2005 National Champions

[aumoore 0]

I am convinced that Raven Tiger hates his mother because he is Ugly.

[Weagle98 119]

We did beat USC in 1987 by a two score differential. I wonder if the polls took that into account?

[WarTim 3,457]

I am convinced that Raven Tiger hates his mother because he is Ugly.

136443[/snapback]

LOL

raven is a uater in drag. nothing more...nothing less.

[TigerinBham 1]

why do ya'll let whatever streyder says bother you? He is an Alabama fan. Enough said. He can hate us all he wants. Who cares! Do you really truly think that there is ONE Alabama fan out there who feels for Auburn? Well there isn't. If Bama was 13-0 and left out, downtown B'ham would look like Watts in Los Angeles and every sports writer would already have at least a dozen death threats.

[SouthLink02 8]

Tidefans also bans their regulars who lightly critcize their own team..... ....what a joke of a site.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I base it on the last 2 years that we played SC and lost. Maybe if we had of at least won one of those games we would have been in the Orange Bowl tonight. I would have liked to played SC to see how we would fair, but we have had the opportunity before and wasted it.

13-0 WDE.

136434[/snapback]

This has to rank as one of the dumbest things you've ever said here. I normally don't comment too much on your rantings back and forth with the "sunshine pumpers", but thinking we'd falter this year against USC because of how we played the last two years tells me you're either hitting the sauce hard, or you simply have not payed any attention at all this season.

[auliz 0]

Congratulations to Utah also then.

135980[/snapback]

How stupid do you look! Even Alabama fans have shown class in admitting that has been robbed. Do you realize we are the ONLY team to ever be 13-0 and not champions. Therefore, get a life and a grip on reality. Auburn has shown themselves to be great. We are hard fighting soldiers and no one can take that away from us.

[Streyeder 0]

TexasTiger,

I admit AU v USC would have been a better game, but I don't think anyone could have beaten USC that night. They were firing on all cylinders for every bit of 60 minutes. In the Sugar bowl, even AU was looking pretty suspect at times, namely the inability to cross the goal line and get the Caddy running. I think it would have been a closer game, but USC would have still broken it open in the end and pulled away from AU.

Weagle98,

As I said above, AU was not firing on all cylinders that night. In fact, about two feet kept the game from going to OT on that missed FG. AU couldn't get their own game going coming off the break and USC would have went for the kill.

DothanTiger,

Alabama HAS been left out before and therefore we know all to well how it feels. But, that's life and that's college football for you. You just have to accept it and go on to the next year and hope to run the tables again.

As for why people listen to me, I don't know. I'm just a guy stating my opinion on an open forum like everyone else here (well, some are gals. ).

auliz,

Many teams never had a chance to win 13 games. Here is a list who did (bold are teams I see as either traditionally powerhouses or current top teams):

Yale (CT)

Georgia Southern

Chicago (IL)

Montana

Pennsylvania

Dayton (OH)

Nebraska

North Dakota St.

Youngstown St. (OH)

Boise St. (ID)

Brigham Young (UT)

Delaware

Marshall (WV)

Minnesota

Nevada

Saint John's (MN)

Texas St.

Alabama

Auburn (AL)

Colgate (NY)

Eastern Kentucky

Elon (NC)

Georgia

Harvard (MA)

James Madison (VA)

Louisiana St.

Louisiana-Monroe

Miami (OH)

Northern Colorado

Ohio St.

Oklahoma

San Jose St. (CA)

Southern California

Southern Illinois

Tennessee

Wagner (NY)

Just thought it would be interesting to see.

[Weagle98 119]

Weagle98,

As I said above, AU was not firing on all cylinders that night. In fact, about two feet kept the game from going to OT on that missed FG. AU couldn't get their own game going coming off the break and USC would have went for the kill.

136707[/snapback]

In the second half of the game VT never had the ball when they were within a score of tying or winning. I don't recall a FG by VT to tie the game. AU sat on the ball after the TD in the third quarter passing only 3 times. So no we didn't run all over them, they knew we were going to run and for the most part they did stop us. CTT knew 16 points was enough to win the game and we sat on it. Like it, don't like it, it won the game. They only stopped us from scoring on ONE drive before we started playing conservative. Auburn is not a flashy team but they win. Period. If VT makes the FG or a TD it doesn't mean AU would have still only scored 16 points and to say that would show a lack of understanding of football.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

TexasTiger,

I admit AU v USC would have been a better game, but I don't think anyone could have beaten USC that night. They were firing on all cylinders for every bit of 60 minutes. In the Sugar bowl, even AU was looking pretty suspect at times, namely the inability to cross the goal line and get the Caddy running. I think it would have been a closer game, but USC would have still broken it open in the end and pulled away from AU.

