Barn to be retroactively awarded '04 championship?
by p3bhambama on Jul 28, 2010 3:29 AM CDT
Email
Print
Kevin Scarbinsky writes in this article that the Football Writers Association of America is considering awarding Auburn the 2004 National Championship due to USC's recent trouble with the NCAA. I'm not sure how I feel about this (though, of course, my immediate gut reaction is screw that), we claim several National Championships that were awarded retroactively. This has always been a major point of contention with boogs, as they like to crow about how we claim NC's that we really didn't win. Of course, there is not truly a direct relationship between the championships we claim from the '20s and '30s and Auburn's potential '04 FWAA NC. The 2004 championship is vacated, which none of the ones we claim were, and therefore poses some interesting questions to me. If the Barn family accepts this championship as their own, would they be able to say anything to us regarding our 13 titles anymore? Would the acceptance of this title open them up to praise or derision? To me, it would be the latter, as claiming the '04 title would just reinforce my opinion of the barn as a third rate joke of a program. I'm interested to see what the RBR family thinks about this, because the usual suspects here always seem to have the most intelligent and informed opinions that I have found anywhere on the internet. So, which is it? An honor for the barn? Or a complete joke?
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, since they already made NC rings and had a parade, they can’t say shit now. Of course they do, but we have the “people’s national championship” retort, which is hilarious.
Anyway, they won’t be getting a BCS or AP title, which are the only ones really considered legit these days. I guess we can change the joke to Auburn’s “retroactive people’s national championship”
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
by Zoltar on Jul 28, 2010 6:32 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
love it.........
“retroactive people’s national championship”………..+1
I'm 100% okay with letting Auburn have their championship.
If they lay claim to the 2004 title, it creates an instant catch 22 for their fans regarding their constant complaining about our claim of some perhaps dubious championships from the past.
So I’m fine with them claiming a championship and letting us have ours. Seems so easy, right?
put another way...
they could claim the 2004 title, but from what I’ve seen, they would be the only school to claim a title in the last 60 years that wasn’t either an AP or coaches’ title.
formerly Bama07
Don’t make the mistake of thinking you get to decide what “counts”.
Doing a little research over the course of a weekend doesn’t make you the arbiter of national championships.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 28, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
it does if he adds "arbiter of national championships"
to his signature
(A little testy, Pete?)
The Process of Champions
Not testy, I just don’t think there’s a significant difference between a Barner claiming that our titles don’t count because of a rubric they invented and a ’Bama blogger claiming that they get to decide the titles to which Auburn is or is not entitled.
I don’t bristle at the Barner essays on the topic because they criticize Alabama, I bristle at them because they’re complete failures of logic and perspective. Comments like the two Matt has made in this thread are the same to me.
In both cases it’s pure hubris.
I'm wrong all the time.
see post below
…but just for emphasis, since you seem to be confused:
My article never said there was a written rule about who can claim what. I did however contend that there "seems to be an unwritten rule that the AP and coaches polls are the legitimate authorities for crowning champions from 1950 onward."
Perhaps I should have been more clear that this wasn’t just something I made up. In my research, I did not come across any schools that officially claimed a title after 1950 other than in a year in which they were voted #1 by one of the two major polls, whereas before 1950, there are multiple examples of multiple schools claiming other titles.
Hence my assertion, "there seems to be an unwritten rule that the AP and coaches polls are the legitimate authorities for crowning champions from 1950 onward."
formerly Bama07
actually, upon further research, there are a few schools that claim non-AP, non-coaches’ titles in the 1950s and 1960s, so I will concede a step further that the 1950 cut-off is not hard-and-fast. Still, Auburn claiming 2004 would still go against decades of precedent.
formerly Bama07
Going against decades of precedent means nothing.
Your assumption is that, given an arbitrary cutoff, precedent is required to be followed.
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but you should try to avoid pretending it’s anything more than just your opinion.
I'm wrong all the time.
Once again, you are misunderstanding.
