Rethinking 2004: Utah should be champion

Football Writers may get it right, name Utah 2004 national champion

Wait. Of course, that wasn’t what the Birmingham News wrote. The News’ scribe has launched the campaign to name Auburn the 2004 national champion. But why Auburn and not Utah?

“The FWAA has an admirable record of independent thinking,” according to the Birmingham News. What could be more independent than picking Utah?

Utah wasn’t the sexy pick in 2004. It isn’t the sexy pick today.

But Utah had the best coach—Urban Meyer.

It had first round NFL pick Alex Smith; Smith posted a 21-1 record for the Utes as a starter.

But Pravda wants the Auburn Tigers to win a retroactive title.

It is sad and pathetic.

Perfect for a dying entity like newspapers, and a football program on life support.


Add Yours
  1. 1

    Too bad for Utah that the BCS issued a statement today that said they would not elevate Utah to NC’s, but leave it vacant.

  2. 2

    True. But the Football Writer’s Association awards a national championship too.

    As Scarbinsky points out, the FWAA awards the Grantland Rice Trophy to its pick for national champion.

  3. 3

    errrr, Cappy…it isn’t the Bham News that is calling for a re-vote, it’s Steve Richardson, Executive Director of the FWAA, that’s calling for a re-vote. I don’t know where you’re pulling this garbage about the FWAA considering Utah from. It certainly wasn’t from reading anything Richardson said. Here’s what he said:

    “It’s that overwhelming consensus that the Tigers were No. 2 that would make it easier to award the vacated title to Auburn, Richardson said. ‘Auburn was unbeaten and many people thought they should have been in the national championship game,’ Richardson said.”

    Ya know, I was a little more impressed with the fact that Bama went undefeated through an SEC season than I was with Boise State going undefeated in the WAC last year, weren’t you?

  4. 4

    Typical elitism. Are you one of those elitist liberals? Or maybe a fat cat Republican? Both try to keep the little guy down.

    I don’t care what some elitist sportswriter wants. I think Utah should be included in any new vote.

  5. 6

    You have to play in the BCS National Championship game. If USC vacates it, it should go to Oklahoma, since a forfeit counts as a loss. But this is funny, a year after Bama hands down wins a NC, now Auburn is trying to manufacture one out of USCs troubles. I thought Tubbs already gave all the players NC rings anyways. It must suck to be an Auburn fan.

  6. 7

    Brandy, it aint an Auburn fan that brought this up. I think that Chokelahoma deserves it if it gets stripped from USC. But, we should get the A.P. but I know thats not retroactive. Till we get some sort of playoff , expect more of the same. Just my opinion.

  7. 8

    Well you don’t speak for every Auburn fan there Ballplay. I know many that have already decided that Auburn whooped Bama last year and deserves the NC trophy in 2004. Didn’t you say last year that Auburn had accomplished more than Bama in your lifetime? Do you still feel that way now?

  8. 9

    It wasn’t forfeited, it was vacated. That means it still counts as a loss for Okla, but does not count as a win for USC.

  9. 10

    So there is a difference julia? If Bush was ruled ineligible, then each game he played in would be forfeited. Thats what happened to Bama and Florida State. Spin on, julia. At least the Auburn math will make you feel like a winner!

  10. 11

    Actually brandii, that’s not what happened to Bama and FSU. Here’s what Paul Dee, the Chair of the NCAA Infractions Committee, had to say on this exact issue when bi+ch slapping Bama over the recent textbook cheating scandal:

    “There is a difference. It’s not semantics — it’s real — between vacation and forfeiture. In vacation, only the team involved, only in wins, do they vacate the wins. In forfeiture, you would not only vacate the win, but the opponent would improve their record. This was not a forfeiture, so therefore the rule only applies to the University of Alabama. It does not allow for any other university to improve its record.”

    Hmmmm, sounds to me like he’s saying that Okla still has to count the game as a loss. Oh, but what does he know…he’s just the Chairman of the NCAA Infractions Committee. Everyone knows to take brandii’s word over his.