136707[/snapback]

It is not necessarily the date and time that determines a team's performance. One team's performance is integrally tied to that of the team they are playing against. Had AU made 4 turnovers as quickly and as crucial as OK's, it would have been difficult to prevail, although I still don't think they would have collapsed. OK was crushed by mistakes and mentally beaten early. USC looked great, but they looked great against the context of OK's performance. By contrast, they looked very beatable against mediocre teams such as Stanford, Oregon State, UCLA, and as it turns out, Cal. Everyone states how improved VA Tech was over the course of the season. Well, the unimproved version gave USC about all it wanted-- USC only led 14-13 until about five and half minutes to go (and holding Bush to 27 yards on 9 carries-- 3.0 ypc as opposed to Caddy's 3.2 against Va Tech). Oklahoma, on the other hand, gave up 35 points to a mediocre Ok St team and 35 points to a mediocrd Texas A&M team. There is no logical reason to think USC would have scored anymore that 28, if that much, against AU.

Who would have won between USC and AU? I don't know. But the Orange Bowl didn't answer that question.

[Streyeder 0]

Weagle98,

The FG attempt was earlier in the game. It would have, eventually, given VT the extra 3 to tie the game. None-the-less, AU knew it had to blow out VT to get any chance at #1 and they didn't. AU DID NOT and COULD NOT score at will. Remember the first three field goals? The VT defense did a hell of a job in the red-zone to keep AU at bay.

Saying AU 'only' scored as many as necessary is ludicrous.

[mugz 0]

NATIONAL CHAMPS!

I am going to make my OWN national champ T-shirt. SO SUE ME! I might even make 3 or 4.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Weagle98,

The FG attempt was earlier in the game. It would have, eventually, given VT the extra 3 to tie the game. None-the-less, AU knew it had to blow out VT to get any chance at #1 and they didn't. AU DID NOT and COULD NOT score at will. Remember the first three field goals? The VT defense did a hell of a job in the red-zone to keep AU at bay.

Saying AU 'only' scored as many as necessary is ludicrous.

136732[/snapback]

Nobody can score at will against Va Tech, including USC. They only gave up 12.6 pts a game.

You can call it ludicrous, and of course AU would have preferred to have scored TDs instead of FGs, but this team was marked this year by scoring what Tubs thought he needed, or more if it were done in the first half, and sitting on the lead. Some of us were frustrated with that-- I'd have preferred to beat Bama by 6 TDs, for example-- but the guy went 13-0 by being uncharacteristically cautious.

After the Sugar Bowl, I heard some AU jerk slamming CTT over that while leaving the stadium. Bitch, bitch, bitch. The object of the game is to win. This team always did what it needed to do to do that. They made believers out of me, and I've lived through some lean times. The notion that AU had to blow out VT to have any chance, when no one has been able to blow this team out, may have been true, but that doesn't mean that line of thinking was ever logical. A ten point win over TN was suspect while a 5 point win over UCLA was good enough. A three point win over Ok St showed you can win on the road. This is the illogical thinking that AU was up against. The deck was stacked. The truth is they did all they could do, but there was nothing else they could do. One and two were preordained in August, if not before. USC's win is so impressive because so many were so wrong about OK. Saying a USC team that has beaten almost no one is one of the greatest teams of all time only makes sense in the reality the sportswriters created. Just like so many were so wrong about Nebraska in 1983.

[Weagle98 119]

Weagle98,

The FG attempt was earlier in the game. It would have, eventually, given VT the extra 3 to tie the game. None-the-less, AU knew it had to blow out VT to get any chance at #1 and they didn't. AU DID NOT and COULD NOT score at will. Remember the first three field goals? The VT defense did a hell of a job in the red-zone to keep AU at bay.

Saying AU 'only' scored as many as necessary is ludicrous.

136732[/snapback]

You cant say that the FG would have tied the game. Because you don't know that if they had scored that FG, that then our playcalling would have been completely different. You are making a completely illogical rationalation. If we had scored the three touchdown, no lets say we beat VT 50 to nothing, do you think that we would be #1. Nope USC was good enough in their game. So it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah a FG is a score last time I checked.

My hats off to VT though they have a good D, almost as good as Minnesota's.

[Streyeder 0]

You cant say that the FG would have tied the game.  Because you don't know that if they had scored that FG, that then our playcalling would have been completely different.  You are making a completely illogical rationalation.  If we had scored the three touchdown,  no lets say we beat VT 50 to nothing, do you think that we would be #1.  Nope USC was good enough in their game.  So it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah a FG is a score last time I checked.

My hats off to VT though they have a good D, almost as good as Minnesota's.

136780[/snapback]

I'm sorry, AU could kick field goals at will...

I'm not so sure the game calling would have been so different for VT. They would have still been down by 13, forcing the need for two TD drives. Of course, they would have probably gone for the PAT instead and come out 1 up.

If AU would have beaten VT by 50, they might not have crawled up to #1, but they sure as hell would have gotte more than three votes. Not to mention, many smaller polls would have taken notice and voted them #1. Then AU would have had a decent arguement for the MNC, but as it stands they do not.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

You cant say that the FG would have tied the game.  Because you don't know that if they had scored that FG, that then our playcalling would have been completely different.  You are making a completely illogical rationalation.  If we had scored the three touchdown,  no lets say we beat VT 50 to nothing, do you think that we would be #1.  Nope USC was good enough in their game.  So it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah a FG is a score last time I checked.

My hats off to VT though they have a good D, almost as good as Minnesota's.

