Tweet! Flag on the play. Repeated use of the Iron Bowl logo. 5 yard penalty, repeat the thread...

Hope everybody had a good turkey day. I'm back once again with one last chance to wax poetic before the big game, then it's time to snap on the chin strap and get it on. We've had some fun the last few days over at our sister blog, Roll Bama Roll--maybe too much fun, as their moderators had to close down a thread or two and put us all to bed without our dinner. Regardless, that's just a typical Iron Bowl week, especially since the advent of the blogging age. All's fair during rivalry week, and it's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, as they say, it's hilarious--except if gun play is involved.

Whether you're Barner or Bammer, each program defines itself in large part by the intensity of the rivalry between us. Who among us doesn't take solemn pride in the fact that most people in the know around CFB rank this matchup as the most intense rivalry in the game, if not in all of sports? How did we ever reach such a lofty and envious position, two teams from the heart of Dixie, a place not normally given second thought by the rest of the country? Earlier in the year, I decided I wanted to try and find an empirical answer--something tangible to wrap my hands around, not something simply based on opinion--be it from learned individuals or not.

So, the first comparison I looked at was at the state itself. How did the state of Alabama compare with the rest of the nation when comparing the best two football teams contained within? I chose the best two teams in each state because I wanted small states to have a fair shot with the larger ones. I looked at each tandem's historical standing in CFB, and the results matched what I'd been saying privately for years: the Yellowhammer state had the best one-two punch of football teams in all the land, period! 

In the second installment, I decided to compare intrastate rivalries on a bit more subjective basis, but ranked from a litany of categories that would hopefully point to an objective conclusion. Again, my suspicions were confirmed, but there was still a shadow of doubt that despite my best efforts, maybe I was still afflicted with a case of homerism. Regardless, I did convince myself that the Iron Bowl is indeed the best rivalry in all of CFB, and that to be a part of it was something very humbling and honorable.

The Crimson Tide's success in the annals of college football cannot be disputed. No rational fan can deny their achievements, even if they have been thrown in our faces for decades. Alabama currently ranks among the top three programs of all time, and #2 in my book. They're the most dominant team in the greatest football conference, the SEC, and their conference titles cast an even more imposing shadow than their national titles do. That being said, I never want it suggested that I am jealous of any of Alabama's accomplishments. I respect the Crimson Tide program, and like I told someone earlier in the week, nothing born of respect should ever be considered as jealousy.

I don't believe that the average Auburn fan even thinks much about all of Alabama's glory. Why should it effect who we are? We have a respectable program that has enjoyed success in it's own right. We're #13 all-time in Division 1-A wins and a top 20 historical program, once you factor in all major factors. We also have the 5th toughest strength of schedule ranking in CFB history. Going into this season, we ranked #4 in all-time conference winning percentage in the toughest conference in all the land and we have won a national title and come close on other occasions. And we've done all this despite living in the shadow of a heavyweight. We're not sexy--we're definitely a blue-collar team, but we manage to get it done.

But probably our greatest claim to fame is that despite constantly being measured against one of the all-time great programs, we've never let that Goliath put us away in the head-to-head competition. We have an opportunity Saturday to pull within 4 games of tying Alabama in the all-time series. No other intrastate rivalry is as close. Most of them are blowouts in the all-time records. As I write this tonight, Texas is beating Texas A&M in their 115th game together. Texas will improve their record to 74-36-5 against the Aggies. That's a 38 game lead over their fiercest in-state rival--they have more than twice the number of wins. That, my friends, ain't even close. Yet, Auburn is only 5 games behind one of CFB's greatest teams. Bama has a winning record against every other team in the SEC, but no one in the conference plays them closer than us. It may be hard to imagine, but we had a winning record against them before Paul Bryant, and after him. We just didn't do too well during his tenure. But time marches on...

So many fans view the rivalry between Auburn and Alabama as a zero-sum game. Basically, that means that one side can't be winning unless the other one is losing--the scales must always be balanced. Obviously, that scenario holds true with the game itself--there will forever be a winner and a loser on that day, but I'm talking more about the programs themselves during a given season. Why can't both teams have a successful year? Certainly, no one would argue that both can't have disastrous seasons the same year. Sure, only one team can win the west and go to Atlanta and possibly win the conference crown, but both teams don't challenge for the divisonal title every single year. The west is more competitive than the east, with 5 teams having played in the conference CG as opposed to only three in the east.

Again, why can't both teams have good years at the same time? Certainly, this season has no chance to buck that perception. Alabama's ahead-of-schedule rise eerily coincides with Auburn's slump, but I submit that it's pure coincidence at this juncture. I believe that momentum swings very slowly, and it should take longer for it to fully swing back Alabama's way if it exists at all, but most people point to this season as proof that the pendulum swings more in step with A-Rod than father time.

