Auburn may recognize seven additional national championships

[Fayettechill14]

http://auburn.247sports.com/Article/Auburn-may-recognize-more-National-Championships-174444

The Billingsley Report and Sagarin use retroactive rankings to determine the "best" teams from years past. Alabama uses this to claim many of its old titles. Now Auburn is considering joining in, claiming titles in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993, and 2004 despite not being named national champions in any major poll during those years.

Additional national title banners will be unveiled at next year's season opener (against the Hogs) on August 30th.

Auburn has used a different report or service that no one has ever heard of for each of those claims. Some of these services include Howell's Power Rankings, Hatch Ratings, The New York Times, National Championship Foundation, Daryl Perry Rankings, GBE Ratings, and Montgomery Full Season Championship Ratings.

Arkansas' claims on 1909, 1965, and 1977 are every bit as legitimate as this nonsense. What says Hogville? The poll lets you vote up to two times in case you want to select a combination of years.

[redeye]

There was a thread on Auburn's claims earlier today, but it was moved to the SEC Sports forum.

Has Alabama actually claimed a retroactive NC?  I know many of their fans claim all sorts of crazy things, but I'd be surprised if the school actually did.  Alabama didn't deserve some of it's authentic NC's, but they're still authentic.

If Auburn does claim them, I still wouldn't want Arkansas to do it, because I'd like to think we have more honor then that.  There was a time when that actually mattered, but unfortunately, I'm not sure it still does today, largely because I'm not sure that fans recognize the difference between legitimate titles and those that are not.

Btw, who awarded us a title in '09 and '65?  I'm not aware of those two.

[slobberinhog]

Claim anything you can. I love that 1910 banner! Geez AU.

[Bryant Disciple]

Auburn is obsessively focused on Alabama, and attempting to measure up against Alabama. Seriously, that's all they think about.

With this in mind, I expect they will claim an additional 14 National Championships.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Can't wait for the 1909 commemorative DVD to come out.
What a magical season....

[rzrbackrob]

If Oklahoma claims 1950, Tennessee 1951, UCLA 1954, Ole Miss 1959, Minnesota 1960, Ohio St 1961, Bama 1964, Michigan State 1965, Texas 1970, and USC 1974, then the Hogs can claim 1909, 1965, and most assuredly 1977.

[The Hawg Marshal]

Allbarn might as well claim all the titles they can. Nobody but them recognizes the last one.

[Hogfaniam]

I award Auburn the WGAF National Championship, selected and sponsored by the When Hogville Opines committee.

[hawgsalot]

Heck Bama does it so why shouldn't they or us?

[Razorback4]

Honestly, Auburn deserves the 2004 national title. USC vacated it and Oklahoma being in the BCS Championship game over Auburn was an absolute joke. The 2004 Auburn team is one of the best SEC teams of the 2000's IMO.

[jabohog]

In 64 they awarded the titles at the end of the regular season and not after the bowl games. I am probably wrong, but I believe that the agency that awarded Arkansas the MNC after we beat Nebraska in a bowl later became the AP. I think the next year they started awarding MNCs after the bowls, but I sure everyone is aware of this.

[Boardon Hamsay]

I concur. I used to have it on Betamax but DVD or blue ray will truly do it justice.

[VBMark]

In 64 they awarded the titles at the end of the regular season and not after the bowl games. I am probably wrong, but I believe that the agency that awarded Arkansas the MNC after we beat Nebraska in a bowl later became the AP. I think the next year they started awarding MNCs after the bowls, but I sure everyone is aware of this.

You are wrong. It was the Football Writers Association of America that awarded. Alabama also claims 1964.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_college_football_season

[Mike Irwin]

Btw, who awarded us a title in '09 and '65?  I'm not aware of those two.

The 09 team went undefeated. They beat LSU at the end of the season in a game that was billed as the "Championship of the South." There was no official award for something like that.

The 65 team would have won the AP national title if it had been a year earlier when the award was announced before the bowl games.

The 64 team would have won the AP national title if it had been a year later when the award was announced after the bowl games.

[Locutus_of_Boar]

Sorry Gus...

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/yearly_results.php?year=1977

[yraciv]

It always should have been after the last game you played. 1909 we went undefeated, so I have no problem laying claim, 1964 we were the best team and undefeated, so no questions  asked there. 1965 we lost the Cotton Bowl, who really thinks we have a claim there? 1977 we finished in a 5 way tie at 11-1. There was no way to break the time, so rankings just gave it to Notre Dame. I do think Notre Dame was the best team, but since there was no system in place we certainly have right to lay claim on that one too.

