1972 SEC champion

[aubfaninga 16]

Alabama is listed as the champion despite Auburn beating them and them both having only 1 loss. (Alabama had more SEC wins)

Question is does anyone know of any other years that the SEC champion was declared in a situation similar to this?

[Rednilla 5,441]

That was a Bear Bryant tactic. He consistently scheduled an extra SEC game, against Vanderbilt, no less, so that he would have a half game better record than anyone who had the same number of losses. It happened like that several different years, but I couldn't tell you how many.

[JMassie11 1,639]

I always thought that if you were to schedule an extra opponent within you conference it would not count towards a conference game

[DyeCampAlum 335]

That was a Bear Bryant tactic. He consistently scheduled an extra SEC game, against Vanderbilt, no less, so that he would have a half game better record than anyone who had the same number of losses. It happened like that several different years, but I couldn't tell you how many.

Somebody mentioned this, but I looked into it.  I don't know whether or not it was a tactic, but the window in which Bama played more conference games was very small.  Auburn also held on to the 10 game schedule a couple of years longer than most.

I think it's more that SEC championships didn't mean much, since they weren't tied into anything until the late 70s.  That's when everybody got their schedules standardized.  Instead of playing Ole Miss, Auburn kept its rivalries with Tech and was playing schools like Southern Miss fairly regularly.  For a long time, Auburn held on to Clemson, though I'm not sure that relates to this issue.

[AURanger 0]

1972, the Amazins.  Yet another case of AU not getting the respect they earned because no one expected that team to win.  Very similar to 2004. 

[Warbird82 160]

I think 1989...we beat them, tied for the championship, but they ended up going to Sugar Bowl.  I may be wrong though...

[dpwspringer 0]

That was a Bear Bryant tactic. He consistently scheduled an extra SEC game, against Vanderbilt, no less, so that he would have a half game better record than anyone who had the same number of losses. It happened like that several different years, but I couldn't tell you how many.

Somebody mentioned this, but I looked into it.  I don't know whether or not it was a tactic, but the window in which Bama played more conference games was very small.  Auburn also held on to the 10 game schedule a couple of years longer than most.

I think it's more that SEC championships didn't mean much, since they weren't tied into anything until the late 70s.  That's when everybody got their schedules standardized.  Instead of playing Ole Miss, Auburn kept its rivalries with Tech and was playing schools like Southern Miss fairly regularly.  For a long time, Auburn held on to Clemson, though I'm not sure that relates to this issue.

There were not always tie ins to a bowl game for the conference champ.  There were a minimum number of conference games you had to play but even that was wishy washy because we sometimes counted non-conference teams like Clemson as a conference game for conference standing purposes.  There was not all the TV money in those days and you had to make you budget work based on ticket sales.  That was why a lot of teams played their big games in the big cities that had bigger capacities, like Legion Field in Birmingham. 

[kingofhill1 2]

As someone said, we played only 10 games by choice for a few years after 11 games were allowed. That's not really a tactic on anyone's part. Vandy had been on their schedule for ever so, again, no "tactic" there.

[rockfordpi 91]

I think at one point UAT played an extra conference game that did not count as a conference game, I think it was against one of the MS schools.

I know also that MSU played its home game against UAT at Legion field several times because they could make more money that way. Playing their away games at their home stadium was definitely an advantage for UAT.

[Rednilla 5,441]

Honestly, I've not looked at the numbers, I just remember hearing that Bear did schedule an extra game quite often for that very reason. It's quite possible that I heard it from someone who was just bitter about the way 72 turned out...

[dpwspringer 0]

I think at one point UAT played an extra conference game that did not count as a conference game, I think it was against one of the MS schools.

I know also that MSU played its home game against UAT at Legion field several times because they could make more money that way. Playing their away games at their home stadium was definitely an advantage for UAT.

MSU played Auburn in Legion Field as their home game. 

[aubfaninga 16]

Here is two more that pop out at me.

1984 - Florida had the best SEC record with Auburn in 2nd. Florida has since vacated the title but so we have no SEC champion for the 1984 season

1970 - Now LSU beat Auburn head to head so I would never try and claim this title but look at the way LSU scheduled back then. They were in the SEC but seemed to schedule the minimum each year for whatever reason. Interesting stuff

[DyeCampAlum 335]

1969: Auburn 7 conference games, Bama 6

1970: Auburn and Alabama each played seven conference games.

1971: Bama 7, Auburn 6

1973: Bama 8, Auburn 6

1974: Bama 6, Auburn 6

It just wasn't standardized.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

We should start claiming the 1972 and 1984 SEC Chanpionships as ours.

[aubcali 449]

We should start claiming the 1972 and 1984 SEC Chanpionships as ours.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Why not? we beat uat in 1972 and uf was stripped of their 1984 SEC crown plus we ended that year 2nd in the SEC.

[Rednilla 5,441]

Why not? we beat uat in 1972 and uf was stripped of their 1984 SEC crown plus we ended that year 2nd in the SEC.

Well in that case, why don't we claim the 2004 NC, since USC had to vacate it and we finished second? Or what about the 83 NC? I mean, Miami was put on probation just two years earlier, should they really get to claim it? And if they do, then why can't we claim one for 1993? Or what about 1958? We were undefeated that year, too, after all. And in 2006, we were the only team to beat the team that won it all, so we should be able to claim that one too, right?

Now, think about how UAT idiots are about claiming championships. Do you really want to stoop to their level?