Best Eligible Auburn Team Not SEC Champs?

[im4aual 492]

Auburn has had plenty of good teams that did not win the conference championship.  Which ones are your top five.  Mine (in order) are:

1958 - Many of the players who were on both the 1957 and 58 teams say the 58 team was better. No losses, just a tie with Ga Tech.

1963 - Only lost a close game to Miss State during the regular season and another close one to Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.

1972 - Probably my sentimental favorite.  I would have put them at above the 1963 team, but their loss to LSU was a blowout.

1986 - Two plays, an early whistle in the Georgia game and a fumble against Florida, probably cost them a shot at the national   

               championship.  Pat Dye's most underrated team.

1971 - A really good team, but they lost blowout games to bama and Oklahoma to end what had looked like a championship season.

*The 1993 team was not eligible for the title

[McLoofus 35,182]

Hard to evaluate how good a team was vs how good they performed. 2017 jumps to mind. 2019, too. 

2006 for sure and maybe even 2005.

Fun topic!

[WarEagle1982 486]

1 hour ago, im4aual said:

Auburn has had plenty of good teams that did not win the conference championship.  Which ones are your top five.  Mine (in order) are:

1958 - Many of the players who were on both the 1957 and 58 teams say the 58 team was better. No losses, just a tie with Ga Tech.

1963 - Only lost a close game to Miss State during the regular season and another close one to Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.

1972 - Probably my sentimental favorite.  I would have put them at above the 1963 team, but their loss to LSU was a blowout.

1986 - Two plays, an early whistle in the Georgia game and a fumble against Florida, probably cost them a shot at the national   

               championship.  Pat Dye's most underrated team.

1971 - A really good team, but they lost blowout games to bama and Oklahoma to end what had looked like a championship season.

*The 1993 team was not eligible for the title

I’m going to agree totally on the 1986 team.  That was a really good football team that had the misfortune of falling victim to the curse of Florida Field and then just playing poorly overall against a very average UGA team.  That Bama team they beat at the end of the year was a really good that had been ranked either 2 or 3 at one point.

 

1993 definitely comes to mind.  While reality tells me that beating Florida again would have been unlikely my gut says they would have found a way to win.

 2005 was definitely a team that missed their chance.  If John Vaughn just makes ONE FIELD GOAL out of the five he missed they go back to Atlanta and rematch UGA at a time when they were playing really good football.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

When Auburn went 10-0 and won the national championship in 1957 while hey were on probation. In 1993, Auburn went 11-0 and wasn't named national champions. Why not? What was the differents between the 57 team and the 93 team.

[lca408 378]

Personally I don’t think the 2005 team would have won in Atlanta had we won the West. Georgia ended up demolishing LSU in that game something like 31-3 and they would have been gunning for revenge after the game in Athens 2 weeks before. The defense that year just wasn’t all that and they gave up a chunk of yards and points to Georgia in the first game. 

2006 was def the best team of the Tuberville era that fits this description, though 2002 may be close. That defense was fierce, the special teams were the best in the country, and the offense was....okay, not terrible, but gutsy. I think they would have had a decent chance against Florida the 2nd time around had they gone and played them. Also think 2002 Auburn would have beaten Florida in Atlanta for the Championship (assuming we beat Georgia which, along with the Bama win would put us there, and keep Georgia out).

Agree about 1958. That tie to Tech would be one of the top 3 games in Auburn history that I would change the outcome if I had the power. Win the SEC and possibly the NC in back to back years. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Side note: I seriously wonder if any two teams have played 3 better games in 3 consecutive years than Auburn and LSU did from '04-'06. That's when that became my favorite rivalry. It's a shame that it's turned into mostly garbage this decade. Especially for us. 2010 was fantastic. We've only beaten them twice since, and all the losses have been absolutely awful, and one of the wins was a 6-FG crapfest, and the other one was a blowout. Which, of course, was awesome- probably Gus's most complete game as our head coach- but not exciting to the casual fan like those games in the Aughts were.    /tangent

[lca408 378]

Yeah I’m trying to think. 2011 was a blowout, 2012 was an embarrassing slugfest that LSU eventually pulled out, 2013 started as a blowout and then turned more entertaining, 2014 and 2015 were both blowouts for both teams, 2016 sucked. Honestly the last three games were the best of this past decade outside of 2010, and unfortunately auburn lost all 3.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, lca408 said:

Yeah I’m trying to think. 2011 was a blowout, 2012 was an embarrassing slugfest that LSU eventually pulled out, 2013 started as a blowout and then turned more entertaining, 2014 and 2015 were both blowouts for both teams, 2016 sucked. Honestly the last three games were the best of this past decade outside of 2010, and unfortunately auburn lost all 3.