I’m not saying anybody has to do anything or can’t do anything (I already conceded that my original comment above was technically wrong). My amended comment above merely asserts that them claiming a non-AP non-coaches’ poll title would break decades of precedent. I never asserted that breaking precedent meant breaking any sort of formal rule.
formerly Bama07
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day." - Dean Martin
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 28, 2010 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
You are correct in that I am certainly not the one who gets to choose what counts. The problem with all of this is that no one is the “one” who decides, hence all the contention.
My article never said there was a written rule about who can claim what. I did however contend that there “seems to be an unwritten rule that the AP and coaches polls are the legitimate authorities for crowning champions from 1950 onward.”
Perhaps I should have been more clear that this wasn’t just something I made up. In my research, I did not come across any schools that officially claimed a title after 1950 other than in a year in which they were voted #1 by one of the two major polls, whereas before 1950, there are multiple examples of multiple schools claiming other titles.
Hence my assertion, “there seems to be an unwritten rule that the AP and coaches polls are the legitimate authorities for crowning champions from 1950 onward.”
Technically, as I pointed out above, you are correct. Troy could claim the 2004 title if they want, since there is no written rule to stop anyone from doing so in any year. However, 60 years of precedent seems to dictate that schools only claim AP and coaches’ poll titles.
formerly Bama07
I think saying they "shouldn't" claim it would be more accurate.
If you say they “can’t”, well, that’s just not true.
fair enough
Again, technically you are right. There is no written rule telling schools what they can or can not claim. So in that regard, saying any school “can’t” claim anything is technically wrong.
Therefore, I would amend my statement to say: “based on 60 years of precedent, they can not officially claim a legitimate title unless the AP or coaches’ polls cast a new official vote.”
formerly Bama07
Since when has
Auburn let logic get in the way of a nice cry for attention? See: little brother syndrome
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day." - Dean Martin
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 28, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions
More accurately:
“Because nobody else has done it in the past 60 years, I personally don’t think they should claim a title unless the AP or coaches’ polls cast a new official vote.”
I'm wrong all the time.
thanks
I’m going to stick with:
Based on decades of precedent, schools only claim AP and coaches’ poll national championships.
formerly Bama07
Soon to be...
Based on decades of precedent, schools (except those inbred dipsh*ts down at Auburn) only claim AP and coaches’ poll national championships.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 28, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, now that’s not totally unreasonable, but it’s not what you said.
Based on decades of precedent, schools only claim AP and coaches’ poll national championships.
is not the same thing as
based on 60 years of precedent, they can not officially claim a legitimate title unless the AP or coaches’ polls cast a new official vote.
I'm wrong all the time.
it is the same if you read “based on precedent” to mean “if precedent is to hold” which is what I intended it to mean. Perhaps I should have been explicit in making this distinction. If so , I apologize.
And that’s not to say, once again, that there is any written rule to prevent them from breaking said precedent, just to say that they could not claim the title without breaking that precedent.
formerly Bama07
Hey Pete!
I think you are reaching a bit here just to disagree. Basing Championships on precedent seems reasonable to me. Maybe I should invent an Almost National Championship and give it to Auburn every year.
By the way, do you think Auburn should claim the 2004 FWAA Title? Would they get some sort of trophy? Should they hang a banner around their stadium with FWAA Champs? (I guess that would add up to 1 National Title if you think about it.) I change my mind, Auburn should claim it. 0.5+0.5=1.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Just because nobody’s done it in the last 60 years doesn’t mean it’s “against the rules” or that there’s even a rule that exists.
You invented the rule, plain and simple.
I'm wrong all the time.
no
I clearly stated multiple times that there was no written rule, merely that the evidence suggests “there seems to be an unwritten rule”.
And, again, I didn’t invent this unwritten rule, I just reported on the convention that has emerged: that schools have only claimed AP and coaches’ poll titles for decades now.
formerly Bama07
If the FWAA awards an NC to Auburn and they decide to claim it, we’ll get a chance to see how well the hypothesis of AP and coaches/BCS titles being the standard for the modern era holds. It will be interesting to see how the football fans and pundits outside of the state of Alabama react and whether that reaction is clearly pro, con, or in the murky middle.
