college football bowl games. The BCS puts the two top-rated teams (see below for definition of top-rated) in the (so-called) BCS national championship game. The other 4 BCS bowl games mean nothing to the other 8 teams involved — in this BCS concept of a “championship series” — except a much bigger payday than that they would have relieved had they had been relegated, by the BCS rating system, to a (so-called) non-BCS bowl game.
3. The (so-called) BCS National Championship Game is the final (chronologically speaking) bowl game of the annual Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and is intended by the organizers of the BCS to determine the U.S. national champion of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision. The participants are the two highest-ranked teams in the BCS standings at the end of the regular college football season, currently determined by averaging the results of the final weekly USA Today Coaches’ Poll, Harris Interactive Poll of media, former players and coaches, and the average of six participating Computer rankings.
4. The BCS Champion is the team that wins the final (chronologically speaking) bowl game of the annual Bowl Championship Series.
=================
Now, with the stipulated facts out of the way, let me go to the key point:
It may indeed be the case that the organizers of the BCS “intended” the (so-called) Bowl Championship Series to “determine the U.S. national champion of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.” The BCS is selling the concept OK … but, there is not a dog on the planet (that I know of) that will get near the dog food … much less eat a bite of it.
Who has bought the BCS concept of determining a "National Champion?" Who is buying the BCS concept of determining a "National Champion?" Who will buy the BCS concept of determining a "National Champion?" Nobody. Nobody. Nobody.
=================
Bottom line: There is not a NCAA Division I FBS championship. And, there is not a NCAA Division I FBS champion. Never has been.
If you count yourself among those who have – ‘fallen victim to’ — the BCS stated ‘intention’ of passing off the winner of the last bowl game of the year as the “National Champion” of college football … then say so.
=================
As far as the 2005 Rose Bowl goes … If the Trojans have to forfeit the game, I suppose, that would make Okla. U the 2005 Rose Bowl Champions. I doubt anybody at OU would print up any t-shirts. I mean how Bammer is that?
Whatever the BCS does … if it turns out that way … with their (so-called) BCS Championship … means about as much as it does now … i.e. nothing more than a bowl game win for OU. I doubt anybody at OU would print up any BCS t-shirts. I mean how Bammer is that?
=================
I just don’t understand how this impacts Auburn at all? What am I missing?
Oh, Please. Stop
Auburn lost to SC in 02 and 03 they aren’t going to win in 04 because of sanctions.
Every program gets a lousy shake from time to time. Get over it.
The 2004 AU team was obviously exponentially better than the 2002 and 2003 versions
I’m not sure if we would have beaten USC in 2004, but I know for a fact we would have given a better game than 55-19. My beef isn’t with USC, it’s with Oklahoma.
by jd is legend on May 24, 2010 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
you can’t hold a loss in the previous year against a team the next year. Well, maybe you can in your pre-season voting, but that’s a sham anyway. But to say Auburn would have lost to SC because they did the previous year is utterly ridiculous.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
From the mouth of fools.....
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
You guys all have a point.
Me, I’m going to enjoy the National Championship if Auburn is given one. I won’t sit and talk about it constantly, but I’ll buy a T-Shirt or two. I understand what you guys are saying, though. Just do me a favor: Don’t rain on my parade or others’ parade for that matter. You might not agree with them, but let them enjoy it.
Had it happened to Alabama, they’d be planning a celebration already for next weekend. After all, they’ve never turned down a championship from anyone, regardless of whether fans have actually heard of the organization presenting it. At least the Associated Press is legitimate.
As Jim Rome would say, this is a tripple U. Unfunny. Uninspired. Unreadable.
Fact is we’ve turned down multiple championships that we could claim. The most questionable MNC we claim is 100x more legit than the “People’s National Championship” that you guys claimed. At least for now.
I sincerely hope that the AP does not have a revote, but if they do crown Auburn champions then good for you. Be proud of it. I would… mostly. As far as I’m concerned, THE national champion is the team that gets the crystal ball of the BCS. That was my feeling with LSU when the AP gave it’s title to USC. The AP title (if different than the BCS) is sort of a co-champion IMO. Anyone that says in the case of a split that they would prefer the AP title to the BCS is lying, so in my eyes the BCS is more legit. Of course if there is no BCS champion due to whatever, then that would give more legitimacy to the AP. Bottom line is that it’s a messed up situation.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
