January 09, 2005

Auburn to hand out championship rings

Coach Tommy Tuberville confirmed that the Auburn Tigers players would get national championship rings for their 13-0 season, despite finishing the year #2 in the final 2004 AP poll and the final 2004 coaches polls.
Meanwhile, Tiger fans continue to point to the 13-0 record, explaining
that Auburns opponents had a better winning percentage (83-69 or 54.6%)
than even Southern Cal's undefeated schedule (82-70 or 53.9%)

2004 Championship Season Auburn has also designed and trademarked a championship logo and begun selling logo items on the university website.

According to the university's press release, "The logo depicts a stirring, familiar sight to AU fans all over the globe - a football player waving a giant AU flag after winning a game."

Posted by Kevin Donahue

Trackback

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.fanblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2495

You can use this specified URL in a weblogging program that supports pinging, such as Movable Type. If your blog software does not support Trackback, click here to send a manual ping.

Comments & Trackbacks

KyleL says:
posted on January 9, 2005 10:49 AM — link
Well then Utah should make National Champions t-shirts and rings. How about every single team in NCAA D-1A get national champions rings.
Chris says:
posted on January 9, 2005 03:31 PM — link
I think it's retarded...maybe it's because I'm a BAMA fan, but doesn't it seem that Tommy and the Tigers are being a little bit of sore-losers? In 1966, BAMA was undefeated, but Notre Dame took the National Championship home.
bill k says:
posted on January 9, 2005 04:57 PM — link
Auburn had a terrific season, just not a National Championship one. To create one by making up your own rings won't authenticate anything. The real National Champions reside in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. The team that also went unbeaten playing a schedule that all the computer components indicated was tougher on balance, and while beating the higher ranked bowl opponent by a much wider margin. END OF STORY.
calmac says:
posted on January 9, 2005 05:50 PM — link
Auburn had an outstanding season. Unfortunately, unbeaten does not equal National Champions. As an outsider I wonder if Auburn supporters think that perhaps Tommy Tuberville is making just a little too much out of this? Is he thinking back to last year when a lot of people (including the Sporting News) picked Auburn to win the National Championship and the season was a bit of a flop. By the end of the year people seemed to be screaming for Tommy's scalp. Maybe I'm just cynical, but this seems to have a lot more to do with Tommy and his job security in the future than it does with Auburn's players and the fans. Just a thought.
And by the way, compare Tommy's actions this season with those of Pete Carroll's last year when he just sort of shrugged off the injustice of not playing in the National Championship game (and his team was ranked #1 in both polls) and Tubberville looks even more ridiculous.
Gootie93 says:
posted on January 9, 2005 05:57 PM — link
Silly Tuberville . . . Silly Tigers . . . trix are for kids and the only legit national title claim belongs to those Trojans out in Los Angeles. This just makes ya'll look ridiculous.
USC beat AU which featured Campbell, Cadillac and Brown and were Coached by Tommy T in both 2002 and 2003 . . . and were clearly the champs in 2004 as seen in the Orange Bowl. VTech should have beat AU but for a dropped pass in the end zone right in the receivers hands.
Claim you SEC Championship . . . but do not try to claim a share of a prize that clearly belongs to somebody else . . . shows lack of class IMHO!
TROBOB says:
posted on January 9, 2005 06:01 PM — link
Uh yeah! Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Citadel was part of that 83-69 record. Come on Allbarn! You haven't been able to beat us the past two years with the same guys.
FightOn! says:
posted on January 9, 2005 06:17 PM — link
An unbeaten season and SEC championship IS a hell of an accomplishment, even if you did play Citadel and Louisiana-Monroe! It's sad that Auburn and Tuberville feel compelled to create a phony "national championship" for themselves instead. That only diminishes their real accomplishments on the field.

Beyond that, the Auburn claim is weak for so many reasons: (1) USC soundly beat this same Auburn team the two prior seasons with Campbell, Williams, and Brown on the team including a shutout last year when Auburn was the top-ranked team; (2) USC defeated a very, very good V-Tech team at the beginning of this season while only a dropped pass preserved Auburn's win in the Sugar Bowl; and (3) USC won the Orange Bowl in convincing fashion over a great Oklahoma team!

Would it be better if there were another game? Of course! But who is Auburn to say that they would be more deserving of a shot at the Trojans than the Utes? For that matter, who's to say they would have been any more likely to win?
thatbradguy says:
posted on January 9, 2005 07:37 PM — link
they act like they're the first undefeated team to ever not win a national championship. it's happened many times. not that it's optimal.. but that's life in DI-A college football.
observer says:
posted on January 9, 2005 08:00 PM — link
It's funny how Auburn is pointing to opponent's winning percentage when they played AA teams. Opponent's winning percentage does not mean anything in that context. USC would have beaten AU easily. Not quite as bad as Oklahoma, but still by a solid margin. Plenty of teams have gone undefeated before and not won the NC. In fact, it happened to two teams this year alone. I would imagine this must be embarassing for hardcore AU backers.
GroverUSC says:
posted on January 9, 2005 09:52 PM — link
Championship (SEC?) rings will be available to all Auburn fans that purchase a box of Frosted Flakes cereal, while supplies last.
Trojan94 says:
posted on January 10, 2005 10:32 AM — link
Does Auburn really have that little respect for itself? Is this Tuberville's way of telling the world this was his best shot at it, and "don't hold your breath for the next undefeated season"?