Good point about 2013. That game is where the offense that dominated the league really came to life. So I do have fond memories of it. (Not like our bad early season losses in subsequent years.) 

And the games have been so close lately, but our offense has been so bad- literally because Gus chose for it to be so for the 2nd half in 2017- that they make me angry. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

I'm not sure if this counts but, to me, it's one of Auburn's most underrated teams due to the 0-2 start, which was a HUGE disappointment coming off of the '83 performance.

However, after going 0-2 against defending national champ Miami and then AT Texas, while losing Bo to a separated shoulder and bad knee in the UTx game, the 1984 Tigers dug deep.....as in SIX different RB's (not named Bo) had at least 30 carries on the year and cobbled together 9 wins and a 14th ranking in the AP poll after beating FSU, Georgia, Arkansas in the Liberty Bowl (and only losing to bammer after the "wrong way Bo" play).

This was one of the gutsiest AU teams ever!

[Carnell 592]

10 hours ago, im4aual said:

Auburn has had plenty of good teams that did not win the conference championship.  Which ones are your top five.  Mine (in order) are:

1958 - Many of the players who were on both the 1957 and 58 teams say the 58 team was better. No losses, just a tie with Ga Tech.

1963 - Only lost a close game to Miss State during the regular season and another close one to Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.

1972 - Probably my sentimental favorite.  I would have put them at above the 1963 team, but their loss to LSU was a blowout.

1986 - Two plays, an early whistle in the Georgia game and a fumble against Florida, probably cost them a shot at the national   

               championship.  Pat Dye's most underrated team.

1971 - A really good team, but they lost blowout games to bama and Oklahoma to end what had looked like a championship season.

*The 1993 team was not eligible for the title

The 1972 team is my favorite.  Both Bama and Auburn had one loss in the SEC that year but Bama played one more SEC game that year because the SEC did not limit the # of conference games a team could play.  Conference changed the rules the next year.  Talking about a screw job. All the other SEC teams played 6 with the exception of bama.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,340]

I know it's recent history but 2018- that team had it all (save a 2nd string RB) and could (should) have beaten anyone when healthy. Inexplicable losses to LSU and UGA (2nd version) were hard to swallow but that's more on coaching than talent.

I would argue that the 1997 team should be considered (though the Mississippi State cluster still pisses me off to this day). The offense was great and defense could play well enough when it needed to.

[fredst 9,064]

8 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Side note: I seriously wonder if any two teams have played 3 better games in 3 consecutive years than Auburn and LSU did from '04-'06

That 2006 game may have been the most physical football game I’ve ever seen. That was two team just bludgeoning each other

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, fredst said:

That 2006 game may have been the most physical football game I’ve ever seen. That was two team just bludgeoning each other

One of my best friends is a bammer. He and I have exchanged extremely ugly and personal words over football. He called me up after that game and said it was the best football game he'd ever seen. Violence as art.

[WarEagle1982 486]

10 hours ago, fredst said:

That 2006 game may have been the most physical football game I’ve ever seen. That was two team just bludgeoning each other

Yes.  No doubt.  Physical violence in the scorching heat.

[WarEagle1982 486]

12 hours ago, Carnell said:

The 1972 team is my favorite.  Both Bama and Auburn had one loss in the SEC that year but Bama played one more SEC game that year because the SEC did not limit the # of conference games a team could play.  Conference changed the rules the next year.  Talking about a screw job. All the other SEC teams played 6 with the exception of bama.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Bama coach playing the rules to his advantage.

[Mikey 16,781]

13 hours ago, Carnell said:

The 1972 team is my favorite.  Both Bama and Auburn had one loss in the SEC that year but Bama played one more SEC game that year because the SEC did not limit the # of conference games a team could play.  Conference changed the rules the next year.  Talking about a screw job. All the other SEC teams played 6 with the exception of bama.

The insult is made even worse because AU won the head to head matchup. Of the many things Bryant could be accused of, being a fool isn't one of them. As soon as the SEC office announced that championships would be awarded on conference wining percentage, he went and scheduled one more conference game than everybody else.

[WarEagle1982 486]

On 4/30/2020 at 12:25 PM, lca408 said:

Personally I don’t think the 2005 team would have won in Atlanta had we won the West. Georgia ended up demolishing LSU in that game something like 31-3 and they would have been gunning for revenge after the game in Athens 2 weeks before. The defense that year just wasn’t all that and they gave up a chunk of yards and points to Georgia in the first game. 

