Unclaimed National Championships

[aubiefifty 17,350]

Unclaimed National Championships

What is it going to take for Auburn to claim its National Championships? Given the systems in place prior to the playoff era, Auburn inarguably has claims to the '83, '93, and '04 titles at a minimum, and arguably some others as well. Why won't Auburn claim them, and what can fans do to encourage them to do so?

Auburn is in the process of rehabbing its image after a decade of mediocrity, and this sort of thing could really help boost its prestige to recruits. Sure, there would be a few years of ribbing from rival fans, but who honestly cares?

Those seasons deserve to be talked about by more than just die hard Auburn fans.

 

what say yee folks?

[meh130 1,056]

We could claim 1913 and 1914 also. I often wondered had we beaten FSU in the 2013 season BCS game, if we would have made a claim for 1913.

[aubiefifty 17,350]

i would want any claims to be legit tho. the turds claim a natty after losing to vandy the same year...................

[JuscAUse! 1,516]

I say that '83 and 2004 are no brainers, and I will debate anyone over that. I seem to remember reading about another, 1958 maybe (?) And one under Heisman in the early days , but the two mentioned earlier are legit in my mind. And that was before they took the trophy from the Trojans. 

[JuscAUse! 1,516]

4 minutes ago, meh130 said:

We could claim 1913 and 1914 also. I often wondered had we beaten FSU in the 2013 season BCS game, if we would have made a claim for 1913.

That's the one I was thinking about.

[AUDrew 68]

28 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i would want any claims to be legit tho. the turds claim a natty after losing to vandy the same year...................

'83, '93 and '04 are totally legit.  

Any team other than Auburn in the same situation would've had a co-championship in '83 and '04.

'93 is the only question because of the suspension, but even then no one was really in dispute that Auburn was the best team in the nation that year.  Even mainstream media Bryant Gumbel live on the Today show said Auburn should be #1 and champs in '93, suspension or not. 

The only thing stopping us is that the Bammers would incessantly whine and throw insults about it while defending their "Drug Store" Championship and "Notre Dame doesn't count because they're Independent" Championship till they were red in the face. 

[aubiefifty 17,350]

56 minutes ago, AUDrew said:

'83, '93 and '04 are totally legit.  

Any team other than Auburn in the same situation would've had a co-championship in '83 and '04.

'93 is the only question because of the suspension, but even then no one was really in dispute that Auburn was the best team in the nation that year.  Even mainstream media Bryant Gumbel live on the Today show said Auburn should be #1 and champs in '93, suspension or not. 

The only thing stopping us is that the Bammers would incessantly whine and throw insults about it while defending their "Drug Store" Championship and "Notre Dame doesn't count because they're Independent" Championship till they were red in the face. 

let them. and i am pretty sure those three you mentioned were even stated by many sportscasters saying we should claim them. it is a new world. let them whine.........it is just crying without tears........grins

[aucanucktiger 1,809]

I like the idea of "Undefeated Seasons" in the stadium for the whole world to see (we have 11) and separately listing National Chamionships that are not Bama-level retro titles (e.g. we got screwed in '83. Period. No NY Times computer champions on J-H, that's one of the many differences between our university and sell your soul Bama inbreds)

Edited August 16, 2023 by aucanucktiger

[Win4AU 4,055]

What’s really wild about 1993 is you’d have unbeaten Auburn playing unbeaten West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl while Florida State played Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.  Auburn probably would have been screwed either way in 93.

To prove my point the same unbeaten Auburn team couldn’t even get respect in 94 after they beat #1 Florida in the swamp.  Still weren’t #1.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Win4AU

[wildlife alumni 310]

If nothing else the former player need to be honored for their accomplishments. They are the ones with a right to those titles. They deserve it. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by wildlife alumni

[NewYrkTiger 68]

4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i would want any claims to be legit tho. the turds claim a natty after losing to vandy the same year...................

The 1913 NC is legit. Hell, might have been the best team Auburn ever had.

[NewYrkTiger 68]

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2009/2009FBS.pdf

See pages 70-73. The NCAA recognizes Auburn’s 1913, 1957, 1983 and 1993 NCs. Why don’t we?

Obviously, 2010 is also recognized.

Unfortunately, 2004 is a little tricky. No independent organization recognized by the NCAA awarded us the NC.

But where 1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, and 2010 are concerned, we can simply point out they’re all “awarded by an NCAA recognized organization” (as per this website). As for ‘04, we can just shrug our shoulders and say, “F you.” 😂 

Seriously, 1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, 2004, and 2010 are all legit. Raise the banners. 

[AUDrew 68]

2 minutes ago, NewYrkTiger said:

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2009/2009FBS.pdf

See pages 70-73. The NCAA recognizes Auburn’s 1913, 1957, 1983 and 1993 NCs. Why don’t we?

Obviously, 2010 is also recognized.

Unfortunately, 2004 is a little tricky. No independent organization recognized by the NCAA awarded us the NC.

But where 1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, and 2010 are concerned, we can simply point out they’re all “awarded by an NCAA recognized organization” (as per this website). As for ‘04, we can just shrug our shoulders and say, “F you.” 😂 

Seriously, 1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, 2004, and 2010 are all legit. Raise the banners. 

