do you remember before Pat Dye?

[AURealist 2,185]

8 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Imagine thinking Pat Dye invented Auburn football. Auburn is a historic power. You not of which you speak.

Auburn's rich football history is much more glorious in the minds of Auburn fans than it is in real life.   We were great under Heisman, but so were others.  Historically, we're not Top 10 all-time.  Minnesota has had more success.   

We need to be honest with ourselves about who we were, who we are and who we want to be.  

[AUBourne 425]

17 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

It's also a bizarre way to view athletics. Sports are constantly changing. The games themselves go through different "eras", with wildly different styles and rules.

Year to year, week to week, things change. Randomly deciding that the Barfield years define Auburn is silly. Why not the 2004 team? Or the early Bowden years? Or the dominant 50s teams? Or the Amazins?

Trying to define a 130 year program with a small snippet just means nothing at all. Not to the current players, the current reality, or the future. It just means nothing.

What a weird rant that had nothing to do with the quote posted.

[AUght2win 6,818]

15 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Auburn's rich football history is much more glorious in the minds of Auburn fans than it is in real life.   We were great under Heisman, but so were others.  Historically, we're not Top 10 all-time.  Minnesota has had more success.   

We need to be honest with ourselves about who we were, who we are and who we want to be.  

In what possible metric is Minnesota better than Auburn. 

[AUwent 3,747]

16 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Auburn's rich football history is much more glorious in the minds of Auburn fans than it is in real life.   We were great under Heisman, but so were others.  Historically, we're not Top 10 all-time.  Minnesota has had more success.   

We need to be honest with ourselves about who we were, who we are and who we want to be.  

We're top 15 overall. Not a blue-blood, but definitely more than just Cam Newton as our detractors might claim.

[nixtosanders94 2,180]

2 minutes ago, AUwent said:

We're top 15 overall. Not a blue-blood, but definitely more than just Cam Newton as our detractors might claim.

^^^this...short but very accurate.

[The Freak 2,526]

7 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

In what possible metric is Minnesota better than Auburn. 

They are undefeated against us. 

 

All time.

[aubaseball 2,583]

My opinion and probably shared by many, but my problem with Gus is the salary. Now some can say that is what coaches get paid these days, and that is what Auburn agreed to pay him.   I don’t claim to be a genius, but I can see that he is not worth the price Auburn is paying him

[AURealist 2,185]

10 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

In what possible metric is Minnesota better than Auburn. 

They've won more natty's and wooped us last time we played.  In what ways is Auburn better than Minnesota?

[AUght2win 6,818]

22 minutes ago, AUBourne said:

 

Would you call Minnesota a national power now just because they have some titles from the 30 and 40s? 

What AU did under Iron Mike doesn't change the fact that Auburn was not a power in the decades before Pat Dye. An occasional good season doesn't make a program a power.. AU didn't even win a conference title from 58 to 82. Almost every other team in the SEC did. 

 

Just wrong. Quantitatively and qualitatively. Titles don't mean anything in the context of program history. Because College Football has always been a joke in terms of how it decides its winners.

Take the Amazins for instance. In 1972, Auburn beat Alabama head to head. They both finished the season with 1 conference loss, and AU had the tiebreaker. But Alabama just happened to have 1 more conference game scheduled, and won it, so Bama was given that title. It's all a joke.

So all you can really look at is sustained national relevance and hard numbers. Auburn is 13th all time in wins out of roughly 130 teams. That means 9/10 programs are lesser. We are 1 of 10 schools with 3 or more Heismans. Top 20 all time in draft picks. 

If you want to talk titles, we have a ton we don't claim that are way more legit than, say, Alabama's 1941 claim when they finished 3rd in the SEC with losses to Vandy and Miss State. 

Auburn is a power. Don't be a bammer and say otherwise because the NCAA has a ridiculous title system.

[AUght2win 6,818]

4 minutes ago, AURealist said:

They've won more natty's and wooped us last time we played.  In what ways is Auburn better than Minnesota?

See my last post.

[milehighfan 1,239]

1 hour ago, Win4AU said:

Did Auburn throw to TEs prior to Dye?

Has Auburn completed a pass to a tight end besides the two point conversion against Kentucky?

[AUght2win 6,818]

18 minutes ago, AUwent said:

We're top 15 overall. Not a blue-blood, but definitely more than just Cam Newton as our detractors might claim.

Top 15 overall is blueblood IMO. What word would you use for teams like UGA, LSU, and us?

[AUwent 3,747]

2 hours ago, AUght2win said:

Top 15 overall is blueblood IMO. What word would you use for teams like UGA, LSU, and us?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27379180/the-50-best-college-football-programs-150-years

Ok, this actually ranks us 20th, but among FBS schools, at least...

[AUght2win 6,818]

1 minute ago, AUwent said:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27379180/the-50-best-college-football-programs-150-years

Ok, this actually ranks us 20th, but among FBS schools, at least...

The irony is this is a totally subjective list, like rankings and nattys. 

[AUBourne 425]

4 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Titles don't mean anything in the context of program history. 

 

I'm going to disagree. Conference titles are a definitive indicator of success. National Titles might have mostly been political but it takes a great team to earn one in the modern era.  When I walk around the museum i see displays for titles. Not much bragging on wins over Mississippi State and Ole Miss. Having a lot of wins is great but not an indicator of actual power. To many other things like program start date, win% vs top 25, etc play in to that. 

[japantiger 4,051]

The similarities with Barfield are just sad....but Barfield was a better offensive coach....and his daughter was smoking hot (she was a little sister) and very sweet.  How she sat in our section during games is beyond me...the things that folks used to say about her Dad were; well, like folks say here about Gus.

Dye changed the program forever; or so I thought.  It's amazing how fast 30+ years of expectation can turn to s***.  We are 7 and 16 against teams that matter...3 and 6 against the Devil.  We lead the GA series before Gus....and Bama now leads the series again like it did when Bear was there.  Losing regularly; or worse, expecting to lose regularly to Alabama sucks.  I didn't think we would ever go back there...yet, here we are.  

[AURealist 2,185]

24 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

See my last post.

Love the draft picks numbers.   It's almost like we do less with more.

Any stat or number that doesn't show Auburn on top is subjective, right?  Or irrelevant?  Or just nonsense?  Uh huh.

This sort of thinking is what is going to keep us second tier for the next decade. 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed how the topics always revert to the grand old days of glories past whenever we have a down season. 

"Who's your fav all-time AU RB?"   

"Remember 'ol What's his name from back in 19xx?  Now there was a baller."

"We actually won the Natty back in xxxx, but we were robbed.  We should petition the NCAA to give us a piece of that."

That kinda stuff always makes me chuckle, tbh.

Well, it  looks like it may be one of those seasons, gentlemen.   "Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to the year...."

 

 

[AUght2win 6,818]

2 minutes ago, AUBourne said:

I'm going to disagree. Conference titles are a definitive indicator of success. National Titles might have mostly been political but it takes a great team to earn one in the modern era.  When I walk around the museum i see displays for titles. Not much bragging on wins over Mississippi State and Ole Miss. Having a lot of wins is great but not an indicator of actual power. To many other things like program start date, win% vs top 25, etc play in to that. 

You are aware that an Alabama SID woke up one morning in the 80s and said "I feel like awarding myself 6 more national titles today" and it was honored. It's a joke. 2004 and 1983 are a perfect example. 

College football - the only sport on earth where you don't control your own destiny. It's STILL that way. Even conference titles were broken until 1992.

[AUght2win 6,818]

2 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Love the draft picks numbers.   It's almost like we do less with more.

Any stat or number that doesn't show Auburn on top is subjective, right?  Or irrelevant?  Or just nonsense?  Uh huh.

This sort of thinking is what is going to keep us second tier for the next decade. 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed how the topics always revert to the grand old days of glories past whenever we have a down season. 

