Looks Like We're Claiming 'Em

[GH2001]

If all 15 championships were legitimate, would it be okay to put them on a shirt?

I obviously have no dog in this fight, but from my perspective, the underlying issue was that not all of the championships were legitimate.  They were laying claim to something that didn't actually exist.  Sure, they obnoxiously reference it and "worship" it, but if they were legitimate, would there be anything for you to make fun of?  "Look at those damn bammers, all proud and shit of the 15 national championships that they earned."  Sounds silly, does it not?  But if you still think that you would make fun of UA for celebrating championships that they earned, then you may need to take a second look at your "Fear the Thumb" apparel.  Y'all legitimately won those consecutive games, but come on...worshipping it on a shirt?!  DAMN BARNER!

Aside from that, in order for Auburn's national championship claims to boost recruiting or otherwise be a benefit for the school, you're going to have to tout your claims.  Do you think coaches and players are going to tell recruits behind closed doors about their national championships, but not print shirts, make signs, reference them in conferences, etc?  Is there not a public aspect of recruiting in which you have to make your school widely respected in order to get recruits' interest in the first place?  I don't see how you can claim this will help recruiting, but at the same time act like it's just a clandestine operation that won't be boldly claimed in public by the school and its fans.

There are a few Bama claims that are absolute trash. Where they finished 4th in conference, 21st nationally and somehow claim it. The ones Auburn is wanting from what Ive seen are ones where they were either undefeated or shafted and were awarded it by a notable publication like Billingsley (before the AP). They aren't just off the wall made up championships. 1983 was a shaft job...so was 2004 to a lesser degree. And I think the 1913/14 ones were awarded by Billingsley (not sure though) and were undefeated.

[Vandy Vol]

There are a few Bama claims that are absolute trash. Where they finished 4th in conference, 21st nationally and somehow claim it. The ones Auburn is wanting from what Ive seen are ones where they were either undefeated or shafted and were awarded it by a notable publication like Billingsley (before the AP). They aren't just off the wall made up championships. 1983 was a shaft job...so was 2004 to a lesser degree. And I think the 1913/14 ones were awarded by Billingsley (not sure though) and were undefeated.

The problem is that there were multiple polls present during that time.  In 1983, for instance, Auburn was not ranked #1 by the AP or coaches poll.  Auburn was a one loss team and was ranked behind Miami and Nebraska (also one loss teams) in both polls.  Is there an argument that Auburn should have been national champions?  Sure, but there wasn't any one organization/poll that awarded a championship at that time.  Thus, claiming them would require the arguments and debates that Chizad is attempting to claim won't happen with Auburn fans.

Claim them if you want, but I don't see how Auburn fans could have made fun of Alabama for all of these years for claiming those championships that are not unanimous, but then turn around and do the same thing.  You can try to claim that it won't be "worshipping" or "obnoxious," or that certain claimed championships are more legitimate than UA's because of X reason, but a spade is a spade no matter its size.  They weren't championships that were unanimously decided by a singular governing body, and if you're going to make fun of a school for stooping to the level of claiming those debatable championships, then you can't hold your head high when you decide to do the same.

[Token]

The problem is that there were multiple polls present during that time.  In 1983, for instance, Auburn was not ranked #1 by the AP or coaches poll.  Auburn was a one loss team and was ranked behind Miami and Nebraska (also one loss teams) in both polls.  Is there an argument that Auburn should have been national champions?  Sure, but there wasn't any one organization/poll that awarded a championship at that time.  Thus, claiming them would require the arguments and debates that Chizad is attempting to claim won't happen with Auburn fans.

Claim them if you want, but I don't see how Auburn fans could have made fun of Alabama for all of these years for claiming those championships that are not unanimous, but then turn around and do the same thing.  You can try to claim that it won't be "worshipping" or "obnoxious," or that certain claimed championships are more legitimate than UA's because of X reason, but a spade is a spade no matter its size.  They weren't championships that were unanimously decided by a singular governing body, and if you're going to make fun of a school for stooping to the level of claiming those debatable championships, then you can't hold your head high when you decide to do the same.

Please, let this be.

[AUownsU]

Just because our neighbor did a shitty job paving their driveway doesn't mean I shouldn't pave mine. Its not like we are claiming titles where we lost 2 games & finished 3rd in the SEC. Polls are biased. If you think a bunch yankees writers from the AP are the only ones that can determine what teams are worthy of being called champions, then so be it.

[Kaos]

Whatever the PTB officially decide to do, we have to embrace it.  If Bama fans, Ole Piss fans or any other groups want to mock, we can't agree with them.  Has to be united. 

This is one of those "the bus has left the station, you need to be on it" things.

[AUChizad]

Whatever the PTB officially decide to do, we have to embrace it.  If Bama fans, Ole Piss fans or any other groups want to mock, we can't agree with them.  Has to be united. 

This is one of those "the bus has left the station, you need to be on it" things.

This is what Auburn is worst at.

See divided bitching over The Creed, Never to Yield, The Bunker, AUFamily, etc.

There's a delusional sunshine & rainbows segment of the fan base, then there's the reactionary self loathers that are our own worst enemy.

Not a lot of rational middle grounders, unfortunately.

[AUChizad]

Might I add that they are not definitively raising a banner for each of those seven years.

Those are the ones that are candidates for possibly being added.

When Michael Skotnicki wrote Auburn's Unclaimed National Championships, it got people thinking about the subject, and a significant portion of the Auburn fanbase started pressuring Jacobs to at least consider adding some of these. The book gives a pretty thorough and compelling argument for doing so. If you're not on board, then I suggest you read it. Jacobs didn't just pull this out of his ass.

[Saniflush]

Might I add that they are not definitively raising a banner for each of those seven years.

Those are the ones that are candidates for possibly being added.

When Michael Skotnicki wrote Auburn's Unclaimed National Championships, it got people thinking about the subject, and a significant portion of the Auburn fanbase started pressuring Jacobs to at least consider adding some of these. The book gives a pretty thorough and compelling argument for doing so. If you're not on board, then I suggest you read it. Jacobs didn't just pull this out of his ass.

I have read it and I'm not on board. 

[Godfather]

Exactly how does it help us with recruiting?...cause I think that is bullshit.

[noxin]

Exactly how does it help us with recruiting?...cause I think that is bullshit.

I heard Rashaan Evans' grandfather was going to send his grandson to the school whose coach could dance the longest while the their National Championship teams were being listed.

[CCTAU]

2014 - On the road to TEN!

[AUChizad]

Exactly how does it help us with recruiting?...cause I think that is bullshit.

You don't think Bama's six out of the last seven #1 recruiting classes in a row has anything at all to do with the pitch that "If you come here, you'll win a championship because we have a bazillionty"?

[Kaos]

You don't think Bama's six out of the last seven #1 recruiting classes in a row has anything at all to do with the pitch that "If you come here, you'll win a championship because we have a bazillionty"?

Same pitch Shula made. 

[Godfather]

You don't think Bama's six out of the last seven #1 recruiting classes in a row has anything at all to do with the pitch that "If you come here, you'll win a championship because we have a bazillionty"?

No I don't, I think it has to do with them winning current National Championships in the modern era, and them sending a billion players to the NFL.

[Godfather]

Why claim shit we didn't win, it's fucking retarded.  I am claiming your house in NOLA Chizad, It is now mine, get out!

[wesfau2]

I have read it and I'm not on board.

This.

I can't/won't claim this crap because it will render me a hypocrite for the shit I give/gave bama fans.  My hypocrisy, unlike Doc Holliday's, knows some bounds.

[Tiger Wench]

 

No I don't, I think it has to do with them winning current National Championships in the modern era, and them sending a billion players to the NFL.

Because yeah, some 17 year old punk is gonna be impressed with a national championship from 1914 that we just found in grandma's attic.

[WiregrassTiger]

Why claim shoot we didn't win, it's fudgeing retarded.  I am claiming your house in NOLA Chizad, It is now mine, get out!

While I'm pretty middle of the road in this debate and pretty much don't care, I don't agree that it's something that we didn't win. I mean, it may only be someone like the Sporting News or the Montgomery Independent but there are some (if not all) of those years that somebody awarded us their national championship.

In other words, they do exist. It's simply a matter of whether or not we claim them.

[Kaos]

Why claim shoot we didn't win, it's fudgeing retarded.  I am claiming your house in NOLA Chizad, It is now mine, get out!

1910 Is iffy.  Only lost one game -- the only points surrendered all season -- to Texas.  Harvard was undefeated, but several of their "games" were against themselves.   Harvard vs. Harvard Law.  For that reason they shouldn't be considered. 