But suppose for a moment that Auburn was also undefeated going into this Iron Bowl. Would Bama fans be as confident? Would they be just as proud of their successful season to date or would it somehow be tempered by Auburn's successes, too? Why do you have to define your success through the prism of the other team? Sure, they're your rival, but other than that one game, what does it really matter? Can you look at your now vanquished foe, who just lost the Iron Bowl, and state emphatically that their season is now lost? That's something that each fan has to define for themselves, and that result will continue to define this rivalry, the fiercest in all the land. At least for this installment of the Iron Bowl, Auburn's season can be mended with a win over Alabama. Alabama's can be destroyed by a loss.

Our big sisters over at Roll Bama Roll (they must be, since they always call us Little Brother) decided they couldn't cause enough havoc over here, so they decided to have a little Fanpost called THIS IS WAR!! They were in there poking fun at our man Gumptown Tiger (clap, clap) for criticizing them for all that non-football crap they put on their site, trying to be like EDSBS, so I decided to give them a war. I'll give them a war they won't believe!

At first, I wanted to thank them for all the attention they were giving Gumptown Tiger, but then I noticed something peculiar about them (other than their grammar and spelling). A lot of them had pithy little signatures after their monikers--I guess in an attempt to blend in with the rest of their cheesecake/beefcake TMZ pics and articles. Anyway, I decided to kick it up a notch and let loose with this while they all (metaphorically) sat around with a dumb look on their faces:

Glory, glory to old Auburn...

Glory, glory to old Auburn...

Glory, Glory to old Auburn...

A-----U------Got-----Owned-----Today!!!!!!

(Editor's note: This column was published last year, late into Iron Bowl week, but is coming back for it's sophmore year because it has a FULL three years of eligibility remaining!)

As Auburn fans, you've had an Alabama fan throw in your face the claim of them having 12 national championships more times than you care to count. You're bound to have that happen a few times this week. After all. it's the biggest thing we covet from Bammers, right, other than their SEC crowns, winning percentage, bowl games attended, Bryant legacy, way of life, yada, yada, yada? But have you really ever thought about if what they're telling you is true? Even better, do you think they've ever thought about the validity of a such a claim? Or do you just assume they've drunk from the big keg of crimson Kool-aid so often that they're a bit woozy and delusional? It's so automatic, and so parroted by so many of their fans, it has to be true, right? Well, today we're going to answer that very question, and what you read here may surprise you.

First thing's first. We're going to have to start with a little background information before we start analyzing each of Alabama's claimed mythical national championships (MNCs). This background will take you to virtually the beginning of college football. Bear with me! (pun intended)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN DIVISION 1-A COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Yes, that is true. The NCAA does not officially sanction a national championship in football's highest classification, like it does for every other team sport and all other classes of football. You should know this. That's why we're always arguing for a playoff to decide the NC rather than letting the polls decide it. But wait, you argue, someone is crowned the MNC each year and every year since. True enough, but it is done by the individual poll or sanctioning body (BCS) AND NOT THE NCAA. The two current big polls, the AP and the Coach's poll sanction their own champion, sometimes independently. Their polls are so widely acclaimed and accepted, everyone just assumes that they are official, but their authority is only apparent.

SO HOW DID THESE POLLS COME TO BE AND WHY ARE THERE SO MANY NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP SELECTORS OUT THERE?

Here's your brief history of the polls and the national championship: College football dates back until 1869, and it took root in the south in the 1890s. For many decades following it's inception, there was no such thing as a national college football champion. With the birth of the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the first athletic conference in the nation, the highest honor for a team to strive for was a conference championship, and wins over their biggest rivals. It was more or less a regional thing. By the early 1930s, sufficient interest in college football was beginning to build so that people started openly asking who the best team in the nation might be. Thus, the modern news polls were born. The AP poll debuted in 1934, took 1935 off, then ran again in 1936 and every year since. The UP poll debuted in 1935, then didn't poll again until 1950. In 1958, it became the UPI poll, which most of us remember, and it ran until 1996. By 1997, it had been supplanted by the new USA Today/ESPN poll, otherwise known as the coach's poll, which still runs today.

So, to repeat, prior to the AP and UPI poll debuts, there was no such thing as a recognized national championship. (NOTE: The Dickinson System was created in 1926 and was actually the first selector of football national champions, but they fizzled out by 1940, so I do not recognize their limited results as being credible.) . Once these polls had been out for a while and started to gain a little credibility, some folks started to theorize about who might have been the best teams in the seasons prior--going all the way back to the 1860s. Gee, we played 60 years before and never had a national champion, it might be fun to look back and see who might have been. So that the news polls wouldn't have all the fun, a multitude of other selectors' slowly arose, some using mathematical models in an attempt to statistically calculate who the strongest team of a given year might be. These many selectors then made their respective picks, not always agreeing, since there were upwards of 30 or more selectors in the business after a few years, just as there are over 30 different selectors TODAY. Did any of these selectors have any more credibility than the news polls? No, but it was sure evident that there was now more than one game in town.