  11. 12

    Oklahoma played in the bowl game with USC. If USC had not gained an unfair advatange from playing a player should have been held ineligible… and if you took away what that player contributed to the game …. OU may have won the National Championship outright. If there is a retro… Then OU should win it (Come on guys, at least OU played the game.They ould not help that the other team was cheating.) I dont care what auburn is trying to get pushed through. We cant go back and play the game again. and Utah is not a shabby program (see sugar bowl 2 years ago) So they have as much right as anyone to claim the fame. Meanwhile the aubbo clan is trying to pull a 1957 all over again and steal the glory from a team that actually PLAYED In THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

  12. 13

    Spin on Julia! It’s working! Auburn is national champs! Hooray for Auburn! Do you feel better? I know you Auburn guys hate dealing with your inferiority complex. Man, just be proud of holding up them six fingers during the Golden Age of Auburn football. Keep living the glory of your 2004 National Chumpionship and be proud. Maybe one day your program will evolve into a great college football program like Alabama.

  13. 14

    Gee brandii, couldn’t help but notice you didn’t even address that whole “vacation is the same thing as forfeiture” gargabe that I just bi+ch slapped you on. It sucks when somebody exposes you for the idiot you truly are, doesn’t it brandii?

    tmc, tell me again how Bama deserved the NC over Notre Dame in 73 despite the fact that they lost to ND in “THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME”?

  14. 15

    julia, you didn’t slap anyone. Once again, the point goes over your hard little head. The argument is why you think Auburn should get a national championship, and ‘vacate’ and ‘forfeit’ doesn’t help you either way dumbass. My point was Auburn did not play in the NC game. Whether they deserved to play for it or not is not the argument. If USC ‘vacates’ the trophy, it should go to Oklahoma, if that is what happens. So if you can’t help but notice anything, notice this: Bama is everything that Auburn wishes it could be, and you are a reflection of that envy or you wouldn’t be on a Bama site acting like the fool you are.

  15. 16

    “If USC vacates it, it should go to Oklahoma, since a forfeit counts as a loss.” Gee brandii, that sure sounds like the point you were trying to make was that Okla should get it because “a forfeit counts as a loss”. I guess I made the mistake of accepting what you actually said instead of what you wish you had said after someone points out that you were wrong. My bad.

  16. 17

    Julia: I don’t care who gets it now. That was 2004 so argue that all day with someone else. Who cares if it is ‘forfeited’ or ‘vacated’? My point is Auburn still went undefeated and didn’t sniff at the chance, and that is funny as hell. You are still sore about that I see. Auburn still doesn’t have a national championship. Crying about it now still won’t change that fact, regardless of what USC done.

  17. 18

    Julio since about 1992 BCS has had a National championship game…. In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2004…..wait for it….
    Auburn was NOT invited to play in that game.
    Why not allow the team that fought for the title on the field to claim it instead of trying to undermine the process so auburn can claim yet another Retro title that it did not earn.
    1973, 1787, 1872, yada yada yada, No one is talking about those years we are talking about 2004 and the game that USC has to vacate and that Oklahoma played the right way. Why sahould OU be penalised for playing a team that was cheating?
    Oklahoma showed up to play the game. They didnt break the rules. the other team did. OU should be given that championship. Much like in the current years in the SEC Auburn wasnt and isnt in this picture. They are just hanging out on the fringe like buzzards hoping something will fall into thier laps.

  18. 19

    Yes tmc, I know it’s easier to “yada yada” over the question, but darn if it’s not still sitting there unanswered. You claim OU deserves it because they played in the “CHAMPIONSHIP GAME”. The question is, again, why is it ok for Bama to claim an NC over Notre Dame when they actually lost to ND in the “CHAMPIONSHIP GAME”? (and yes, I’m aware of the history of the BCS. That doesn’t mean that other previous year-end matchups pitting the top ranked teams prior to the BCS were not “CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES”.)

    BTW, you say Oklahoma “showed up to play the game”? Apparently you didn’t watch that game.

  19. 20

    Bama – Notre Dame question is legitimate.