Come on. Where's Utah's ring?
Jim says:
posted on January 10, 2005 11:40 AM — link
It is ridiculous, but at least the banner doesn't say NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, just CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON. Which could be their SEC title... I'm no Auburn fan that's for sure, but let them have their fun it's not hurting anyone else. We all know who finished #1 in both polls and it wasn't them.

Before the Orange Bowl I considered USC lucky for not having to face Auburn, by afterward I flipflopped.
Robert says:
posted on January 10, 2005 11:44 AM — link
This is just as stupid as USC stating they are the two-time champs. Maybe Auburb players will get the 'F@CK the BCS' T-shirts like Lionheart.
From BoiFromTroy
pinged on Jan 10, 2005 12:15 PM
After the electoral college counted the votes and determined that George W. Bush received the most, Senator John Kerry announced that he was, indeed, President Elect, and will host an inauguration next Thursday complete with a parade, balls and commemo...
boifromtroy says:
posted on January 10, 2005 12:15 PM — link
Not even the Fanblogs poll picked Auburn #1.

Maybe USC should claim the 2002 national title for its winning the Copley, Dunkel and Sagarin ratings!
From BoiFromTroy
pinged on Jan 10, 2005 12:45 PM
Fresh of their Orange Bowl victory, four starters from the Three-Time National Champion USC Trojan Football Team are consider leaving early for the NFL. [OL Winston] Justice met with USC coach Pete Carroll last month but did not resolve his...
dodgerwv says:
posted on January 10, 2005 12:49 PM — link
This isn't unprecedented. Penn State was unbeaten in 69 (believe that's right) and didn't get a sniff of the national championship. Joe Paterno had national championship rings made up for his team. When asked what poll that they finished on top of, Paterno responded: "The Paterno Poll, we took it in the locker room after the game."
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 10, 2005 02:23 PM — link
It's about time, thank god someone finally mentioned the fact that this same AU team has been beaten twice by USC. Last year they were supposed to be a number one team and were distoyred physically, and mentally by a far superior USC team. The Trojans started a new QB who had never thrown a pass in a college game so they were pretty conservative on offense. USC is a team that gets stronger and more explosive as the year goes on. Honestly if SC had played AU in the OB the score would have been USC 52 AU 9. And I'm being generous with the 9. Last Years No 1 AU team got shut out by SC. FIGHT ON!
Don VanDemark says:
posted on January 10, 2005 03:09 PM — link
TrojanUser, are you actually trying to say that because Auburn lost to USC at the beginning of last year (20+ games ago), that USC would beat Auburn again? What kind of logic is that? It's the same lame argument when people vote for players for the Heisman based on their careers.

If you want to make a more coherent argument why USC is better than Auburn this year, ok, maybe I'll buy it (doubt it), but don't waste our time by using last year's opening game.
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 10, 2005 05:26 PM — link
Don, I am obviously stating my opinion, but the fact remains that the same personel from last years team remains the heart of this years AU football team. All the players that are cited as the reason that AU is supposedly a good team are the very players that had no business being on the field with SC. The fact remains that AU supposdedly as a chance because they have a "good" defense. The only reason that their defensive numbers are respectable is because they do not play anyone with even a hint of a modern, progressive offense. Their numbers are inflated, just like Oklahomas numbers were overatted. How fair are you being to Oklahoma bu assuming you'd do better. I give the some credit, at least they played the beast. Just keep scheduled the brail institute and bryman college, I'm sure you defense will again be a statistical jugguernaut.

Fight ON!
FightOn! says:
posted on January 10, 2005 05:50 PM — link
Robert,

I am afraid I don't follow your argument. USC has won the AP Championship two years in a row. That does qualify us as "Back to Back" Champions even if it doesn't make us back to back BCS champions.