[Huds_HawgTide]

I agree on 65 however if bama gets to lay claim to 64' & 65' then certainly do too...we were better those two yrs...so was texas and nebraska

[Hawg Life]

http://auburn.247sports.com/Article/Auburn-may-recognize-more-National-Championships-174444

The Billingsley Report and Sagarin use retroactive rankings to determine the "best" teams from years past. Alabama uses this to claim many of its old titles. Now Auburn is considering joining in, claiming titles in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993, and 2004 despite not being named national champions in any major poll during those years.

Additional national title banners will be unveiled at next year's season opener (against the Hogs) on August 30th.


Auburn has used a different report or service that no one has ever heard of for each of those claims. Some of these services include Howell's Power Rankings, Hatch Ratings, The New York Times, National Championship Foundation, Daryl Perry Rankings, GBE Ratings, and Montgomery Full Season Championship Ratings.

Arkansas' claims on 1909, 1965, and 1977 are every bit as legitimate as this nonsense. What says Hogville? The poll lets you vote up to two times in case you want to select a combination of years.

That's almost as ridiculous as Bama claiming 16.

#1000 post

[JansterZ71]

There was a thread on Auburn's claims earlier today, but it was moved to the SEC Sports forum.

Has Alabama actually claimed a retroactive NC?  I know many of their fans claim all sorts of crazy things, but I'd be surprised if the school actually did.  Alabama didn't deserve some of it's authentic NC's, but they're still authentic.

If Auburn does claim them, I still wouldn't want Arkansas to do it, because I'd like to think we have more honor then that.  There was a time when that actually mattered, but unfortunately, I'm not sure it still does today, largely because I'm not sure that fans recognize the difference between legitimate titles and those that are not.

Btw, who awarded us a title in '09 and '65?  I'm not aware of those two.

Haha has alabama retroactively claimed championships?  Uhh yea but it was done in the 80's.  Most all of the ones Auburn is claiming are legit.  I said most not all don't scorn me lol

[rlamb]

If you look it up in "The National College Football National Data Warehouse" site, you will see we were recognized by 2 small organizational in 65' and 77'. I think we should claim them in some type of ring of honor as I feel the 77' Orange Bowl bunch was as good as anyone and the 65 undefeated Hogs (regular season) had the bad luck of our QB (Brittenum) getting hurt in the 1st quarter of the Cotton against a 7-3 but very good LSU team.

I think the Hugo Bezdek team was crowned the "Champions of the South" by some Group anyway. Yes, I say claim all 3 along with the 64' bunch that we should have been undisputed National Champs. Alabama does this.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

I award Auburn the WGAF National Championship, selected and sponsored by the When Hogville Opines committee.

+1.. Bullseye..!

[Locutus_of_Boar]

The 09 team went undefeated. They beat LSU at the end of the season in a game that was billed as the "Championship of the South." There was no official award for something like that.

Not even unofficial award seeing as how LSU lost two weeks before to Sewanee in a game played in New Orleans by the score of 15-6.  Too bad there was no bowl game to match Arkansas and Sewanee for the real Champion od the South.

The 1909 Hogs record was good but not quite as good as the consensus champion Yale that year that went 10-0 with 9 shut outs outscoring the opposition 226-4.

[WizardofhOgZ]

The 65 team would have won the AP national title if it had been a year earlier when the award was announced before the bowl games.

The 64 team would have won the AP national title if it had been a year later when the award was announced after the bowl games.

This is not correct, Mike.  We were #2 headed into the Bowl season following the 1965 season.  Ourselves, Mich. State and Nebraska were all undefeated/untied and ranked at the top of the polls, but all 3 lost their Bowl games.

http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=307#.Uu5gKLRXu4k

As for 1964, I've argued this many, many times before here, but the reason many are confused and think our claim on the 1964 title is "iffy" (it is NOT) is because the AP poll was waaaay behind the rest of the college football community (especially fans) in realizing and accepting the Bowls as part of the entire season that should be factored into the Championship (i.e., final poll).  Heck, the AP took their final poll in 1964 before even all of the regular season games were finished!  Fans look at the AP poll and for 90% of our fans, the AP poll has been THE authority among several Championships/rankings for their entire life, so they naturally assume it was the same in 1964 (before they were born or knew what was going on), but it was NOT. 

It was widely respected as the best weekly ranking, but they stubbornly refused to poll after the Bowls (and there was a lot of politics - Notre Dame, who chose to not play in Bowls was a key player here - involved in that refusal).  Because of their failure to wait until after the Bowls to name their Champion, they were embarrassed on several occasions and that's why the other Championship recognitions came to be - to solve this problem that was obvious to all college football fan, who embraced the post-Bowl awards. 

