2023 Discussion Thread

[TexasTiger 12,800]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nowhere have I said that MSU has been more relevant than us historically.  I've contended that we are on about the same level.  Both programs are historically middle of the pack in their conferences (MSU is 5th all time in the Big 10, we are 6th all time in the SEC).  Both programs have had a good run in particular decades.  And both programs have about the same number of bowl game appearances since the Big 10 changed rules.

And over the last 10 years, they've been consistently better.  Remember, recruits care about now.  These kids going to college were about 8-9 years old when 2013 happened.  Their frame of reference is more modern.  And quite frankly, as much as I like Harsin's coaching style, Mel Tucker is an ace coach and recruiter himself.

So to say "Why would a kid go to MSU" without understanding some nuance is baffling to me.

Not sure they’re consistently better.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

13 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

It’s just a wrong take. Period. Also interested to hear what 5 teams are ahead of Auburn historically and your parameters for that.

You can twist it however you want but Auburn is a power in indisputably the best conference in CFB. MSU is a basketball school in the Big 10. It’s not even close.

And I know you guys hate Mikey, but he is correct that we should be pulling more than 10% of the state’s top talent. Even in our worst years, we should have our choice of a half or third of Alabama’s best players.

There are 4 schools in the SEC with more wins than AU.

Bama

Tennessee

UGA

LSU

All of them also own more national and conference titles than us.

I'd contend Florida is in the Top 5 above us as well.  We have the same number of conference titles as UF, but they have 3 recognized national titles and 15 division titles + the same amount of Top 10 finishes.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Brad_ATX

[AUght2win 6,816]

41 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There are 4 schools in the SEC with more wins than AU.

Bama

Tennessee

UGA

LSU

All of them also own more national and conference titles than us.

I'd contend Florida is in the Top 5 above us as well.  We have the same number of conference titles as UF, but they have 3 recognized national titles and 15 division titles + the same amount of Top 10 finishes.

There’s two separate trains of thought that aren’t compatible. Either you rank programs by modern success or historical success/relevance. 

If it’s historical, we’re better than Florida and arguably better than UGA.

If it’s modern success, we’re behind Florida but ahead of Tennessee. 

We’re top 5 either way.

[tinman1 485]

17 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

There’s two separate trains of thought that aren’t compatible. Either you rank programs by modern success or historical success/relevance. 

If it’s historical, we’re better than Florida and arguably better than UGA.

If it’s modern success, we’re behind Florida but ahead of Tennessee. 

We’re top 5 either way.

Yes we are.  But not in the eyes of the 17, 18 and 19 year olds we are recruiting.  They are looking at modern history, which to them, is the past 2 or 3 years.  Most can't even tell you Cam Newton played for us.

[AUght2win 6,816]

25 minutes ago, tinman1 said:

Yes we are.  But not in the eyes of the 17, 18 and 19 year olds we are recruiting.  They are looking at modern history, which to them, is the past 2 or 3 years.  Most can't even tell you Cam Newton played for us.

That’s just not true. Those kids were 7 and 8 when he won the Heisman. Probably one the first major superstars these kids ever associated with football.

I agree that “what have you done for me lately” is a problem for us. But Michigan State isn’t a team that can has us outdone in that area. Before last season they had three years of 7-6, 7-6, and 2-5. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AUght2win said:

There’s two separate trains of thought that aren’t compatible. Either you rank programs by modern success or historical success/relevance. 

If it’s historical, we’re better than Florida and arguably better than UGA.

If it’s modern success, we’re behind Florida but ahead of Tennessee. 

We’re top 5 either way.

No, its extremely possible to look at the whole, weigh modern and historical, and come up with something.

You believe we're top 5 (and at best we're #5). That's fine.  I think we're 6th in the SEC.  Its a stupid distinction to make either way.

[toddc 13,194]

43 minutes ago, tinman1 said:

Yes we are.  But not in the eyes of the 17, 18 and 19 year olds we are recruiting.  They are looking at modern history, which to them, is the past 2 or 3 years.  Most can't even tell you Cam Newton played for us.

The dlinemen from Kentucky said Auburn is his favorite team because of…

Cam Newton 

If you believe these kids don’t know who Cam is I don’t know what to tell you 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Not sure they’re consistently better.

I dunno man, five 10 win seasons in a decade is a hell of a lot more consistency than we've put up over that same span.

[AUght2win 6,816]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

I dunno man, five 10 win seasons in a decade *in the Big 10* is a hell of a lot more consistency than we've put up over that same span.

Surely this has got to be one big troll. If you think that little of Auburn’s program I feel bad for you as a fan. 

[AUght2win 6,816]

9 minutes ago, toddc said:

The dlinemen from Kentucky said Auburn is his favorite team because of…

Cam Newton 

If you believe these kids don’t know who Cam is I don’t know what to tell you 

I get some people don’t want to consider Auburn a blueblood and that’s fine. But I don’t understand people willfully trying to take away any and all legitimacy we have as a national brand. I’ve watched Auburn all my life. We have always been a solid brand. But the ascension our brand has taken in the past 15 years has been remarkable. We’re a headliner of a program now and to deny that fact is the first step back to Barfield era mediocrity. 

[toddc 13,194]

Just now, AUght2win said:

I get some people don’t want to consider Auburn a blueblood and that’s fine. But I don’t understand people willfully trying to take away any and all legitimacy we have as a national brand. I’ve watched Auburn all my life. We have always been a solid brand. But the ascension our brand has taken in the past 15 years has been remarkable. We’re a headliner of a program now and to deny that fact is the first step back to Barfield era mediocrity. 

Hey, I lived Auburn football in the 60s and 70s and it was tough sometimes. Since the 80s to present I believe we’re a really good football program and up there pretty high.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, AUght2win said:

There’s two separate trains of thought that aren’t compatible. Either you rank programs by modern success or historical success/relevance. 

If it’s historical, we’re better than Florida and arguably better than UGA.

If it’s modern success, we’re behind Florida but ahead of Tennessee. 

We’re top 5 either way.

Why do they have to be separate trains of thought? Would a hybrid approach not work?

[Didba 5,256]

31 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

That’s just not true. Those kids were 7 and 8 when he won the Heisman. Probably one the first major superstars these kids ever associated with football.

I agree that “what have you done for me lately” is a problem for us. But Michigan State isn’t a team that can has us outdone in that area. Before last season they had three years of 7-6, 7-6, and 2-5. 

Yeah, the cam newton line made me eyeroll 

[Didba 5,256]

6 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

I get some people don’t want to consider Auburn a blueblood and that’s fine. But I don’t understand people willfully trying to take away any and all legitimacy we have as a national brand. I’ve watched Auburn all my life. We have always been a solid brand. But the ascension our brand has taken in the past 15 years has been remarkable. We’re a headliner of a program now and to deny that fact is the first step back to Barfield era mediocrity. 

To be fair most CFB fans would not consider Auburn a national blue blood but I agree with you on the recent ascension 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Didba

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

41 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Surely this has got to be one big troll. If you think that little of Auburn’s program I feel bad for you as a fan. 

Is it so hard to think that someone can be an Auburn fan and look at college football objectively with a reasonable opinion that doesn't just glorify AU?

Sorry bud, but I lost my orange and blue tinted glasses years ago.

ETA: AU is 1-4 over that same time span against the Big 10.  Maybe we should beat them before crapping on the conference?

Edited September 8, 2022 by Brad_ATX

[augolf1716 21,096]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Is it so hard to think that someone can be an Auburn fan and look at college football objectively with a reasonable opinion that doesn't just glorify AU?

Hell no don't you know anything Brad......wait till OU and UT get in the league. Then the real fun starts

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Hell no don't you know anything Brad......wait till OU and UT get in the league. Then the real fun starts

You should hear the UT folks around town this week.  Some are delusional enough to think they have a prayer Saturday.

[AUght2win 6,816]

27 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Is it so hard to think that someone can be an Auburn fan and look at college football objectively with a reasonable opinion that doesn't just glorify AU?

Sorry bud, but I lost my orange and blue tinted glasses years ago.

ETA: AU is 1-4 over that same time span against the Big 10.  Maybe we should beat them before crapping on the conference?

But you’re not being objective at all. Go ask anybody on the street who is a bigger/better football program: Auburn or Michigan State. About 9 out of 10 are going to say Auburn.

