ITKIn case you missed it over night, Auburn won three more national championships while you were sleeping.

Really, you say?

No, not really. But in their latest attempt to be Alabama, the Tiggers endeavor to hoist banners featuring three years they want to be theirs, but rightfully are not. Read the LA Times making fun of Auburn here:

http://www.latimes.com/la-sp-sn-auburn-20140519-story.html

Read Jay Jacobs made out to be a fool by the USA Today here on the recent claims.

Reaching over 100 years back, the desperate barners are now claiming 1913, the year it’s long been accepted that Harvard won it…for over a century. It’s well known that the Tide’s 1925 Rose Bowl victory is what put Southern football on the map. But don’t tell a boog that. The distinction is now theirs*, according to them…and only them.

Winners of the 1983 National Championship

Oh, and there’s 1983. Going on the same criteria the silly Aubie’s use, Bama could claim ’45, ’66, ’77, ’94 and ’08. But we don’t. Because a legitimate agency didn’t name us champion those years.

“But what about 1941?” you’ll hear a boog say. As much as I don’t like that year being included in our long history of superiority via championships, a legitimate agency DID name Bama champs that year, which is why it is claimed.

But not in Auburn’s case. Instead, Asterisk U. cherry picked a couple of retro rankings…polls taken YEARS after the seasons took place, filled with agenda and bias…to name themselves champs.

People, this is as pathetic as the moms of your neighborhood pop warner program buying trophies for their little tikes because “they tried real hard.”

Miami was crowned national champion legitimately in 1983.

Winners of the 1993 and 2013 National Championships, at least until the Aubs try to wrestle away 2013 for “being close”

But wait, there’s more! In 1993 Auburn entered the season on one of their many, storied probations due to improper benefits paid to Eric Ramsey (remember him?). But after an improbable 11-0 season…THOUGH THEY COULD NEITHER PLAY IN A BOWL GAME NOR THEIR FLIPPING CONFERENCE TITLE GAME…these silly barners are now saying they won that year too. Two additional games against quality opponents that year that the Tiggers just casually exempt themselves from.

Can you believe this? It seems our little brothers, who self-righteously love to tab themselves as a Christian university, are raping and pillaging the Tenth Commandment in broad daylight. Better lock the doors to the Bryant Museum.

Interesting enough they aren’t (yet) claiming 2004. Though you can bet it probably has to do with something in Tommy Tuberville’s contract regarding championships won and payouts thereof. His contract window must still be open. You think I’m joking. As soon as it closes, you can bet a 2004 banner will be hoisted somewhere down on the farm…though USC and Oklahoma remained at #1 & #2 all season until the Championship Game Auburn wasn’t invited to. You know, facts barners led by their leader Jay Jacobs apparently consider to be clutter.

I just hope I live to see the day that they do claim that year…and 2013 as well. After all, they DID play in the big game (and lost), but in barner world, close is good enough. Right?

We now live in a world devoid of truth, right and wrong, and factual history. Which plays right into the sticky hands of our little orange and blue history revisionists.

If you’re an Auburn fan, you have to be ashamed of this. Or else you’re just as pathetic as your leaders putting this sham together.

War Liars! Momma will put your little trophies on the lower shelf where you can reach’em.

Here you go, barnies.

Here you go, barnies.

Pathetic. Ridiculous. Just sad. But we expect no different from Auburn. Afterall, it’s the Fambly way.


(Follow ITK on Twitter for Bama news, commentary and smack.)

51 Responses to “Nation laughs at Auburn as Tigers invent more National Titles for themselves” Subscribe

  1. crimson hammah May 20, 2014 at 11:38 am #

    fluke dung…nationally they know they are skank but just want somebody to knock off the king of the mountain

  2. The Conduit May 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    Wanna know what makes Auburn the Little Brother to Alabama?

    Auburn has to cite disputable, even completely illegitimate titles to claim five national championships…whereas I’ve seen Alabama win five undisputed national championships with my own eyes.

    That’s not counting the one when I was two years old. I don’t remember that one. Unreal. Roll Tide.