    I believe the UPI during that time awarded the NC BEFORE the bowl games. Since we were named the UPI national champs, we get to claim it. From, I guess the 1950’s till the early 90’s AP and UPI was the major services to award national championships. After 1973, UPI waited till after the Bowl Games to award its National Championship.

    Regardless of the arguments (I always here the tired 1941 argument from the Aubies on why our NC’s are not legit. That is the only one they zoom in on, as if it applies to all), Alabama’s 13 National Championships is accurate….we could probably actually claim more if we wanted to.

  20. 21

    13, you’re absolutely correct about the UPI awarding the NC before the bowl games. But that’s really my point. The system is (and has been) totally screwed up. Sure, Bama can accurately state that the UPI awarded them the NC in 73 over ND but that’s pretty screwed up in light of the fact that ND beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl. Same thing when Bama won the NC in the 60’s and lost to Tex in the Orange Bowl. Hell, for that matter it’s the same thing when AU won it in 57 and didn’t play in a bowl game. Would it be screwed up if AU was retroactively given a NC five years after the fact? Yep, but no more screwed up than a lot of other NC’s that some schools claim.

  21. 22

    Hey Julio I have seen Bama win 4 NCs in my lifetime that were absolutely legit. And that is 4 more than Auburn.

  22. 24

    Hey just saying. You know, I guess when you are always the underdog and get not one bit of respect, the best you can do is dispute your rivals accomplishments so it seems like Auburn is comparable to Bama. Bwaahaha you Auburn guys crack me up!

  23. 25

    LOL at Julio debating you guys into the ground here. You guys wouldn’t know how to carry on a debate if your life depended on it. Geez, and I thought Bama was supposed to be the lawyer school. I Guess none of you went there as I’m sure debate and logic class is required on some level. Just more sidewalk alums, I see.

    I can respect REAL Bama fans but not you guys. Real Bama fans have class enough to congratulate Auburn for 2004 but not you sidewalk alums. They don’t root for us either which is fine but they’re not classless jerks like you sidewalk alums are.

    LOL at you trying to look like you’re affiliated with the university when you probably don’t even know what the inside of a UAT classroom looks like. Obviously, you’ve never went there. you can’t spell right. You can’t use proper grammar and you sure as heck missed that Debate and Logic 101 class!

    Regardless, The FWAA IS NOT the BCS Championship. Therefore, it is not bound by the same rules. In other words, it’s not a requirement for the FWAA to award THEIR title to a team who didn’t play in the BCS title game. By the same token it wasn’t a requirement of the AP either when the AP awarded their 2003 title to USC who wasn’t in the BCS title game. Get it?

    Apparently, this little fact seems to go over your heads and you’ve somehow gotten FWAA mixed up with BCS and determined that a BCS title game appearance must apply to FWAA. Well, it doesn’t. The FWAA is independent of the BCS and as such awards their title just like to AP to whomever they choose.

    As far as Utah, L oh friggin L. Give me a break! Is this a troll article? You can’t be serious!

    1)13-0>12-0 You guys can count right? Wait nm…

    2)Utah played ONE ranked team all year and that was Pitt in their bowl game who BARELY made it into ONE poll at #25. But hey, I’m willing to award BSU the 2009 Championship if you’re ok with Utah winning the 2004 Championship. At least BSU played a top 15 team that year! Fair deal?

    3)Auburn played 5! count em 5! top 15 teams.

    4)Auburn had to play a conference championship. Utah? lol

    5)Auburn finished second in every respectable poll. Utah? somewhere around 4 or 5ish

    OMG at the desperate attempts by these side walk alums. Anything even the kitchen sink but Auburn. So desperate that you’re latching onto cupcake playing Utah at the time? Bwuahaha!

  24. 26

    you can’t spell right.

    *should read*
    You can’t spell right.

    The FWAA is independent of the BCS and as such awards their title just like to AP to whomever they choose.

    *should read*

    The FWAA is independent of the BCS and as such awards their title just like the AP to whomever they choose.

    I made these corrections just in case some idiot wants to poke fun at my grammar. This site sucks with no edit function.

Comments are closed.