2006 was def the best team of the Tuberville era that fits this description, though 2002 may be close. That defense was fierce, the special teams were the best in the country, and the offense was....okay, not terrible, but gutsy. I think they would have had a decent chance against Florida the 2nd time around had they gone and played them. Also think 2002 Auburn would have beaten Florida in Atlanta for the Championship (assuming we beat Georgia which, along with the Bama win would put us there, and keep Georgia out).

Agree about 1958. That tie to Tech would be one of the top 3 games in Auburn history that I would change the outcome if I had the power. Win the SEC and possibly the NC in back to back years. 

If they could have pulled Muschamp in a year earlier then 2005 could have been a championship season.  They were still really good on offense (statistics were actually as good as 2004).  
 

That 2006 team was so inconsistent.  I was at the Arkansas debacle that year and it blew my mind even though Arkansas had a good team.  Houston Nutt has Tubby’s number.  Then the UGA game that year was also totally inexplicable.  The Dawgs kicked their faces in.

 

 I really believe 2002 would have been a really good year if not for the Daniel Cobb experiment of 01 and early 02.  They should have gone with Campbell from the beginning and let it roll.  They were really inconsistent that year as well.  They got blasted at home by Arkansas and also struggled to force overtime against a bad Syracuse team  that lost to Temple that year.  

[Win4AU 4,068]

The 2017 team was rolling at the right time.  The offense was balanced perfect for a Gus offense.  The defense was starting to become the force it is now.  The SEC rematch may not have been a blowout but Auburn probably would have still prevailed.  Oklahoma would have been a tough out and a rematch with Bama would have been nuts.  

[bigbird 60,701]

Is 2012 available?

[twilli13 600]

3 hours ago, Win4AU said:

The 2017 team was rolling at the right time.  The offense was balanced perfect for a Gus offense.  The defense was starting to become the force it is now.  The SEC rematch may not have been a blowout but Auburn probably would have still prevailed.  Oklahoma would have been a tough out and a rematch with Bama would have been nuts.  

2017 team was Gus's most talented team. They were loaded. The Uga and Bama back to back wins I felt showed how good the team was when they played to potential. The 4 losses all could have been wins with better game planning, roster management. The 'But Gus' effect screwed us big time that year. 

[twilli13 600]

9 hours ago, WarEagle1982 said:

If they could have pulled Muschamp in a year earlier then 2005 could have been a championship season.  They were still really good on offense (statistics were actually as good as 2004).  
 

That 2006 team was so inconsistent.  I was at the Arkansas debacle that year and it blew my mind even though Arkansas had a good team.  Houston Nutt has Tubby’s number.  Then the UGA game that year was also totally inexplicable.  The Dawgs kicked their faces in.

 

 I really believe 2002 would have been a really good year if not for the Daniel Cobb experiment of 01 and early 02.  They should have gone with Campbell from the beginning and let it roll.  They were really inconsistent that year as well.  They got blasted at home by Arkansas and also struggled to force overtime against a bad Syracuse team  that lost to Temple that year.  

2005 team took much longer to get going on offense due to the change in Qb and running back. It took Kenny Irons until Arkansas game to become the man, then he exploded. He barely played in the loss to Tech. Cox was also a definite step down from Cambell at QB. Smart but way less arm talent and athleticism. 

[lca408 378]

19 hours ago, twilli13 said:

2005 team took much longer to get going on offense due to the change in Qb and running back. It took Kenny Irons until Arkansas game to become the man, then he exploded. He barely played in the loss to Tech. Cox was also a definite step down from Cambell at QB. Smart but way less arm talent and athleticism. 

I think by the end of the year, it didn’t matter. That team’s offense was humming and would have blasted just about any defense they faced. But the defense was the Achilles heel outside of the Iron Bowl. That’s why I don’t think they manage to win in Atlanta against an angry UGA team with Shockley at QB. 

But I love the 2005 team. Probably the best collection of wide receivers in their prime that we’ve had since, well I don’t know. And I don’t think we’ve had a group on the same level since. 

Heres a good question though. Think about 2006. Would you rather have just one of that 2005 group back for one more year in 2006 - OR - have a more mobile QB instead of Brandon Cox with the WRs they had? If you could only pick one. 

Im tempted to choose the 2005 receiver. Put 1 of Aromashodou, Obomanou, or Mix back on the field next to Courtney Taylor, Prechae, Montez, and Rod Smith and I think that offense is way better.

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 5/2/2020 at 4:35 PM, bigbird said:

Is 2012 available?

Ooooh, I smell a Most Underachieving Team thread. That should be pleasant.