So, if the hammer comes down on Southern Cal because of Reggie Bush and if the BCS decides to vacate the BCS title game win and if the AP strips the Trojans of their #1 ranking and if Orrin Hatch doesn’t pass a law declaring Utah to be the 2004 national champs and if a bunch of people in the right places agree that Clay Travis makes a lick of sense here, does that mean that Tommy Tuberville will finally admit that an SEC team can win a national title without a college football playoff?
I wanted an excuse to post this picture again, anyway.
I just hope they can still round these up, too.
Get The Picture 
Did not Auburn beat the Dawgs twice in 2004. If they had played again, Auburn would have won. There was not another team in the nation that could have beaten the 2004 Dawgs 3 times (3 for 3).
LikeLike
Auburn beat us twice in ’04? How’d they manage to do that?
LikeLike
No, they only played once.
Auburn played TN in the SEC Champ.
LikeLike
My Bad. Still think Auburn s/b #1 in 2004.
LikeLike
Most here would agree with you.
LikeLike
If for no other reason than to strengthen and lengthen the Tuberville-Fulmer comparisons, Auburn should be awarded the MNC.
LikeLike
If Auburn is/were/will be 2004 national champs, that means the Dawgs are the only SEC team to win the conference but not the national title since 2001. And it happened twice, damn.
LikeLike
While I understand poking good-natured fun at rivals when given a chance, there is nothing wrong with Auburn and Tubbs feeling they got screwed in 2004….they did. That year was one of the best reasons ever to laugh hysterically at anyone claiming a MNC, ever. An unbeaten, SEC Champ denied even a sniff at proving how good they really were, what a disaster for CFB! I believe Auburn was the best team in the country that season, but even they would not have had a legit claim just taking Texas or USC’s place in the BCS finale.
A title should have to be earned, not awarded. Texas and USC were solid teams that year, but we will never know who would have won it on the field of play.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
You’re right, 2004 discredits everything ever..
LikeLike
Since there is no way anyone could really interpret my post that way, I can only assume you must be frustrated by an example that shows the current BCS faux title to be just that. Every year there are some with sincere doubts but none like this since the BCS started.
Sad thing is, that game between Texas and USC was fantastic and is sometimes used to show how well the system works. Just the opposite is true, it was the worst of all years for the BCS. An undefeated SEC team shut out, snubbed….damn. Readers of this blog should substitute a UGA team placed in the same situation to understand how very inadequate the BCS is. The servers would crash on several sites.
LikeLike
You did say that anyone claiming a NC “ever” should be laughed at.
I just wonder why that year carries so much more weight than all the years that the BCS, in my mind, got it right. You’re right though, it was bad that Auburn got burned that year. I’m just not sure it was bad enough to make me want to change the whole system.
LikeLike
I do not think the BCS ever gets it right. The process is manipulated to get the matchup in the BCSNC game the powers that be ( i.e. TV) want. The first year of the BCS, 1998, the best team in the country was probably Tulane (12-0) and the BCS artificially ranked them lower so UT did not have to play them. Instead UT plays an FSU team with 1 loss and down to its 3rd string QB because FSU was the media darling at the time. There has been something not right about the BCS virtually every year since its inception, although I agree 2004 was probably the worst. UGA getting screwed out of playing in the 2007 BCSNC game by a media campaign is right up there with ’04 Auburn as a screw job, though.
LikeLike
The BCS never gets it right yet the only other examples you give are a Tulane team whose win against 5-6 Rutgers was its only major conference win and a UGA team that didn’t even play in it’s conferences title game. Sharp argument you have there.
LikeLike
Yes, I do fell that is an empty claim in any year. Not to say the BCS champ wouldn’t be a strong candidate for prevailing in a playoff with the conference champs of the BCS conferences, a “play-in” champ from the next two ranked conference champs and the highest ranked non’champion, clearly they are a Top team. But it is impossible to be totally confident based on SOS and polls.
The reason this particular year is so questionable is the obvious: an unbeaten champ of the best conference in football (by a wide margin), with quality wins. How do you tell those young men what more they could have done? The answer is, you can’t yet someone is laying claim they accomplished more. That is wrong, in every way that is really wrong.
LikeLike
I think you’ve got two seasons mixed up. The season Auburn went undefeated, USC played Oklahoma in the BCS title game.
Texas played USC in the next season’s BCS title game.
LikeLike
Oops! Beginning signs of dementia, it was the year of the USC 2nd half comeback against Stanford. Sorry. I stand by the “Auburn was shafted” that year.
LikeLike
Whether a team is given the NC now is irrelevant
USC will always be known as the team that won it.
What happened at the actual time is what matters, not what is in the books years later
LikeLike
I think this would be very different. YEs, we miht remember that USC actually won the game played but as big a scandal as this would be I believe will over shadow that result.
Quick: who did the infamous Black Sox of Shoeless Joe Jackson fame play (and lose to) in that World Series?
If U$C is stripped of the MNC I think they will be remembered in much the same way.
LikeLike
Cincinnati, maybe? I really don’t know but I assume if I followed baseball as closely as college football I would know the actual result. Also, regarding 2005; I still believe that USC wins that game 8 out of 10 times. That team was awesome. Yeah, they cheated, but they were something to see on Saturday afternoons.
LikeLike
I tend to believe that Auburn really did not get screwed in 2004. Obviously, you cannot compare season to season, but Auburn started the year out ranked behind USC and Oklahoma. Yes – they won all of their games, but so did those other two.
Two reasons Auburn started 2004 at #17 was due to the fact that they flamed out to an 8-5 record in 2003 (after being a preseason #1 in some polls) which included a 23-0 home loss to USC in the opening game. Oklahoma was in the NC game in 2003.
There were legitimate reasons have Auburn behind those schools.
If USC has to vacate the title so be it, but I for do not believe that Auburn was screwed.
LikeLike
Where are all you guys who insist that one season should have nothing to do with the next? Every time I bring up how UGA beating the tar out of LSU in “08 is proof that UGA should have played in the 2007 BCSNC game you guys all come out of the woodwork to shoot that to pieces. (Eh….Senator?)
LikeLike
I agree with you, Mayor.
My post said nothing about any season other than 2004. The discussion broadened from there, I’m afraid, because the general defense seems to be that Auburn is an SEC team and USC isn’t. I don’t think what happened in BCS title games from later years (that didn’t involve the Trojans, either) is particularly relevant to the point at hand, which is how that particular Auburn team would have fared against that particular Southern Cal squad which would have had a month to prepare.
LikeLike
Pingback: Let the dogs of 2004 lie, thanks | The War Eagle Reader