IronMan70 3,322 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just to keep things in perspective, here is some interesting information from a Florida poster on Rivals.com. Keeping in mind that all titles are mythical anyway, there are more titles and more teams that have made retroactive claims than you would think. Alabama 1925: Retroactive. 1926: Retroactive. 1930: Retroactive. 1934: Minnesota had more selections. 1941: Minneosta (AP included) and Texas had more selections. Michigan 1901: Retroactive. 1902: Retroactive. 1903: Retroactive. 1904: Retroactive. 1918: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1932: USC had more selections. USC 1928: Georgia Tech had more selections. 1939: Texas A&M (AP included) had more selections. Pittsburgh 1915: Retroactive. 1916: Retroactive. 1918: Retroactive. 1929: Retroactive. 1931: Retroactive. 1934: No selections. 1936: Minneosta (AP included) had more selections. Minnesota 1904: Retroactive. Michigan State 1951: Maryland and Tennessee (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. 1955: Oklahoma (AP, Coaches, and FWAA included) had more selections. 1957: Auburn (AP included) and Ohio State (Coaches and FWAA included) had more selections. Tennessee 1940: Minnesota (AP included) and Stanford had more selections. 1967: USC (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. California 1920: Retroactive. 1921: Retroactive. 1922: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1937: Pittsburgh (including the AP) had more selections. Illinois 1914: Retroactive. 1919: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1951: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Michigan State, and Tennessee (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. Georgia Tech 1917: Retroactive. 1952: Michigan State (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. Army 1946: Notre Dame (AP included) had more selections. Ole Miss 1959: Syracuse (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. 1962: USC (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. SMU 1935: Minnesota had more selections. 1981: Clemson (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. 1982: Penn State (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. Texas A&M 1919: Retroactive. 1927: Retroactive. TCU 1935: Minnesota and SMU had more selections. Washington 1960: Iowa, Minnesota (AP, Coaches, and NFF included) and Ole Miss (FWAA included) had more selections. Boston College 1940: No selections. Kentucky 1950: Retroactive. Navy 1926: Retroactive. **......and for even more perspective, here is another interesting bit of information from a poster on the Rant. This is a select list of teams in any given year that were; Chosen as National Champion by at least 15 organizations or more. 12 - Notre Dame 8 - USC 7 - Alabama 6 - Oklahoma 5 - Nebraska 4 - Florida, Michigan, Miami, Ohio State 3 - Auburn (1957, 1983, 2010) LSU, FSU, Penn State, Texas, Tennessee 2 - Michigan St , Georgia 1 - Arkansas,Texas A&M, Ole Miss Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,781 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Nice find! Of course, I'm in the camp that hopes we claim all nine that we have coming to us and let the whiners in the B'ham media cry in their beers about it. I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055023 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleCoTiger 1,957 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. +1. I hope AU just quietly adds 'em to the media guide, the athletic complex and the stadium. No press releases. No announcements. Just does it. And if anyone in the media or fans from across the state wants to complain thereafter...point 'em to this and tell 'em to get busy. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055057 Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutchids 268 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just to keep things in perspective, here is some interesting information from a Florida poster on Rivals.com. Keeping in mind that all titles are mythical anyway, there are more titles and more teams that have made retroactive claims than you would think. Alabama 1925: Retroactive. 1926: Retroactive. 1930: Retroactive. 1934: Minnesota had more selections. 1941: Minneosta (AP included) and Texas had more selections. Michigan 1901: Retroactive. 1902: Retroactive. 1903: Retroactive. 1904: Retroactive. 1918: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1932: USC had more selections. USC 1928: Georgia Tech had more selections. 1939: Texas A&M (AP included) had more selections. Pittsburgh 1915: Retroactive. 1916: Retroactive. 1918: Retroactive. 1929: Retroactive. 1931: Retroactive. 1934: No selections. 1936: Minneosta (AP included) had more selections. Minnesota 1904: Retroactive. Michigan State 1951: Maryland and Tennessee (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. 1955: Oklahoma (AP, Coaches, and FWAA included) had more selections. 1957: Auburn (AP included) and Ohio State (Coaches and FWAA included) had more selections. Tennessee 1940: Minnesota (AP included) and Stanford had more selections. 1967: USC (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. California 1920: Retroactive. 1921: Retroactive. 1922: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1937: Pittsburgh (including the AP) had more selections. Illinois 1914: Retroactive. 1919: Retroactive. 1923: Retroactive. 1951: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Michigan State, and Tennessee (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. Georgia Tech 1917: Retroactive. 1952: Michigan State (AP and Coaches included) had more selections. Army 1946: Notre Dame (AP included) had more selections. Ole Miss 1959: Syracuse (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. 1962: USC (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. SMU 1935: Minnesota had more selections. 1981: Clemson (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. 1982: Penn State (AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF included) had more selections. Texas A&M 1919: Retroactive. 1927: Retroactive. TCU 1935: Minnesota and SMU had more selections. Washington 1960: Iowa, Minnesota (AP, Coaches, and NFF included) and Ole Miss (FWAA included) had more selections. Boston College 1940: No selections. Kentucky 1950: Retroactive. Navy 1926: Retroactive. **......and for even more perspective, here is another interesting bit of information from a poster on the Rant. This is a select list of teams in any given year that were; Chosen as National Champion by at least 15 organizations or more. 12 - Notre Dame 8 - USC 7 - Alabama 6 - Oklahoma 5 - Nebraska 4 - Florida, Michigan, Miami, Ohio State 3 - Auburn (1957, 1983, 2010) LSU, FSU, Penn State, Texas, Tennessee 2 - Michigan St , Georgia 1 - Arkansas,Texas A&M, Ole Miss We're in good shape here . my conclusions from this: 1. illinois had some BALLS to claim 1951 2. Everyone hates Minnesota, that is why everyone else is claiming there title years 3. pittsburgh, why did you claim a natty you had no selectors for! 4. bc had to claim 1940 even with no selectors cause they will never win one otherwise Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055065 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinForAuburn 134 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Nice find! Of course, I'm in the camp that hopes we claim all nine that we have coming to us and let the whiners in the B'ham media cry in their beers about it. I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. That it's Auburn's call is actually a very compelling argument against claiming them imo. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055195 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMan70 3,322 Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 Nice find! Of course, I'm in the camp that hopes we claim all nine that we have coming to us and let the whiners in the B'ham media cry in their beers about it. I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. That it's Auburn's call is actually a very compelling argument against claiming them imo. Its not an argument against because it's that way with every school. Well that is unless you believe in unilateral disarmament. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055205 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 626 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Nice find, Iron Man. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055211 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAU76 457 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Interesting stuff, thanks! Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055297 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucanucktiger 1,989 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Nice find! Of course, I'm in the camp that hopes we claim all nine that we have coming to us and let the whiners in the B'ham media cry in their beers about it. I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. That it's Auburn's call is actually a very compelling argument against claiming them imo. BINGO! Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055302 Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 6,026 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. +1. I hope AU just quietly adds 'em to the media guide, the athletic complex and the stadium. No press releases. No announcements. Just does it. And if anyone in the media or fans from across the state wants to complain thereafter...point 'em to this and tell 'em to get busy. AU is forming a committe http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/05/auburn_could_claim_more_nation.htmlI'm all for claiming 'em. Those teams & coaches were champions, they should be recognized as such by the institution the played and coached for IMO. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055341 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,781 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I'm mystified by those who do not want to claim our championships that are as legitimate as anybody's. Is there some urge for self-depreciation that makes people feel better by saying "We have nine national championships but we're only claiming two. Ain't we special?"? What's the attraction to low-rating our accomplishments? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055402 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU-24 3,175 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. +1. I hope AU just quietly adds 'em to the media guide, the athletic complex and the stadium. No press releases. No announcements. Just does it. And if anyone in the media or fans from across the state wants to complain thereafter...point 'em to this and tell 'em to get busy. AU is forming a committe http://www.al.com/au...ore_nation.htmlI'm all for claiming 'em. Those teams & coaches were champions, they should be recognized as such by the institution the played and coached for IMO. Forming a committee? Awesome; another decision, Jacobs doesn't have to make...it was the committee findings after-all! Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055405 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ17 0 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I'm all for claiming 1983 because it's totally legit and should have been claimed long ago. 1993 however being that we were on probation and couldn't play in a bowl let alone in the SEC CG. IMO it doesn't carry enough weight. As for 2004 well that was during an era when there was a clear cut NC game and AU didn't play in it let alone win it. Yes I know USC had to vacate it but the crystal ball and trophy from 2004 won't ever reside Auburn. The reason why uat claims '25, '26', '30', & '34 is because they went undefeated and won (tied in '26) the Rose Bowl which was the ***ONLY*** bowl game at the time up until the '34 season. As much as I don't like the turds those are some pretty legit reasons. 1941 is a hoax....seriously... Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055420 Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 6,026 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. +1. I hope AU just quietly adds 'em to the media guide, the athletic complex and the stadium. No press releases. No announcements. Just does it. And if anyone in the media or fans from across the state wants to complain thereafter...point 'em to this and tell 'em to get busy. AU is forming a committe http://www.al.com/au...ore_nation.htmlI'm all for claiming 'em. Those teams & coaches were champions, they should be recognized as such by the institution the played and coached for IMO. Forming a committee? Awesome; another decision, Jacobs doesn't have to make...it was the committee findings after-all! Jacobs absolutely wants to claim all of them. IMO, he's forming a committee of which he will not be a participating member to get unbiased opinions and thoughts from other AU people about claiming the NCs. He said in the article that the feedback from the fanbase has been "overwhelmingly positive." Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055443 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMan70 3,322 Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 I really don't care what other fan bases and writers think. It's Auburn's call and we should call 'em in our favor. +1. I hope AU just quietly adds 'em to the media guide, the athletic complex and the stadium. No press releases. No announcements. Just does it. And if anyone in the media or fans from across the state wants to complain thereafter...point 'em to this and tell 'em to get busy. AU is forming a committe http://www.al.com/au...ore_nation.htmlI'm all for claiming 'em. Those teams & coaches were champions, they should be recognized as such by the institution the played and coached for IMO. I read that yesterday and I think it's a good move by Jay. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055456 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisenhower_1952 87 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 The Media guide has always had these Championships listed. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055465 Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburn4ever 1,266 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 We've won a lot more than just 2 national championships in Auburn Football History, and we should claim every single one of them with lots of pride. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055499 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 4,092 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I'm all for claiming 1983 because it's totally legit and should have been claimed long ago. 1993 however being that we were on probation and couldn't play in a bowl let alone in the SEC CG. IMO it doesn't carry enough weight. As for 2004 well that was during an era when there was a clear cut NC game and AU didn't play in it let alone win it. Yes I know USC had to vacate it but the crystal ball and trophy from 2004 won't ever reside Auburn. The reason why uat claims '25, '26', '30', & '34 is because they went undefeated and won (tied in '26) the Rose Bowl which was the ***ONLY*** bowl game at the time up until the '34 season. As much as I don't like the turds those are some pretty legit reasons. 1941 is a hoax....seriously... You do realize in 1957 and we were on probation and didn't go to a bowl but won the NC, right? It's not going to make one bit of difference on a national scale if we did claim those titles, IMO. I believe this mainly because I doubt anybody will mention it in a favorable light on a tv broadcast. They MAY passively mention that we are now claiming x number of titles, but I doubt at all that it will be a massive talking point throughout the years. It will likely be used by idiots like jesse palmer to vilify Auburn. Now, I honestly gave up a long time ago caring what some hack says about Auburn, but I would rather Auburn just celebrate those teams internally. We should honor/recognize them on anniversary years and maybe even do a book of some kind on those great teams but I'm definitely NOT in favor of calling those teams National Champions even though we were likely the best team in the country in those years. The most widely recognized polls/organizations did NOT name us National champions, so we should leave it alone. It doesn't take us "Claiming" a national title for me to feel better about the teams in 1983, 1993, or 2004. I will never forget those years. That's all I need. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055576 Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc4aday 1,887 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 If bammer is doing this, I think we have a far more justifiable reasons to claim titles in those years mentioned. 2004...most definitely, 1983 most definitely, 1913 most definitely. The other ones have strong merit as well. There is no reason for us not to claim these and make it official. You know bammer is doing it with far less realiability than just about any years we can claim. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055623 Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburn4ever 1,266 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Don' forget1993 and 2004. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055846 Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburn4ever 1,266 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 And these. Western Division Champions (5), Conference Championships (11) &National Champions (11) 1900, 4-0 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association Co-Champions 1904, 5-0 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association Co-Champions 1910, 6-1 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association Co-Champions 1913, 8-0 National Champions 1914, 8-0-1 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association Champions 1919, 8-1 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association Champions 1932, 9-0-1 Southern Conference Champions & National Champions 1957, 10-0, 7-0 Southeastern Conference Champions & National Champions 1958, 9-0-1, 6-0-1 Southeastern Conference Champions & National Champions 1983, 11-0, 6-0 Southeastern Conference Champions 1987, 9-1-2, 5-0-1 Southeastern Conference Champions 1988, 10-2, 6-1 Southeastern Conference Co-Champions 1989, 10-2, 6-1 Southeastern Conference Champions 1993, 11-0, 8-0 Southeastern Conference Champions 1997, 10-3, 6-3 SEC - Western Division Champions 2000, 9-4, 6-3 SEC - Western Division Champions 2004, 13-0, 8-0 SEC - Western Division Champions, Southeastern Conference Champions & BCS National Champions 2010, 14-0, 9-0 SEC - Western Division Champions, Southeastern Conference Champions & BCS National Champions 2013, 12-2, 8-1 SEC - Western Division Champions & Southeastern Conference Champions Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055852 Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,987 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 So pat dye, Terry bowden and tubrrville all won national championships? Tubs and tot can ask for raises. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2055943 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,781 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 So pat dye, Terry bowden and tubrrville all won national championships? Tubs and tot can ask for raises. Judging by today's wage scale for head coaches, both deserve huge raises based on their overall accomplishments at Auburn. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2056042 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ17 0 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I'm all for claiming 1983 because it's totally legit and should have been claimed long ago. 1993 however being that we were on probation and couldn't play in a bowl let alone in the SEC CG. IMO it doesn't carry enough weight. As for 2004 well that was during an era when there was a clear cut NC game and AU didn't play in it let alone win it. Yes I know USC had to vacate it but the crystal ball and trophy from 2004 won't ever reside Auburn. The reason why uat claims '25, '26', '30', & '34 is because they went undefeated and won (tied in '26) the Rose Bowl which was the ***ONLY*** bowl game at the time up until the '34 season. As much as I don't like the turds those are some pretty legit reasons. 1941 is a hoax....seriously... You do realize in 1957 and we were on probation and didn't go to a bowl but won the NC, right? It's not going to make one bit of difference on a national scale if we did claim those titles, IMO. I believe this mainly because I doubt anybody will mention it in a favorable light on a tv broadcast. They MAY passively mention that we are now claiming x number of titles, but I doubt at all that it will be a massive talking point throughout the years. It will likely be used by idiots like jesse palmer to vilify Auburn. Now, I honestly gave up a long time ago caring what some hack says about Auburn, but I would rather Auburn just celebrate those teams internally. We should honor/recognize them on anniversary years and maybe even do a book of some kind on those great teams but I'm definitely NOT in favor of calling those teams National Champions even though we were likely the best team in the country in those years. The most widely recognized polls/organizations did NOT name us National champions, so we should leave it alone. It doesn't take us "Claiming" a national title for me to feel better about the teams in 1983, 1993, or 2004. I will never forget those years. That's all I need. Yes I understand that however 1957, 1993, & 2004 were all in different era's. Back in the 50's it (the NC) was decided before the bowl games. In 1993 we didn't play or win the SEC not did we even play let alone win a bowl game. Not to mention FSU has the crystal ball trophy. In 2004 the Orange Bowl not the Sugar Bowl was the NC game that AU didn't play in. If AU claims 2004 they'd be the only school to claim a NC in the BCS era without having the BCSNC trophy to show for. As I already said 1983 is the only one I'd be comfortable with claiming. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2056414 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleCoTiger 1,957 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I'm all for claiming 1983 because it's totally legit and should have been claimed long ago. 1993 however being that we were on probation and couldn't play in a bowl let alone in the SEC CG. IMO it doesn't carry enough weight. As for 2004 well that was during an era when there was a clear cut NC game and AU didn't play in it let alone win it. Yes I know USC had to vacate it but the crystal ball and trophy from 2004 won't ever reside Auburn. The reason why uat claims '25, '26', '30', & '34 is because they went undefeated and won (tied in '26) the Rose Bowl which was the ***ONLY*** bowl game at the time up until the '34 season. As much as I don't like the turds those are some pretty legit reasons. 1941 is a hoax....seriously... You do realize in 1957 and we were on probation and didn't go to a bowl but won the NC, right? It's not going to make one bit of difference on a national scale if we did claim those titles, IMO. I believe this mainly because I doubt anybody will mention it in a favorable light on a tv broadcast. They MAY passively mention that we are now claiming x number of titles, but I doubt at all that it will be a massive talking point throughout the years. It will likely be used by idiots like jesse palmer to vilify Auburn. Now, I honestly gave up a long time ago caring what some hack says about Auburn, but I would rather Auburn just celebrate those teams internally. We should honor/recognize them on anniversary years and maybe even do a book of some kind on those great teams but I'm definitely NOT in favor of calling those teams National Champions even though we were likely the best team in the country in those years. The most widely recognized polls/organizations did NOT name us National champions, so we should leave it alone. It doesn't take us "Claiming" a national title for me to feel better about the teams in 1983, 1993, or 2004. I will never forget those years. That's all I need. Yes I understand that however 1957, 1993, & 2004 were all in different era's. Back in the 50's it (the NC) was decided before the bowl games. In 1993 we didn't play or win the SEC not did we even play let alone win a bowl game. Not to mention FSU has the crystal ball trophy. In 2004 the Orange Bowl not the Sugar Bowl was the NC game that AU didn't play in. If AU claims 2004 they'd be the only school to claim a NC in the BCS era without having the BCSNC trophy to show for. As I already said 1983 is the only one I'd be comfortable with claiming. Regardless of whether AU played in the SECCG in 93 or a bowl game, some organization credible enough to be listed by the NCAA awarded our Tigers their "opinion national championship." "Opinion national championships" have been all that any national championship in D1 FBS has ever been, and that includes the BCS era. AU won't be claiming anything so much as it will be recognizing what was already awarded by someone else. And since it's all down to nothing but opinion, dang if I can see why one groups opinion ought to matter more to me than another. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/138773-retroactive-mnc-claims-more-titles-teams-than-you-think/#findComment-2056426 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.