Plus, I’d like to point out that if the polls awarded the championship before the bowl games, this would not be an issue. What were the AP and CP thinking when they changed that?
Actually, you did invent the “unwritten rule.” Unless, of course, you’ve got universities actually acknowledging it. Otherwise you’re just a guy on a blog saying “_ is a rule”
You didn’t invent the trend, but things don’t go from trends to rules just because you noticed them.
I'm wrong all the time.
"AOEIEOA."
I don’t think that means what you think it means. [-Innigo Montoya]
No one is trying to prove the evidence of absence. Matt’s empirical analysis could prove that (he amended to say 1950 isn’t a hard cut-off, but it appears there is one a bit later).
Perhaps you’re arguing based on the inherent flaws of inductive reasoning. Fair enough. Just because the sun has always risen every morning doesn’t mean it will rise tomorrow morning. But it appears that there is an unwritten rule that it rises every morning, and I assure you I didn’t make up that rule.
My $0.02:
Auburn wasn’t one of the best two teams in the country when the BCS championship game was selected, how could they have been the best team when it was over?
That said, let ’em claim it: like decemberist says, that should effectively end the retroactive/bs championship argument from that group of mouth-breathers.
I'm wrong all the time.
Auburn wasn’t one of the best two teams in the country when the BCS championship game was selected, how could they have been the best team when it was over?
exactly. OU should be given the title. Yes they got a beat down and looked like girl against SC, but they were #2. Take away SC and they are #1. Its as simple as that.
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
Yep, those are my thoughts exactly.
Yeah OU took a beat down, but maybe AU would have also. We don’t know. All we know is that before the game, the system place OU ahead of AU.
that's kind of how I've come to see it Pete........
If auburn didn’t play for the national championship, how could anyone consider them the national champion………the argument I have heard from auburn fans is that the BCS game was not forfeited by USC, it was vacated, meaning USC didn’t win, but Oklahoma still has a loss on their record………while technically and factually accurate, I don’t believe this argument passes the bullshit test……..who gives a shit whether the win was vacated, the fact is auburn was never in the national championship race in ’04 unless either USC or Oklahoma lost a game previous to the BCS Championship game……..they simply were never going to get in unless that happened…….and thus, there were two possible teams with claims to the title, USC and Oklahoma……….if USC is stripped of the title, then logically it follow that Oklahoma would have the only legitimate claim……….though as stated earlier in the thread, logic and auburn fans are mutually exclusive………
Don't care.
Here’s an idea. When Vanessa Williams was, um, stripped of her Miss America crown for a prior artistic photo shoot, it was given to the nice Mormon girl from Utah. Therefore, the new 2004 National Champions are, ta daa, BYU!
Being good has nothing to do with it, Mikey. They choose your name randomly out of the phonebook.
Utah
The Utes were undefeated that year, why go for BYU?
by PluckandGrit on Jul 28, 2010 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Go as a BYU alum why the Utes can’t be used in his example. They don’t call it the ‘Holy War’ for the fun of it.
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on Jul 28, 2010 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Soooooo.........
Would they take away the Grantland Rice Trophy from SC and scribble over the name Southern Cal and put The Barn in sharpie, because thats the only TRUE way they should get it. Wrapped with a sweet little toilet paper bow, just for you barners, you bunch of panty waste crybabies.
I don't mind bad news, and I don't mind good news, but I can't stand surprises! Coach Nick Saban
They were not.....
chosen to compete in the Nat’l Championship game. I have read where some of them now feel they deserve it because USC used “Semi-pro player/s”. If that be the case, then Oklahoma would not have had to play USC. So, delete the cheater team from the #1 spot and what remains? Number 2 is now number 1. Tough luck Auburn, you weren’t the #2 team and the possibility of playing OU now is, well, not possible.
Have a Crimson Tide Day!
Roll Tide, Saban Tsunami Roll!
Let 'em claim it, should the writers award it to them.
Hey, it wasn’t earned on the field. But I’d probably take ’66 or ’77, if they offered it to us.
