Why the Auburn Tigers Should be Recognized as the 2004 College Football National Champions
by T Kyle King on Aug 26, 2010 7:57 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintPermit me to begin with a disclaimer. Actually, belay that; permit me to precede my disclaimer with a caveat to the disclaimer.
Here now, the caveat: I know, like, and respect at least six or eight, and maybe as many as a dozen, fans of the Auburn Tigers, from colleagues in the legal profession to fellows who have married into my family to fellow bloggers such as Jay Coulter, Jerry Hinnen, War Eagle Atlanta, jd is legend, and others. Ours is an institutional rivalry, not a personal one.
Here now, the disclaimer: I hate Auburn. I consider the Plainsmen to be the Bulldogs’ biggest rivals, and, if I knew going into an autumn that Georgia was going to go 1-11, I would hope and pray that the one win was over Auburn. We have been playing the Tigers longer than any other rival, we have played them more times than any other rival, and I regard the rivalry with the student-athletes of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute as the most heated and most important in all of college football.
Nevertheless, I am compelled by principle to state that, as much as it turns my stomach to say so, Auburn deserves to be crowned the 2004 national champion in the wake of the USC Trojans’ having had their claim to that honor taken from them.
When Vanessa Williams was stripped (you should excuse the verb choice) of her Miss America title in 1984, the pageant did not "vacate" the crown; instead, it anointed first runner-up Suzette Charles, who reigned for the remainder of the term and is listed as an official Miss America.
If the president is removed from office, the vice president becomes president. This was not always the case; the Constitutional amendment providing for presidential succession was not ratified until 1967, so, technically, John Tyler (from 1841 to 1845), Millard Fillmore (from 1850 to 1853), Andrew Johnson (from 1865 to 1869), Chester Arthur (from 1881 to 1885), Theodore Roosevelt (from 1901 to 1905), Calvin Coolidge (from 1923 to 1925), Harry Truman (from 1945 to 1949), and Lyndon Johnson (from 1963 to 1965) were only acting presidents. However, there is now a provision for filling a presidential vacancy, and the tradition of recognizing the authority of vice presidents who finished out unexpired terms to which other men were elected developed even in the absence of Constitutional authority because nature abhors a vacuum.
So it is with the 2004 national championship. Southern California has had its claim to that honor revoked. You can’t just go around not having a college football national champion, any more than you can just go around not having a Miss America or a president of the United States. Granted, all three of those titles have been more symbolic than substantive for most of my lifetime, but, if you’re going to insist upon having one, you need to insist upon having one all the time. (This is why I favor designating a vice Uga.)
When Miss America’s crown is taken away, the first runner-up becomes Miss America. When a president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the vice president becomes chief executive. When the No. 1 team in the country is declared ineligible, the No. 2 team in the country takes over the top spot.
This is so obvious and sensible as not to require explanation. It’s why all the groomsmen dress the same way as the groom; if something happens to the groom before the wedding, everyone takes one step to the right, the best man says "I do," and you have yourself a marriage. Auburn was ranked No. 2 in the final 2004 FWAA Grantland Rice rankings. There no longer is a No. 1 team in that poll. The Tigers should ascend to the national championship.
Yes, it makes me want to throw up to have to write that, but look on the bright side, Bulldog Nation. If the FWAA heeds what I have written, the 2004 Plainsmen will join the 1981 Clemson Tigers, the 1990 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, the 1996, 2006, and 2008 Florida Gators, and the 1998 Tennessee Volunteers on the list of Georgia rivals to have won at least a share of the national championship more recently than the Bulldogs have . . . and that’s not even counting the multiple titles won by conference mates Alabama and LSU in the interim.
That, to my way of thinking, justifies hating Auburn even more, so, really, everyone goes home a winner.
Go ‘Dawgs!
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Disagree
I can’t go along with that line of thinking, and not just because I really hate Auburn. Were it not for the Orange Bowl loss against USC, Oklahoma would have finished the season as the undisputed top ranked team (at least by everybody outside of the greater Auburn/Opelika area). To punish them for losing to a team that has been sanctioned as USC has makes no sense to me. If USC’s win over OU is to be considered vacated, then the Sooners were 13-0 and Orange Bowl champs in my mind. As such, if any team is going to be considered to be the 2004 champions, it should be Oklahoma.
Poppycock
Pardon my french, but one cannot logically jump to the conclusion that Auburn deserves the 2004 national championship because it is now vacated. Most importantly, they played neither of the teams that participated in the true national title game. Therefore, we can not conjecture whether Auburn could beat USC, Oklahoma notwithstanding.
However, I hope Auburn is awarded this national title so that they will now become fans celebrating a retroactively awarded national title (they seem to give Alabama fans a lot of crap about that). I feel that would be proper irony in this situation.
Truthfully, the title should just be vacated. As I stated above there’s no logical way one can conclude that Auburn could have defeated either Oklahoma or USC as the three teams did not face each other. TKK, I know you hate Auburn, but this logic come across as something that only a dumbass Auburn fan could believe.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
Auburn may have been deserving, but the football writers would be setting a dangerous precedent if they revised history. What happens when there is no clear team to pick? What if Ohio State got their win over Miami vacated? Would you give it to a third team or to Miami, who probably should have won the game anyway? Where would be the point where you decide that the BCS loser played the game close enough to deserve the trophy over a third team?
Sorry Auburn. You’ll have to be content with your “People’s National Championship”.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
National Titles
are simply TOO big, and frankly, too ambiguous by nature, to be left vacated. I’d say boo to Auburn ascending to the throne under every single possible scenario save for the one that they actually accomplished: undefeated SEC champion and #2 ranking. Make no mistake, we are on unchartered ground, but given the unique circumstances, I’d say that Kyle’s analogy to a first runner-up or vice-champion seems plausible.
Naturally, I am self-serving in my desires, but I think it’s the correct thing to do to either award Auburn the title or allow them to claim it themselves—in the media guide, in the stadium, on trinkets to sell to the fans. My opinion would be the same if even Alabama was making the claim. I’ve freely declared on many occasions that they got hosed in 1966. I try to be rational and fair at all times, which for a CFB fan, is saying something.
But when you have years in the past where as many as eight teams claim a national championship, I see no problem in Auburn going ahead and taking the initiative on their own. I’m disappointed in the FWAA not awarding us by default, but with the BCS and AP doing nothing as well, it looks like our appeals for a major award are over. Take the minor selectors and run with it. It’ll be gospel within a decade.
Certified Pimp and Agent Free since 2010.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Aug 26, 2010 11:06 PM EDT reply actions
2004 National Championship
I don’t see the point since Auburn did not play in the national championship game. If it were to be retroawarded it should be Oklahoma. That being said either way it would be very hard to appreciate or accept something 6 years removed.
Simply put..
There is no 2004 National Champion.
Fine by me as a fan of an SEC school. That makes SEC universities the national champions in 5 of the last 6 seasons in which one was determined (‘03, ’06, ’07, ’08, and ’09). If you go back to Tennessee’s title in ’98, the SEC has over half (6/11) of the BCS-era national titles.
The body of this post, while well-written, could have been condensed into one salient point:
1. To shut them up about the damn thing, already.
(But, for the record, if I knew we were going 1-11 in any given football season, I would do everything I possibly could – which is, to say, nothing other than wish fervently – to make sure that Florida was the “1.” I hate Florida.)
It is...
…..a messy deal to go revising history 5 years down the road. I appreciate the sentiment, Kyle, but as has been pointed out above, we didn’t prove it.
……It was a gut-wrenching end to the season, BECAUSE we won out. But we didn’t do it with the flair we needed to. After a 24-6 win over Georgia in 2004, we moved up into a tie with Oklahoma in the coaches’ poll. All we needed at that point were wins over Alabama and Tennessee, right?
……Alabama was HURTING at the end of 2004. Their top two quarterbacks were out, and they were down to a third-stringer. In addition, most of their receiving corps were freshmen. And then, they were just about out of running backs. Ken Darby (who was 3rd team) played, but he had a ghastly knot the size of a basketball on his leg, and could hardly walk. I think there was a freshman walk-on behind him. And yet, our supposed national champion let Bama march the length of the field to take a 3-0, and Bama held serve the rest of the first half and led 6-0 at the break. Yes, Auburn rallied for three straight TDs to open the second half, but then let Bama rally. We were reduced to covering an onside kick to beat a team that finished 3-5 in the SEC. That was stain number one.
……Tennessee was not in much better shape at quarterback. The top two guys, Eric Ainge and Brent Schaeffer were out. Auburn showed signs of blowing the Vols out, but messed around and dropped a punt, then coughed it up deep in Auburn territory. UT tied the game in the third quarter on a ridiculous 80 yard run. Auburn regrouped with a couple of bombs to retake a double digit lead, and killed the clock deep in Vol-land. Still, this was only a ten point victory over a team Notre Dame beat.
……What was Oklahoma doing during this time? Mopping the floor with Colorado 44-0 in the big 12 championship. We hated being left out of the title game. However, it made sense. We couldn’t keep the hammer down with the nation watching.
……Thanks for that analogy on weddings. (ouch) I’m going to think about that the next time I’m asked to be in a wedding. Although at my age, I’m more likely to be asked to pay for one than be in it…
I hope everything gets taken away from USC.
I hate USC as much as I hate tech.
"so, will try to kick one a hundred thousand miles. We're holding it on our own 49 and a half: and Butler kicked a long one...a long one...oh my God! Oh my God!!"
It’s why all the groomsmen dress the same way as the groom; if something happens to the groom before the wedding, everyone takes one step to the right, the best man says “I do,” and you have yourself a marriage.
I think that wins the Internets.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
The BCS selected the top two teams in the country to play in the BCS Championship Game.
If Auburn wasn’t one of the top two, how could they have been the best one?
I'm wrong all the time.
USC agrees...
oh wait, 2003…
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
I assume
you’re assuming that we’ll never see a split title again? And totally in the face of 70+ years of split titles and multiple selectors? One tenth of a BCS point is now your own personal metric? Nice. A Bammer complaining about NC welfare and bootstrapping. Rich, indeed.
Certified Pimp and Agent Free since 2010.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Aug 27, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re assuming that I’m assuming? Heh.
Remind me: which selectors recognized Auburn as the best team in 2004? Wikipedia mentions Golf Digest and the Lee County Boys Club. There was also the born-in-Opelika “People’s National Championship”, which was adorable.
I recognize that as an editor at TET, you’re bound by contract to immediately resort to ad hominem when your strawmen fail, but for humor’s sake, do you actually have an argument one way or the other? (Wishful thinking, I know, but, hey — there’s a first time for everything)
Personally, I’d love it if Auburn would claim 2004, since it’ll still be 100 years after Alabama quits playing football that Auburn will catch up and, plus, it would single-handedly invalidate the most over-used Barner trope (although one that is handy for identifying those whose knowledge of football history extends only as far as an Auburn message board), but in no way, shape, or form did that team prove, on the field, that they were the best team in the country.
The fact that Oklahoma got blown out by a team that fielded at least one professional player shouldn’t really count against them
I'm wrong all the time.
CFBDW
lists two minor selectors, but not the one you so dearly love. Add that and you triple the claim of Alabama in 1941, who’s 2-loss, 20th AP-ranked title is celebrated at the Capstone. Word is that they displayed that trophy at Big K when they claimed it 42 years later.
You should recognize, as the former editor of the Auburn Fanhouse page on AOL (rich, again) appreciation of Auburn’s accomplishment and rise above the petty partisan disgust you typically display.
Our over-used trope of which you speak is so effective simply because it’s true. See paragraph one
Certified Pimp and Agent Free since 2010.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Aug 28, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Because it’s “true”, in that you believe it to be true, but not “true” in the sense that it has any basis in reality. The email that gets passed around is a collection of arbitrary rules decided on specifically because they “invalidate” Alabama’s title claims. It is pandering in its most obvious form, and reeks of someone who started watching football five years ago and can’t be bothered to learn about the historical context of the records they’re writing about.
But, again, this isn’t really about Alabama’s claims, it’s about Auburn’s, and your unwillingness to stay on point only further displays exactly why Auburn has no business claiming the title. If an unabashed homer can’t even make a claim without resorting to ad hominem, why should anyone else take it seriously?
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Aug 28, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Say
</div
Certified Pimp and Agent Free since 2010.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Aug 28, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
What is this, Soviet Russia?
One of the things I hate about science fiction stories that go off into the realm of time travel is that they create irreconcilable contradictions because (assuming time travel is possible), in order for there to be historical events to travel back to, history must be immutable, and yet the time travelers always act in such a way that they change events. And that just messes everything up.
As an American who grew up in the Cold War, I heard countless criticisms of the Soviets because they “rewrote” history so as to make it appear certain things happened that did not occur or, conversely, that certain things which actually happened did not. Our leaders trumpeted that we did not do that, and so we were better than they.
Thus I find it completely maddening that the NCAA hands down penalties that strip teams of victories or championships to make it appear as if the games were never played or that, even if played, the outcome was different. But that is contrary to history. Georgia Tech and USC may well have cheated in the past, but that does not change the fact that, when the games in question were concluded, they had the highest score on the board. To pretend something else happened is to back an illusion, and I just can’t get behind anything like that. I say give them prospective penalties (e.g. “you cannot play in any bowl games for three years because you cheated in 2004” or “no all-star games for you for the next ten years”) and put big asterisks in the records books saying, “This victory was called into question because of CHEATING” or “This home run total has been entirely discredited because it was found later that ___________ was a CHEATER who took performance enhancing drugs” or something else of the sort. But don’t back something that just ain’t so.
This isn’t Soviet Russia, is it?
Leave it vacant.
Since the BCS has so many flaws already, I see no reason to add to it. Unless we can go back in time and have the Sooners playing Auburn for the title, I don’t believe either school can claim the title “cleanly.” Therefore, strip USC and leave the title vacant.
I've said before and I'll say it again, T Kyle King is a Class Act, but ...
… this is old news. I appreciate a fellow SEC fan (especially one of some influence) expressing these views. That’s what we all should do in a situation like this one, no matter who the SEC team is that’s getting the shaft.
We all should be SEC fans. I am not fond of LSU but I dearly loved the picture of their fans chanting "SEC ! SEC ! SEC ! "at the end of the Sugar Bowl when they won the National Championship. I guess what dissapoints me the most is the lack of (or at best lukewarm) support we got from the Commissioner and the presidents.
Brother for me, it’s always been the SEC against the world and it always will be !
Thanks for the laugh on the wedding analogy, I needed that LOL today.
Good luck to the Dogs every Saturday this fall except Nov. 13th.
AubTigerman
"The reason you come to Auburn is because of Auburn people.This is a special place, from the coaches all the way to the fans" - Andrew McCain OT
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