What we really need to determine champions are playoffs! I want a system where USC has to survive Louisville, Oklahoma has to take on Utah, Auburn plays Texas, Cal plays Georgia, Tennesee gets V-Tech, etc., etc. Only when the 8 or 16 best teams at the end of the season get to settle it all on the field will we ever have a "TRUE" national champ.
From SEC College Football - Fanblogs.com
pinged on Jan 10, 2005 7:54 PM
After pundits spent the last week or so beating up on Auburn for it's weak schedule, John Pruett from The Huntsville Times checked the official NCAA stats and found Auburn got a bum rap. In fact, Auburn had the fifth toughest schedule in the country...
jdc says:
posted on January 11, 2005 09:45 AM — link
Pete Carrol created this mess way back in 2003 when he whined that because USC won the 2003 Orange Bowl they should be able to be considered for the national championship -- and then again in 2004 when he incorrectly claimed USC to be national champions. His preppy-whine style of leadership has created the "we deserve it too" mentality in college football.

While I believe the 2005 USC bowl team would dominate any other DIV-1 college team -- Pete has helped to create this monster with his past actions.

The only solution -- playoffs baby!
Don VanDemark says:
posted on January 11, 2005 11:05 AM — link
TrojanUser,

I'm not an Auburn fan and in no way hinted that I might be. How fair am I being to Oklahoma? Very; they showed us that they couldn't do it on that night. I don't even think Oklahoma was truly as mismatched as it looked; I think USC's equipment manager should've gotten a game ball with how bad Oklahoma was slipping all over the place.

Could Auburn have beaten USC? You, I and the rest of the world will never know because they never played this year. Same group of personnel 20+ games older is simply not the same personnel. To just assume that USC would win is insulting to Auburn when they have done nothing to deserve that insult.

I'm sure there was only a small handful of people that thought Texas Tech would beat Cal, but that's why they play the games. You don't know the outcome until the scoreboard reads 00:00.
paul187 says:
posted on January 11, 2005 12:57 PM — link
well this just proves more and more the only way it will ever be fair is if there is a playoff in the ncaa.untill then teams will always get screwed by the bcs!
Stealersky says:
posted on January 12, 2005 12:01 AM — link
First off just because USC beats a team one year DOES NOT mean they'll beat a team the next. Secondly, Auburn had the #1 defense in the country. Third if you actually bothered to READ things, you'll see even with playing a 1 AA team they had a tougher overall schedule, as shown by the NCAA rankings. And the only reason they played a AA team was because Bowling Green backed out at the last minute to play Oklahoma. The simple truth is Auburn deserved to be in the National championship game. Even ESPN analysts said Tuberville should buy the boys rings. USC undisputed champs? Hardly!
drp says:
posted on January 12, 2005 09:35 AM — link
LOL. If Boise State had just beaten Louisville, they too could be National Champs. Will there be a trophy to put in the trophy case?

I hate the system and think this proves once and for all that a playoff of some sort is needed, but until that happens, Auburn, and any other school for that matter, can't declare something the consensus says they are not.

We can settle this by adding one more game to both USC's and Auburn's record, opening game 2003.
2004 says:
posted on January 12, 2005 01:20 PM — link
Undefeated get the rings. Petie and Bobby cried during the season about the BCS and they still got it wrong.

YOU USCers 2004 season does not have a bearing on 2002 or 2003. That is just plain stupid. Bama lost to AU 3 years in a row, they may or may not lose to AU next year, but really what difference does that make.

The world remembers Petie crying last year.
AdamG says:
posted on January 12, 2005 01:30 PM — link
Auburn's national championship is just as real as USC's. You see, until there is a playoff governed by the NCAA, every so-called champion is a mythical champion. There are NO real champions until it is settled on the field.
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 12, 2005 02:58 PM — link
Don VanderMark & Stealersky, about Auburn and Oklahoma and all other non western conferences.... My whole point, and what you guys don't want to face is that schedule strength is based on biased opinions from the get go. "Strength of Schedule" is still based on a mostly non west coast opinion. Who determines who is good? It�s all opinion and unfortunately for the west coast, most of officials with opinions are not from the west coast. The term GIGO or garbage in garbage out applies here. The fact that Oklahoma keeps making the BCS title based on their schedule and keeps getting killed is proof and captures the east coast bias. Oklahoma beats Texas every year, who cares! What has Texas EVER done? What proof can anyone offer that indicates that Texas is even a good team? Where is the independent proof? I know that they got beat by a decent Cal team last year. I know that they are a little better than one of the weaker Michigan teams we�ve seen in a while. Oklahoma lives off this game, this is the only game OU plays. With regard to Cal losing to Texas Tech, everyone on the west coast knew that Cal was ripe for this game. First of all they got screwed by Texas and the non west media. They did not want to be at that game, and their hearts were not in it. Secondly, not only were they not there mentally, they were also missing their top 3 starting receivers. This does not excuse their performance, but they were screwed over, and just did not show up for the game. Auburn is a joke, just like LSU was joke last year. Although, the east coast media keeps voting the Geno Terrata�s, Charlie Ward�s and Chris Winkes as Heisman winners, over the Marshall Faulks of the world, ask the pros football teams and Vegas odds makers about were the real power is. I think their action speaks volumes, and Vegas backs their opinion with their money. We should have a playoff I agree, that way SC would probably have 15 titles instead of the 11 they have now. The west coast fans watch ALL of the games, not just games the east coast and mid west. You east coast and midwest guys are not qualified to venture an opinion due to the fact that you simply don�t have all the data. Some advise boys: The world is round, and there is a west coast!

