5x National Champs!

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

There is a lot of chatter online about Auburn officially claiming 3 more championships now (1913,1993,1983). Not sure if this is true or not. I haven’t seen us raise any banners, but it is on the athletic website.

https://auburntigers.com/sports/2018/6/11/sports-m-footbl-history-and-tradition-html.aspx

If so, I think that’s awesome! Going by Bama’s rules, 5 is the least we should claim.

At the same time, this seems like the type of thing that Auburn will be uniquely roasted for.

Edited October 27, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[Shadow Tiger 1,291]

They can add 2004 also.

[Dwayne Pride 379]

I have mixed feelings.  I was around for ‘83 and ‘93 and felt at the time they deserved some recognition.   However, they don’t seem any more legit than some of the one that Alabama claims, especially the ones they claimed after the fact.  
 

I will let other people decide what they want to concerning those teams.  ‘83 was the strongest schedule possibly ever played in college football.  I would have loved to have seen a 4 team playoff back then.  
 

Huskers vs. Illini

Auburn Horns rematch  

Hurricanes are possibly not even in the conversation.  That was a messed up way to do things back then.  

 

[eltigrerex 20]

Yes! Long overdue. Five is the least that should be claimed. 

[Gowebb11 9,492]

This absolutely should happen. UCF claims one from their undefeated team and there are many other examples. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

Just now, Gowebb11 said:

This absolutely should happen. UCF claims one from their undefeated team and there are many other examples. 

That’s a bullsh*t claim. I don’t mind Auburn claiming pre BCS championships, but if there was a national championship game played and you didn’t play in it, the waters get kind of muddied there. 
 

2004 would possibly be an exception, because USC had to vacate. 

[TigerPAC 990]

i love the 2004 team, hate we got shafted but hard to claim imo.  

[Gowebb11 9,492]

10 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That’s a bullsh*t claim. I don’t mind Auburn claiming pre BCS championships, but if there was a national championship game played and you didn’t play in it, the waters get kind of muddied there. 
 

2004 would possibly be an exception, because USC had to vacate. 

I didn’t say I agreed with it. They claim it and put it up on their stadium. We should claim the ones we feel are legit and hang the banners. 1983 was pre-BCS and that team should absolutely claim it as several media services awarded it to us, including The NY Times. I’m mixed on 1993 since we were on probation. We agree on your rationale for 2004 since USC vacated it. I also agree that we will get roasted for it and couldn’t care less. It’s the cost of entry in being an Auburn fan. 

[aucanucktiger 1,809]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

There is a lot of chatter online about Auburn officially claiming 3 more championships now (1913,1993,1983). Not sure if this is true or not. I haven’t seen us raise any banners, but it is on the athletic website.

https://auburntigers.com/sports/2018/6/11/sports-m-footbl-history-and-tradition-html.aspx

If so, I think that’s awesome! Going by Bama’s rules, 5 is the least we should claim.

At the same time, this seems like the type of thing that Auburn will be uniquely roasted for.

Going by Bama's rules, we'd claim 12 natl championships to go with our 12 undefeated seasons. Let's not go by their rules, please. Put "12 undefeated seasons" on the stadium and leave it at that.

[woodford 3,682]

Claiming titles is totally fair in CFB. Just goes to show there’s always been more to play for in this sport than just a championship. 
 

Networks are doing their best to erase that though. 
 

Let’s get real, If you went 11-1 with a Rose Bowl victory in 1972 or something and no one else was undefeated, you had a national championship level season. 

[AU120289 382]

9 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

This absolutely should happen. UCF claims one from their undefeated team and there are many other examples. 

Good ole Gus. Memories, terrible memories. Signed the mega extension, lost in the SECCG, lost to UCF in the bowl game. I guess he can claim he won a Natty as a head coach. 🤣

[WillMunny 1,387]

CFB championships are like "Billy the Kid" grave sites out west.  Way more claimed than actually exist.

Edited October 27, 2023 by WillMunny

[TitanTiger 20,572]

There was a time, shortly after Bama poofed an extra 6 natties into existence in one year via their media guide that us holding to the more strict count was a badge of pride.  But that ship has sailed.  Every other program claims pre-BCS/CFP titles all over the place.  We lost that PR battle.  Embrace the way everyone else does it and claim at least these five.

[DAG 34,056]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That’s a bullsh*t claim. I don’t mind Auburn claiming pre BCS championships, but if there was a national championship game played and you didn’t play in it, the waters get kind of muddied there. 
 

2004 would possibly be an exception, because USC had to vacate. 

No exceptions! J/k: That 2004 team was nice. Iono how we would’ve done against USC but certainly couldn’t have been any worse than OU. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

3 minutes ago, DAG said:

No exceptions! J/k: That 2004 team was nice. Iono how we would’ve done against USC but certainly couldn’t have been any worse than OU. 

I think USC would have beaten us pretty good, based off of how we almost lost to VT. But USC was paying players and we were literally only paying Stanley McClover….

Edited October 27, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[DAG 34,056]

Just now, AuCivilEng1 said:

I think USC would have beaten us pretty good, based off of how we almost lost to VT. But USC was paying players and we were literally only paying Stanley McClover.

Yeah it’s hard to say because maybe we we were “whatever” after not going to the NC game. Would like to think we would have a chip on our shoulder after 03, but like you mentioned I don’t know if we would’ve had enough to beat them truly, if I am being honest. 

[AURex 2,083]

These 5 are not simply "claimed" by Auburn. These 5 championships are listed in the NCAA Record Book, which recognizes championships selected by various sports/news sources at that time. So there is nothing to get "roasted" for.

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

5 minutes ago, DAG said:

Yeah it’s hard to say because maybe we we were “whatever” after not going to the NC game. Would like to think we would have a chip on our shoulder after 03, but like you mentioned I don’t know if we would’ve had enough to beat them truly, if I am being honest. 

They had also owned us the previous two seasons. Just a complete matchup nightmare for us. I’d like to think Tubs was playing 4D chess. and just letting it ride knowing USC was going to have to vacate.

But turns out Tubs is a complete dumba** who couldn't even play candyland properly.

Edited October 27, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

1 minute ago, AURex said:

. So there is nothing to get "roasted" for.

 

Oh, they’ll roast. We know it. They know it. Everyone knows it. We don’t get to use logic like Bama, UGA, etc. 

[DAG 34,056]

4 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

They had also owned us the previous two seasons. Just a complete matchup nightmare for us. I’d like to think Tubs was playing 4D chess. and just letting it ride knowing USC was going to have to vacate.

But turns out Tubs is a complete dumba** who could even play Cartland properly.

There is a lot I would love to say about tubs but most of it belongs on the political board so I will spare everyone haha

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

1 minute ago, DAG said:

There is a lot I would love to say about tubs but most of it belongs on the political board so I will spare everyone haha

Oh we are being good? I was just going to light a match and throw it towards the gas tank and see what I could see. 
 

[PowerOfDixieland 3,227]

2 hours ago, aucanucktiger said:

Going by Bama's rules, we'd claim 12 natl championships to go with our 12 undefeated seasons. Let's not go by their rules, please. Put "12 undefeated seasons" on the stadium and leave it at that.

Good idea....

[AuCivilEng1 11,049]

1 minute ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

Good idea....

I can smell the Marlboro reds, nacho cheese, and bourbon just looking at this picture. Gah I miss Auburn.

[TeamZero77 1,790]

I can see 2004 both ways. We say we deserve that championship because we ended up 2nd in the polls to USC and they were stripped of the title.

On the other hand, if we were in Oklahoma's position we would definitely be saying "Hey, we deserve that championship because we are the team that actually played USC in the National Title game. Auburn didn't."

I can see both ways.

I saw the 5 titles on the Auburn site so if we are about to start claiming 5 championships, I have to wonder why now and not earlier? I wonder if it's because we've been in a lull for the last 5 or 6 years and maybe this could generate some excitement and it could also be a positive in recruiting? 

[AUght2win 6,904]

3 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That’s a bullsh*t claim. I don’t mind Auburn claiming pre BCS championships, but if there was a national championship game played and you didn’t play in it, the waters get kind of muddied there. 
 

2004 would possibly be an exception, because USC had to vacate. 

ALL MNC titles are BS claims. It’s the only sport on earth whose champion is determined by the opinion of fat sports writers who watch 1% of the action. Also the only sport where over half the field is ineligible regardless of results on the field. It’s all a joke, and there will never be a true national title until ALL teams control their own destinies, with all having a shot at the crown. The expansion to 12 will likely do that.

So for the “pre-actual NC era” we should definitely claim 2004. If it’s challenged, the rebuttal should be “prove we weren’t the best team in CFB that year”.