The Football Writers - one of the groups who awarded their National Championship to Arkansas - was a subset of the AP poll and comprised of THE top followers of the game from among the media, and they voted us Champions.  There can be no doubt that an AP poll conducted after the Bowls would have corrected their final poll of the regular season and named us Champions.  That the AP made an error in their process (not judgement) does not change the facts or tarnish our Championship in any way.

Finally, I voted to neither add nor subtract any Championships to our record.  Just because our SEC brethren are suddenly finding creative ways to add phantom Championships to their media guides doesn't mean that we should follow suit.  1977 is the one that is closest, IMO, but the difference between 1964 and 1977 is that the AP DID take a poll after the 1977 Bowls and even though - IMO - we had as good an argument as any team that year, another team was voted ahead of us.  In other words, we got our "day in court" and lost the decision.  Doesn't mean I'm any less happy with our Orange Bowl rout of OU.  Sure, I'd have liked to have captured the vote and been named Champions.  But I also see that 3 or 4 other teams have equally as compelling an argument, and only 1 was going to be happy with the result. 

In 1964, we didn't "lose" the vote - they just didn't take it (talking about AP and UPI).  So we get screwed (in the eyes of those that weren't there and therefore don't understand) because they simply look at the "Final AP poll", see Alabama ranked #1 and assume it was done with the same methodology as EVERYONE assumes appropriate - which is, a vote taken after ALL of the games, Bowls included.  Of course, it wasn't - but younger fans don't take the time to research that - they just assume it was and that we lost a vote (for whatever reason) to a one-loss Alabama team.  That's not what happened.

[Hogwild]

Heck Bama does it so why shouldn't they or us?

Because if we start claiming championships that we really didn't win, that will only devalue the '64 title.  People will just lump them all together and say Arkansas never won a national championship since we have no AP, Coaches, or BCS championships.  Our history would be viewed the same as Ole Miss' "championships".

[rzrbackrob]

As of this moment, 65% think the Hogs should claim additional national championships.

The national championship in college football is a MYTHICAL national championship, because it was not really won on the field but in the hearts and minds of voters. Voters have prejudice, preconceived ideas of what is better or worse, and that is an extremely flawed way to determine which team is best.

I have never heard anyone say the Hogs did not deserve the 1994 basketball championship, but if voters had anything to do with it, the hogs would have never won the 1994 championship.

Until a championship is won on the field, the hogs should claim every championship they can. :razorback:

[redeye]

This is not correct, Mike.  We were #2 headed into the Bowl season following the 1965 season.  Ourselves, Mich. State and Nebraska were all undefeated/untied and ranked at the top of the polls, but all 3 lost their Bowl games.
...

Mike may know something I don't, but I agree with you.  Thanks for another great history lesson Wiz!

As for Alabama, they have many NC"s that I don't agree with, but I'm not aware of any that were not legit.  I'm still irked that they won 2 NC's with worse records then Arkansas had for the year, but they did.

Honestly, Auburn deserves the 2004 national title. USC vacated it and Oklahoma being in the BCS Championship game over Auburn was an absolute joke. The 2004 Auburn team is one of the best SEC teams of the 2000's IMO.

That was a great Auburn team, but I won't consider agreeing with you until they name us the 2010 Sugar Bowl Champions.  It just doesn't work that way.

[bruisemeister]

Im sure if we take 1977, Bama will too. They actually had a good argument that year. They were leaped frogged by Norte Dame because ND beat #1 Texas while Bama beat Big 10 runner up, Ohio State. They also lost to a top 20 team, Nebraska while ND lost to an unranked Ole Miss team. Arkansas only loss was to Texas of course. Penn State was also 11-1 and Kentucky was 10-1 and on probation. Kentucky beat Penn State that year. I think Kentucky lost to Ga Tech or someone like that. So technically 6 teams could claim it that year.

[redeye]

Im sure if we take 1977, Bama will too. They actually had a good argument that year. They were leaped frogged by Norte Dame because ND beat #1 Texas while Bama beat Big 10 runner up, Ohio State. They also lost to a top 20 team, Nebraska while ND lost to an unranked Ole Miss team. Arkansas only loss was to Texas of course. Penn State was also 11-1 and Kentucky was 10-1 and on probation. Kentucky beat Penn State that year. I think Kentucky lost to Ga Tech or someone like that. So technically 6 teams could claim it that year.

Yea, Alabama also beat #1 USC on the road and the Ole Miss team that beat Notre Dame.  Their loss was @Nebraska.  They had a brutal schedule that year, which also included Miami before their glory years.