With the influx of so many national championships coming from this mix of independent selectors, it's only natural that teams who were being awarded MNCs years after the fact might actually decide to accept these newfound accolades. But not so fast, my friend! These titles were never decided on the field. The teams playing in that season were not aware that there was any national title on the line. There was no national polling system at that time ranking each team week by week, using the dynamics of that particular season. They were all chosen years or decades AFTER THE FACT! Therefore, since a significant national polling system wasn't created until 1934, any claims of a national championship prior to that is absolutely NOT CREDIBLE by any standard used today or since the dawn of the news polls. These MNCs are known as BACK-DATED titles, a term you'll need to remember because you'll see a few of them on Alabama's title resume.

These back-dated titles are claimed by some self-serving schools because some minor selector awarded the team an insignificant championship using non-uniform and statistically un-credible crieria well after the fact. Some of these selectors even bypassed using statistics at all and simply voted popularly for teams years later. Suffice it to say that since these selectors chose sometimes decades after the fact, the results are simply not worthy of any merit. Any team that claims a back-dated title is just trying to pad the old resume. But who's going to question it 50 or 80 years after the fact, other than the most ardent student of CFB history?

Most of these early selectors have faded into history, although some still survive, and new ones are born every year. As long as there is so much ambiguity in Division 1-A's football champion, these selectors will attempt to carve out their little piece of significance. Today we basically only recognize the AP and Coach's Poll/BCS as being legitimate. All the others run by the wayside. But remember this: just because you've never heard of a particular MNC selector, it doesn't mean that some team somewhere isn't claiming the results as part of their football lore.

The problem with all these selectors is that in years past, it wasn't always clear who the most credible selectors were as it is now. It seems very defined today, but back then the AP and UPI hadn't yet attained the stature that they did in later years, and sometimes teams were declared NCs as a result of the preponderance of minor selectors choosing them. It's extremely hard to gauge the strength of claims decades ago without knowing the public opinion of the day. Nowadays, it's clear-cut and defined. We have the AP and the Coach's Poll/BCS, period! It doesn't matter how many other selectors you've never heard of chose your team as NC, no one is going to respect/recognize it.

And that's good enough for the present day, but we still have the lingering question of how to judge teams' historical performances when they claim a bunch of bogus titles? How glorious was a NC in 1964 when 5 teams claimed it? The only thing I see to do is to draw the line between the AP and Coach's poll all the way back to the beginning, and then nothing before. To my satisfaction, 1934 is when NCs began.

SO AT WHAT POINT IN THE SEASON DID THE POLLS PROCLAIM THEIR NATIONAL CHAMPION?

You're not going to believe this, but the standard practice for decades was to declare the national champion PRIOR TO THE BOWL GAMES. The AP poll took it's final vote prior to the bowl game every year until 1968; however, in 1965, they picked after the bowls, and then continued this practice in 1969 and every year thereafter. The UP/UPI poll choose before the bowls all the way up until 1974, in the wake of the controversy of Alabama being awarded a MNC after they lost to AP champion Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl the year before.

Why award a championship prior to the bowl games? Well it sounds strange today, but the reason they did this initially was that bowl games didn't have the same importance that they do today. Initially it was more or less a meaningless 'reward' game for a team with a good season, a chance to perhaps play a non-regional team in an 'exhibition'-style game. Only later did bowl games become a de-facto one game playoff to see if anyone could be left standing to claim the mythical 'national championship'. Before that, bowls were just gravy--a bonus. The regular season, however, was what mattered. If you had a good record, defeated your rivals, and won your conference, it was a successful season.

OKAY, WE GOT THE HISTORY LESSON. NOW TELL US WHY SOME OF ALABAMA'S TITLES ARE FRAUDS!

Glad you asked. Alabama claims national titles for the following years: 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992. Other than the first three, we'll go over each season individually.

1925, 1926, 1930. All back-dated titles. These titles were awarded years after the fact. Four teams could claim a back-dated title in 1925, eight teams in 1926, and two in 1930. See how inconsistent back-dated titles were? Doesn't matter. They don't really exist. Pure and simple resume embellishment. Some Bama fans try to justify these years by pointing out that they were awarded following Alabama wins in the Rose Bowl. Sorry. Even had there been an established MNC poll system during that time, the polls would continue to declare national champions BEFORE the bowls for the next 40 years. Nice revisionist try, but strike 3 titles from Bama's record.

1934--The first year for the AP poll, given to Minnesota. Alabama received 11 selectors choosing them, but I'm sure most of them were back-dated--impossible to know for sure. Minnesota had 29 selectors, most of them probably back-dated, but they got the only one that counted--the AP. Strike another title from Bama's record.

1941--The most egregious of Alabama's bogus titles. Alabama finished the season with 2 losses and ranked #20 in the final AP poll. But one of the minor selectors out of over 30 chose Alabama, and evidently, that's the only excuse they needed. Five other teams that year would have a superior claim over Alabama's if you counted minor selectors, but we don't. I'm not really sure how many years after the fact Bama raised this banner, but you can bet it was many--so that not many people might notice. Strike another title from their record--we're on a roll--up to five gone now!

1961--Ahh, the beginning of the Bear era, and the golden age of Tide football. Alabama was pretty much a consensus champion, with both of the major polls, the AP and UPI went their way. Some minor selectors chose Texas and Ohio State, but this title is solid. Score one legitimate title!

1964-- A 10-1 Alabama team claims a national title in 1964 in spite of an 11-0 Arkansas team having a better claim. Here, an instance of both the AP and UPI, which voted Alabama # 1 that year, still voting prior to the bowl game. Had the polls been conducted after the bowls, then I'm sure it would have been a consensus Arkansas pick because Alabama lost to Texas in the Orange bowl, but Arkansas beat Texas during the regular season. I recognize Alabama's title because that was the rules that were in place at the time. Chalk up another legitimate title for the Tide, although a modern-day jury would probably confer it on Arkansas.

1965--The first of Alabama's supposed two back-to-back titles. It was a split decision between the 9-1-1 Tide, who dropped the first game to Georgia and tied Tennessee, winning the AP title, and Michigan State, 10-1, dropping the Rose Bowl, winning the UPI crown--again, bestowed BEFORE the bowl games, while the AP that year was done afterwards. Two other teams, Arkansas and Dartmouth, also got a few minor selectors to choose them, but an AP title is gold, so score another legitimate title for the Tide, now up to three.

1966--Okay, Alabama does not claim this year as a national title, but here's the really strange part: Curiously, Alabama got shafted in 1966 by both the AP and UPI despite going 11-0 but finishing behind in both polls to Notre Dame and Michigan State, both who were 9-0-1 (yes, they tied each other) What's even stranger is that Alabama didn't claim a title anyway, considering that some minor selectors did choose them as national champs and that's seemingly all you need if you're Alabama. Yea, I think they may claim this one on a T-Shirt or ball cap, but the university doesn't officially recognize it. A book, The Missing Ring, commemorates that year. The team can probably blame George Wallace and the state of the civil rights struggle in Alabama at that time for being shunned.

1973--Alabama goes 11-1 and is chosen by the UPI. Notre Dame goes 11-0 and is crowned by the AP as NC. Who did the Irish beat in the Sugar Bowl? Why, Alabama--for their only loss. Why in the hell did Alabama get a national championship after losing their bowl game to the real national champion? Because the UPI was still choosing their champion BEFORE the bowl games. How crazy is that? Pretty crazy, by today's standards. If Alabama had any sense of decency, they would refuse to claim 1973 as a title year since they lost the de facto national championship game to the real champions, but since those were the rules at the time, I begrudgingly recognize this MNC. One good thing did come out of this fiasco though: the UPI quit choosing their champ before the bowl games after this one. Score four.

1978--Split title year, AP going to Alabama, and the UPI going to USC. A funny thing happened on the way to Legion Field, however. Alabama LOST to USC at home during the regular season. But alas, USC lost a regular season game too, and the two teams did not meet in a bowl game. So be it. Chalk up title number five to Bama, even if they did share it with a team they lost to at home.

1979--The goal-line stand title, against Penn State in the Sugar Bowl. Most of us remember watching that game. Alabama was 12-0 and took all the marbles and most of the selectors. No argument here. Score number six in legitimate titles!

1992--Alabama's only 'modern' day title, complete with all the 24 hour media attention afforded 'national championship' bowl match-ups, in this case a beat-down of Miami in the Sugar Bowl. Absolutely no doubt. Final tally to date, seven legitimate MNCs.

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT?

Yes, in this man's opinion. Any of the facts I give can be readily checked. Know this though: If you try to throw all of this in some Bammer's face, you're not going to accomplish anything. Denial is too strong a sentiment and this is way too much evidence to the contrary of their status quo. It has to sink-in on them. Just like you can't give starving people a steak dinner suddenly, you have to work on your favorite Bammer gradually. But chances are, most of them have little idea of the history of their team and the true facts of their self-appointed accolades.

