and he has only one SEC Championship to show for it. That says a lot... Those losses to South Florida, Mississippi State (2007), getting smoked by a bad UGA team (2006) and GA Tech and Wisconsin (2005) in a year when they were not very good. However, nothing takes the cake like Auburn's "People's Choice" Nat'l Championship and Tuberville's subsequent acceptance of the e-Championship. What a freakin' joke. It's almost as bad as the whole "LSU fans smell like corn dog's" pseudo-insult that Auburn fans try to pander off as original or even applicable. Almost...
Guess that makes bammer all icing...no cake...... http://sauriansagacity.blogspot.com/2006/12/dubious-claims-of-national-championship.html 1. 1925 – Record 10-0: Selectors – Football Annual, Helms. Commentary – Alabama was one of two prominent undefeated teams this year (the other was Dartmouth at 8-0). It appears that all of the “selectors” for both schools are backdated, as no one was picking “National Champions” at this point. Helms, in particular, began retroactively picking “National Champions” beginning in 1941. I submit that any pre-1936 claims are dubious. Conclusion: Iffy – claim was backdated. 2. 1926 – Record 9-0-1: Selectors –Helms. Commentary – Four teams claim “National Titles” this year – Alabama, Stanford (10-0-1), Lafayette (9-0) and Navy (9-0-1). Once again, we are dealing with pre-1936 claims. We also know as a Helm’s claim it is backdated. Conclusion: Dubious at best. 3 other schools have equally valid claims. 3. 1930 – Record 10-0: Selectors – Davis (tie) Commentary – Once again, a pre-1936 claim. Plus, since Davis didn’t start publishing until 1934, the claim is backdated. Add in the fact that Davis also choose 10-0 Notre Dame (as a so-called tie), and that the vast majority of selectors that have backdated this year also choose Notre Dame, Alabama’s claim of one half of a selector is unconvincing. Conclusion: Very dubious. 5. 1941 – Record 9-2: Selectors – Football Thesaurus Commentary – 2 loss Alabama should be ashamed to claim 1941 as a “National Title”. Both Minnesota (8-0) and Texas (8-1-1) had better records. The vast majority of selectors, both of the past and the back daters, have chosen Minnesota this year. In fact, in the present for the multitude of selectors ranking 1941, only the long defunct Football Thesaurus (also known as the Houlgate system) chose Alabama. What 2 loss team has ever been "National Champion"? Conclusion: Ridiculous – ‘Bama should be ashamed. 7. 1964 – Record 10-1-0: Selectors – AP, UPI Commentary – Arkansas ended 1964 at 11-0, winning their bowl game, while Alabama lost the Orange Bowl. This was one of the last years of the AP choosing before the bowl games. Arkansas should be recognized as the 1964 “National Champion”. (Interestingly, the Alabama media guide has incorrect information for 1964, and does not mention Arkansas at all, when they mention claimants from other years. The vast majority of modern selectors choose Arkansas.) Conclusion: Highly dubious – the Tide lost their last game. 9. 1973 – Record 11-1-0: Selectors – UPI Commentary – Notre Dame was 11-0 in 1973, and every selector (including the AP) but the UPI chose the Irish. Why the Irish? Because Notre Dame BEAT Alabama in the Sugar Bowl that year 24-23. However, the UPI poll had been taken BEFORE the Sugar Bowl was played. Once again, Alabama should be ashamed beyond belief to claim 1973 as a “National Championship”. Notre Dame also claims 1973, and they deserve to. Conclusion: Ridiculous – they lost the Sugar Bowl to Notre Dame.
He tends to outcoach in the big games and he seems to be better as an underdog. When he was at Ole Miss, I think he outcoached us a few times but didn't have the talent to pull it out. But he has problems against equal teams or lesser teams. That's what is scary about tonights game. But I think the Tigers should pull it out. :helmet:
Deceks, while a lot of those are laughable as there was no clear-cut, pre-arranged method of determining a Nat'l Champion then. In fact, pre-1998, you can make the argument for any team because there is always some poll out there that will have someone odd as #1. However, in Auburn's case, they pulled a Pete Carroll and decided to name the game they were playing in their Nat'l Championship game because they felt that they should have been in the BCS Championship game despite (like Pete Carroll) agreeing to the same set of rules that all Div I teames agreed upon to determine a champion before the season started. What made AU's actions especially douchetastic was that the poll website was created by an Auburn fan.
AU could use the same means as bama to claim multiple titles but doesn't. The University only lays claim to the 57 title. Nothing Pete Carroll about that. 2004 was a way of standing up for ourselves and drawing attention to a situation that was not right. We may be mocked for that, but you did not see the University claiming a title. It is like a game, once it is over and the belly aching is done with, what is in the books is the only thing that matters. AU mentions some of the below in its media guide, but not all. A run down of AU "championships" that could be claimed; as voted on by organizations every bit as, if not more, credible as the ones that bestowed so many on bama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Tigers_football 1913 undefeated 8–0 team (Billingsley, James Howell) 1914 undefeated 8–0–1 team (James Howell) 1957 undefeated 10–0 team (Associated Press, Billingsley, Fleming, Football Research, Helms, James Howell, Massey Ratings, National Championship Foundation, Nutshell Sports, Poling, Sagarin, Sorensen, Williamson, David Wilson) 1958 undefeated 9–0–1 team (Montgomery Full Season Championship) 1983 11–1 team (ARGH, Billingsley, DKC, Eck, FACT, Fleming, Football Research, James Howell, Massey Ratings, New York Times, Nutshell Sports, Sorensen, Sparks Achievement, David Wilson) 1993 undefeated 11–0 team (Harry Frye, National Championship Foundation, Nutshell Sports, Sparks Achievement, David Wilson) 2004 undefeated 13–0 team (Darryl W. Perry, EFI, FansPoll, GBE, Hank Trexler, M Cubed)