    • Rogue Elephant May 20, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

      Wanna know what really burns the awbarnz azzez?
      No end?
      They know in their heart of hearts, even though they would die and go to hell before they admitted it, that if you randomly asked 100 sportswriters from across the nation to list the Top 10 college football programs of all time, Bama would be on virtually every one of those lists.
      Somewhere.
      Somehow.
      And in the Top 5 of many.
      And #1 on some.
      awbarnz?
      Not so much.
      Maybe an honorable mention.
      Here and there.
      If at all.
      That is the real root of their inferiority complex.
      Because it ain’t likely to change, any time soon.
      Just sayin’.

  3. Denny Chimes May 20, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    I say let them claim them. Print the t-shirts up and hang the banners, API.

    You will never have any right to question ANY of Bama’s championships. That glass house from which you so often hurl stones at big brother from is now made of wafer thin glass.

    And guess what, Bama STILL has more, and so it will remain.

  4. ITK May 20, 2014 at 1:38 pm #

    My official response to this move by Jacobs and company:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    You want to be us soooooooo bad!!!!

  5. Hunter Ford May 20, 2014 at 6:41 pm #

    All-Barn really wants to be Alabama soooo bad! That is why they hired Pat Dye. Pat Dye took advantage of the Bear Bryant transition era. He is really a crappy coach if you look at his real record and the talent he had. No “real” natty with BO? BO WHO?

    Dye is still lingering around, and for what? An advisor to the president… president of what? I would rather Battle than Dye.

    Jay Jacobs and Pat Dye ??

  6. Will May 20, 2014 at 8:22 pm #

    How come you arrogant bamers don’t remember your precious tide suddenly claiming 5 (not 3) national championships in the early 80’s. 15 national championships is a joke, bama fans are the only ones that believe that bs. Anyhow, lets focus on this century. Is Kiffin prepared to be the scapegoat after this upcoming botched season, because that is why Saban hired him. WAR DAMN EAGLE!

    • Observer May 20, 2014 at 9:42 pm #

      First place Will, if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, it’s better to just STFU! Now to ITK. The national football archives do give the Barnrat’s a co-championship in 1913. And that’s good. Anything is better than letting a damn Ivy League school claim it. Those Princeton, Harvard and Yale championships are all the biggest farces in history. Actually, using the same sources as Bama, the archives give the Barnrat’s 7 National Championships along with Florida. LSU comes in second in the SEC with 8. The good news is that going by the same criteria as the Barnrats, Alabama has 19 Natty’s. Sound’s good to me! So give the fools their 7. But ’83??????????????? And they have the nerve to dis our ’41? Do the fools who dis our ’41 even realize that there were 3 National Champions named that year. Texas was the other major school named, and their record was no better than Bama’s at 8-1-1 and they did not play in a bowl.. The third team was a damn Ivy League school who only played 8 games and went 8-0-0. Bama played 11 games, played in and won a bowl and went 9-2. That Natty is as legit as any during the period. In fact if you read this link you will see that no matter which of the 5 methods you use, Bama still comes out #1 in the major school category in all but the most inclusive, where Notre Dame is ahead of our 19 with their 22 – but Notre Dame only claims 11 of those. Regardless, this is the end of the Barnrat’s right to dis any of Bama’s Natty’s. From here to eternity the Barnrat’s are the laughing stock of the college football world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

      • Observer May 20, 2014 at 10:04 pm #

        Sorry, I left out the most ridiculous Barnrat claim of them all – 1993. Hey dumbasses – you can’t win something you were ineligible for and not allowed to play for! That’s that. Argument over. Don’t want to hear anymore about it. We’ll go with ’41 and claim 15. You go with ’13 and claim 3. Over and out!

      • peachy May 21, 2014 at 9:00 am #

        In 1941 Alabama finished 9-2, 3rd in the SEC (Miss St won it AND beat Alabama) and finished 20th in the poll. No, that’s not a legitimate claim. Its ridiculous.