[Hank2020 3,195]

3 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

But you’re not being objective at all. Go ask anybody on the street who is a bigger/better football program: Auburn or Michigan State. About 9 out of 10 are going to say Auburn.

Probably depends greatly on what street you are on. 1 huge difference between the two, MSU bet on their coach (top contract), AU put their money on a building and to get rid of a few coachs.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Hank2020

[Gowebb11 9,307]

How about this: both AU and MSU have great histories and winning tradition that their fanbases can be really proud of. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Gowebb11

[AUght2win 6,816]

42 minutes ago, Didba said:

To be fair most CFB fans would not consider Auburn a national blue blood but I agree with you on the recent ascension 

Blueblood varies depending on who you talk to. Typically it means the absolute elite programs who have stood the test of time. How broadly you want to apply that term is subjective.

To me, there are two tiers of blueblood. Tier 1 - Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska. 

Auburn is in the next tier down with teams like Tennessee, Texas, LSU, UGA, Miami, Florida State, Florida, Penn State. These are teams who have enjoyed the highs of tier 1, as well as the competitive capabilities of a tier 1 (stadium, money, fan base, brand size) but don’t quite have the championship results tier 1 does.

If people want to qualify tier 1 alone as bluebloods, I could agree with that assessment. But whatever you want to call the neighboring group, Auburn is in it. And teams like Michigan freaking State are not.

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Blueblood varies depending on who you talk to. Typically it means the absolute elite programs who have stood the test of time. How broadly you want to apply that term is subjective.

To me, there are two tiers of blueblood. Tier 1 - Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska. 

Auburn is in the next tier down with teams like Tennessee, Texas, LSU, UGA, Miami, Florida State, Florida, Penn State. These are teams who have enjoyed the highs of tier 1, as well as the competitive capabilities of a tier 1 (stadium, money, fan base, brand size) but don’t quite have the championship results tier 1 does.

If people want to qualify tier 1 alone as bluebloods, I could agree with that assessment. But whatever you want to call the neighboring group, Auburn is in it. And teams like Michigan freaking State are not.

100% agreed. This is a good read if you are interested in seeing other fans opinions on bluebloods.  Has some nice charts too! I think your tier 2 could be "nearbloods"

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Didba

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

17 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

But you’re not being objective at all. Go ask anybody on the street who is a bigger/better football program: Auburn or Michigan State. About 9 out of 10 are going to say Auburn.

Coming to a conclusion that you disagree with doesn't mean I'm not being objective.

15 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

Probably depends greatly on what street you are on. 1 huge difference between the two, MSU bet on their coach (top contract), AU put their money on a building and to get rid of a few coachs.

This

[AUght2win 6,816]

6 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

How about this: both AU and MSU have great histories and winning tradition that their fanbases can be really proud of. 

Yes but not to the level where it should be considered normal or understandable that Michigan State is out recruiting us for southern targets. Which is the crux of this convo. 

I’m not saying that necessarily what happened. If we didn’t want the Hood kid, then it doesn’t matter if it’s Michigan State or Wyoming that took him. But Penn State has also grabbed some of our in state targets. There’s no excuse for that to happen on a consistent basis. None.

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

4 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

Blueblood varies depending on who you talk to. Typically it means the absolute elite programs who have stood the test of time. How broadly you want to apply that term is subjective.

To me, there are two tiers of blueblood. Tier 1 - Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska. 

Auburn is in the next tier down with teams like Tennessee, Texas, LSU, UGA, Miami, Florida State, Florida, Penn State. These are teams who have enjoyed the highs of tier 1, as well as the competitive capabilities of a tier 1 (stadium, money, fan base, brand size) but don’t quite have the championship results tier 1 does.

If people want to qualify tier 1 alone as bluebloods, I could agree with that assessment. But whatever you want to call the neighboring group, Auburn is in it. And teams like Michigan freaking State are not.

Michigan has a Blue Blood name but over last 10 years really has not been in that category. They finally beat Ohio State last year. Nebraska has not been relevant in years. USC also have not been relevant in years.  Since College playoffs started the top teams have been bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State and kind of Notre Dame.    

I agree based on long Historical record with your designation of Blue Bloods but the Nebraska's, USC's and Michigan's to me have not been relevant for such a long time they no longer qualify.   Now USC may or may not be onn its way back to relevancy.