mattnascone@collegesportsmatchups.com
chrisrushing@collegesportsmatchups.com
Welcome to one of CollegeSportsMatchups.com’s newest features: He said, he said. Throughout the course of the fall, the staff writers will take issues in the college athletics realm and offer opposing viewpoints on the subject matter. Comment below and let us know where we were right (and wrong).
Today’s topic is centered on the Football Writers of America Association’s recent admittance that a movement is in place to reward Auburn University a retroactive national championship should the University of Southern California lose its appeal with the NCAA. Chris Rushing and Matt Nascone stand on differing sides of this revelation as to whether Auburn should or should not accept and claim this national title.
Rushing: Of course you claim it. FWAA is one of the top three or four organizations that award the national championship each season, and their trophy is every bit as legitimate as the Associated Press, Bowl Championship Series, New York Times, etc. I could understand if it were another People’s Choice award such as the one the Tigers earned following the 2004 campaign, but retroactive or not, it’s as legit as anything else that awards a trophy to a champion that doesn’t always earn that title on the battlefield.
Nascone: How do you accept a trophy from a season that has six years of dust on it? The answer is you do not. Auburn will take the national championship if the FWAA gives it to them, but why would Auburn fans want a national championship that they did not earn? The FWAA is a legitimate organization, but how many times have you ever heard about that poll?
Nothing against the organization, but it is not one of the widely recognized “National Champion” tags people brag about. Whenever researching recent history, there is not much mention about the FWAA poll. Auburn fans may lose the right to debate the number of national championships state rival Alabama has if this national championship is awarded and the Tigers take it.
Rushing: What do you mean Auburn did not earn the title? When the NCAA ruling stands against USC (and it will), that will leave only AU as an undefeated BCS team. Yes, USC has to vacate its win over Oklahoma, but Oklahoma does not get to vacate that loss. The final records: Auburn 13-0, Oklahoma 12-1. End of story.
If you go to the Bryant Museum, I can assure you there is a FWAA trophy alongside the BCS Dr. Pepper crystal football and Associated Press trophy. Same thing at LSU, Ohio State, Florida – any of the BCS winners.
Did not earn? That’s absurd, Nascone.
Nascone: And wouldn't Auburn fans want to be the one group of fans that does not claim a trophy handed to them in some way or fashion? There are all kinds of arguments that point to Auburn being the best team if USC is taken out of the picture, but why would Auburn fans want to be “given” a national title?
In all actuality there should be no “National Champion” designated for that year since the NCAA does not recognize a champion in college football. Since the team that won the game that was designated the national championship game had to vacate that win, there should simply be no winner.
This argument could go on for a very long time because there is no budging on either side, so I will give you the last word, Rushing....after I tell you that there are eight instances where Auburn has been awarded some form of “National Championship,” but the program only recognizes the 1957 title bestowed by the AP poll.
Rushing: I don’t see how you can call it being “given” a national championship. When the dust settled, Auburn did everything that was asked of it by winning every game it played. No other BCS school can say the same when USC is forced to vacate all 13 wins because of the sanctions. Oklahoma and Southern Cal did not combine to beat the number of top-10 teams (four) that Auburn defeated and the five teams with at least nine wins was an NCAA record.
The Auburn football media guide recognizes all of the instances in the year-by-year historical records. The only banner flying above Jordan-Hare Stadium claiming a national championship is the 1957 AP title – that is correct. However, it was also the only universally recognized outlet that AU deemed worthy enough to claim. The FWAA would fall into the same category, whether you’d like to admit it or not.
So there you go, folks. We have had a good back-and-forth on this between the two of us, but we’d like to know your thoughts, comments, etc. Shoot us an e-mail or register/log in and leave your opinions below.
Comments (1)
"No other BCS school can say the same when USC is forced to vacate all 13 wins because of the sanctions."
USC only vacated the 2004 UCLA game and the 2005 BCS title game for that season." They finished technically 11-0. It was the 2005 season where they vacated all games.
A statement like this would have been more accurate.
No other non sanctioned BCS conference school finished undefeated.
Now onto some other arguments.
The FWAA is not the BCS. They are an independent entity and thus are not bound by the rules in place for the BCS title. Just like the AP in 2003 awarded their title to USC instead of LSU, the FWAA can award their title to whoever they choose. Playing in the BCS title game is not a prerequisite for their organization. So when people say Auburn didn't earn it on the field, they're just full of hot air and misapplying one set of rules to a different organization.
Auburn went 13-0 and beat more ranked teams during the course of the regular season than both OU and USC. Auburn beat more 10 win or 9 win teams however you choose to look at it than OU and USC. So saying Auburn didn't earn it on the field is just not an educated response.
Auburn won every game they played in ON THE FIELD and as such deserved at the bare minimum a split for that year in the first place. But now that USC has been caught cheating they deserve every trophy from that year.
OU finished with an inferior record to Auburn as well as lower in all legit polls. Furthermore, going back now and recalculating BCS averages after all games, Auburn, not USC or OU, has the highest BCS average for that year. USC is not eligible for the BCs that year due to sanctions so they are out of the standings. OU falls behind Auburn in the recalculation due to the hit in the computer polls from the loss and the hit in the human polls for being ranked behind Auburn.
SEC Notes and News
He said, he said: Auburn’s claim to college football's 2004 national title
Matt Nascone, Chris Rushing
7/30/2010