Caveat: shut the hell up about our NCs — all of ’em.
Just… maintain control of yourselves, keep some dignity, please. Rolling Toomer’s Corner — no, really, any excuse will do?!?
Well,
this puts the ‘mythical’ into Mythical National Championship, now doesn’t it?
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Jul 28, 2010 11:51 AM CDT reply actions
No way
It becomes a vacated title. Period. In this era of the BCS title, you have to win it on the field. Oklahoma was #2 in the BCS polls, so if the idea is to not count the game since USC had an unfair advantage, then Oklahoma would have a more legitimate claim than the Barners.
For me , having no champ makes the most sense, followed by Oklahoma being awarded the title.
And as for AU fans complaining about the legitimacy of some of Bama’s titles… Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! I could care less. When they win 10 or so, maybe I’ll listen, a little.
"No man, I majored in Jounalism, it was easier" Joe Namath answering a reporter who asked if he majored in basket weaving
calm down folks
As I went to great lengths to explain here just yesterday, the only two titles that have counted for the last 60 years are AP and coaches’ poll titles. The only way a team can be retroactively crowned champions during this time is if one of those two organizations were to take a new final vote for that year and crown a different champion.
Unfortunately for our dear friends down on the Plains, that ain’t gonna happen.
The Associated Press has said it will not reconsider its vote. […] The Bowl Championship Series has said it would vacate USC’s title if the Trojans lose their appeal, but would not award it to another team. The coaches’ poll automatically awards its national championship to the winner of the BCS national championship game.
From today’s Birmingham News
formerly Bama07
Unfortunately, what we think doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.
If Auburn decides the FWAA is a good enough source to base a championship claim on, the fact that it hasn’t bene recognized in the past X decades doesn’t really mean anything.
There are no rules, so whatever they want to claim, they can claim, and as fans of a team that claims a bunch of titles in a variety of circumstances, I hardly think we’re the ones to “call them” on it, nor do I think we should. It’ll be their second title. #2. We’ve had as many in the past 18 years than they have in their history. They want to claim 2004 . . . sure, why not?
I’d gladly trade a title in 2004 for them to STFU about our “fake” titles, primarily because I’m pretty sure I lose two IQ points every time I read one of those stupid diatribes. (Still have several dozen to read before I’ll start cheering for that cow college, though)
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 28, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Ironically . . .
in the real world, what AU did that year as an institution was more egregious than what USC did. AU was running a bogus degree program that the football coaches deliberately used to keep players eligible. As I recall the story, one DL would not have been eligible for the Sugar Bowl if AU did not use the bogus academic program to keep him eligible. Admittedly, academics are not within the purview of the NCAA but AU got rid of the program once the NYT exposed it so it was pretty questionable. What USC did as an institution — tolerating third party agents around its program — is not as direct as what AU did as an institution to gain advantage on the field. Only in the surreal NCAA world does AU’s activities fail to register — in the real world, it sure looks like cheating. But that won’t keep them from claiming it.
by Son of Roaring Dan on Jul 28, 2010 2:30 PM CDT reply actions
Yep. Auburn cheated without committing an NCAA violation simply because of a loophole.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
Not really a loophole, it’s a meaningful rule.
The NCAA can barely enforce rules related to athletics, can you imagine them trying to enforce academic standards?
My favorite part of that controversy was:
Normal person: AUBURN CHEATED! The NCAA should punish them!
AU Fan: No way, ANYBODY at AU could take those bullshit classes!
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good work, you avoided NCAA infractions by sacrificing your entire educational system. “Sure, we allow classes that give free grades for zero work, but we don’t limit those to athletes! Anyone can take them!”
Nice.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 28, 2010 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The fact they ditched that phony football major as soon as it was exposed . ..
is pretty much an admission they were gaming the system — prudential NCAA rule or not. Heck — they even let Tuberville be the de facto President of the University for about five years down there so its not surprising he set academic standards too. Tennessee was running the same game under Fulmer.
by Son of Roaring Dan on Jul 28, 2010 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, yes, that’s true… but something being bad school policy doesn’t necessarily make it against NCAA rules.
