Should Auburn be the 2004 Champs?....Update BCS says Auburn cannot have title

• cats gone wild

  ????
• 2quik4u

  

  yes
• krambman

  

  No. The title should be vacated and you should have no national champion. Yes, Auburn was the only other team to finish the season undefeated, but technically so did Oklahoma since USC has now been forced to forfeit that game. It's hard to say looking six years back that Auburn would have beaten Oklahoma had they played in the title game. Let's remember that Auburn was ranked behind Oklahoma in all polls going into bowl season, so if anyone else is awarded the title retroactively, I would say Oklahoma has a strong argument than Auburn.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Can Auburn/SEC people PLEASE give up this Auburn bs? When 3 teams from a BCS conference go undefeated in a season, one of them is going to be left out. It's simple fucking mathematics. Quit bitching about that, Oklahoma/USC was the right call!
• 3reppom

  

  Nope.
• brutus161

  

  No and no. On second though.....no.
• TheMightyGators

  yes.
• krambman

  

  Gators, I'm going to call you out a bit here since you're an SEC fan. Would your opinion be the same had Auburn lost to USC in the title game and Oklahoma finished with another BCS win? And do you think that it should go to Auburn or be vacated, or would you be okay with it if the AP voted Oklahoma as the national champion?
• gerb131

  

  Auburn should never be champions.
• Pick6

  

  no. USC should be the national champions. They won it on the field.
• TheMightyGators

  krambman;386119 wrote:Gators, I'm going to call you out a bit here since you're an SEC fan. Would your opinion be the same had Auburn lost to USC in the title game and Oklahoma finished with another BCS win? And do you think that it should go to Auburn or be vacated, or would you be okay with it if the AP voted Oklahoma as the national champion?

  
  I feel like Oklahoma shouldn't be considered the National Champions, because they did in fact get blown out in the NC game to USC. From what I have read/heard the violations did not give them a competitive advantage on the field. I know that can be argued, but it doesn't change my opinion on that game and what happened to Oklahoma. A lot of people feel like Auburn got screwed that year, and since we've seen what the SEC champion has done the past 4 seasons, and the fact that Auburn didn't get the chance to play for it all, I would have no problem naming them the National Champion of that year. We all know it will never happen, so really no sense even talking about it. And yes if the roles were reversed and Auburn got blown out in that game, and OU didn't get the opportunity then I feel they could be considered the NC of that year.
• centralbucksfan

  SportsAndLady;386060 wrote:Can Auburn/SEC people PLEASE give up this Auburn bs? When 3 teams from a BCS conference go undefeated in a season, one of them is going to be left out. It's simple fucking mathematics. Quit bitching about that, Oklahoma/USC was the right call!

  
  This and then some! SEC nitwits don't know when to stfu.
• centralbucksfan

  TheMightyGators;386151 wrote:I feel like Oklahoma shouldn't be considered the National Champions, because they did in fact get blown out in the NC game to USC. From what I have read/heard the violations did not give them a competitive advantage on the field. I know that can be argued, but it doesn't change my opinion on that game and what happened to Oklahoma. A lot of people feel like Auburn got screwed that year, and since we've seen what the SEC champion has done the past 4 seasons, and the fact that Auburn didn't get the chance to play for it all, I would have no problem naming them the National Champion of that year. We all know it will never happen, so really no sense even talking about it. And yes if the roles were reversed and Auburn got blown out in that game, and OU didn't get the opportunity then I feel they could be considered the NC of that year.

  
  DIdn't get them a competative edge? When your cheating to get players to come to your program to play, that is certainly a competative edge!! DUH!
• justincredible

  

  The only sensible solution is for the players from OU and Auburn to suit up again and settle it on the field.
• TheMightyGators

  centralbucksfan;386155 wrote:DIdn't get them a competative edge? When your cheating to get players to come to your program to play, that is certainly a competative edge!! DUH!

  
  Really? It's proven that USC financed the car Bush drove and paid for the house the parents lived in, all before he signed with USC? MORON.
• krambman

  

  justincredible;386162 wrote:The only sensible solution is for the players from OU and Auburn to suit up again and settle it on the field.

  
  Haha. I was actually thinking of suggesting the same thing. Get the old teams back together with the old coaching staffs and play it on the field. As I recall someone back then (Dr. Pepper maybe?) offered a lot of money to see Auburn and USC play after the bowl game. Maybe we could make it happen.
  

  TheMightyGators;386151 wrote:I feel like Oklahoma shouldn't be considered the National Champions, because they did in fact get blown out in the NC game to USC. From what I have read/heard the violations did not give them a competitive advantage on the field. I know that can be argued, but it doesn't change my opinion on that game and what happened to Oklahoma. A lot of people feel like Auburn got screwed that year, and since we've seen what the SEC champion has done the past 4 seasons, and the fact that Auburn didn't get the chance to play for it all, I would have no problem naming them the National Champion of that year. We all know it will never happen, so really no sense even talking about it. And yes if the roles were reversed and Auburn got blown out in that game, and OU didn't get the opportunity then I feel they could be considered the NC of that year.