136780[/snapback]

I'm sorry, AU could kick field goals at will...

I'm not so sure the game calling would have been so different for VT. They would have still been down by 13, forcing the need for two TD drives. Of course, they would have probably gone for the PAT instead and come out 1 up.

If AU would have beaten VT by 50, they might not have crawled up to #1, but they sure as hell would have gotte more than three votes. Not to mention, many smaller polls would have taken notice and voted them #1. Then AU would have had a decent arguement for the MNC, but as it stands they do not.

136789[/snapback]

If you want to see an actual example of scoring TDs at will, go back and watch the first three possessions of the second half of the Alabama game. That is one of the better illustrations of doing what it took to get an insurmountable lead over a lesser opponent and just sitting on it. Sure, some of wish they had let Jason pad his stats against the then #1 defense in the country, but it wasn't really necessary.

[Weagle98 119]

I'm not so sure the game calling would have been so different for VT. They would have still been down by 13, forcing the need for two TD drives. Of course, they would have probably gone for the PAT instead and come out 1 up.

Streyeder, I want you to rent some movies... Back to the Future and The Butterfly Effect. These movies will help illustrate to you how past events effect future events. I don't think you really understand this concept yet.

Auburn scored on 4 of our first 5 possessions. But your argument is that AU would have not been able to score again the rest of the game. OK.

[Streyeder 0]

If you want to see an actual example of scoring TDs at will, go back and watch the first three possessions of the second half of the Alabama game.  That is one of the better illustrations of doing what it took to get an insurmountable lead over a lesser opponent and just sitting on it.  Sure, some of wish they had let Jason pad his stats against the then #1 defense in the country, but it wasn't really necessary.

136798[/snapback]

Yea, he really laid it on us in the first half too. I don't know where some of you get the notion that Tubbs CHOSE not to run it up in a close game, but face the facts....he COULDN'T.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

If you want to see an actual example of scoring TDs at will, go back and watch the first three possessions of the second half of the Alabama game.  That is one of the better illustrations of doing what it took to get an insurmountable lead over a lesser opponent and just sitting on it.  Sure, some of wish they had let Jason pad his stats against the then #1 defense in the country, but it wasn't really necessary.

136798[/snapback]

Yea, he really laid it on us in the first half too. I don't know where some of you get the notion that Tubbs CHOSE not to run it up in a close game, but face the facts....he COULDN'T.

136858[/snapback]

Bama played great D in the first half and AU obviously struggled. But whatever the problems were, Borges clearly figured it out at half-time, as evidenced by three quick TDs. "The facts?" After that, check out the conservative play calling. They decided to minimize risks. The aggressive play of those three consecutive drives were obviously working and led to quick points.

[Aubie16 1]

After the Sugar Bowl, I heard some AU jerk slamming CTT over that while leaving the stadium.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  The object of the game is to win. 

Quick, where was RavenTiger after the game??

[Raven_tiger 5]

After the Sugar Bowl, I heard some AU jerk slamming CTT over that while leaving the stadium.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  The object of the game is to win. 

Quick, where was RavenTiger after the game??

137047[/snapback]

Bitching on my laptop...

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

... If AU would have beaten VT by 50, they might not have crawled up to #1, but they sure as hell would have gotte more than three votes. Not to mention, many smaller polls would have taken notice and voted them #1. Then AU would have had a decent arguement for the MNC, but as it stands they do not.

136789[/snapback]

Dude. Who cares about idiot sportswriter votes, smaller polls & arguing about the MNC. Being perfect at 13-0, and the Best in the Land is all the argument we need. WDE

[Streyeder 0]

... If AU would have beaten VT by 50, they might not have crawled up to #1, but they sure as hell would have gotte more than three votes. Not to mention, many smaller polls would have taken notice and voted them #1. Then AU would have had a decent arguement for the MNC, but as it stands they do not.

136789[/snapback]

Dude. Who cares about idiot sportswriter votes, smaller polls & arguing about the MNC.

137098[/snapback]

Then I guess you have finally admitted to Alabama's 12 National Championships.

[Aubie16 1]

... If AU would have beaten VT by 50, they might not have crawled up to #1, but they sure as hell would have gotte more than three votes. Not to mention, many smaller polls would have taken notice and voted them #1. Then AU would have had a decent arguement for the MNC, but as it stands they do not.

136789[/snapback]

Dude. Who cares about idiot sportswriter votes, smaller polls & arguing about the MNC.

137098[/snapback]

Then I guess you have finally admitted to Alabama's 12 National Championships.

137105[/snapback]

I'll give you any national championship that you played a full schedule and went undefeated. Once you have one loss, I think you lose all argument and therefore polls are required to determine who is the 'best' one loss team.

How can you say we do not have an argument? I believe we are only like the 15th team EVER to go 13-0. How can a team like that not have an argument? Are you really that blind?

[Aubie7 0]

I would love to see how you could refute the following bama championships:1926, 1925, 1930, 1934, 1961, 1964, 1965,1978, 1979, 1992

Which one of these is the year UA lost 2 games(?), DID NOT win the SEC and still claimed a MNC? That is one I would definitely not claim.