Looks Like We're Claiming 'Em

[The Six]

There was one undefeated team that year, excluding them, and it was us.

UTAH forgot one.

[Godfather]

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.

Again none of that does anything for us, as a team, as a university, as fans.

[Godfather]

Please, let this be.

[WiregrassTiger]

I didn't know you speak Mandarin. I eat their oranges.

[AUChizad]

http://orangeisourcolor.com/2014/02/03/auburns-new-claims-to-old-national-championships-whats-really-going-on-here/

Auburn’s New Claims to Old National Championships—What’s Really Going on Here?

Auburn will soon claim new national championships for select seasons from its history. We don’t know when; we don’t how many. What we do know is that, according to athletics director Jay Jacobs, the wheels are turning.

Another thing we know is that some Auburn people are not happy about it. In Jacobs’ latest comments, he said he doesn’t want this major change in Auburn’s tradition—and if you’re reading this, you likely know not claiming national championships is by all means an Auburn tradition—to be solely his decision.

    It won’t be an athletic director decision, it will be an Auburn decision. It will be an Auburn family decision. I want to hear from the Auburn people.

Jacobs wants to hear from the Auburn people? Well, here’s an example of what some Auburn people are saying:

    Please stop considering to claim these titles. Auburn has earned just two football national championships, 1957 and 2010. Auburn is a great place with a great tradition, and great family. Auburn does not need to claim extra titles to be great . . . Extra past titles will not give Auburn future titles. Auburn is not like other schools who have already claimed bogus titles. Don’t let Auburn be bogus.

The above complaint is a serious one. The writer is concerned that claiming additional titles will change something about the integrity of Auburn’s identity. I held this position—or some form of it—for many years. Really, I’m only letting go of my opposition to claiming championships ex eventu because it appears change is coming, and there’s no stopping it.

At the same time, I find it very easy to get on board, especially after having a few months to contemplate Michael Skotnicki’s argument that we aren’t claiming additional championships for the sake of our pride, but rather to appropriately celebrate the sacrifice and success of our players who earned such recognition.

Of course, if the seasons in question are only “bogus” championships, then we don’t owe our players the recognition that goes with winning true championships. This point brings us to what the controversy is really all about—an ideological/historiographical shift in Auburn’s philosophy.



For years Auburn’s position has been one of accommodation. We have accommodated those who believe only the AP or BCS can name a national champion. More so, we have accommodated the Auburn people who want to avoid comparison to Alabama’s late-modern ex eventu claims.

We’re now talking about correcting that bias against ourselves. We’re looking at our history more objectively, without the influence of accommodation, to tell the story of Auburn football in a way that more closely matches what actually happened on the field of play.

I respect and value the position of anyone who opposes new/old championships on the grounds of preserving Auburn’s integrity. I do not, however, believe we must continue our policy of accommodation in order to do so.

Jacobs’ new interest in claiming old championships is consistent with his recent decisions to have Auburn tell our own story. In the wake of our failed 2012 football season, there were some who wanted to kick Auburn while we were down. Selena Roberts accused us of academic fraud, and ESPN said our football program had a legal drug epidemic. In the past, Auburn might have employed a storm shelter response to such negative publicity. Jacobs stood up and said No! (see Auburn’s responses here and here)

Now Jacobs seems to be saying Yes to those who want to celebrate Auburn’s greatest teams in terms that more accurately convey the program’s historical success.

If you don’t like what is getting ready to happen, I respect your dissent. I encourage you, nonetheless, to consider whether Auburn’s policy of accommodation is one that needs to continue.

Auburn needs to do the right thing for Auburn.

War Eagle!

[Godfather]

Chizad Article

I still don't agree with it. The only people still living to celebrate could be the 1983 team.  The rest of it is just pontificated bloviated nonsense.

[Kaos]

I still don't agree with it. The only people still living to celebrate could be the 1983 team.  The rest of it is just pontificated bloviated nonsense.

If there's a 1983 National Championship party in New Orleans I'll be there.  I think we should all wear the same things we wore in 1983. 

[Godfather]

If there's a 1983 National Championship party in New Orleans I'll be there.  I think we should all wear the same things we wore in 1983.

Chizad could wear his mom's placenta.

[AUChizad]

Chizad could wear his mom's placenta.

That was 82, brah. I'd wear diapers, which is fine too.

[CCTAU]

If there's a 1983 National Championship party in New Orleans I'll be there.  I think we should all wear the same things we wore in 1983.

My velcro parachute pants do not even come close to fitting any longer!

[AU_Tiger_2000]

If there's a 1983 National Championship party in New Orleans I'll be there.  I think we should all wear the same things we wore in 1983.

Does OshKosh make adult XXL?

[noxin]

Does OshKosh make adult XXL?

[AU_Tiger_2000]

Then I'm in.  If I wore that to work I would be the hero of all the space nerds.

[Saniflush]

Then I'm in.  If I wore that to work I would be the hero of all the space nerds.

King of the dipshits.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

King of the dipshoots.

It's good to be the king of the nerds.

http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=23053.0