        • crimsonite May 21, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

          Miss St was not considered good enough to play in a bowl. Tough shit for them. Bama was one of three teams who recived National Championship awards. They were the only one of the 3 who played in a bowl against another highly ranked team. So tough shit. Very simple. Aubie ’93 was completetly and totally ineligible. Was banned from Bowl and any kind of Championship competition. So Bama ’41 was 100% more legitimate than Aubie ’92. Stuff it Barndyke!

        • crimson hammah May 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm #

          before the bowls u stupid ignorant slut and demolished the #2 team and most top teams dnp

    • Hunter Ford May 21, 2014 at 8:25 pm #

      Will “The Thrill!” welcome to the conversation!

  7. peachy May 21, 2014 at 7:49 am #

    Once again I have to correct another article on this site.

    Auburn has not claimed any more titles. Auburn still only claims 1957 and 2010. This has been clarified over the last several days; apparently you folks missed that.

    All they did was site that the NCAA recognizes those other 3 titles and posted a link to verify that fact. The NCAA DOES recognize those three titles. But Auburn has not claimed them and isn’t planning on claiming them. Auburn released a statement saying they haven’t changed the number of titles they claim: they still only claim 2.

    So once again, CR prints more misinformation and lies about Auburn.

    Whats funny though is if Auburn did claim these titles it would be exactly how Alabama claimed 5 more in the 80’s.

    • Jason May 21, 2014 at 11:13 am #

      These retards don’t know that they’re looking in the mirror and talking about how foolish that other guy looks. Idiots. Never in my life have I ever seen more brazen, hypocritical, lemming doofs than some Alabama fans. Of ALL the people to even VENTURE a comment on what Auburn just did (that I don’t agree with-I find claiming dubious championships moronic, which is why I find many Alabama fans morons)…Bammers should be the absolute LAST. The hypocrisy is just breathtaking…but not the least bit surprising. Dingbats.

      • The Conduit May 21, 2014 at 11:24 am #

        Alabama doesn’t claim the titles the poll Auburn is using to claim (or not deny?) their new ones.

        Then again, neither is any other team. None of them but Auburn is doing that, including teams that won their conference when Auburn didn’t play for one, or teams that played in the national title game but the poll says they’re both champions, or the five teams that poll says get the 1981 title Clemson won (including the 9-3 Nebraska team Clemson beat in their bowl that year).

        Hypocrites, indeed, eh?

        Unless you were born in 1994, which is certainly possible, memory alone is the only thing any of us need. I remember 1993…

      • crimsonite May 21, 2014 at 9:44 pm #

        Bama is the winningest program in history when it come to what counts – by any measuring stick you care to use. Hypocrisy? Dumbass, you have to be full of shit to be hypocritic. Bama is everything they claim to be. Now the Barnrat’s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS true hypocrisy! LMAO!

    • Hunter Ford May 21, 2014 at 8:28 pm #

      It looks to me like All-Barn edited the website after USA Today called I out

      • ITK May 21, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

        Imagine that Hunter…

        • The Conduit May 22, 2014 at 8:53 am #

          Actually, it appears they haven’t changed their web site a bit.

          http://www.auburntigers.com/sports/m-footbl/history_and_tradition.html

          Auburn still lists 5 national championships.

          It’s funny, they say publicly they don’t “claim” three of them (?) but they make no distinction here between any of the five regardless.

          Actually, that’s not funny at all. It’s insulting.

          “I’m not saying Justin Beiber was the lead singer of Nirvana, I’m just saying someone else said it, so we’re printing it because who can remember the 1990’s anyway, there just aren’t any good records or video footage from that era…”

  8. Observer May 21, 2014 at 8:25 am #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBShttp://www.latimes.com/la-sp-sn-auburn-20140519-story.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/16/auburn-football-1993-national-championship/9188121/ It’s not CR, idiot. It is a national story. The posted links absolve CR from issuing propaganda, as in The Lee County Pravda fashion. Get a life!

    • peachy May 21, 2014 at 8:35 am #

      Parroting lies does not absolve you of spreading the lie.

