Auburn athletic officials considering recognizing as many as seven more national championship teams
“If other schools are using these same polls to declare a national championship, we should at least consider it,” Auburn athletics director Jay Jacobs said. “I don’t think there’s a better time for the Auburn family to consider it than right here at the end of the BCS era.
“As we transition into another playoff format for the national champion, I just think we need to look hard at it.”
The 1910, 1913, 1914, 1958, 1983, 1993 and 2004 teams are all under consideration. Each finished undefeated or won the conference championship, or both. All were recognized as national champions by at least one national selector, which are used by other schools to recognize National Championships.
The facts are laid out quite thoroughly by Michael Skotnicki in his book, Auburn’s Unclaimed National Championships, which was published in 2012.
“Texas A&M decided upon entering the SEC that they would add the 1919 and 1927 titles,” Skotnicki said. “Minnesota added the 1904 title last summer. USC added the 1939 title in 2004. Ole Miss claims three national titles and not one is AP, Coaches’ Poll or BCS.
http://auburn.247sports.com/Article/Auburn-may-recognize-more-National-…
February 1st, 2014 at 7:44 PM ^
Must be getting jealous of Bama's 15(lol) MNCs. That state's new motto should be "Alabama: Where Every Championship Counts as 2!"
February 1st, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^
Totally ridiculous
February 1st, 2014 at 7:51 PM ^
I don't see what the issue is.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
Exactly. The whole glass houses thing completely applies here.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
Oh Let Do It!
February 2nd, 2014 at 12:22 AM ^
You must mean 1985. '84 was Bo's worst team.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:46 PM ^
Not the same. We only do that for championships before the poll era (the AP Poll was introduced in 1936). There is no one method for determining a pre-1936 champion. After, there is.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
Yes and no. Early 1900's seasons I get to an extent because so few teams travelled or played across regional lines, but Auburn is trying to count seasons like 2004, even though they were clearly were NOT the champions. I get that USC had the title stripped, but then it should go to Oklahoma. And "recognized by media outlets" as a champion is pretty weak when the only two I could find where Darryl W. Perry and GBE College Football Ratings.
I've always thought those early championships by all schools were suspect, but when you get into the 1970s and beyond you are kind of ignoring reality.
February 1st, 2014 at 7:52 PM ^
Not saying Michigan should do this, but isn't there a few more NC we could add if we did this too? I don't know the years but I think there are 2-4 more years we were recognized as the NC by various polls that we do not recognize currently. Anyone know the years?
February 1st, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
The years we recognize
1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1918, 1923, 1932, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997
Other years we were recognized by at least one major selector
1925, 1926, 1964, 1973, 1985
February 1st, 2014 at 8:23 PM ^
It would be kind of nice to get Bo a few NC...even if it is a shady way to do it
February 1st, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
Those selectors are recognized in the NCAA record book. Obviously, there was more than one team declared champion by at least one selector most years.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^
Since 1902 there have been 237 National Champions in football. Only in America! #USAUSAUSA
February 1st, 2014 at 8:14 PM ^
What's ridiculous is that it's true and kind of reasonable to say that! Thankfully next year we can finally recognize one team per year.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:24 PM ^
Four team playoff finally settles it? That's debatable.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:45 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:54 PM ^
Well, to be fair, until the BCS game it was pretty easy for multiple teams to claim titles and have fair arguments. Hell, Nebraska had an argument when they tied UM. I never understood how a championship in a sport could be based solely on the whims of a bunch of writers, but that's how the damn thing was done for decades.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^
A dude I work with who went to Yale likes to say Yale won more than any other team and he has an insane number like 27 national championships or something like that. I usually say most of them came when there were only two other teams, Harvard and Princeton.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 9:47 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 10:19 PM ^
Can you imagine an undefeated SEC team being left out of the BCS championship game today? There would be riots in the streets...
February 2nd, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
They got left out because of sanctions, in true SEC style.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^
As long as they cockblock Saban every year I could not care less if they claim every national title awarded in the last 120 years.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^
This is a joke. It's a joke when they do it. It's a joke when we have done it.
February 2nd, 2014 at 2:33 AM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 9:20 PM ^
Considering their biggest rival claims the 1973 title, I don't blame them.
A little history. Alabama went 11-0 in the regular season, were voted national champions and then promptly lost (in a classic) to undefeated Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl.
This is clearly a case where Notre Dame should be the only title holder, yet Alabama still claims it too...
February 1st, 2014 at 9:32 PM ^
February 2nd, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
....historical quirks that modern college football fans seem to understand, that for a long time the final polls (and the default mythical "national" champion) were compiled at the end of the regular season before the bowls.
February 1st, 2014 at 10:31 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 10:51 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 11:12 PM ^
I think the funniest thing is that anyone cares. Would you sleep better at night knowing that Michigan had actually won twelve or thirteen NCs?
February 1st, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 11:55 PM ^
We could claim 16 from Major selectors. Additionally, all 11 of our claimed titles are recognized by college football data warehouse. So at least we aren't too shady on claiming obscure titles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in…
interesting that Notre Dame has more recognized titles than claimed titles. That seems like an odd move on their part.
February 2nd, 2014 at 8:45 AM ^
February 2nd, 2014 at 9:25 AM ^
http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/01/got_12.html
They use their claimed titles like UM uses their most wins of all time. It would be awesome if UM added the other titles. Most people don't look past what the school claims.
February 2nd, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
February 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^
Let's just claim an NC anyway.
February 2nd, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^
I say that since the SEC over signs that any titles that teams north of the mason/dixon are earned at a rate of 1.5 to 1.
February 2nd, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
..."national" championships in FBS college football are stupid and thus considered mythical.
Even with the recent BCS and the new playoff, it's still going to be a "mythical' championship because the NCAA is not signing off on it.
Until the day that there is a level playing field across all the FBS conferences (with respect to scheduling, oversigning, etc) and the NCAA officially awards a title, then there is really no point in celebrating any of these "mythical" titles. And as long as we keep talking about national championships then the only thing we are accomplishing is to legitimize the current system which basically rewards those who game it, i.e., the SEC.
Frankly, I'd rather have half a Big Ten championship than a dozen "national" championships because to win the Big Ten is a reflection of play on the field under an agreed upon set of rules whereas these "national" championships are often a result of off-field politicking.