The NCAA counts on accreditation boards and the educators and academics to ensure that the educational systems are good.
For example, when I was in school at Alabama, taking advanced Computer Science courses fulfilled your foreign language requirement. That might be silly educational policy, but it’s not a violation of NCAA rules unless only athletes have access to that option
I'm wrong all the time.
For example, when I was in school at Alabama, taking advanced Computer Science courses fulfilled your foreign language requirement. That might be silly educational policy, but it’s not a violation of NCAA rules unless only athletes have access to that option
Has that changed? When I was there that was how all engineers fulfilled their “foreign language” core curriculum requirement. Je ne parle pas francais.
A computer...
…language is a language….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 28, 2010 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Not exactly,,,
The core curriculum requires either six hours of advanced computer coursework or eight hours of foreign language coursework. If you complete one, you don’t have to complete the other. So computer science doesn’t really count for foreign language, it’s just one way to satisfy the core curriculum.
Sorry, I work with degree requirements in the College of Commerce and Business Administration, and deal with this stuff every day. It amazes me how little our current students know about their own curricula.
-D.
Oh snap.
Somebody Holiday’d Holiday! LOL
by CarrotTop4 on Jul 28, 2010 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sounds like semantics to me. Everyone’s required to take a language… but if they don’t wanna, they can take advanced CS courses. The difference between that and “CS counts for language credit” is insignificant at best, and makes no difference at all to the end-user.
As for students not knowing about their own curricula: it’s hard to expect students to know about it when the advisors can’t even figure it out. I know a half dozen people who had their graduation dates pushed back because they got flat-out wrong information from advisors.
I'm wrong all the time.
Well
Shouldn’t college students know what they are supposed to take. Advisors are for checking undergrads who party too much. Classes for a degree are posted online and all a student needs to do is see if that class is available for a semester. Depending on advisors are for the clueless.
Well said...
“Depending on advisors are for the clueless.” I couldn’t agree more. When I was in school (latter half of the 90s) we actually read the catalog and essentially advised ourselves. The current generation of students just seems to need their hands held for everything. It’s disheartening sometimes to think that some of these dolts are being awarded degrees from my beloved Capstone.
-D.
That's a stupid sentiment.
“Depending on advisors is for the clueless?” a) What else are they there for if not to “advise?” b) The university requires you to go to advising to be cleared to register for classes. Nine times out of 10 I had to correct my advisor on things and tell him what was right. Just because I’m smart enough to figure it out on my own doesn’t mean the other 28,000 people should be expected to when they’re being forced to consult these “advisors.” And for the people who actually need the help, it’s a damned travesty.
okay....
1) we need to wait and see if the FWAA actually does do an official re-vote and vote Auburn #1.
2) we need to then wait and find out if AU officially claims it as a national championship.
If (1) fails to happen, this is all a moot point, at least in real terms, although we could continue to debate the issue using hypotheticals.
If (1) happens but (2) fails to happen, it will certainly go a long way in providing evidence in support of the “unwritten rule” of only claiming AP and coaches’ poll titles, since the FWAA is one of the most established polls recognized by the NCAA outside of the AP and coaches’ polls.
If both (1) and (2) happen, then we can re-examine the “unwritten rule” of the dual-poll system based on new evidence.
formerly Bama07
It would be interesting to see what TET thinks of this, but they only add new articles/fanposts/fanshots about once a week.
I’ll just turn on Finebaum to see what the cream of the crop of the Auburn “Family” feels about this.
“PAWL!? PAWWWWWWWL?! Bammers are cheaters, PAWL! We deserve the championship, PAWL! PAWL? YOU THERE P [dialtone]”
I voted for Kleph and all I got was this lousy t-shirt
Please, I don't want to lose the remaining IQ points I have by listening to that garbage.
Just take the icepick to my ears now and call it even.
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on Jul 28, 2010 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions
In all fairness, I just checked. TET is almost averaging one front page/day over the past couple of months
fanposts/shots are roughly one every 5 days or so. Yeah.
I voted for Kleph and all I got was this lousy t-shirt
by BamaReturns07 on Jul 28, 2010 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Finebaum today
actually had a former auburn football player call in and say that it would be a travesty if auburn were not awarded the ’04 championship………
Some additional facts
I went back and compared the FWAA final vote to Matt’s list of Coaches/AP champions and what I found out was that there are only five seasons in which the FWAA selection was not either an AP or Coaches selection (58, 60, 61, 64, and 74). In four of those seasons, the FWAA winner claims a national championship.
The sole exception to this is Cal, who does not claim the 1974 title despite being voted #1 by the FWAA. Is that because the FWAA had fallen out of favor and therefore no longer “counts” as Matt argues, or is there another possible explanation? In 1974, the AP selection was USC and the coaches selection was Oklahoma. At that time Cal and USC were both in the Pac-8, in their contest they ended in a tie, but USC ended up winning the Pac-8 with a record of 10-1-1 while Cal dropped to 7-3-1. It could easily be that Cal doesn’t claim that year because their conference champion was selected.
Even still, this “unwritten rule” that Matt talks about above is not all that useful. Since the Grantland-Rice Award was first given in 1954, it has only diverged from the AP/Coaches five times, and on four of those occasions (80%) the FWAA recipient claimed the title.
While you can, I suppose, make the argument that over the past X years, teams that haven’t won the AP or Coaches haven’t claimed national titles, but it is just as accurate, if not more accurate, to say that over the past X years, if your team hasn’t won the AP, Coaches, or FWAA, you haven’t claimed the title.
I'm wrong all the time.
Doesn't it...
…depend on what ‘X’ is? If ‘X’ is 55, then what you claim here becomes more accurate. However, if ‘X’ is 45, then it seems that Matt is competely accurate in his assessment.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 28, 2010 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Not really.
If you pick 45 his statement becomes sort of silly, because every single national champion since then was crowned by the FWAA, too, so trying to make a case against the FWAA by saying that only teams picked by the AP or Coaches claim their titles, is being disingenuous, since the exact same thing can be said of the FWAA. The reason one “looks” more correct has a lot to do with cognitive biases (like confirmation bias).
But, then, if you’re having to pick and choose arbitrary ranges to make your point, you’ve pretty much already conceded that you’re wrong and you’re just trying to salvage something.
I'm wrong all the time.
First...
…the ranges I picked were not arbitrary.
And since I’m not Matt, I don’t know why you think I have anything to ‘salvage’.
And by your previous comments about Cal, isn’t the statement below completely false?
If you pick 45 his statement becomes sort of silly, because every single national champion since then was crowned by the FWAA, too, so trying to make a case against the FWAA by saying that only teams picked by the AP or Coaches claim their titles, is being disingenuous, since the exact same thing can be said of the FWAA. The reason one "looks" more correct has a lot to do with cognitive biases (like confirmation bias).
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 28, 2010 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually, the ranges you picked were pretty much the definition of “arbitrary”. But yeah, I mathed wrong (see sig.).
Still, the main point was that you can always choose a range to justify your point, but if you’re having to do that it really detracts from your argument.
I'm wrong all the time.
Since...
…there are several definitions of ‘arbitrary’, I guess it’s possible to conclude that the ranges I picked were ‘pretty much the definition’ of the word.
And I’m not really trying to justify my own point…just drawing attention to the fact that either one of you could be correct depending on the given range. I don’t see how it ‘detracts’ from my argument when, you know, that is my argument.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 29, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
good research Pete
As I discovered earlier today (and conceded above), there were a few schools in the 1950s and 1960s that claim titles other than AP/coaches’ titles. A few of those examples were FWAA titles.
However, let’s look at things from a different perspective. Since both major polls began awarding championships after bowl games in 1974, there have been 42 champions crowned by the AP or coaches’ poll (the ones on my list). All 42 (100%) claim these titles. During that same time, there have been 48 other teams crowned champions by one or more NCAA-recognized service while not winning the AP or coaches’ titles. Only two times has a school claimed such a title (4%) and both of those times it was the same school: SMU.