      Jay Jacobs statement on the matter:

      “Information shared across social media platforms is often inaccurate or incomplete. To the subject of National Champions, the NCAA record book has Auburn documented as National Champions in 2010, 1993, 1983, 1957 and 1913 (Source: NCAA Record Book). While Auburn does not currently formally recognize additional national champions other than 1957 and 2010, the subject of doing so is still open for consideration and discussion among the Auburn Family regarding how we choose to recognize the great accomplishments of our student athletes. That being said, Auburn will never claim anything we did not earn. To that, the discussion is based solely on how to formally acknowledge the honor and National Champion distinction that has been previously documented and bestowed upon these teams in the NCAA Record Book.”

      • The Conduit May 21, 2014 at 9:02 am #

        If it’s still open to consideration, why bother?

        Because it’s Auburn and they think nobody will notice?

        The 1993 season alone is worth writers across the nation saying “not even close.”

        Auburn University is a school, isn’t it? It doesn’t take a college degree to understand just the 1993 claim not holding up, but here is a school both saying they don’t claim it and saying they do claim it. Again, if other schools are also privy to the same claims (undefeated seasons, season-specific records, etc), why aren’t they?

        Maybe it’s because they know better. Auburn should too, and they seem to think people won’t notice or care to call them out on it for the sake of memories being short.

        You wrote Jay Jacobs said, “Auburn will never claim anything we did not earn,” but he followed with saying it’s hard to argue against the claims.

        Unfortunately, no Jay, it’s not hard to argue against Auburn being national champions in 1993 alone, not to mention the other two. Frankly, it’s far too easy, and it’s disgraceful to Auburn as a result.

        To be blunt, I’d be pissed if I was an Auburn fan. It’s embarrassing and conflicting, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that no other school is doing the same thing with the same information. Not one.

        Then again, not one of them is a Little Brother, either.

        • peachy May 21, 2014 at 9:13 am #

          Actually other schools have done the same; including Alabama. The standard is claims are valid if they’re listed by the NCAA. That’s why Alabama claims 1941; because its listed by the NCAA. To say Auburn would be wrong for doing the EXACT SAME THING Alabama did is foolish. In fact, Alabama’s first 5 titles were all retroactively claimed after being retroactively awarded.

          Auburn is listed by the NCAA as one of the 1993 champions. That’s a fact.

          And the fact remains that this whole post is incorrect. Auburn hasn’t claimed any more titles. They’ve recognized the fact that the NCAA lists those 3 teams as NCs. But they haven’t claimed them.

          • The Conduit May 21, 2014 at 10:19 am #

            @Peachy

            I didn’t see 1941. Did you? Maybe Alabama should remove it?

            Actually, they probably should. Two more are questionable, if it helps.

            But I saw 1993. Did you?

            You’re also arguing against some seriously important records not just to Alabama’s history but college football history. Not to be insulting, but none of the new ones for Auburn have that kind of significance whatsoever.

            Maybe the problem is the definition of the word “claim?”

            You’re saying Auburn doesn’t claim the titles. But they publically support them? And they list them in their documentation now? And they’re making trophies for them allegedly. And while they say they don’t claim them, they don’t deny them.

            But everyone else does deny them. You keep arguing FOR the 1993 season. Really?

            Then you say other schools are doing the same thing?

            But they’re simply not? Yes, Alabama has at least two that are questionable, but it’s not like Alabama has added new ones in our lifetimes with the new information that other schools have and that other schools have records and claims to that ONLY Auburn is claiming…while saying they don’t claim them.

            So define “claim.”

            Let’s put it this way—-what if they were bowl eligible that year and either won or lost in either the conference or national title game? The wins would have been taken away for the whole season for having paid the players who won those games (which they did for that season you’re saying it’s ok for Auburn to claim that they’re not claiming{?}), and what does the poll do then?

            Otherwise, by your logic and the same poll, Alabama has 22 national championships, 7 more rather than two or three less. Seriously. Jay Jacobs says he doesn’t claim the titles, then he says he can’t dispute them, all while Auburn immediately posts them on their website.

            Let’s clear one thing up—-the NCAA itself doesn’t award the national titles. The NCAA in this case is simply forwarding info from the National Championship Foundation, arguably the best record of football information before the 1940’s, but any one of us who was alive is a better record since, and I was alive and aware in 1993.

            If you’re saying Auburn was the champion in 1993 and YOU are ok with Auburn not explicitly disputing it, then you have to explain Nebraska being the champion in 1981…after they lost to Clemson, the actual title winner, among the other two games Nebraska lost that year. In fact, that same poll that says Auburn is the 1993 champion says the two teams that played each other are both champions that year, and five (yes, five) teams were champions in 1981.

            I wonder how Danny Ford and Clemson fans feel about that?

            Probably the same way the rest of the country feels…except Auburn?

            You see, Nebraska doesn’t list 1981 at a title-winning year, for example. See where I’m going with this? Only Auburn.

            Only. Auburn.

          • peachy May 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

            Not once have I argued for any of these titles. And again, Auburn is not claiming them as you say. They merely pointed out that the NCAA recognizes them for Auburn. Many other teams do this same thing; have titles they claim and titles they point out that the NCAA recognizes. USC does this. There is a major difference between claiming a title and pointing out what the NCAA recognizes.

            And the NCAA does list 1941 for Alabama. And Alabama claims it using the obscure polling service that lists it. Auburns 1993 claim is based on a poll that Alabama themselves uses in some of their claims. Not seeing the difference there. But again, Auburn isn’t claiming 93. They still only claim 57 and 2010.

          • The Conduit May 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm #

            “There is a major difference between claiming a title and pointing out what the NCAA recognizes.”

            What would that difference be? Say, not putting it in your school’s documentation, recruiting materials, their website, etc.?

            Tell me what you know about polls.

            Tell me what you know about 1993.

            Tell me why Nebraska doesn’t claim 1981 the way the same poll Auburn is ok with saying “it’s hard to dispute.”

            It’s not hard to dispute. It’s far too easy.

          • peachy May 21, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

            Lots of teams choose not to recognize titles. But all teams that choose to recognize titles do so from the NCAA list with the exception of BCs 1940 title. IF Auburn claimed 93 it would actually have as much validation as Alabamas 41 claim. Both were awarded by minor selectors, neither won their conference though Auburn beat both teams that played in the conference title game and was undefeated while Alabama finished 3rd in the conf in 41 and lost to the SEC champion.

            Bottom line is Auburn was awarded a share of the 93 title by a poll used by other teams; even Alabama. To say Auburn cant claim a title using a selector that Alabama uses is crap.

          • The Conduit May 21, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

            Peachy, you’re saying again that the polls are all the same. How many do you think there are, by the way?

            Then you’re implying everyone uses the same polls because they’re the same. There aren’t many polls that crown multiple teams in the same poll.

            Stop with 1941. It’s wrong. We shouldn’t claim 1941. We probably should claim 1966 (or at least it holds more water than 1993), but we don’t, and it ended segregation.

            The difference? Ask your dad. He was probably alive in 1993.

            Alabama’s first 5 titles were all retroactively claimed. True. You selectively left out the part about how everyone else’s were, too before a certain time more than one hundred freaking years ago (including one that you’re saying Auburn doesn’t claim but it just displays it proudly with a new introduction on their website), but you can’t just wash away Little Brother Syndrome.

            Your argument is self-serving. You say Alabama, among others of the best programs in college football history, claims titles on polls so it’s ok if Auburn does. It’s not that part of the logic that’s broken (you are often as cleverly selective, I’ll give you that), so don’t berate an entire program for everyone else having a problem with Auburn’s newly-stated identity.

            But barely twenty years ago?

            So when will Auburn claim the 2004 title from USC, 2023? After all, Auburn’s AD already said this year he wants to claim SIX more titles, including that one, instantly quadrupling their national championships. Alabama shouldn’t have all the ones they claim and you don’t need to use 1941 as the singular excuse for Auburn to more than double its titles, but I wasn’t alive to see Alabama claim those the way you are for Auburn today, right now, and all you can do is point at big brother?