We'll never straighten this mess out. The NCAA will never touch it. They may sanction a playoff one day, but they will never go back and declare retroactively what titles can be claimed by what teams. Some years in the past, 5-7 teams claim a national championship for a given year. There's just too much ambiguity in all this.

WELL WHAT ABOUT AUBURN? YOU'VE ONLY WON ONE TITLE, WHICH IS WAY LESS THAN OUR 12 OR 7 OR HOW THE HELL EVER MANY YOU THINK WE HAVE!

True, we only claim one, but know this: If we used the University of Alabama method of determining MNCs, which is claiming back-dated titles and claiming titles awarded by minor, inferior selectors, we could claim six--1913, 1914, 1957, 1983, 1993, 2004. Thankfully, we take the high road and do not! The university officially recognizes only ONE--1957.

Dibs on the Iron Bowl logo this week!

It's that time of year again, when the state chooses sides, and armed camps assail each other with taunts and threats, all looking forward to Saturday to see which sides' way of life is confirmed to be superior for the next 365 days. We plan to have plenty in the way of festivities this week, especially considering that this game might have to suffice as our bowl game this season, so stick around, and see who the winners and losers are, and who might be commemorated in a Daniel Moore painting.

Join us this week, which will culminate with the streak either being extended to an unprecedented 7 games, or with Saban finally gaining a toehold in his quest to dethrone Tuberville from his six year reign as King of Alabama. Either way, hang on! It's gonna be a helluva ride!

Tomorrow: The truth behind Alabama's 12 claimed national championships.

So without further adieu, let's open with a little smack, our first poll of the week:

Silly me. At the beginning of the season, I had transcribed our schedule onto my calendar at work--incorrectly, as it turns out. I had the Iron Bowl immediately following the Georgia game, you know, where it belongs, so I went through most of last week thinking that we had a one-week turnaround. Since we had that fun panty raid over at Dawg Sports, I thought it might be a good idea to scout out sister SB Nation Blog Roll Bama Roll to see what formations they might be running in practice and determine what kind of mischief we might get into. Looks like that will have to wait a week or so, but I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Bammers over next week for some fun festivities. I'm thinking about dedicating a whole thread just for them that doesn't necessarily include a Top 10 list. We'll be sure to have great commentary, fun polls, and a magic show for the kids, so we'll see you then...

Evidently, an email is circulating, especially amongst the students, (and HEY students, how about a little Hat Tip now and then?) that purports the tale of a friend of a player, describing how the team is dealing with some recent treachery by Tony Franklin. Witness: (Sorry, giving it verbatim. If you want to track the originator down, look for someone missing a pinkey, used for hitting the shift key...)

from a player in my lab…i had befriended one of the senior lineman…he was responsible for signaling in plays…he said that this past week was the hardest preparation week they have had all year…the reason…all of the signs that are used had to be changed…apparantly after the utm game, one of the utm coaches came up to tubbs and told him that his signs had been known by every team he’s played since franklin left…not only that, but mark richt called tubbs the week before the uga game (btw mark richt may be my new favorite coach because of this) and told tubberville it was in his best interest to change all of his signs because he knew all of them…wonder why we started going to a huddle now???…from everything i gather, coach tony franklin put those bad boys out there for the world to know…it can be traced back to arkansas is what coach richt said…so for the past however many weeks, every team we played either knew our signs, or had the opportunity to know them…i’m not saying that that’s an excuse for our offensive woes, but it could explain how we looked so predictable and how kodi makes a majority of his completions after the play has broken down…i knew franklin was a snake, but if this is true, i hope he never coaches again…i hope he has to go door to door selling his books and video’s…he’s dead to me…

Now that's funny! It's complete bonk, but perfect fodder for those looking to pile onto our miserable season. I'm really surprised that none of the Bammers have sent this to my personal email yet with all the other jokes they keep me apprised of. (Keep the cards and letters and good-wishes coming!) But what's even funnier than the email itself is the belief that Auburn folk created it just to excuse their poor performance on the field this season. That takes the top shelf prize, right there. What's next? An email from Gogue to the student body that will offer grief counseling to all requesting it after the Iron Bowl? 

And what's this persistent rumor growing legs about some back-channel agreement/conspiracy/abdication of Tubs to Clemson being a done deal? It's been reported by a few sites, and even Mr. College Football himself, Tony Barnhart, alluded to it's possibility last week, although now I can't find the specific reference in his blog (hmmmm...). Depending on which blog you read, and the time of day, they have Tubs leaving ranging from after the Iron Bowl to after Thanksgiving dinner. Jeeeez! I know stories are hard to come by in the blogosphere, but promulgating this kind of stuff is scraping the barnacles off the bottom. Feeding topics like these are one of the reasons the establishment hates sports blogs.

