In partnership with CBSSports.com
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
They try so hard!!!
The book that explains why Auburn University should claim a National Championship for the 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993, and 2004 seasons in addition to the 1957 and 2010 National Championships. (by Mike Skotnicki)
This post was edited by champs2009 18 months ago
"Remember boys, flies spread disease...so keep yours closed." George Luz
They're desperate for attention... Trying to cheer up their fan base lol.
Never Gets Old
I am officially claiming the 1916 title for my three cats.
I would like to see the bowl records of all of these teams... I am pretty sure most didnt even play in one....
1910: (6-1) No Bowl
1913: (8-0) No Bowl
1914: (8-0-1) No Bowl
1958: (9-0-1) No Bowl
1983: (11-1) Won Sugar Bowl
1993: (11-0) No Bowl
2004: (13-0) Sugar Bowl
Only during two of these seasons was Auburn undefeated AND eligible for the postseason. Worth noting: Prior to 1923, Auburn had no realistic shot of making what we would today consider a 'bowl' game due to the very limited postseason structure.
NIce work.. about what I expected.
I explain NC's in a few ways: Prior to 1950 you really needed to go undefeated and/or win one of the major bowls - this gets rid of all of the pre-1920's teams like harvard and yale, and clearly AU too... once the Rose Bowl era begins football really became a major sport.
After 1950 up to BCS you need to win an AP or UPI or both... so there could be a split championship.
Post BCS its BCS.
All of Bama's NC hold up to this EXCEPT the dreadful 1941 NC... and I wish we would drop that one.
The back cover has this quote:
"You don't need to use bama math to figure out this book adds up to a real winner".
How pathetic do you have to be to feel good about taking a swipe at big brother on the cover of one of your stupid books? Nothing can ever be completely about them can it?
This post was edited by GooPhi 18 months ago
I completely agree. Sagarin and Berryman both give us 1966, so drop '41 and take '66.
Hard to claim a title you didn't play for in the BCS era. Pathetic
the funniest thing about that quote is that they are using what they call "bama math" to add the titles and thus making this book a "winner"...so I guess it does take "bama math". If they truly wanted "bama math" we could claim 20 something NC's.
At this point, I can't even keep a National Championship hat for long before it's dated - why would I care how many technical championships we have? If someone asks the real number of championships we claim, I just respond "a hell of a lot more than your team could". Nothing this freelance appeal brief writer and on demand publisher says changes that fact.
Had to chuckle when it said the book is printed "on demand". I can just see the author in his basement every few weeks turning the handle on his mimeograph machine for $2.95 a pop.
I just read the thread about this on the butta hurta. They really are a pathetic and stupid bunch of idiots.
"I already count all nine national titles and encourage all Auburn fans and alumni to do the same. I tell Auburn fans and alumni that tell me that if we did count them we would be like bama. I tell them in reply that's just plain stupid and idiotic we have trophies for all of our national titles and I want Auburn to count all nine national titles because we need to count what we have earned, won, and rightfully deserve. We have always been a national power. To take our rightful historic place as the oldest and most powerful school in the southeast."
One of the barntards on the butta hurta posted that he ordered one, so I guess that poor guy will be in that basement all night getting it ready to ship.
Yawn....the barn bores me....
This post was edited by bamamike513 18 months ago
More poor auburn:
"Auburn is way behind the curve on the perception war in college football when it doesn't have to be. It's history should be included with the best programs and traditions that college football has to offer. Changing the national perception would be invaluable to the football program. Just ask Bama; they do it better than anyone. To get back to the top, they were "back" countless times on the cover of Sports Illustrated, won mythical recruiting national championships, and proclaimed Saban the best thing ever. Their counting additional NCs is all part of their strategy. The sports industry is inundated with Alabama journalism graduates that put an Alabama spin at every opportunity. That's why their recruiting violation rumors are barely a blip on the radar - Julio Jones fishing trip, players wearing suits, recruits being steered to change schools, etc. Meanwhile, Auburn is still suffering from the unprecedented and unwarranted media onslought regarding Cam Newton."
Auburn fans. Please keep bumping the link above. We need to claim these and get the credit we deserve. Someone add link if it doesnt work.
as i have stated more than one time on this board. it was not officially auburn until 1960. in 1957 it was alabama poly-tech. it had several names before that which may be the reason for their schizophrenic ,paronoid ways. having no identity will do that. so the university of auburn has only the tainted NC of 2010. poor, pitiful aubs.
Choose not a life of limitation
Can someone ask a barntard why they would claim NCs their own school doesn't even claim? The school only claims 2 and only displays 1957 and 2004 in the stadium. You confirm yourself as a delusional moron if you claim titles the school doesn't.
Actually 1936 for AP is what most use....
What they don't understand is that if they claimed every NC awarded by any real poll whatsoever then they would have 19 less than Alabama (8 vs. 27) whereas now if you go by major polls they only have 10 or 11 less (13 vs. 2 or 3). The 13 excludes 1941. They seem to think that the methodology would close the gap by giving Auburn 9 while UA would remain at 14. That math is obviously incorrect though as there are tons of years UA was awarded a championship but does not claim it. If Auburn adopted such a methodology you would have to compare to UA under an identical methodology and it would not be pretty for AU.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports