JR it is amazing to me how Auburn can size-up next to programs like those above along with Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan and Nebraska with all of their advantages.
It's not to me, not one bit.
We Auburn folks are so inundated with tales of numerous championships pulled right out of some history revisionist's ass in the early 80s that it's hard for even real Auburn folks to know the truth.
We are constantly told that the Alabama program today, and of the past 30 years is still defined by a 25 year span of Alabama football that ended 30 years ago.
Despite the fact that 30 years is a bigger percentage of time than 25 years of the 120 years each program has been in existence, according to bammers and their local media 1958-1982 is still more important in defining the programs than the most recent 30 year span in which Auburn leads Alabama in every single category but one....NCs. In that, they lead 2-1, which is hardly dominance considering the whole picture. And even from 1958-1982, when Alabama dominated college football, Auburn still maintained a top 15 football program, which isn't bad considering the circumstances.
The only advantage the likes of PSU, Nebraska, Mich, Okla., etc have, is that none of them have an instate program that is truly a toe to toe competitor, or a local media that is aligned with that competitor. Each gets the pick of the litter of instate recruits. And they don't compete in the SEC. The closest situation to ours is Tx and TA&M, but A&M has been down for for about a decade now, and still they are only a top 25 program lifetime, not top 15. I would guess based on what I know too, that A&M's status as "little brother" is far more real than ours is based on number of alum and supporters in the state of Tx. TW or our other Tx members may have a different view on that.
No, doesn't surprise me at all. The perceptions of the programs are greatly skewed by how the local media tells the stories. The numbers tell a completely different story.
33 Replies
3437 Views