And speaking of hating blogs, this week Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez, in a complete moment of candor, had this to say about blogs:

I don't get on message boards. I don't think anybody, any of our players or family should. But it's amazing some of the things that people would say or amazing things people will yell at you of a personal nature. You almost want to tell them get a life. I mean, there's a whole lot bigger problems. You lose a ballgame, and then you look at the economy or after every game I usually get to meet one of our veterans or somebody. You know, to take it personal on a coach or player to me, I don't think it's ever right.

Roger that, RichRod. I kinda understand what he's saying, but perhaps having a current record of 3-8 isn't the best time to say it. But wait. If you don't get on them, how do you know all the personal attacks that they contain? Or does your coaching staff have a dedicated blog/message-board scout? I'm thinking that Richie reads them. I wonder if our coaches read any? If they do, it's probably that damn Joe Cribbs Car Wash. Man, what I wouldn't give for a little acknowledgement from our staff! Just some kind of sign. Even a denial.  Tubs: "We totally disavow reading anything from Track Em Tigers, and nothing says denial like Bryan luncheon meats..." Yup. We bloggers are so lonely, we have to subside on shout-outs from other bloggers. It's a world with tough, tough competitors...

An announcement out of Austin this afternoon  that Texas DC Will Muschamp has been offered a multi-year contract extension that will nail him down as DC for the forseeable future and will lead to him eventually supplanting Mack Brown as the Longhorns' head coach. Details of the contract are still being ironed out, but so far include a bump in Muschamp's salary to $900,000 beginning in January.

It's still unclear as to how long this grooming process will last as Brown has 8 more years left on his contract and is "not thinking at all about moving on." Obviously, Texas is looking to secure the hot coaching prospects' services before waves of other schools come calling in a year where there is a dearth of existing rising stars. His name is probably the most mentioned prospect around the country that has never held a HC position and Texas rightfully wanted to see that he stayed put.

Muschamp served as DC for LSU under Nick Saban, then promply left with him when Saban jumped to the NFL Dolphins. After that 2-year stint, he returned to college football and served as DC with Auburn for two years before two-stepping west to Texas this past winter after rumored dubious contract negotiations involving Tommy Tuberville. Known for his 'enthusiastic' demeanor, Muschamp has had mixed success in his first year with the Horns teaching his brand of defense.

This announcement today follows a nascent trend in CFB of naming successors way in advance. The best known example was the naming of OC Jimbo Fisher late last year to be the coach-in-waiting at Florida State, a move seemingly designed to keep a quality coordinator in place rather than have him poached by other teams in need of a new HC. Other examples have occured at Kentucky with Joker Phillips and at Purdue with Danny Hope.

It all came down to two things: Texas knew that other suitors would come calling and they knew Will's proclivity for leaving...

We thought you had him neutered!!!

Auburn-Georgia week holds such special meaning for a lot of Tiger fans, especially for Georgia natives War Damn Zach and I , and also border-teetering Jay, not to mention about a quarter of our football team. We've certainly had fun with the cultural exchange with the Doggies this week, but on a more serious note, I thought we'd take a look at some of the most significant/dubious matches in the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry the last 20 years. And in the interest of detente' and to show I'm not a total homer, I've included games that we didn't even win. Please feel free to suggest your own games and/or add commentary to the ones I've mentioned. I fully expect Acid Reign to come in and add analysis to each game, as I am flying blind tonight with most of my reference material, which I left in my other pants/computer.

My Top 5, in no particular order, be you Barner or Fleabag...

1) 1996 The Overtime Game, 56-49 Georgia. THE reason why the NCAA adapted the 'must go for two' rule starting in the 3rd overtime. I believe this is also the game that Uga tried to take a bite out of Robert Baker--on OUR turf, no less. Uga must have thought that Baker kept his stash in his hip pads...

2) 1994 The Non-Pat Dye Tie, 23-23 all. Ruined our 20-game winning streak. Not a particularly strong Goff team--only won 6 games, but yet another example of the lesser team in this series exceeding expectations. Whatever happened to that guy? Gators LOVED him...

3) 2004 Clash of the Titans, 24-6 Auburn. Both teams highly ranked, Georgia poised to beat us for the 3rd year in a row, Auburn looking to stay undefeated and jump into the BCS top 2. This loss kept the Dogs from getting a rematch in Atlanta...

4) 2005 The Nail-Biter, 31-30 Auburn. Again, two good teams square off, both star-crossed to ever make it to Atlanta that year. Shockley makes a quick knee rehab to put forth valiant effort against a scrappy Tiger team. Brandon Cox completes 4th-and-forever to set up the game winner. A game where if you had to lose it, you don't mind going down like that...