Still, if voters were prepared to vote Oklahoma #1, then Arkansas was clearly worthy as well.  My personal view is that Texas still deserved it, despite the loss, although that was never going to happen.  The Longhorns beat more ranked teams, including 2 that were competing for the NC at the end of the year.

[redeye]

Some more interesting trivia for '77.

Arkansas and Texas both started the season unranked and both entered the rankings after winning their 2nd game.  However, Texas was ranked higher, despite that Arkansas had beaten a ranked team and Texas had not.

Oklahoma started the season #1, but fell to 5th after squeaking by Vandy in it's first game, by a score of 25-23 in Norman.  Baylor was the team that gave Kentucky it's only loss, beating them 21-6 in their second game.

Texas Tech started the season at #8, but would lose to A&M a few weeks later.  A&M and Houston started tied for 9th, but would lose games on the road to #3 Michigan and #10 Penn State early in the year.

So 3 SWC teams started the season ranked in the top-10, even though Arkansas and Texas started unranked.  Meanwhile, Alabama was the only SEC team to start the season ranked in the top-10.

[bruisemeister]

The SWC was strong then. They sent the most teams to Bowls that season. It was only 4 teams but there was only around a dozen bowls.

[bruisemeister]

Yea, Alabama also beat #1 USC on the road and the Ole Miss team that beat Notre Dame.  Their loss was @Nebraska.  They had a brutal schedule that year, which also included Miami before their glory years.

Still, if voters were prepared to vote Oklahoma #1, then Arkansas was clearly worthy as well.  My personal view is that Texas still deserved it, despite the loss, although that was never going to happen.  The Longhorns beat more ranked teams, including 2 that were competing for the NC at the end of the year.
It was both the timing of the loss and the margin for Texas. They probably would have got more votes if they hadn't lost by 4 TDS.

[redeye]

They probably would have got more votes if they hadn't lost by 4 TDS.

Very true.

'77 may have been the craziest season in college football history.

[Never To Yield]

Why would any school claim a championship they didn't win? I don't think that's what AU or any other university is doing.

They aren't.  They are considering recognition of national titles someone awarded them.  And it's absolutely no different than the titles later claimed by Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State, Texas A&M and a host of other schools.

[rickm1976]

If Bama thinks they can claim 1964, then we ought to claim '65 and '77.

[NoNC4Tubs]

Auburn is obsessively focused on Alabama, and attempting to measure up against Alabama. Seriously, that's all they think about.

With this in mind, I expect they will claim an additional 14 National Championships.

Since they couldn't win it on the field four weeks ago, this is the only way they can keep up with Alabama.

If Alabama were to use the new au standard, I wonder how many Alabama could claim then...........

[Never To Yield]

Since they couldn't win it on the field four weeks ago, this is the only way they can keep up with Alabama.

If Alabama were to use the new au standard, I wonder how many Alabama could claim then...........

We'd be using the same standard as you, so...15.

[NoNC4Tubs]

We'd be using the same standard as you, so...15.

We'll find out soon enough as someone will eventually apply that standard.

I'm going to guess it will put it at 20+................

[HognitiveDissonance]

Admittedly, this is ridiculous.

However, prior to the BCS, there was no such thing as an NCAA sanctioned 'official' national title award. IT DID NOT EXIST.

Without such coronation, when you get down to it, who says one services' champion is any less valid than another? Who said AP is more important than UPI? What about AP over Football Writers? Or Billingsley? Or Reader's Digest...Mechanic's Monthly?

I digress. Point is, nothing was OFFICIAL. And that doesn't even cover cases within the BCS era where Auburn was 13-0 but didn't even get to play for the title as 2004.

Bottom line...in my opinion, if some organization voted you #1, by all means, claim it!

[JansterZ71]

Admittedly, this is ridiculous.

However, prior to the BCS, there was no such thing as an NCAA sanctioned 'official' national title award. IT DID NOT EXIST.

Without such coronation, when you get down to it, who says one services' champion is any less valid than another? Who said AP is more important than UPI? What about AP over Football Writers? Or Billingsley? Or Reader's Digest...Mechanic's Monthly?

I digress. Point is, nothing was OFFICIAL. And that doesn't even cover cases within the BCS era where Auburn was 13-0 but didn't even get to play for the title as 2004.

Bottom line...in my opinion, if some organization voted you #1, by all means, claim it!

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

This was one of the best most educated posts I have seen in a while.

[Never To Yield]

We'll find out soon enough as someone will eventually apply that standard.

I'm going to guess it will put it at 20+................

My guess is that not all of the ones under consideration will be recognized.  I'd expect us to end up recognizing three more from that list.  Most likely candidates would be 1913, 1914 and 1983.

[jbcarol]

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs