Both 04 and 10 team should be remembered as a National Championship team.

[emases 0]

Auburn should claim the 2004 National Championship no matter what other people say!

I became a Huge Auburn fan because of 04 team, and I even name my son after the quarterback Jason Campbell. 2004 Tigers is the best. Both 04 and 10 team should be remembered as a National Championship team.

I was a international student at Auburn during 2003-2008. Auburn football is a huge part of my life since then. WDE.

[guerra aguila 0]

I believe in my heart that nobody in the country could beat the 04 Football team. Including USC.

With that in mind, it will forever be a special part of my life, and I will carry the memories with me everywhere I go, just like I will with the 2010 National Title season.

When its all said and done... Auburn has won two National Titles in 57, and 2010. We have two.

Auburn will win a third one in the next couple of years... we wont need to claim anything... we will know outright that Auburn accomplished their achievements... not "Claim" them.

As much as I want to agree with you about 04... I do believe it should stay vacated. I dont think Auburn will stoop to that other teams all time low.

WAR DAMN EAGLE!

[auburn4ever 1,266]

The Auburn Tigers have won (9) National Championships!!!

1910 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1913 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1914 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1957 AP Champions, 1958 AP National Champions, 1983 AP Champions, 1993 AP National Champions, 2004 BCS National Champions, 2010 BCS & AP National Champions.

[guerra aguila 0]

The Auburn Tigers have won (9) National Championships!!!

1910 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1913 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1914 SIAA & Billingsley National Champions, 1957 AP Champions, 1958 AP National Champions, 1983 AP Champions, 1993 AP National Champions, 2004 BCS National Champions, 2010 BCS & AP National Champions.

I dont buy into all that.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Being a true Auburn fan like I have been since I was 7 years old, I have no plans to ever let this subject die. Now that U$C is no longer the 2004 BCS National Champions, it goes to the Auburn Tigers. We've now on the BCS twice within 6 years of each other and with 2 different head coaches. 2004 and 2010 BCS National Champions.

War Eagle!!! & ALL IN.

[Rednilla 5,391]

I believe in my heart that nobody in the country could beat the 04 Football team. Including USC.

With that in mind, it will forever be a special part of my life, and I will carry the memories with me everywhere I go, just like I will with the 2010 National Title season.

When its all said and done... Auburn has won two National Titles in 57, and 2010. We have two.

Auburn will win a third one in the next couple of years... we wont need to claim anything... we will know outright that Auburn accomplished their achievements... not "Claim" them.

As much as I want to agree with you about 04... I do believe it should stay vacated. I dont think Auburn will stoop to that other teams all time low.

WAR DAMN EAGLE!

I agree to a great extent. I think Auburn and USC would have been an epic battle in 04, but that Auburn would have won in the end because of special teams (and having played more games against teams on that level), but I don't think we should claim the NC because of the standard that had been set as the "National Championship Game" and the fact that we weren't in it (even if we should have been).

However, I think we should claim at least 1913 because of how dominant that team was, and I wouldn't be opposed to claiming 1914 (defense gave up no points all season, but team had single blemish in a 0-0 tie) and 1983 (beat a very good Michigan team in an uninspiring game, both teams ahead of us lost, but Miami jumped us because of a "sexier" win). All have legitimate claims to the title.

Oh, and it seems like there was someone who named our 1908 team national champs...not that I would claim it, just that it could be added to the "potentials" list.

[Rednilla 5,391]

Being a true Auburn fan like I have been since I was 7 years old, I have no plans to ever let this subject die. Now that U$C is no longer 2004 BCS national champions, it goes to the Auburn Tigers. We've now on the BCS twice within 6 years of each other and with 2 different head coaches. 2004 and 2010 BCS national champions.

War Eagle!!! & ALL IN.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, why wouldn't Oklahoma, who won every game except the one against USC, get that championship instead of Auburn?

[CammyCamJuice1345162966 0]

We are not BCS National Champions of 2004. That can't even be an opinion. If you, which I do, think of Auburn as National Champions in 2004, that is fine. But they are not BCS National Champions. Only the BCS can give that title away, which they won't. That's like a fan stating that Utah are the 2004 BCS National Championsh. Or even the 2010 BCS National Champions. Or that Auburn is the 2004 AP National Champions. Don't make stuff up.

[bigbird 60,516]

Being a true Auburn fan like I have been since I was 7 years old, I have no plans to ever let this subject die. Now that U$C is no longer 2004 BCS national champions, it goes to the Auburn Tigers. We've now on the BCS twice within 6 years of each other and with 2 different head coaches. 2004 and 2010 BCS national champions.

War Eagle!!! & ALL IN.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, why wouldn't Oklahoma, who won every game except the one against USC, get that championship instead of Auburn?

OU proved they weren't the best team, AU never got that chance.  Therefore there is reasonable suspicion that they could be.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

Being a true Auburn fan like I have been since I was 7 years old, I have no plans to ever let this subject die. Now that U$C is no longer 2004 BCS national champions, it goes to the Auburn Tigers. We've now on the BCS twice within 6 years of each other and with 2 different head coaches. 2004 and 2010 BCS national champions.

War Eagle!!! & ALL IN.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, why wouldn't Oklahoma, who won every game except the one against USC, get that championship instead of Auburn?

Speaking strictly intellectually...

1. Auburn was ranked # 2 at the end of the season.  Oklahoma was #3.  If the president dies, the speaker of the house doesn't skip the VP to become president.

2. Auburn was 13-0, Oklahoma was 12-1.  Oklahoma lost to USC, badly, while Auburn beat a Virginia Tech team that lost to USC by a mere 11 points in their opener.  Numbers don't lie.

That being said, we didn't win it on the field.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I am claiming National Championships that rightfully belongs to us in the first place because we got screwed. We did everything on the field to win a National Championship back in 2004.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I am disappointed we never got the chance to prove it on the field in 2004, but that's the way it happened. I do not consider us national champions for that year and I won't unless the BCS decides to award it to us, but they won't.

The other day I was listening to ESPN Austin and the sentiments expressed on the show I was listening to was that  someone needs to be awarded the BCS title for 2004 since it had been stripped from USC. They felt that Auburn and Utah should both be recognized by the BCS as NCs for that year. If that were to happen, I would have no problems claiming it.

[Rednilla 5,391]

OU proved they weren't the best team, AU never got that chance.  Therefore there is reasonable suspicion that they could be.

USC cheated. As long as we're talking intellectually, then they should be taken out of the equation completely, and neither Auburn nor Oklahoma lost to a team who hasn't been found guilty of paying players.

Speaking strictly intellectually...

1. Auburn was ranked # 2 at the end of the season.  Oklahoma was #3.  If the president dies, the speaker of the house doesn't skip the VP to become president.

That's because they lost to a team that cheated...

2. Auburn was 13-0, Oklahoma was 12-1.  Oklahoma lost to USC, badly, while Auburn beat a Virginia Tech team that lost to USC by a mere 11 points in their opener.  Numbers don't lie.

That being said, we didn't win it on the field.

Oklahoma was also favored coming into the game, and there were many out there who still doubted that USC could play with the big boys. I really think that had both teams played their best game, USC would still have won, but it would have been much closer, but because Oklahoma had the big head coming in, they got smacked down and couldn't recover.

I certainly don't think Oklahoma was better than Auburn that year, but as long as we're talking about what is fair...

[aucpe 0]

I don't buy into the claiming of the 2004 championship, but I do give Auburn more of a right to claim it than OU.  USC didn't have to forfeit the game, so OU still lost.  And it's not like Bush was on steroids -- even if he got paid it didn't affect his on-field performance.

(I admit that in some way, not having to worry about money could lower your stress level and be an advantage, but not for the purposes of my argument  )

[AUpocalypse 12]

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/4519/04bcschamps.jpg

...there... via whatifsports.com, argument over 

Your 2004 BCS NATIONAL CHAMPION AUBURN TIGERS 

[CammyCamJuice1345162966 0]

Just to clarify something:

Do not mix BCS standings with final AP / Coaches poll standings. The two are completely different. In the final 2004 BCS standings, Auburn was #3. Just like this year in the final BCS standings, Oregon was #2. BCS standings have their final poll after Championship weekend (Dec 5th-ish). They are purely to decide who gets to play in the BCS National Championship.

Auburn fielded the best team in 2004, regardless of the USC situation. Auburn was declared a National Champion in some extremely minor and unknown polls.  I have no problem with any person claiming Auburn National Champs.

Oklahoma ended the season 12-1. They aren't even in question. But Auburn, nor the media, will never officially recognize it. But who cares? Best season in my memory.

[augolf1716 21,122]

Being a true Auburn fan like I have been since I was 7 years old, I have no plans to ever let this subject die. Now that U$C is no longer 2004 BCS national champions, it goes to the Auburn Tigers. We've now on the BCS twice within 6 years of each other and with 2 different head coaches. 2004 and 2010 BCS national champions.

War Eagle!!! & ALL IN.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, why wouldn't Oklahoma, who won every game except the one against USC, get that championship instead of Auburn?

OU proved they weren't the best team, AU never got that chance.  Therefore there is reasonable suspicion that they could be.

Utah was undefeated as well dummy

[bigbird 60,516]

They weren't part of a BCS conference...Dummy

[augolf1716 21,122]

They weren't part of a BCS conference...Dummy

What's your point?????? Why should they not be included in the discussion. You are sooo 

[CammyCamJuice1345162966 0]

They weren't part of a BCS conference...Dummy

Technically that is not a correct statement. They weren't part of an automatic-bid BCS conference. Recall, every team that plays in the Football Bowl Subdivision is part of a BCS conference, including the Sun Belt and others. There are just 6 automatic bid conferences.

[bigbird 60,516]

correct, I just forgot to put automatic. 

[augolf1716 21,122]

correct, I just forgot to put automatic. 

Like I said Dummy! Good lord.....

[waspan 0]

If the BCS were to publicly tell the world, 'gee we made a mistake in the first place, the evidence against Reggie Bush was strong enough at the end of the 2004 season to warrant a declaration of ineligibility and Auburn should have been playing Oklahoma for our 2004 BCS National title.  Judging by the two final record 13-0 vs 12-1, we have decided to award the 2004 NC to the Auburn Tigers'  then, of course 2004 would become an Auburn National Championship season.  Awarded and claim are two very different words.  Claiming titles opens us up to the same tactic we so proudly adhere against.  Trying to word this without saying 'Do you really want to stoop to Bama's level'  but that is impossible.  Do you really want to stoop to bama's level?

[dpwspringer 0]

About the BCS National Championship:  The BCS puts the #1 ranked team and the #2 ranked team in the BCS National Championship Game.  The winner of that game is the BCS National Champion.  You have to have been in the game and have won it.  USCw beat OU but USCw vacated that win and under the terms of vacation that means it is like USCw did not play in the game but OU did and they lost it. 

There is no BCS National Champion for the 2004 season.

The other polls are different and since USCw had to vacate their last game of the season and their BCS National Championship Game victory, it is arguable whether they should have had to vacate their position in the polls.  Obviously that is very political and the polls decided that either USCw got to keep their #1 ranking or either is vacated and no one can claim it.  We got screwed by the politics and that is the way it is.  Time to move on.

[aubcali 433]

About the BCS National Championship:  The BCS puts the #1 ranked team and the #2 ranked team in the BCS National Championship Game.  The winner of that game is the BCS National Champion.  You have to have been in the game and have won it.  USCw beat OU but USCw vacated that win and under the terms of vacation that means it is like USCw did not play in the game but OU did and they lost it. 

There is no BCS National Champion for the 2004 season.

The other polls are different and since USCw had to vacate their last game of the season and their BCS National Championship Game victory, it is arguable whether they should have had to vacate their position in the polls.  Obviously that is very political and the polls decided that either USCw got to keep their #1 ranking or either is vacated and no one can claim it.  We got screwed by the politics and that is the way it is.  Time to move on.

Great points, but the BCS retroactively applied the "vacate" rule after the USC investigation began.  I just keep on coming back to you can't have a blank championship in a year.  If you do, the de facto championship reverts back to the team that was disqualified.  I don't agree with that.  I just don't.

In 2006, the Tour de France disqualified the winner, Floyd Landis.  Did they vacate the champion and leave it blank?  No.  They awarded the victory to Óscar Pereiro.  Now, you can argue that Oklahoma should win the championship. Personally, I go with the final BCS standings with Auburn #2 and the fact that Oklahoma had its chance to beat USC.