I hate to say it but I do feel like it's internally a "little brother" syndrome of not wanting to claim every little thing, and so late and that Bammer is largely being considered.  

It's a dumb consideration but I don't think the illusion wants to be put out that we're increasing our claims in order to catch up with Tuscaloosa.   They would make that claim, and so would the Alabama sports media.  Alabama fans, most of whom you know haven't set foot on a college campus for any other reason than to see a football game, would eat it up as "Barner wish fulfillment".  

It's a dumb reason but it's the only reason I can see logically why Auburn doesn't lay its legit claims.   We withered under the decades of derision of "The Barn only won one Natty in the 50's" and the absolute meltdown the Red part of the state had when we won another in 2010.  They were more angry that we got another one for the banner than they were happy at any they legitimately added since. 

Auburn's got a strong legacy that deserves its recognition.  We aren't a second fiddle.  Any other school would claim the tradition we have.  As an alum, and one not from Alabama so I didn't have the background, I feel strongly we should claim our rightful legacy, proudly and publish it and celebrate it as hard as any University with our history and pedigree would. 

[Win4AU 4,055]

I didn’t think the NCAA actually recognized a national champion until the BCS era?  Before then it was the AP/coaches and other random organizations.

[AUDrew 68]

Just now, Win4AU said:

I didn’t think the NCAA actually recognized a national champion until the BCS era?  Before then it was the AP/coaches and other random organizations.

The NCAA still doesn't recognize a DI National Champion.

Every Champion is either from the polls or the BCS or now the CFP.  They're not recognized by the NCAA. 

They merely document in a record book every team that has claimed or been recognized to be National Champion.  That includes the '93 Auburn team that was recognized years later as National Champions by the Historical Records National Championship Foundation. 

[Tigger1985 820]

I think that they should have been claimed long ago. Why have something and not claim it. 

[Dom1ni0n 51]

10 hours ago, Win4AU said:

What’s really wild about 1993 is you’d have unbeaten Auburn playing unbeaten West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl while Florida State played Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.  Auburn probably would have been screwed either way in 93.

To prove my point the same unbeaten Auburn team couldn’t even get respect in 94 after they beat #1 Florida in the swamp.  Still weren’t #1.

2-loss UF got the Sugar Bowl bid instead and it was the Danny Weurfel to Jack Jackson show that shredded WVU's secondary.  That game was a laugher.    Without probation, AU goes to the Sugar Bowl and beats WVU by at least 21.  Now against a seasoned Charlie Ward-led FSU, that's a different story.

Started 94 with the weak preseason ranking mainly due to no TV coverage in 93 IMO. TV was king in those days.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Dom1ni0n

[AUpreacherman22 3,899]

I’ve been on the “claim them” bandwagon for a long time.   And I’m buying that merch!   Another reason why we should claim them.  That’s some solid NIL money coming in.   

[NewYrkTiger 68]

8 hours ago, Win4AU said:

I didn’t think the NCAA actually recognized a national champion until the BCS era?  Before then it was the AP/coaches and other random organizations.

That’s why I used the phrase “NCAA recognized organizations.” The NCAA recognizes the organizations, and the organizations awarded AU those NCs. 
 

Likewise, I don’t think Auburn should “claim” National Championships, but rather “recognize” NCs awarded by these various organizations. 

[weagl1 1,790]

Bear Bryant once said if a laundromat in Tuscaloosa named them national champions they were going to take it and that has pretty much been their standard.  I don’t think we should go that far but we should at least claim the ones where some legit organization named us. I have also never understood why when USC was stripped of the title in 2004 and Auburn was the only remaining undefeated major college team why was the title not awarded to us?  

[JDUBB4AU 5,138]

Claim everything. Being different has zero benefits. It’s about bolstering your history and success every way you can. 

[Tigger1985 820]

We should sue the NCAA about 2004 

[Bro Johnny Mac 1,403]

We should claim the ones that the NCAA recognizes as legit..

Which means we should claim ‘15,’83,’93

Our decision should have  absolutely NOTHING to do with what bammer will think! 
I think that’s what has kept us from doing it already.. because we think we will loose our “We’re not like bammer,we don’t claim all of those rinky dink titles” status that we’ve claimed. And we had rather have bammer think of us in that way rather than claiming the titles..

Claim them already 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Bro Johnny Mac

[IronMan70 3,277]

In addition to 1957, 2010, at a minimum we need to claim 1913, 1914, 1983, 1993, 2004. It's not even a close call. 

[ScotsAU 1,343]

1913 and 1914 I think are claimable. I don’t agree with 83. Consensus 3rd in both the coaches and AP. 
 

As for 93 and 04, I think we can logically claim one of the two but not both. USC won it in 04, and probably was a better team than us. Should we have played them instead of Oklahoma? Absolutely. But that team was also stacked, and had a more consistently effective offense. If we claim it, I think the argument we can make is that USC’s vacated wins for violations leave us as the only undefeated team. However, if we do that, we can’t claim 93. We were probably the best team that year. But we were being sanctioned for violations. It would be a contradiction to say we claim 04 because usc no longer can due to violations, but we can claim our own when we were penalized for violations. 
 

I’d add 1913, 1914, and 2004, and not claim the others.