1913 is not debatable.  We should count that. 

1914   I wasn't there.  But I don't want it.  AU tied Georgia 0-0. Illinois was undefeated.

1958 I have a problem with because we didn't win the SEC (doesn't stop Bama, I know because they didn't win the league in about half they claim, but still).  LSU won the SEC, won the Sugar Bowl and finished 11-0. Don't care what service awarded it, it's not our title to claim even if we did go 9-0-1.

1983 Won't argue if that one ends up in the plus column.  The only problem is that the media yanked their peckers out and splooged all over the greatest game ever played in the history of college football and boosted Miami from fifth to first.  I've read reports before that many of the voters said if they'd waited until Sunday to cast their vote rather than jerking off over the 'Canes in the immediate afterglow of that game, they would have voted for Auburn.

1993 Not interested in this one.  I find the "probation" exclusion laughable particularly in light of the fact that all of Alabama's recent success occurred while they were on probation for SMU-level sanctions.

2004 It hurt, but it's not ours to take.  Would we have beaten USC?  Yep. Oklahoma, too. But we didn't get a chance to prove it.  Can't rewrite history. 

So I'd only consider 10, 13 and 83 if it were my choice to make.  I can see cases for 93 and 2004.  Can't see any reason to even entertain 1914 and 58.


Will do a lot of
 
if those are legitimized in any way. 

BTW, this is the reason I don't want to do any of it:

http://blogs.ajc.com/junkyard-blawg/2014/02/01/auburns-not-the-only-one-with-unclaimed-national-championships/

My son and I were discussing this and we concluded that the Georgia team with the strongest claim (in this newfound loose Auburn fashion)

"Loose Auburn fashion"?  REALLY?  We are the only ones NOT doing it for Christ's sake.  It's not "our" fashion, newfound or otherwise.  We've just been penalizing ourselves by being honest. 

[AUChizad]

1910 Is iffy.  Only lost one game -- the only points surrendered all season -- to Texas.  Harvard was undefeated, but several of their "games" were against themselves.   Harvard vs. Harvard Law.  For that reason they shouldn't be considered. 

1913 is not debatable.  We should count that. 

1914   I wasn't there.  But I don't want it.  AU tied Georgia 0-0. Illinois was undefeated.

1958 I have a problem with because we didn't win the SEC (doesn't stop Bama, I know because they didn't win the league in about half they claim, but still).  LSU won the SEC, won the Sugar Bowl and finished 11-0. Don't care what service awarded it, it's not our title to claim even if we did go 9-0-1.

1983 Won't argue if that one ends up in the plus column.  The only problem is that the media yanked their peckers out and splooged all over the greatest game ever played in the history of college football and boosted Miami from fifth to first.  I've read reports before that many of the voters said if they'd waited until Sunday to cast their vote rather than jerking off over the 'Canes in the immediate afterglow of that game, they would have voted for Auburn.

1993 Not interested in this one.  I find the "probation" exclusion laughable particularly in light of the fact that all of Alabama's recent success occurred while they were on probation for SMU-level sanctions.

2004 It hurt, but it's not ours to take.  Would we have beaten USC?  Yep. Oklahoma, too. But we didn't get a chance to prove it.  Can't rewrite history. 

So I'd only consider 10, 13 and 83 if it were my choice to make.  I can see cases for 93 and 2004.  Can't see any reason to even entertain 1914 and 58.


Will do a lot of
 
if those are legitimized in any way. 

BTW, this is the reason I don't want to do any of it:

http://blogs.ajc.com/junkyard-blawg/2014/02/01/auburns-not-the-only-one-with-unclaimed-national-championships/

"Loose Auburn fashion"?  REALLY?  We are the only ones NOT doing it for Christ's sake.  It's not "our" fashion, newfound or otherwise.  We've just been penalizing ourselves by being honest.

I'm right where you are on this.

The only thing I'd add is that 2004 becomes less controversial when you factor in that USC was ineligible and has forfeited the entire season, including the championship. Officially. No one claims it. There was one undefeated team that year, excluding them, and it was us.

Also agree that as is the case with most things, Auburn will be disproportionately criticized for what otherwise should be considered less egregious than what Alabama is doing.

Let alone the greater point that we have in no way committed to claiming any of these, and it is very very unlikely that we claim all of them.