Fight ON!
Stu Churchwell says:
posted on January 12, 2005 05:02 PM — link
According to some of you, the NCAA must have changed its rules and I just missed it. Apparently, all games from previous years now roll into a team's results in successive years. That's amazing! I had no idea.

By your logic, USC should have conceeded its game to Cal this year because the Bears won last year. Sorry Trojans - you lost last year so there was no reason to play in 2004. Just accept the fact that 2003 was proof that you would have lost in 2004.

By your logic, Auburn should have conceeded all 4 SEC games it lost in 2003 because, well, it had obviously been proven that they would never win those games in 2004.

Yep. You lose one year, and that is final conclusive proof that you would never win again.

Forgive me for my belief that the only proof of anything is that teams actually play one another. Some of you are convinced that real-life results in the current year are worthless when compared to extrapolation of results from other seasons.

Additionally, let's just go back and reverse the results of 2002, when no one gave Ohio State a prayer of a chance against Miami. Sorry, Buckeyes. The overwhelming majority thought you would lose. And that's more important than letting you prove otherwise.

Sorry to Bama in 1992. Everyone thought Miami was ready for coronation, and the little matter of your massive win pales in comparison to pre-game predictions.

I will continue to maintain my faith in letting teams play as proof of who's better.

And while I'm on this rant, the jackassed commentary that Va Tech coulda/shoulda beat Auburn is a double edged support. Go ahead and give the Hokies credit for the dropped TD, and the missed FG. That's fine. In the world of coulda/shouda, Auburn then gets credit by converting all 3 FGs into touchdowns. Final score in the bizarro world of coulda/shoulda is:
Auburn 28
Va Tech 23

I'm done. Savage away with your ridiculous extrapolations of years gone by and other such inane non-arguments.
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 12, 2005 05:54 PM — link
Stuless, forget about extrapolating past performances, forget about biased polls etc. What right does Auburn have to play in the BCS title game instead of Oklahoma, Boise State or Utah? All three along with Auburn were undefeated going into the bowl season. Each one could make the same claim as an undefeated team. The unbaised opinion would conclude that of the 5 undefeated teams, this is the order of each teams legit claim to the title game. 1) USC 2) Oklahoma 3) Boise State 4) Utah 5) Auburn. Crying and telling yourselves that you are champs doesn't make you a champ, it makes you a chump. Not only does SC play a much tougher conf schedule in the PAC 10 than any of the other teams, but SC's non conference schedule is also the best around. SC has challenge Miami to a game for 2 years in a row only to have that offer rejected. Just think how good our non conference schedule would have been last year if Auburn didn't weaken it so much!

FIGHT ON!
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 12, 2005 06:24 PM — link
Stealersky...don't quote the SEC's review of it's own teams schedule strength. That's like having Mike Milken investigate Drexall Burnham's inproprieties. If you want an unbiased final ranking check out Sagarin's final rankings. Funny how he ranks the PAC 10 as the best in the country. According to Sagarin, SC played numbers 2,7,9,11,14 & 19th best teams in the country. Can anyone claim a tougher schedule than that? Don't just claim your schedule is tough "cause we play in the SEC or BIG LEAST" etc. Let's see an argument based on facts, not "The SEC is the best" Remember, Sagarin was so highly regarded that his numbers were part of the original BCS calculations. This is independant data from an unbaised source. How about we look for the PAC 10's review of its own schedule strength, somehow I think that might give the Pac 10 a favorable review. So Stealersky, why don't you do some reading and stop going to the Auburn University online newspaper for facts that don't hold up in the light.

FIGHT ON!
FightOn! says:
posted on January 12, 2005 07:04 PM — link
Adam G:

First, I acknowledge that only playoffs will ever settle this debate.

However, only Auburn's "National Championship" is mythical! Auburn did not play for the national championship this year. Nor did Auburn defeat a team of USC or Oklahoma's caliber. USC played for the National Championship in the Orange Bowl and won it outright from Oklahoma.

Auburn simply wasn't there. You can argue with credibility that they should have been there. But they weren't. Trojans feel your pain. We watched LSU and Oklahoma play last year for the BCS championship knowing that we belonged on the field with either team. Auburn can only hope to prove it on the field next year.

STU:

Your complaint about extrapolation from SC's thrashing Auburn in the two previous years is not well taken. While you are right that it would have been better for USC to beat Auburn a third straight year, that doesn't mean the beatdown handed Auburn in the two prior years are meaningless. If I beat you 20 times playing chess, there is no reason to believe that I wouldn't beat you the next time we play too. It's not guaranteed, but it is probable.