Auburn’s decision about claiming the 2004 FWAA title could thus be looked at in this way: holding a title from an NCAA-recognized service (but not one of the two major polls), do they side with the 4% that have chosen to claim such a title in the last 40 years (a.k.a. one C-USA school), or do they side with the 96% who have not (including Auburn themselves in 1983)?
Your research suggests that in the 1950s and 1960s, the FWAA was seen as a legitimate service by the schools. What I’ve read today about the history of the FWAA poll suggests that this was in large part due to the fact that they were the biggest national wire service at the time that waited until after the bowls to vote on a champion. In other words, the poll was seen as something of a foil for the two major polls, which voted before the bowls in those days. However, after 1964 (AP switch) and especially 1973 (coaches’ switch) it became redundant, and you’d be hard pressed to argue that it has been considered a major poll ever since. I see your point about the lack of data points during the last 45 years, but I believe the one point we do have during that time (’74 Cal) is pretty telling, especially once you add in the other 47 data points (see above).for non-AP, non-coaches titles in the last 4 decades.
formerly Bama07
You’re still missing the obvious point: there’s nothing about the AP or Coaches polls that makes them better than the FWAA, and in terms of accuracy to a norm, the FWAA is every bit as good as either of them.
So you can throw as many words as you want as justification, but the numbers remain what they are: there’s exactly one time in the history of the FWAA that they picked a champion that doesn’t claim it. Once. Further, the FWAA is as much like the AP and Coaches as they are like each other. To wit:
Differences between the selectors:
AP/Coaches: 10
FWAA/Coaches: 10
FWAA/AP: 8
Which is to say that you can swap the FWAA in for your “big two” and the odd man out is not really so odd. In fact, the FWAA is more congruent with the AP than the Coaches poll is.
Point is: there’s no “right way” to choose a champion in college football. Do the teams consider the FWAA when deciding whether or not to claim a title? It appears that, in the past, they have. In the BCS era we really have no data points, because the FWAA has held in lockstep with the AP and Coaches during that time, furthermore, you point to the FWAA being seen as meritorious for taking their votes after the bowls are done. This situation would be similar: the Coaches and AP took their pools before the final records were in for the season (the USC sanctions), while the FWAA would have another poll taking that information into account.
Honestly, I just think you’re making too much of the data because it fits what you think it ought to be. But that, too, is odd because this is exactly what happens when other schools piss and moan about Alabama’s title claims. They’ll tell you that Alabama used X selector, and that selector doesn’t count because nobody else claims titles awarded by it, and so on.
The FWAA has a record of being pretty in-tune with what folks expect the champion to be. If they decide, after we finally have all of the information in, that Auburn was the best team in 2004, I’m not sure how we could justifiably say that they can’t/shouldn’t claim it. We don’t have to agree with it, but at the end of the day none of us are responsible for approving those selections.
I'm wrong all the time.
You make a good point about the FWAA being in lockstep, and therefore there not being enough data points to prove the theory that the FWAA is not held today (read: last several decades) in the same esteem as the two major polls. At least not with hard data.
You seem to be arguing that there are three major polls, not two. That somehow the FWAA poll is the unspoken third major poll that no one talks about for some reason. Since we lack enough data points to prove that the FWAA is not a major poll like the AP and coaches’, I think we have to look at the way the polls are treated nowadays as authorities. Take 2003 for example (the only split national title in the BCS era). After the bowls were played, and LSU was automatically crowned champion by the coaches’ poll thanks to winning the BCS title game, people weren’t waiting around to see how the FWAA voted to determine if there was going to be a split title. Nor were they waiting for the NFF or Sporting News, etc., etc. No, everyone was waiting to see how the AP voted to determine if USC would be proclaimed as legitimate champions. In the one instance where there was any serious talk whatsoever of a split title in the BCS era, the AP, not any other source, was looked to as the only legitimate authority.
