Your move, Auburn fan
On this site, I previously wrote [no link as a result of technical difficulties and the general laziness of our technical staff here, which consists of : me] why I don’t believe the BCS or AP should name Auburn the national champions for 2004. The short of it is this: the AP at the time was part of the BCS formula and so naming a champion for them is no different than saying Team X won the ELO-Chess National Championship that season (and yes, I side with LSU on the matter of who won the 2003 championship); the BCS poll itself does not determine a winner, but merely the participants of a game and the winner of that game is named champion. If they declare the champion ineligible, then the two options are to not have a champion that season or to replay the game with eligible participants. As the latter is not possible, there is no winner. If the BCS were to revise it’s rules in a manner to satisfy Auburn fans — namely, to go by the poll — then Oklahoma is your champion because what most Auburn fans aren’t recognizing here is that the last BCS poll of a season comes out before the championship, not after it and Auburn finished third.
With that said, I’m rather intrigued by the Football Writers Association of America’s (FWAA) current consideration of naming Auburn national champs for that season if USC’s appeal is denied (hint: it will be). It’s no secret that part of the catechism for becoming an Auburn fan includes memorizing every one of Alabama’s claimed titles and a corresponding reason why it should not be recognized as a legitimate championship. The two most popular reasons are “the championship was awarded retroactively rather than in the year it would have been won” and “it was awarded by a poll that no one recognizes as important any more.” So now, the FWAA — which has not been recognized as part of the consensus since college football went to a two-poll system in 1950 — is considering retroactively awarding a championship to Auburn for 2004. The double whammy.
If you were an Auburn fan, there are really three scenarios here:
- “I formed my opposition to retroactive and irrelevant polls not as a reaction to Alabama but as a firmly held principle and therefore I reject claims to this title.”
- “I recognize this championship, thereby renouncing any former arguments to the invalidity of retroactive and/or irrelevant polls I held and I acknowledge ruefully Alabama’s claim to thirteen titles.”
- “I recognize this championship, but still deny Alabama’s claim to all but a couple of them. Auburn winning this one is just a recognition of a universal truth that we’ve been denied for six long years. Alabama’s claims are just cheating. “
So, Auburn fan. If the FWAA awards it, do you claim it?
As a UT fan whose school (at times) claims up to 6 National Championships, I am in the first group. 1951 and 1998. Those are the only two UT championships. There are others that are arguable, and others still that we should have been awarded a championship but weren’t (like going unscored on for a whole year), but you have to have principles. I think most Auburn fans also hate Alabama enough to let this championship go. The alternative is, they get one, Alabama gets 5, I think it is? Maybe 6? Anyway, you see my point.
I don’t have any problem with a fan who denies championships based on truly held principle. Alabama fans have made no secret of the fact that we don’t claim all the ones we’ve been awarded (at least, the majority do not).
I also think that you’re right that most would be willing to let this one go just for the sake of piety. Now, had this been a question a year ago when Alabama had not won the most recent title, I think more would have accepted it on the grounds that it was more recent than Alabama’s latest.
I didn’t proofread that, so it may consist of the longest run on sentence in the history of mankind.
Thank you. Just, just, I thank you. Too many Aubs around, and sometimes I get tongue-tied for logic. Heck, I may even start a conversation with one today just to use this ammo (usually to be avoided at all costs).
Oskie:
By your method, UA has at least 8… maybe more. Perhaps I’ll research it when time permits.
Alabama has eight in the modern era (since 1950), which is when the AP and Coaches were considered the only two polls granting universally recognized national championships.
I’m fine with saying Alabama has eight. It’s still the most of any team in the modern era. Oklahoma and USC are currently tied at 7, but USC will lose one when they lose their appeal to the NCAA.
Option 1 cuts both ways, you know. If Auburn does claim the title, Tide fans don’t get to say a word about it, do they? Deny it–and what’s funny is that based on your first paragraph, you clearly think Auburn should–and you deny a bunch of your own, since by your own admission the standards are virtually identical. You probably should have mentioned that.
But for the record, the overwhelming majority of Auburn fans (the ones that don’t, say, post comments in the al.com threads) aren’t going to call this a national championship no matter what the FWAA does. Further expansion from me on that topic, if anyone cares:
http://www.thewareaglereader.com/2010/05/let-the-dogs-of-2004-lie-thanks/
You misread my first paragraph. I believe that the BCS should not by their standards award Auburn the championship, and I believe that as long as the AP was a part of the BCS formula, their final poll should not count as an individual championship. I personally recognize any title that has a claim at the time it was awarded as being a legitimate title. Not one title claimed by Alabama since 1950 (when the AP and UPI were designated the standard) was recognized that was not awarded by the AP or UPI (Coaches). In 2004, college football doesn’t recognize a title that isn’t the BCS. Were Alabama in Auburn’s situation, I would not recognize the FWAA as an Alabama championship for that year because the one that counts is the BCS.
Then again, I’m pretty flexible on it, so if we wish to only allow titles after the setup was standardized, I’ll accept that Alabama has eight — or one more than anyone else.
Having now read your post, I’m curious why Auburn fans refuse to acknowledge that there are championships Alabama was awarded that they do not claim? As a point of fact, the University claims fewer titles (13) than the NCAA recognizes for them (18).
Eh, maybe I’m reading more into that opening paragraph than I should. Apologies. But I still think the overall tone, despite your reply to Ty below, is “let’s watch Auburn make idiots of themselves by counting this title, haha.” There’s an awful lot of words being put into the mouths of Auburn fans here, none of them positive save, I guess, Option 1. Forgive me if I don’t think the question implied isn’t actually “how is Auburn going to react to the FWAA’s decision?” so much as “how are we going to be able to make fun of them for it?”
As for your second point, well, I am aware that there are other titles that could be claimed out there, and that ‘Bama’s gotten royally jobbed by the polls a couple of times as well. I’m taking some poetic license. But c’mon–we can argue the specifics until the sun burns out, but ‘Bama’s reputation for title-grabbing isn’t entirely unearned. (If I were you guys, I’d start asking why Pitt, the unquestioned king of title-claiming, doesn’t get more attention for their shenanigans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Panthers_football_seasons#National_Championships)
Perhaps it is a difference in tone, but of the three options, only one of them (3) is insulting. I understand the inclusion of the word ‘ruefully’ might give it a certain tone, but it’s really more about the begrudging nature of the rivalry. What’s more, as I pointed out in another comment you also acknowledge that recognizing the title has to be understood in terms of Alabama.
Auburn fans always say “the overwhelming majority of Auburn fans” don’t feel or think like the multitude of Auburn fans we encounter at work or at family gatherings or on blogs or on message boards or in the comments section of al.com. Honestly, if this overwhelming silent majority exists as you say then the total population of Auburn sympathizers would be equivalent to the combined human conglomerate of India and China.
Why is there this incessant need for Auburn fans to act above it all and clarify their moral superiority with that grating tone of irksome petulance?
Isn’t there the not-insignificant subtlety there that Alabama’s retroactive titles had to be awarded retroactively because nobody awarded any titles at all in the years that they were won? The difference here is that the FWAA is saying “we awarded it in 2004 to USC, now we’re changing our minds.”
Also, just want to point out that if it had been Oklahoma, and not Auburn, screwed over in 2004 and kept out of the BCSNCG, it would now be Oklahoma getting the FWAA retroactive title.
I don’t see why it matters whether they awarded one then or not.
There seems to be a view that my concern as an Alabama fan is the number of titles Auburn counts. That’s not the case. I don’t care how many they count. The number is not the issue. The issue is simply how the fans will handle the possibility of this title in light of how it conflicts with other titles they deem unworthy. More to the point, I won’t argue with the reckoning of their titles at all. I will however argue in favor of Alabama’s count using this one as support if it is recognized by Auburn fans.
So you want auburn fans to conform to your way of seeing things?
That’s what an argument is, Barney. You’re trying to convince me, I’m trying to convince you.
So far, though, all I’ve seen is that no one has actually argued against what I’ve said, only whether I should say it because I’m identified as an Alabama fan. Nevermind that Auburn fan WBR Jerry basically wrote his own argument regarding whether Auburn should accept it or not.
The answer to the question in your first sentence is NO, Ty.
Maybe there’s a subtlety between “no title awarded–no system in place” and “no title awarded–winner declared ineligible,” but I’m going to go ahead and say as long as it’s falling under the “no title awarded” heading, that subtlety is, in fact, insignificant. Not that, personally, I give a crap how many titles ‘Bama claims. 13, 15, 24, go nuts. Just don’t do that and then turn around and accuse (largely hypothetical) Auburn fans of hypocrisy for claiming one that’s extremely similar to one of yours.
As to your second point, no argument there, because if there’s one thing the track record of SEC teams in BCS championship games and the box score from the Trojans’ meeting with Cal from that year (http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2004-2005/usccal.html) tell us, it’s that Auburn wouldn’t have had a shot. All the pundits and computer simulations say so, and they’re always right, of course.
Still, though, I think this fish has something to say about the relevance of that point to the discussion:
http://groundnotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/redherring2.jpg
You seem to care at least some as to whether Alabama counts a lot of them or not as in your post you state you don’t want Auburn to acknowledge it because it’s “something Alabama would do.” While it’s fine that most Auburn fans live as just a reaction to Alabama, I would be very disappointed in your University if they weren’t capable of coming to a decision on this without trying to interpret how Alabama would handle it.
It’s a fine line, but I really don’t care what ‘Bama does. I do care whether Auburn follows their lead or not, if that makes sense, and I’d be perfectly fine if the decision-makers at Auburn (in this case, a handful of people in the A.D.?) used that as justification. The more different we are from ‘Bama (everywhere, ahem, but in the Tide’s recent win-loss columns), the happier I am. I’m fine with that, too.
Auburn will do precisely what they did with the 7 of their eight championships. They claim only one of the eight: the 1957 AP National Championship. Also just so you know, Auburn has already been awarded the 2004 National Championship by the following institutions: Darryl W. Perry, EFI, FansPoll, GBE, Golf Digest, Hank Trexler, M Cubed, Eufaula Times, and of course the reputable and nationally recognized Lee County Boys Club. Based on this resume of only claiming championships from reputable institutions,specifically the AP Poll, the Auburn Tigers fall clearly into the first category, giving them the ability to critique Alabama’s liberal claims to 13 national titles.
Auburn may choose to recognize as many as they like. Failure to identify something as legitimate does not make it less so. If I encounter an Auburn fan who chooses to recognize the (as yet hypothetical) FWAA championship as a national title, then I will happily agree with him. As noted in the post and in the comments here, while I disagree with the AP being counted as a title in 2003 (as they were willingly participating in the BCS at the time), I do not deny USC that title in their reckoning. In the AP era, there are only two titles claimed by Alabama that were not awarded by the AP, and both occurred within the first ten years of the existence of that poll, a period that would be declared fly by night if it had not later earned veneration. Put another way, the AP gained it’s reputation retroactively and was not in it’s early days considered a poll of importance, nor should it have been considering the nature of it — reporters who were watching one game a week, generally the same team plus their opponent, casting a national ballot.
So if Auburn did choose to claim all eight of their awarded championships you would accept that? You consider Lee Country Boys Club a legitimate source?
I just think that it would be simpler if everyone recognized the National Championships that weren’t awarded after the fact and were given from reputable sources. But of course, such a belief doesn’t exactly play in Alabama’s favor does it?
http://bgclc.net/
I have no problem with them claiming it. I don’t see any difference between that and the going on six years of whining that they should have won it.
And you’re incorrect regarding how it plays into Alabama’s favor. Based on the extremely subjective word “reputable” let’s just go ahead and say “only championships in the dual poll and BCS eras”. Is that amenable? Only those since 1950 — the year everyone tacitly agreed that the UPI/USA Today/Coaches/ESPN poll and the AP were the only champions that would count for the purposes of tallying championships. Alabama is the sole leader in that respect, holding eight championship seasons. No one else has more than seven. I’d say that’s pretty favorable for the Tide.
Now, do I think that’s a good idea? No. There was a lot of beautiful history played before 1950 and it’s shameful to disrespect it as irrelevant just because some people are touchy about the seasons another fanbase celebrates.
That would mean that Noter Dame could shut up about all thier national championships
You do make a good point. I think that the topic we are trying to argue is far to subjective for a clear solution to be met. Unless of course the NCAA, in all its wisdom, makes a direct ruling on what validates a National Champion and what doesn’t. If only the brilliant minds of the 1930′s had thought to institute a playoff system….imagine how much more straight forward our topic would be…
The NCAA has basically made that statement. They do not award a champion, but they do recognize them. Specifically, 17 for Alabama, 7 for Tennessee, and 4 for Auburn. Note how the NCAA is more lenient than any of the fanbases.
Regarding a playoff, we’d just be having a different disagreement. What would have made more sense is realizing early on that there would be a need for multiple divisions and cap the size of the division and enforce the requirements to participate in them. Like now, to be in the FBS, you have to maintain an average attendance of 15,000 over a certain period. In the numbers I just found from 2006, there were 119 members and five failed to average 15K. So in 2010, we should have 114 teams, right? No. We have 120. We’ve grown one. South Alabama before even playing a down of football — meaning before one fan used one ticket to see a game — was accepted into the FBS for 2013. FAU for that season had a grand total of 46,000 fans. That’s not average, it’s total for the season. If Tennessee, Alabama, or Auburn ever had that few show up for ONE GAME there would be a massive outcry.
After all that rambling, my point is this: if the NCAA had actually been progressive, they would have removed the need for polls in the first place. A playoff with 120 possible participants doesn’t fix the actual problem: the polls. Don’t read that sentence out loud without a towel for your keyboard.