It is simple scientific method. Scientists extrapolate data from other similar tests to reach conclusions regarding the results of conducting that same test again.

Do similar tests sometimes produce different results? Yes. But generally, the results are indeed predictable prior to the test being conducted. Auburn had two shots at USC in the back-to-back seasons before 2004. Both times, they came up well short of giving the Trojans a game. There is no reason to believe that this year would have been any different.

Furthermore, Tuberville is the reason for all the extrapolation about beating Auburn the two years prior to this one. Tuberville claimed that there was "no reason" to believe that Auburn or V-Tech were not equally suited to playing for the Nat'l Championship as SC and Oklahoma.

In the case of the Sooners, I have no argument with him. However, SC did beat Auburn the 2 previous years with Campbell, Williams and Brown, and beat V-Tech to begin this year. So, despite Tuberville's posturing that Auburn was "as good as" USC, there were indeed "some" reasons to believe that SC was better suited to be in the OB this year over Auburn!

Finally, under your argument, we had at least 3 national champions this year: USC, Auburn, and Utah. That makes more sense? Or do you want to claim that Auburn would have beaten Utah this year despite the fact that they didn't play each other on the field?

FIGHT ON!
Don VanDemark says:
posted on January 12, 2005 10:34 PM — link
Holy cow, where to start?

TrojanUser (and no, I'm not going to mangle your name in a juvenille attempt to insult you):

I actually like your point about Texas. It's even semi-valid. Texas does consistently finish near the top of the Big 12, so I think if we all put are biases aside and say that most big conferences are close to equal, that finishing near the top of your conference makes you pretty decent. However, your point is pretty good.

However, for someone who watches so much more football then the rest of us, I guess we missed where Texas lost to Cal last year.

I think you were referring to when Texas lost to Washington State in the Holiday Bowl. You know, when Texas "got screwed" by the non-Texas media and didn't end up in the BCS, so they "were ripe" for that game. Wait, that was your reasoning for Cal this year in the Holiday Bowl. Eerie.

BTW, I'm actually one who believes Cal got screwed, so you can dump your non-West Coast bias theory too, because, oh by the way, I watched just a little football this year. From all conferences.

Stu:

Let me quote you for Mr. Fight On below:

"By your logic, USC should have conceeded its game to Cal this year because the Bears won last year. Sorry Trojans - you lost last year so there was no reason to play in 2004. Just accept the fact that 2003 was proof that you would have lost in 2004."

FightOn:

Your logic against Stu's argument is seriously flawed. Let me quote you:

"It is simple scientific method. Scientists extrapolate data from other similar tests to reach conclusions regarding the results of conducting that same test again."

Agreed. Scientists do conduct experiments in that way - with a MUCH larger sample size than 2. To compare the two situations is ludicrous.

I do not claim Auburn is better than USC or vice versa. I do not claim Auburn is better than Utah. or vice versa. I do not claim USC is better than Utah or vice versa. I refuse to do so because we did not see them on the field, period. Anyone who says they know which team was best is fooling themselves. Hell, the argument could be made that one of the one-loss teams was better than some of the undefeated teams.

Anyway, let me get off my soapbox with one final statement: A playoff wouldn't stop the arguing; it would just change what we were arguing about.
Feed Up W/ USC says:
posted on January 13, 2005 09:16 AM — link
tommy and tigers desrve a share of the championship. If we beat a team two years ago, it isn't the smae team today, auburn is a MUCH better team than USC could ever Hope to be. If the trojans and tigers met in a exhibition game today, the tigers would win. No doubt, they ARE A MUCH BETTER TEAM THAN THE PANSY TROJANS.
AdamG. says:
posted on January 13, 2005 12:10 PM — link
FightOn!: Every national championship in D1A college is mythical. If you look at the NCAA records there are NO champions. The NCAA doesn't recognize any national champions. That means every so-called champion in D1A football is a mythical champion.
FightOn! says:
posted on January 13, 2005 02:59 PM — link
AdamG:

You are mistaken. The NCAA sanctions the BCS bowl games, including this year's "FedEx Orange Bowl BCS National Championship Game." Thus, there was a NCAA sanctioned game this year to establish which D1A team was the country's best team. That team turned out to be the Trojans of USC this year.

You can argue that the BCS failed to match SC up with the best competition in the game. I don't think you will get much argument from anybody on that point. You cannot argue that SC's championship is mythical. Like it or not, SC is the recognized BCS and AP national champs this year. Not Auburn, nor Utah, nor any of the other excellent teams that did not play USC this year.

Does that display the flaw in the system? Yes! But until the system is changed and playoffs introduced, the team winning the AP Poll and BCS title game is the actual national champion, nothing mythical about it.