            If Alabama didn’t claim 1941 until today, you’d have a fit. So would Alabama fans (including me). So would everyone else. I’d like to think it would get fixed. I don’t expect you to care about 1966, but don’t ask me to forget 1993, or 2004 in a couple of years.

            We’re alive for this stuff—-doesn’t that mean anything? You say other teams do it. When? Today? I have never seen any of this in my lifetime. If I had, I’d remember it like it was 1993…

          • ITK May 21, 2014 at 8:32 pm #

            DANG…peachy done just got slapped!

          • Crimsonite May 21, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

            You are full of shit. Bama does not claim ’41 because the NCAA lists it. We claim ’41 because we were one of only three teams AT THE TIME who had an accepted poll name us #1. And record wise we deserved it as much as the other two. Miss St was NOT named #1 by anybody, and that’s just their bad damn luck.If they had been then our claim would have been bullshit. The NCAA as you put it, is unfortunately full of shit way too often. The NCAA nor anybody else can give a national championship to a team who the NCAA had already said was disqualified and ineligible for that Natty. So blow it out you fucking ass Barnwhore. Bama claims something with an argument. The Barnturds want to claim something that has never existed. A fucking fantasy. 2011 proves you don’t have to win the SEC to be National Champions!

          • peachy May 27, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

            Actually Conduit, several teams have retroactively added titles in the last few years. There wasn’t a cut-off date for claiming retro titles. Alabama doesn’t get to say “we did it but we’re the last ones that can”. Texas A&M, USC, Washington and Minnesota have all added retro titles in recent years; TAMU just last year.

            And do you know why Alabama claimed those retro titles (that were awarded YEARS after the seasons were played)? Because at the time Notre Dame had more titles than Alabama did.

            The fact is Alabama fans are mad because Auburn is looking into claiming past titles: EXACTLY what Alabama did. Obscure polls? Alabama uses them but Auburn cant. The NCAA recognizes 5 Auburn titles. For Alabama fans of ALL people to criticize Auburn for doing something Alabama has done and SEVERAL other teams has done is hypocritical.

          • The Conduit May 28, 2014 at 8:07 am #

            No, Peachy, not exactly what Alabama did. You are blinded.

            It’s not Alabama here. It’s the nation. You’re reading it here because you need to know about Alabama, but they’re writing about it from California to New York.

            Dunno how old you are, nor am I suggesting every title Alabama claimed shortly after Bear Bryant’s death is absolutely legitimate, nor will I bore you with the titles Alabama has a right to yet has never claimed (particularly since you brought up ND).

            The difference is Auburn.

            See, you’re citing retroactive titles for other schools, and yes, other schools have added titles retroactively (including every title before the 30’s by nature of not naming a champion beforehand). I’m certainly aware of TAMU all of a sudden adding titles there wasn’t a title game for that I didn’t see because they were so many decades before I was even born.

            But Auburn is claiming titles in a way nobody else has. You say everyone else is, but they’re not.

            Auburn is claiming titles in years where there was an actual national championship game played to determine the title winner, a game that Auburn wasn’t even a part of and, in the case of 1993, was not even eligible for.

            Understand that part of the punishment for Auburn paying players included being ineligible to play for a national title in 1993, a year when an actual national title game existed to determine who gets to claim that year as champions. Auburn wasn’t allowed to compete for it, and so they didn’t compete for it, but now they won it?

            Alabama has never done that.

            TAMU has never done that.

            USC has never done that.

            Minnesota has never done that.

            Washington may claim two erroneous titles, but they claimed them following polls naming them champions, not 20+ years later.

            There has never been a perfect system for determining the title winner. For decades, there was no system at all. But Auburn is the only team all of a sudden with titles we had an actual title game for, a game that Auburn didn’t play in. So no, it’s not the same. And no, I can never forget I was alive in 1993.

          • peachy May 28, 2014 at 7:02 pm #

            Wrong again. There was never an actual “National Championship game” until 1998 when the BCS started. The years Auburn has pointed out that the NCAA recognizes there was no NC game.

            And if you’re argument is that a team cant claim a title for not winning this theoretical NC game then what is Alabama doing claiming 1973 when they LOST to Notre Dame in this supposed NC game? Both teams entered the game undefeated. Notre Dame won. But Alabama claims the NC?

            Fact is Auburn can claim 1913, 1983 and 1993 because they were voted NC by polls that other teams (including Alabama) use to claim titles. And the NCAA recognizes them. They would be no different than most of Bamas titles and would have more legitimacy than several that Bama claims.

          • The Conduit May 29, 2014 at 7:36 am #

            Now you’re agruing semantics.

            Wow, peachy.

            Sounds like you actually do forget entire football seasons. I guess that’s a new added benefit of being part of Auburn’s culture.

            MOST of Alabama’s titles are illegitimate now? Really? My word, this is starting to sound like simple redundant trolling.

            K, I’m gonna let you sit over there and be blind while Auburn doesn’t “claim” the titles they list all over the place and are building new trophies for.

            But let’s go with your logic. There can’t be a “true” winner of the national title until…1998?

            K. Weird, but let’s go with it. And when Auburn “doesn’t claim” 2004 the way Auburn’s AD already said just this year he wants to do, what can really be said?

            Sure, Alabama v ND, thanks for looking that one up. Now look up 1966. Same teams, one team has more claim, and yet never claimed it. Just another example, albeit more vague than freaking 1993. Unreal.

  9. crimson hammah May 21, 2014 at 9:59 pm #

    au sucked in 93
    and in 83

  10. bamabino May 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm #

    Auburn University only has 1 tainted NC. The one they bought in 2010. Alabama Polytechnic Institute split one with Ohio State in 1957 when they were on probation and bowl ineligible due to Saint Shug paying players.

  11. Hunter Ford May 22, 2014 at 6:29 pm #

    In the old days of college football. The 1900s-1930s, the Rose Bowl was the heavyweight championship. Until 1965, all bowl games were really just glorified exhibition games because the national champs in both major polls were picked before the bowl games.

    Alabama lost to Texas in the 65 Orange Bowl (following 64 season) and AP changed its rules to pick after bowl games. The next season, Alabama won its bowl game and a lot of teams in front of Bama lost. Alabama won the 1965 season natty from AP.

    In 1966 Bama was undefeated…no title,…probably a combination of overkill and politics…books have been written about this….books and documentaries have been written and produced about Alabama’s 1926 (25 season Rose Bowl win)

    I must have missed everything written about how historic Auburn seasons (pick any) have been.

    • The Conduit May 23, 2014 at 8:37 am #

      You’re right, Hunter.

      College football has never gotten it right with determining a champion. For decades, they didn’t decide a champion at all.

      Then there were new polls, then champions were chosen but before bowl games, then after bowl games, etc.

      But then a specific bowl game was chosen to determine the national champion before the bowl game itself was played.

      That was the 1980’s.

      That’s why there’s a glaring problem saying it’s ok to claim a title past Bear Bryant’s death. The system might not have always crowned the best team, maybe it still doesn’t, but it did crown a team, just one, every year since.

      It’s one thing to claim a title from over 100 years ago. I’ve never heard anyone say any team other than Harvard won 1913 title, but whatever, I’ll let it slide just because I don’t know anyone old enough to ask.

      But what’s the point of a punishment of being ineligible for a national title game if you can just say you won that national title anyway 20+ years later without ever playing for it?

      Auburn. That’s the point. I wouldn’t have believed anyone, even Auburn, would do something like this in my lifetime, yet here we are. Unreal.

  12. Damn that hurts May 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm #

    http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-ten-dumbest-fan-bases-in-america-1-the-alabama-crimson-tide-102913

    Maybe you bammers can claim this as another NC….