"Who's your fav all-time AU RB?"   

"Remember 'ol What's his name from back in 19xx?  Now there was a baller."

"We actually won the Natty back in xxxx, but we were robbed.  We should petition the NCAA to give us a piece of that."

That kinda stuff always makes me chuckle, tbh.

Well, it  looks like it may be one of those seasons, gentlemen.   "Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to the year...."

 

 

The irony. You are trying to convince people Minnesota trumps Auburn as a program, while in the same breath being frustrated with people being stuck in the good ol' days.

According to you, there were no good ol' days. We're Vandy.

[AURealist 2,185]

1 minute ago, AUght2win said:

The irony. You are trying to convince people Minnesota trumps Auburn as a program, while in the same breath being frustrated with people being stuck in the good ol' days.

According to you, there were no good ol' days. We're Vandy.

No.  I'm just laughing that the only stats you'll accept are ones that make Auburn supreme.  Which was what I was going for all along to prove the level of loserthink on this board and to say as long as we have it this bad, we're gonna remain a second-tier program.  

[AUght2win 6,818]

1 minute ago, AURealist said:

No.  I'm just laughing that the only stats you'll accept are ones that make Auburn supreme.  Which was what I was going for all along to prove the level of loserthink on this board and to say as long as we have it this bad, we're gonna remain a second-tier program.  

Yeah, that ol' all time wins stat is pretty obscure. What stat are you looking for, exactly? National titles are total bunk if you know college football history. Which apparently you don't. 

[AURealist 2,185]

Just now, AUght2win said:

Yeah, that ol' all time wins stat is pretty obscure. What stat are you looking for, exactly? National titles are total bunk if you know college football history. Which apparently you don't. 

You keep proving my point.  

Normal, every day, starting point stats are bunk.  Only insider secret knowledge can prove Auburn is really the best program ever devised by baby Jesus himself. 

Just a heads-up everyone!  In a move that will upset any real football fans, all time wins will not progress as planned this season because we won't be playing any of the usual victims.  Bummer for people who find wins against those powerhouses like Troy State and UAB to be a major determiner of football program greatness.  

[AUBourne 425]

11 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

You are aware that an Alabama SID woke up one morning in the 80s and said "I feel like awarding myself 6 more national titles today" and it was honored. It's a joke. 2004 and 1983 are a perfect example. 

College football - the only sport on earth where you don't control your own destiny. It's STILL that way. Even conference titles were broken until 1992.

Know what we can both cherry pick stats and that won't change the trophy case. When you go a decade or two and have a losing record to your top 3 rivals you are not a power.  Right now titles are what they play for and Gus isn't getting it done. Wins against Kentucky or Arkansas does not excite me.. 

[AUght2win 6,818]

2 minutes ago, AURealist said:

You keep proving my point.  

Normal, every day, starting point stats are bunk.  Only insider secret knowledge can prove Auburn is really the best program ever devised by baby Jesus himself. 

Just a heads-up everyone!  In a move that will upset any real football fans, all time wins will not progress as planned this season because we won't be playing any of the usual victims.  Bummer for people who find wins against those powerhouses like Troy State and UAB to be a major determiner of football program greatness.  

You're way out of your depth, homie. We aren't Bammer who will claim a MNC from the Escambia County Bass Pro Shop Poll. But it's all a moot point anyway, we're all betas compared to Princeton and Yale, who haven't played D1 in a century but still have more titles than anyone.

Your original point was Auburn didn't have a good history. That was also the original point of this thread. No, Auburn isn't a Top 5 program.

But to say Auburn is anything less than a top tier historic power is so hopelessly wrong. SO wrong. It's not even debatable. 

[AUght2win 6,818]

7 minutes ago, AUBourne said:

When you go a decade or two and have a losing record to your top 3 rivals you are not a power.

What?!? This is all arbitrary BS. Michigan, Texas and Nebraska haven't been contenders in decades. Does that invalidate their history?