  Yes, Oklahoma got blown out by USC but Auburn also barely squeaked by Virginia Tech 16-13 winning by a mere field goal. I'm not so sure that Auburn would have fared any better than Oklahoma did against USC. Auburn won by an average of 21 points that season and Oklahoma by an average of 24. It's so difficult to say that Auburn would have done better against USC or that they would have beaten Oklahoma had they played each other in the title game. The fact remains that prior to the bowl games most voters felt that Oklahoma was better than Auburn and therefore more deserving that Auburn to play for the National Championship.
  
  As far as a competitive advantage on the field goes, first, that doesn't really matter since USC technically forfeited all of the games that season leading up to that game. Also, Reggie Bush has now been declared retroactively ineligible. Bush accounted for 20% of USC's offense in that title game. I'd say having him on the field when he should have been ineligible was a pretty substantial competitive advantage.
  
  Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't give it to Auburn, I just think that if the AP doesn't just vacate it and decides to give it to someone else then Oklahoma has just as much if not more of a claim to it than Auburn. If they don't vacate the championship then the AP should declare both Oklahoma and Auburn co-champions because there's no way to know who would have actually won if they had played.
• dwccrew

  

  justincredible;386162 wrote:The only sensible solution is for the players from OU and Auburn to suit up again and settle it on the field.

  
  I have a better idea. Instead of making them play football, we make them have a dance-off. Whoever is better is 2004 National Champions.
• TheMightyGators

  krambman;386250 wrote:Haha. I was actually thinking of suggesting the same thing. Get the old teams back together with the old coaching staffs and play it on the field. As I recall someone back then (Dr. Pepper maybe?) offered a lot of money to see Auburn and USC play after the bowl game. Maybe we could make it happen.
  
  
  
  Yes, Oklahoma got blown out by USC but Auburn also barely squeaked by Virginia Tech 16-13 winning by a mere field goal. I'm not so sure that Auburn would have fared any better than Oklahoma did against USC. Auburn won by an average of 21 points that season and Oklahoma by an average of 24. It's so difficult to say that Auburn would have done better against USC or that they would have beaten Oklahoma had they played each other in the title game. The fact remains that prior to the bowl games most voters felt that Oklahoma was better than Auburn and therefore more deserving that Auburn to play for the National Championship.
  
  As far as a competitive advantage on the field goes, first, that doesn't really matter since USC technically forfeited all of the games that season leading up to that game. Also, Reggie Bush has now been declared retroactively ineligible. Bush accounted for 20% of USC's offense in that title game. I'd say having him on the field when he should have been ineligible was a pretty substantial competitive advantage.
  
  Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't give it to Auburn, I just think that if the AP doesn't just vacate it and decides to give it to someone else then Oklahoma has just as much if not more of a claim to it than Auburn. If they don't vacate the championship then the AP should declare both Oklahoma and Auburn co-champions because there's no way to know who would have actually won if they had played.

  You should know better than to do comparative scores. That year USC beat UCLA by 5.....Oregon St. by 8.....Cal by 6.....Stanford by 3. No one knows how Auburn would have done against USC that year, but we do in fact know that Oklahoma lost by 36. If they vacate it that is fine, but there is no way you or anyone else could convince me that Oklahoma deserves it more than Auburn does. And if you think USC had a competitive advantage, because someone paid for Bush's car and his parents house, then you would say they had that same advantage when the other teams mentioned above played them, right?
• Sykotyk

  

  What's done is done. Is it a flaw in the system? Yes. But we don't know what would've happened had USC played legitimately. Nor do we know what would've happened had they failed to go undefeated and Oklahoma/Auburn were undefeated in the scenario. Also, using a higher ranking as belief as to who would be better is foolhardy.
  
  I can go back just the past ten years and throw out numerous times a lower or unranked team managed to beat a #1 or other much higher ranked team.
  
  Sykotyk
• Red_Skin_Pride

  

  There will be no recorded national champion for this year, per sportscenter's report yesterday.
• krambman

  

  Red_Skin_Pride;386724 wrote:There will be no recorded national champion for this year, per sportscenter's report yesterday.

  
  Correct, there will be no BCS champion. However, the AP could choose to re-vote and award someone else. most likely Oklahoma or Auburn, their national championship for that year.
• cats gone wild

  Pretty pathetic that Pete with all the talent he's had for many years has zero championships won on the field.
• cats gone wild

  
  
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us
• LJ

  

  krambman;386732 wrote:Correct, there will be no BCS champion. However, the AP could choose to re-vote and award someone else. most likely Oklahoma or Auburn, their national championship for that year.

  
  AP said they will not revote
  
  http://www.buzzbox.com/top/default/preview/usc-s-2004-ap-title-not-in-peril/?id=1552446&topic=ap%3Ancaa
• cats gone wild

  
  
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us
  
  
  
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us