5) 2002 Thank You, Jesus and Mark Richt!, 24-21 Georgia. Another clash of good teams and another very-close game, won by the slimmest of margins in the crappiest of weather.  David Greene's throw to hit Michael Johnson in the end zone made for the only immortal  Larry Munson call over the years that made me cringe. Gave the Pups their first SEC crown in 20 years. Somewhere in Dallas, Herschel smiled again...

So there you have it--our contemporary history as I remember it. Again, please feel free to give me your list or add on to my commentary.

No freshmen or virgins shall pass... 

From the home office, slap dab in the middle of Dawg central, today's top 10 additional 'I Hate' topics for UGA Bloggers to consider...

10) I hate not having a real fight song...

9) I hate Sonny Seiler and his canine mafia...

8) I hate that Munson dates our coeds...

7) I hate that open end-zone in our stadium...

6) I hate that they won't name the stadium after Dooley...

5) I hate that Zeier shot to the top of the announcing crew, that no-SEC winning hack...

4) I hate that we're last in the SEC in graduating futbol players

3) I hate (insert obligatory defacing hedges reference here)

2) I hate that Richt can't pull the trifecta with Tennessee, Florida, and Auburn

1) I hate Michael Adams and so does the rest of college football...

 Nothing stinks like a wet dog...

Nothing gets the juices flowing for game week like going over to your opponent's blog (especially a SB Nation blog) and sampling a little of the commentary. It's also fun to do exchanges between blogs during game week. If you recall, Rocky Top Talk did a Q&A session with Jay before that game. Our sister blog, Dawg Sports, made contact with me a few weeks ago about doing a humorous exchange outside the normal fare, so we decided on Deep South's Oldest Rivalry Haiku, the little Japanese three-verse nature poems. Yea, yea, I know. You gotta harken back to those literary classes you took during freshman year. Ask Power of Dixieland. He knows what I'm talking about...

So I decided to cruise on over to their site today to see what was happening and instantly sight a Fanpost entitled I Really Hate Auburn. It's mostly tongue-in-cheek, but a little over the top. The Dogs have had their MNC dreams thrashed, by Florida of all teams, (who would have thunk it?) so you have to spot them a little PMS moodiness. One commenter recalls that he first started hating Auburn during the Pat Sullivan era. I then proceed to comment after that, and then the site owner/editor/district attorney proceeds to jump in. CAUTION: Not suitable for young children or people who shirk from conflict.

Special Enmity for Auburn I have hated Auburn since I saw them beat our 9-0 football team in 1971. Pat Sullivan literally won the Heisman Trophy against us that day, 35-20. That MAY have been one of the luckiest days an athlete ever had in Sanford Stadium, with all the throws he made just as he was being sacked.

by Vinings Dog on Nov 11, 2008 11:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What a coincidence... Bo Jackson literally won the Heisman that day in 1985, too, with around 180 yards and a 3 TD beatdown of the Dawgs in Sanford. Perhaps you’re upset because we never said thanks. Alas, 1985 was my first year picking hedges, and like any rookie is prone to do in such matters, I nearly tore off half a bush. However, I was able to perfect the craft when returning in ’87 and ’89.

by War Eagle Atlanta on Nov 12, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

War Eagle Atlanta, I try to be hospitable to guests in my house . . . . . . but I strongly recommend that, if you’ve participated in that despicable practice on a visit to Sanford Stadium for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired, you keep it to yourself.It’s called destruction of public property and it’s a crime. If visitors to our campus started ripping bricks out of the Tate Center, we wouldn’t tolerate it; we’d have the perpetrators arrested and prosecuted. Why we tolerate it in Sanford Stadium is beyond me, but the fact that we fail to press charges doesn’t make that act of vandalism any less criminal.The next time you’re in Athens, keep your damn hands off of our hedges. That kind of cheap crap is why I hate Auburn.

by T Kyle King on Nov 12, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bricks don't grow back... Hopefully you needn’t attend an Ag school to know that. Besides, that was half a lifetime for me. I’ve matured since then, unlike some of the commenters on here…

by War Eagle Atlanta on Nov 12, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, but bricks can be repaired I’ll quote you the code section if you’d like, but what you did (three times, I might add) was a crime.If we started throwing you sons of bitches in the Clarke County Jail for that crap, I bet y’all would mature in a great big hurry, but that’s exactly the kind of l awless nonsense I would expect from an institution that chooses to honor cheaters like Shug Jordan and Pat Dye.

by T Kyle King on Nov 12, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why don't... …you personally enact a citizen’s arraist on me next year, Barney? Jesus, will you pull your panties back out of your crack on the hedges?Just be thankful that you don’t have Florida at home every other year, or the shrubbery might look like a hurricane blew through it…

by War Eagle Atlanta on Nov 12, 2008 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All right, that's it, War Eagle Atlanta I’ve put up with you long enough.You’re banned, asshole.Now get back to your double-wide and impregnate your sister while watching rasslin’.by

T Kyle King on Nov 12, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs


So Neidermeyer blows a gasket over some shrubbery. I'm first taken aback by his ferocity over something so innane, so I relent a little. He then proceeds to keep hounding on it, like a Mormon missionary with an Amway franchise. I don't back down, and he does like any mutt would do and goes whimpering behind his blog. If you can't beat 'em, have them banned. Every one gets their lunch eaten occasionally while commenting on blogs, but not everyone gets to silence their critics. That's something I vow never to do here on TET. Assuming someone ever takes my lunch money first, that is...

So be sure to visit our fine friends over at Dawg Sports. And while I would never use my position here to encourage anyone to be rude or anything other than Auburnly, I probably won't mind if you pick the hedges...

And withour further adieu, my Deep South's Oldest Rivalry haiku:


Dawg winds prevail
Westward across the Hooch
Will Richt blow O-for Alabama?

Game day smell of bourbon
Dawgs man enough in Auburn?
Pat Dye's liver inquires

Larry's echoes linger
Sugar falls; run, Lindsay, run
Bellamy-Strickland silent

Fall hopes fall wayside
A veteran coach twists in the wind
Sexton, get busy

A new OC beginning
Bidden not well, then farewell
Spread's dead, baby

 Moments of brilliance tempered with moments of desperation...

What's the old adage? When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging? It makes sense at first glance. That is, until you realize that to stop digging is counter-intuitive to human nature. To stop digging is synonymous with quitting, with giving up, and that's the one thing you learn from day one in organized football to never do--even if all your effort is merely spinning you in circles. In the real world, telling the difference between effective and frivolous effort is a lot harder than you think, especially when it comes to defining each as it applies to both players and coaches.

Ever since Franklin was fired, I've been waiting for the offense to settle down and come together. I hoped that some simplicity would right all the wrongs and cause the Auburn train to get back on the track. After all, this is basically the same young team from last year. We have the talent, but why has this team gotten worse with virtually every game? You would think that the drop-off in production would subside at some point, but it hasn't. We can't put together two complete halves of a game. Usually, we don't show for the 2nd half, but last week against Ole Miss we did. The problem in Oxford was that we didn't show up for the first half...

So far this year, we lack any semblance of a signature win, a quality victory over an opponent that we didn't probably expect, sort of like in Gainesville last year. Face it, our bottom of the 9th closing of Miss State is receiving top billing unless we get things in gear real fast. The coast looked clear in our schedule after we dropped the game to LSU. I figured the pressure was off a bit and the team could gel while playing some games that weren't going to be as difficult.  But after we lost to Vandy and Franklin was ousted, the subsequent losses that followed made it became readily apparent that the LSU game was actually the high-water mark of our program this year. Our effort seemed to be dwindling down, and no tonic could cure our ills.

This is a odd place to be as an Auburn fan during the Tuberville regime. We haven't lost four in a row since 1999, Tubs' first season, when we lost five straight right in the middle of the schedule.  A hallmark of his coaching prowess has been that we recovered quickly from losses--especially conference losses. I've never seen it spiral around the bowl like this, and it's very frustrating. Sure, we've had disappointing results after promising pre-season predictions; 2003 and 2005 come to mind, but I think this is the worse than all of them: a competent team expected to hold their own has had the wagon wheels come flying off. You can't even circle the wagons under that scenario...

I record the Auburn Football Review each week, but admittingly, I don't watch the whole show if we lose. I can't bear to. I only watch the beginning when Tuberville addresses the team. At first, his speeches after losses were very motivational. The one after LSU was top-notch. He had me wanting to go suit up for the next one. But gradually, the length of the speech and it's message has diminished after each successive loss. Granted, a lot of these have been on the road and the only thing you want to do after a road loss is get cleaned up and get on the bus, but I think I see the competitive fire waning quite a bit. It has to filter down to the players. Yea, I know, I shouldn't read too much into it, but with everything else that is happening, most prominently the effort on the field, I think the team has reached a crossroads at this point.

I now think that the problems with this team go so deep that the only way we're going to correct it is by having the season end and regroup for the next one, with fresh talent coming in and having some fresh faces with some of the coaches. No, I'm not talking about giving up. We have the capability of springing an upset, especially now that Georgia's hopes have been dashed and Alabama's might soon be, they might not be expecting a hook thrown by an off-balanced Auburn team. We've got to get a signature win somehow, and Amen Corner would be the time to do it, but our opportunities to build on top of something are running out. I don't know if a resounding victory over UT-Martin would serve as a big enough springboard to launch major upsets of the Dawgs or the Tide, but I hope we try. Some have suggested that Tubs has lost the team. I don't know about that, but I think that the time has come where we might want to stop digging, whatever that means...