As for picking an arbitrary range of years to make a point, well, the length of the range may be arbitrary but it nevertheless shows a definitive trend, and it is the existence of that lengthy trend, not the exact length of said trend, that is the point. It’s like one of the many archaic laws that are still technically on the books in some states (like being illegal to play dominoes on Sunday in Alabama). When is the last time someone has actually enforced this law? 1930? 1880? Doesn’t matter. The point is, it’s been a really long time, and there is a definite trend (whether that trend is 50 years or 100 years or whatever) that shows that this law, while on the books, just isn’t taken seriously as a law.
We may lack lots of data to show the FWAA isn’t seen as a legitimate authority simply because it’s been in lock-step with the two major polls so often, but there are plenty of data points from other non-AP, non-coaches services that show a definitive trend of only claiming titles from those two sources in the last several decades. The trend may not go back quite as far as I originally suggested in my article, but there is a lengthy trend nevertheless.
formerly Bama07
So we agree that Auburn or anyone can claim whatever title they want. There are no rules as to what schools can claim, and no one can stop them from claiming a non-AP, non-coaches’ title from 2004.
That said, there does exist a trend of schools only claiming AP and coaches’ poll titles, however far back that trend may go. That doesn’t prevent anyone from breaking the trend, but it is noteworthy nonetheless and does serve as a predictor of what schools will do in the future (and in this case decisions in the future regarding the recent past).
I wouldn’t be surprised if they publicize their getting voted #1 by the FWAA in their official publications and display the trophy in their facilities, things like that, but then stop just short of claiming ‘04 as an official title next to their ’57 AP title simply because they don’t want to break decades of precedent.
Bottom line: they could technically claim it, but modern trends and decades of precedent suggest they will not.
formerly Bama07
Here's a sketch of it...
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 29, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I can't see that image while I'm at work, so sorry if this is a dupe
but this looks like the actual trophy…
The Process of Champions
Are we seriously
arguing over the fact that the Barn might get to claim a pointless NC’s in which they never played in the NC game? Really? Are we that bored?
9 more days! 9 more days!
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
This is my first time to say this on this site.....
……. but I’ve said it many, many times on other websites.
“This is just another example of why we need a playoff!”
You say it would have made no difference here? Au contraire. If the Barn had been in an 8 team playoff, they would have lost the first game likely, and the second game for sure – and Oklahoma would have lost to USC. No stupid claims.
Playoff. Now!
"No man, I majored in Jounalism, it was easier" Joe Namath answering a reporter who asked if he majored in basket weaving
Regardless of how AU did,
if there was a playoff, the loser of the title game would be the only team considered for the title if the winner was later declared ineligible.
But why isn't that criteria being applied here?
There was a BCS championship game, and one team vacates the win. We can go all day about who should or should not have been in the game, but at the end of the day Oklahoma was the only other team considered for the MNC game.
But I’m with Bammer here, it’s time for football to start. All this other stuff from years past is mental masturbation (my words) to get us to kickoff.
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on Jul 29, 2010 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, there's only so much...
…. you can talk about the season when there hasn’t been one snap of the ball.
Consider these threads diversions, until the REAL business of defending a NC begins in just over a month. It just makes me smile saying that: “Bama defending their NC” – that’s the way it should be. All is right in my world. I can start believing in Santa Claus again.
"No man, I majored in Jounalism, it was easier" Joe Namath answering a reporter who asked if he majored in basket weaving
He hates Santa Claus....
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 29, 2010 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
After this past January
I thought he WAS Santa Claus.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Jul 30, 2010 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
He is...
…Saint Nick….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 30, 2010 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
this discussion is moot…if the barn wants to cry like bitches over a game they never made it to, so be it….I could care less…only one thing to say to ’em….see ya in November!
"...because you've got your mind right, and that's the way we like it." Nick Saban
dem barners...
…always livin in the past….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 29, 2010 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
and...if they want "retroactive"...
I can go scrape some random crap off the pavement in Southside that’s been there since ’04…..
"...because you've got your mind right, and that's the way we like it." Nick Saban
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.
