- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Auburn football now claims nine national championships, including 1993 & 2004
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:12 pm to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:12 pm to RLDSC FAN
Their 04 claim is more legit than USCs 03 claim. They went undefeated. 1993 they were on probation, they were good but that claim is nonsense.
4
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:14 pm to Madking
How? Usc was voted #1 by the AP, Auburn wasn't. If you really want to take it away from SC and give it to someone else, it should be Oklahoma.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:15 pm to RLDSC FAN
Don't like claiming 93 but 04 should have been done the day we beat Virginia Tech in the sugar bowl over 20 years ago.
The titles auburn should claim are 13, 57, 83, 04, and 10
The titles auburn should claim are 13, 57, 83, 04, and 10
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:15 pm to RLDSC FAN
Not advocating to take away or give anyone anything. What I said was their “claim” holds more weight than 03 USCs. Per the rules USC didn’t win any title in 03, they won a media title which means frick all in the BCS era.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:22 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
How? Usc was voted #1 by the AP, Auburn wasn't. If you really want to take it away from SC and give it to someone else, it should be Oklahoma.
The agreed upon system by the schools in 2003 was the BCS. The AP Poll was simply one of the polls used in the BCS algorithm, along with the Coaches/ESPN Poll, and a number of different computer polls. The BCS determined who played for the national title. USC did not play in that game.
I don't agree with it, but the theory with 2004 Auburn is they finished #2 in the AP. If USC should be forced to vacate their AP title like with their BCS Title, the next man up would be Auburn.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:28 pm to Madking
Oklahoma won a split title while they were on probation.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:28 pm to RLDSC FAN
1910: no mention in the records book
1913: retroactive poll from the 1980s
1914: no mention in the record book
1958: no mention in the records book
1983: sure, they got screwed this year
1993: lol on postseason ban for cheating
2004: lmao
1913: retroactive poll from the 1980s
1914: no mention in the record book
1958: no mention in the records book
1983: sure, they got screwed this year
1993: lol on postseason ban for cheating
2004: lmao
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:29 pm to RLDSC FAN
A few of them are debatable, like the super ancient ones when the very idea of a nation champion was loosely defined, but the modern ones are especially pathetic. By the 1970s the only national championships anyone actually recognized was the AP and Coaches poll. If it's not one of them, it's bogus.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:30 pm to FightinTigersDammit
Auburn was ineligible in 93.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:35 pm to Madking
They were also ineligible in 1957 and 1958.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:37 pm to GoGators1995
K
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:40 pm to Madking
K
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:53 pm to RLDSC FAN
1958: Montgomery Full Season Championship (David Montgomery)
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:55 pm to Madking
quote:
Their 04 claim
What's ironic is that them claiming it actually just rewards them for being left out.
Let's say hypothetically Auburn played USC in the championship game that year. We obviously don't know what would have happened but almost everyone on the planet would have picked USC to be a heavy favorite.
In this parallel universe Oklahoma's claiming 2004.
It's why Auburn's 93 claim and UCF's 2017 claim are so stupid. It's easy to claim a championship when you get to completely dodge the other real contenders in the post season.
Hell at this rate Oregon would have been better off last year refusing to play in the playoff and just declaring themselves champions anyway.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:01 pm to RLDSC FAN
I guess Ohio State should claim the 2012 title since they were undefeated (and on probation).
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:05 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
UCF's 2017 claim are so stupid. It's easy to claim a championship when you get to completely dodge the other real contenders in the post season.
The team UCF beat in the post season beat both teams that played in the championship that UCF was denied a shot at.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:06 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
Wasn't it the winning percentage of a team's opponents added to, or multiplied by, the winning percentage of the opponents' opponents?
That’s one calculation I think that was the separate one used by the BCS but there were others and all the computers had a SOS it as well but we don’t know exactly how it was calculated.
quote:
And I am pretty sure SOS was still a factor in 2004.
2004 was the first year they used the 2/3 polls 1/3 computer formula.
quote:
Auburn was supposed to play Bowling Green…had to scramble to find a replacement and picked up The Citadel
This really shows how flawed SOS formulas can be. Now I’m sure BGU was a better team than the Citadel but compared to top teams like Auburn the difference is marginal. Auburn should beat either handily and it should not make or break your SOS. Auburns other OOC games were ULM and La Tech. Sorry but adding BGU to that is still a weak OOC.
FWIW OU played Oregon, USC played Va Tech and Notre Dame.
ETA as far as the SEC schedule. Besides Auburn the only team in the West that had a winning record was LSU. They did play UGA and Tennessee from the East who both won 10 games but also 2-9 Kentucky so that’s 3 tough conference games, with a garbage OOC.
But this season along with 2018 and 2019 is why I think the 4 team playoff was the best system
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:06 pm to RLDSC FAN
A USC fan coming to an LSU message board to whine about another team claiming their early 2000s title was an unexpected message board treat on this otherwise dull August Tuesday.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:09 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
That's fair, but keep in mind that was the first game of the season. USC was a much different team in January
Is this where we pretend USC was some unbeatable juggernaut late in the season? Weird how they beat 6-6 USC by 5 in December.
Not to mention the aforementioned bailout against VT, a 3 point win over 4-7 Stanford, an 8 point win over 5 loss Oregon State, a 6 point home win over Cal...
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 3:10 pm to Madking
quote:
Their 04 claim is more legit than USCs 03 claim.
neither of those claims is legit in any way. Every poll, computer, matrix, or whtaever was simply a part of the BCS whole. Individual slices making up the full pie. From 1998-2013 the only and I literally mean ONLY thing that actaully was legit is who won the BCS National championship game between #1 and #2.
USC didn't do that, nor did Au.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News