Auburn claims 7 new fictitious national championships before lunch.

#4
#4
The problem is that they’re essentially trying to say they’re a far more prestigious program than Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, etc and that’s just not the case. Auburn has less conference titles, less all-time wins, draft picks, All-Americans, bowl wins, etc. Nobody believes it. They’re a good program, but not exceptional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvols4life, unfrozencvmanvol, bamawriter and 1 other person
#5
#5
NeverWe'llSever said:
The problem is that they’re essentially trying to say they’re a more prestigious program than Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, etc and that’s just not the case. Auburn has less conference titles, less all-time wins, draft picks, All-Americans, etc. Nobody believes it. They’re a good program, but not exceptional.
Click to expand...
I think they know better than that. If we claimed all the national championships we could, we’d have 12. I think they’ve been down for a while so naturally they’re trying to get any sort of positive momentum they can. But its backfiring, they’re getting clowned
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvols4life, Vol-e-ball, unfrozencvmanvol and 1 other person
#7
#7
Im glad that since the BCS that at least schools have won outright national championships instead of claiming them like did many years ago.

Auburn is silly for doing this like it's something to brag about lol.
 
#10
#10
Pennheel said:
Im glad that since the BCS that at least schools have won outright national championships instead of claiming them like did many years ago.

Auburn is silly for doing this like it's something to brag about lol.
Click to expand...
Even before that, there was a consensus usually if there was a split. Georgia Tech-Colorado in 90', Washington-Miami in 91' and Nebraska-Michigan in 97', Auburn is claiming stuff that flat didn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#11
#11
indian rick said:
I have always wondered why we did not claim our other championships
Click to expand...

Because no one takes them seriously. I know Bama's 1941 claim is laughable, but at least we have the decency to only claim AP or Coaches starting in the wire service area. Tennessee's Litkenhous claim in 1967 is silly, but at least Litkenhous was a math system that was published in some major papers. Auburn is now claiming titles like 1958 when the only publication in the entire country to call them "national champs" was the Montgomery Advertiser.
 
#12
#12
I read somewhere yesterday that Bama claimed 2 natties from Tuscaloosa Bait and Tackle.
They claimed one natty from Bait and the other natty from Tackle 😂😂😂😂😂
bamawriter said:
Because no one takes them seriously. I know Bama's 1941 claim is laughable, but at least we have the decency to only claim AP or Coaches starting in the wire service area. Tennessee's Litkenhous claim in 1967 is silly, but at least Litkenhous was a math system that was published in some major papers. Auburn is now claiming titles like 1958 when the only publication in the entire country to call them "national champs" was the Montgomery Advertiser.
Click to expand...
 
#18
#18
RockyTop140 said:
Yeah, the 67 claim is weak. I believe there are a few seasons we’ve had that are more legitimate than that one.
Click to expand...

If we’re evaluating regular seasons only, which is all that the voters cared about at the time, I think the Vols have a very strong claim in ‘67. We finished #2 in the AP. All we had to do was make that FG against OU in the Orange Bowl and there’d be no argument. But we didn’t. So the claim is sus.
 
#19
#19
The bottom line, though, is that however many titles Auburn wants to claim from the 1910’s, it doesn’t change their present reality. Which is (obviously) that they suck and will most likely continue to do so.
 
#23
#23
Volizona said:
They played a legitimate SEC schedule and beat Tenn in the SEC championship game. Who cares about their OOC schedule. They should have played USC that year.
Click to expand...

I think it’s kind of like us thinking about 1995/2001 Tennessee’s chances where the Vols were clearly one of the best teams in the country and could’ve had a shot in almost any other year, but Nebraska and Miami were all-time great teams in those years.

2004 USC, as I’m sure most here remember, was an absolute juggernaut of a team. They had an absolutely filthy roster with 2 Heisman winners on the team in Leinart and Bush plus Pete Carroll as HC. Auburn was an elite football team in 2004. They beat the 10 win Cotton Bowl champion Vols twice. In Neyland and in the SEC Championship for all the marbles, so there is no doubt about that. But I just do not see them winning against that USC team. No way. Also, it’s funny to me how Auburn claims ‘04 because USC cheated, but also claims ‘93 where they themselves cheated. Such an Auburn move lol. They’re the most shameless program in the SEC.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Big Orange Captain said:
their non conference schedule was a joke that year that’s what did them in.
Click to expand...
They never had a chance, regardless of their non-conference schedule. USC and OU started the ‘04 season ranked 1 and 2 respectively. At the end of the regular season USC was the overwhelming number 1 in both the Coaches and AP polls, while OU was tops in the computers. The only chance Auburn would have had is if they moved ahead of OU in both polls, which was never going to happen without the Sooners losing a game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top