Mr. VanDeMark:

There is nothing "ludicrous" about taking games played by essentially identical teams in 2002 AND 2003 to reach conclusions about what "might have happened" if those two teams had played a third game in 2004. Note, I never stated that USC was a lock to win a third game, just that such a result was more probable than not. Those conclusions are even more sound when the first two games were so lopsidedly in favor of one team. If you have any factual basis for believing that the line would have favored Auburn in a 3rd match up, I would like to hear it.

While, you are right that an argument could be made for some of the one loss teams, that hardly disposes of USC's claim to the title. By the way, I do indeed claim that USC was better than Auburn and Utah!

FEED UP W/USC:

I debated whether your post was worth responding to, and have decided that it was typical of the quality of the argument on Auburn's behalf. Therefore, I have no actual response since your "argument" speaks volumes for itself. The Trojans are "pansies"? Whooa! Is this the SEC's intellectual high water mark?
AdamG. says:
posted on January 13, 2005 03:36 PM — link
FightOn: I've looked all over the NCAA's website and they have nothing on D1A champions. They show all the D2A and 1AA and everything lower, just no D1A champs. That's because they don't exist. I'm not arguing for any team in particular. The NCAA does not recognize any football D1A champion.
FightOn! says:
posted on January 13, 2005 06:00 PM — link
AdamG:

I guess you weren't looking very hard. Here's the link to the official NCAA website.

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens

For those of you without time to follow it, the exact quote from the NCAA's site under the heading Division I Football is as follows:

UNDEFEATED TROJANS TOPPLE SOONERS

Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart threw a record five touchdown passes and Southern California overwhelmed Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 4, assuring the Trojans will end the season just as they started: No. 1.

Apparently, the Trojans are recognized by the NCAA as the "No. 1" team in the country.
FightOn! says:
posted on January 13, 2005 06:03 PM — link
AdamG:

You might also notice that the NCAA is also busy selling "USC Trojans 2004 National Champions Official Gear."
AdamG. says:
posted on January 14, 2005 09:16 AM — link
I found that page very easily. I also saw where their store was trying to make a few dollars selling national championship shirts. You are very correct that USC finished No. 1 in the polls. They are AP champs and BCS champs. Just not NCAA champs. That's where the mythical comes in. Until I see something official from the NCAA that says they are National Champs I will always say that they and every team before them, even my beloved LSU Tigers, are all mythical champions until there is a playoff sanctioned by the NCAA.
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 14, 2005 10:48 AM — link
Adam G........you seem be be working very hard to sell those damage goods. NO thanks. I thought it would be interesting to see a part of a west coast discussion regarding AU vs OU.........
Of Course Reply

"Because a team who played the 60th toughest schedule in the nation, including Louisiana Monroe and The Citadel, beat the team who played the 37th toughest schedule twice, (both from the weakest conference of the majors) and because the team who played the 12th toughest schedule, got screwed out of playing in the Rose Bowl didn't show up for it's game against a team who played the 14th toughest schedule and lost by 14, that means that Auburn was damn good and OU who had 2 Heisman candidates and multiple All Americans and a Lombardi winner, and was 12-0 vs the 13th toughest schedule in the nation didn't deserve to be there. But the team with 11 wins over D1-A competition and the 60th toughest schedule should.

Not to mention the punchless Sugar Bowl. If that was the statement Auburn needed to make to prove their point I guess we all missed it. If only there was a recent meeting between Auburn and SC to compare to, that might help. Then there's those pesky bowl records by conference too.

Makes sense down south, I guess."

This post was edited on 1/14 4:31 AM by Big_Scud

AU stinks, lets all agree to agree about that!

FIGHT ON!
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 14, 2005 11:02 AM — link
Last West Coast thought on the SEC.............. The SEC was the worst of the major conferences this year. Sagarin ranked the conferences Pac10, ACC, Big12, Big10, SEC. Maybe the SEC played a tougher conf schedule than the Big East, but that's it.

Again, SC played the #7 schedule, OU played #13 and Auburn played #60. Ouch. Tennessee? Congrats, at #37 they played the toughest schedule in the SEC. EVERY Pac10 team played a higher ranked schedule. LSU played the 46th toughest schedule. UGA the 41st. Texas played #28, Tech played #14, A&M played the 4th toughest schedule in D1A.

Don't know what it is about the south except delusion. No one outside of there thinks the SEC was anything other than ordinary this season or that AU would stand a ghost of a chance against SC. Ask LSU about a 5 loss Pac1o stiff they played at home. Ot just ask Auburn about the last cpl times they played a Pac10 team.

The Pac10 had 6 teams who played schedules ranked in the top 10 with no team playing a schedule worse than 30th. The Big12 had one team play a top 5 schedule and 5 in the top 20. The SEC had no team who played a schedule higher than 37th and only 3 in the top 40.

In bowls the Pac10 went 3-2, the Big12 went 4-3 and the SEC went 3-3 with only Tennessee winning by more than 3 pts.

FINAL OB SCORE

USC 52
AU 6
FightOn! says:
posted on January 14, 2005 02:55 PM — link
AdamG:

We can agree on one thing. A playoff system is what D1A college football needs in order to enhance the legitimacy of whatever final ranking of teams the NCAA sanctions, whether it is the NCAA sanctioned BCS bowls, or the AP poll, or any of the other efforts to identify the Nat'l Champion.

This year, the BCS, AP, the Football Writers Association of America (Grantland Rice Trophy), the College Football Hall of Fame (McArthur Trophy), The Sporting News, and the Congrove Computer Rankings all identified the USC Trojans as National Champs for 2004. The White House has indicated that Auburn will not be invited to the Rose Garden this year to meet the President. Sounds to me like there is very little doubt outside the SEC about who the Nat'l Champs are for 2004.

Finally, with respect to my original point, since the NCAA sanctions the BCS "National Championship" bowl game, the NCAA does recognize a D1A Nat'l Champion. Or is it your contention that the NCAA identification of USC as the "No. 1" D1A team in college football in 2004 has some other credible meaning than NCAA's Nat'l Champ? If so, that sounds like semantics. Have you considered a career in law?
Andrew says:
posted on January 21, 2005 03:33 PM — link
Your right, Auburn did have to play the Citadel, but only because Bolling Green pulled out at the last min. and Auburn will probably have to play them again in 2005 because Southern Miss pulled out of their contract to play Auburn. But come on, USC came from behind to win a 3 point game over a 4 win Stanford. I think that a win over 1-AA Citadel and a skin of the pants come from behind victory over 4-7 Stanford should equal out to even. So there goes your arguement TROBOB
Andrew says:
posted on January 21, 2005 03:53 PM — link
bizarro world of coulda/shoulda

Another installment of Coulda/Shoulda by Stu Churchwell is USC's victory over Cal.

Cal 24
USC 23

Or Bush's fumble that never was in the UCLA game

UCLA 31
USC 29
Jeff says:
posted on January 22, 2005 10:43 PM — link
Andrew, What about Auburn pulling out of their contract to play Clemson?
Andrew says:
posted on January 24, 2005 10:50 AM — link
What about it?
TrojanUser says:
posted on January 24, 2005 01:27 PM — link
This just in off the NCAA site:

NCAAOnline Home Page

Past Division I-A Football National Champions

The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) operated jointly by the ACC, Southeastern, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences has used a ranking system to determine the number one and number two teams at the end of the season. These two teams play each other in a post-season bowl game for the BCS national championship. Below is a year-by-year history of Division I-A football national champions as determined by various organizations:

2004
Southern California : BCS, AP, BCS, Berryman, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Dunkel, Eck, FACT, FB News, FW, Massey, Matthews, NFF, NY Times, Sagarin, USA/ESPN

Feel that AU fans

Fight On!
TommyTrojan says:
posted on January 24, 2005 02:00 PM — link
Come one guys, let the Auburn fans have their fun, they're not hurting anyone with their championship rings. As an USC grad, I congratulate Auburn on their great season!

For the most part, I don't have anything againt Auburn. They do have a legitimate gripe and have a right to complain. BCS sucks? I agree, USC was screwed over last year the same way. Playoffs or +1 Bowl? I support it, that would have given USC a chance to beat LSU last year. USC and Matt Leinart has gone against Auburn and Jason Campbell in the past and beaten them, so I'm not too worried about playing against Auburn for the championship. Self-proclaimed championship? Whatever, I don't think that takes anything away from USC's awesome year. Atleast Auburn is willing to prove themselves against USC, unlike the weenies at LSU who claim only the BCS title matters and human votes don't matter. The BCS system screwed USC and Auburn and teams like Oklahoma and LSU benefited from it.
Andrew says:
posted on January 24, 2005 02:08 PM — link
Sure they are gonna give USC the title, they beat the #2 team in the country. Beat them badly. Who did Auburn play? The #9 team. Kinda puts Auburn on the loosing end of the argument from the start. Probably what the BCS wanted so they could justify their existance for another year. The BCS is better than what we had but it is not perfect, why do you think the AP pulled out of it? Congrats USC on a great season and a BcS championship, but if not for Pete Carroll setting the standard of "whining" for a share of a national championship we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Feel that
nugp33 says:
posted on January 24, 2005 03:12 PM — link
listen...usc did whine and complain about their deserving national championship last year..as they should have. but does anyone else on here think that college football is absolutely ignorant in not having a playoff. its ridiculous that people have to decide whose the best on judging two teams performances in their bowl game. do yall not think that instead of us and gameday crew and all the other critics out there deciding who was the best why not just PLAY to SEE who the best is?
nugp33 says:
posted on January 24, 2005 03:22 PM — link
also..i have never had anything against USC until getting on here and reading some of the bull$#!t you fans are saying. listen to yourselves you hypocrites. auburn has the SAME argument you had last year yet this year we sound stupid for putting it up ourselves. try playing UGA, LSU, and UT twice or even if yall had played CAL twice that would make up for it but everything yall are saying sounds alot like a certain school yall didnt like in 2004.
Nick says:
posted on January 25, 2005 12:29 AM — link
Andrew and nugp33,

I don't think USC "whined" as much as Auburn. USC was in a slightly better situation last year. USC was ranked #1/#2 in the AP poll AND the coaches poll at the end of the season (the computers decided by like 0.012 points that Oklahoma and LSU should go to the Sugar Bowl). USC ended up playing the next highest ranked team possible (#4 Michigan) in the Rose Bowl. There was not as much "whining" because USC knew they only had to beat Michigan by 1 point to stay #1 in the AP poll, which has been around for decades for deciding a national champ. And after USC beat Michigan, the players and coaches didn't really "whine", they all resigned to the fact that it was up to the voters then. There were many news stories about how laid back Pete Carroll and USC were about the whole thing and how they didn't complain that much, mainly due to the reasons above.

Like this one below...
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=1680114

On the other hand, I don't remember Pete Carroll going on a recruiting trip to the Sugar Bowl last year to sway AP voters after the Rose Bowl win. I don't remember Matt Leinart going to a press conference after the win to attack Oklahoma or LSU. USC didn't campaign for votes, they beat Michigan soundly to state their case. Auburn did not beat #9 VT impressively and felt they had to "augment" their case with a little trash talking at the other 2 teams. There were news stories about Auburn "whining", lots of them...

Like this one...
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050106/COL03/501060395/1004/COL
girb says:
posted on January 25, 2005 05:56 PM — link
Were there electric lights in LA before 1983? Did the
US win any gold medals before 1776? Do the Italians
claim victories from the Roman era? Don't think so.
The only thing that trojans are known for is holding
jizz. Two decades, twenty years of losing to Fresno
State, TCU, and the real USC (no trojans can hold our
Cock!). After this futility you are a johnnie come
lately!

Girb

Go Canes!
Andrew says:
posted on January 26, 2005 09:58 PM — link
OK, Nick, but what you just said is that the BCS gave USC a chance. They let the #3 team play the #4 team and they (the BCS) ran into the problem of having two national champs, so in order to not have that happen again they (the BCS) arranged this year for #3 to play #9. Also as I recall I don't think USC's victory over VT was all that impressive either. Come to think of it the 3 point come from behind spanking of a 4-7 Stanford wasn't that impressive either.
Stu Churchwell says:
posted on January 27, 2005 02:03 PM — link
Why in the name of God is this conversation still going?

USC fans - let it go and move on.
Auburn fans - let it go and move one.
Utah fans - lobby to join the Pac-10 so that you don't get dumped on without anyone noticing.

History shall record 3 undefeated teams in 2004. This is a fact that will never change. History will also record that the Orange Bowl was won by USC. And the NCAA will not list recognized "national champions" in the same way they list 1-AA, Div II or Div III on their own site. And that's official.

Fanbogs - College Football Weblogs

January 09, 2005

Auburn to hand out championship rings

Trackback

Comments & Trackbacks

KyleL says:

Chris says:

bill k says:

calmac says:

Gootie93 says:

TROBOB says:

FightOn! says:

thatbradguy says:

observer says:

GroverUSC says:

Trojan94 says:

Jim says:

Robert says:

From BoiFromTroy

boifromtroy says:

From BoiFromTroy

dodgerwv says:

TrojanUser says:

Don VanDemark says:

TrojanUser says:

FightOn! says:

From SEC College Football - Fanblogs.com

jdc says:

Don VanDemark says:

paul187 says:

Stealersky says:

drp says:

2004 says:

AdamG says:

TrojanUser says:

Stu Churchwell says:

TrojanUser says:

TrojanUser says:

FightOn! says:

Don VanDemark says:

Feed Up W/ USC says:

AdamG. says:

FightOn! says:

AdamG. says:

FightOn! says:

FightOn! says:

AdamG. says:

TrojanUser says:

TrojanUser says:

FightOn! says:

Andrew says:

Andrew says:

Jeff says:

Andrew says:

TrojanUser says:

TommyTrojan says:

Andrew says:

nugp33 says:

nugp33 says:

Nick says:

girb says:

Andrew says:

Stu Churchwell says:

var site="s19fanblogs" <a href="http://s19.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s19fanblogs" target="_top"> <img src="http://s19.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s19fanblogs" alt="Site Meter1" border="0" height="1" width="1"></a>