    • Crimsonite May 25, 2014 at 9:04 pm #

      Hey ass wipe, you must really be into cum licking to quote a retarded piece of dog shit like Clay Travis. He’s the most butt hurt jealous mother fucking Volunqueer ever shit out of a dog’s ass. However, he did include us with some mighty fine schools and teams who everybody hates anyway because of their success. Dallas Cowboys – America’s team, Pittsburgh Steeler’s. Notre Dame, Kentucky Basketball,etc. That article and you are nothing but sour grapes from LOSER’S. Bwaa Haww Haww! RTR!

      • Indiana Vol May 28, 2014 at 12:22 pm #

        Aww, did poor wittle Crimson$hit get his wittle used tampon-colored panties in a wad; poor wittle Bammer TURD!

    • The Conduit May 27, 2014 at 7:34 am #

      Clay Travis makes a living talking about Alabama.

      Without Alabama, over half of his most-viewed stories simply don’t exist. He’s a leech, but can you blame him for making money from it? I mean, he’s a Tennessee fan; I can’t imagine what he’s been going through this past decade.

      Still, the public demands Alabama and Clay Travis helps sate their appetite.

      • Damn that hurts June 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm #

        ITK/Conduit makes a living talking about Auburn.

        Without Auburn , over half of their most – viewed stories don’t exist.

        Pot meet Kettle

        • The Conduit June 3, 2014 at 7:45 am #

          I have fun talking about Auburn sometimes.

          Besides, it’s hard to ignore things like claiming a national championship I saw another team win. It’s not like I’m the only one talking about it—-people were talking about it nationwide, people who do make a living writing.

          But I assure you, I don’t make my career talking about Auburn. Cute comeback, but no.

    • Indiana Vol May 28, 2014 at 12:19 pm #

      BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….!!!!

      The sports world LAUGHS at Bammer for their IDIOTIC fans!

  13. crimson hammah May 27, 2014 at 7:15 pm #

    ABSOLUTELY – THE BOWL GAMES WERE EXHIBITION GAMES IF NOT JOE NAMATH STARTS …IF THE GAME WAS FOR A NC….THE WHOLE WORLD INCLUDING TEXAS PLAYERS AND THE ALL REFS BUT ONE HAD NAMATH SCORING THE ONE CHEATING REFS CALL DOES NOT STAND

  14. Observer May 28, 2014 at 7:40 pm #

    OFFICE OF THE OFFICIAL AUBURN FAMILY FAN BASE COMMITTEE http://media.fyre.co/ds6PRDVKQfMtyqqJGSoU_MalzhanShip.jpg

  15. bamabino May 31, 2014 at 10:11 am #

    Big Cat Bagman Weekend. Barner Fife’s glorify their BCS goat Chris Davis by laying out path on field that leads to the Bagman.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/auburn-paints-chris-davis–famous-route-to-the-end-zone-on-field-for-big-recruiting-weekend–photo-181534461.html

  16. Mikee June 2, 2014 at 5:16 am #

    This is the main reason that claiming any number of championships by ant d-1 college football team is silly. There is/was way too many polls or organizations naming champions. Outside of D-1 FBS college football and pro boxing , what other sports name multiple champions for a single year/season? Until the big boys decide to go to a true tournament style championship, disputing any team’s championship claims is useless. For Alabama fans to bash the early ivy league teams championships makes zero sense. As conduit asked ,did you see 1908? For Alabama to poke any other school or their fans for retroactively claiming NCs years later is even more silly. Claiming these NCs serve no other purpose than to make more money for these schools.

    • The Conduit June 2, 2014 at 8:30 am #

      Nobody is disputing Harvard’s championships.

      Well, at least not Auburn, apparently.

      You’re saying there was no championship game anyway so it’s ok, if not confusing, for multiple teams to claim championships.

      But again, Auburn is now claiming two new national championships for seasons where there was an actual title game, a game Auburn wasn’t in and didn’t win, never mind not even being eligible for it under any circumstance in the 1993 example.

      Alabama has never done that. In fact, no other team has. And Auburn isn’t done; they want to claim 2004 as well, among others, per Auburn’s AD earlier this year.

%d bloggers like this: