Auburn may take USC's 2004 national championship.

[SacFalcFan]

Article

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

How utterly meaningless.

[KeepItDownHomeCuz]

Agreed it is incredibly meaningless IMO if they do give it AU the University will not officially recognize it

[Falconsfan567]

Agreed it is incredibly meaningless IMO if they do give it AU the University will not officially recognize it

Yes it would be meaningless to award Auburn the title 6 years after they earned it. I mean how can us Auburn fans celebrate that? We can't.

[Atlanta_Dawgs46]

Honestly, the NCAA should not announce a winner for the Heisman or National Championship to anyone in 2004. There will be no way they can play a championship game again. It is pointless to assign the Heisman Trophy to another player.

[CrimsonFalcon]

Auburn just as well take it, because they aren't going to see one anytime soon...

OK, now that I got the Bama fan line out. I wouldn't be surprised if USC keeps the title, mainly because they've been the NCAA's "Golden Boys" for the last 7 years. As far as Auburn recognizing the title, I agree that the Univeristy probably won't.

[CrimsonKat]

Auburn just as well take it, because they aren't going to see one anytime soon...

OK, now that I got the Bama fan line out. I wouldn't be surprised if USC keeps the title, mainly because they've been the NCAA's "Golden Boys" for the last 7 years. As far as Auburn recognizing the title, I agree that the Univeristy probably won't.

Well, the University may not recognize it but I know Auburn players got National Championship rings in 2004, had a National Championship parade, etc.

I think it is impossible to assign the title at this juncture to Auburn or Oklahoma really -- Oklahoma will be undefeated also (having went into the Title Game, which is now vacated, as the #2 overall team) and it is impossible to know whether USC (with an ineligible player) would have also beaten Auburn soundly. I think USC had beaten Auburn the two years prior with many of the same players -- of course, that means nothing in 2004.

I can see the argument for both teams (Oklahoma and Auburn). Basically, I think USC just messed it up for everybody and it should have been Oklahoma and Auburn in the Championship Game. That stinks for both teams and for college football in general.

[tjb]

Honestly, the NCAA should not announce a winner for the Heisman or National Championship to anyone in 2004. There will be no way they can play a championship game again. It is pointless to assign the Heisman Trophy to another player.

I agree. It sucks for AU, I feel like they should have at least had a shot to play USC for the game. Problem is, we'll never know who would have won since they didn't play. And to just award someone the championship by default, actually kinda seems like a slap in the face to AU. Like, "Sorry we screwed you 6 years ago... Hope this helps..". It's been 6 years, time to move on. Most AU fans I know have, even though it still sucks. I say if they do decide to strip USC of the title or Bush of the Heisman, just leave things be and either say there was no champion/heisman that year or put an * next to it.

[Carter]

Take it away from USC and leave it at that.

Auburn getting credit for it NOW is completely meaningless. And no one will remember it as a championship they earned, but one they got because USC shouldn't have been in the game when it actually happened.

[Xnex]

I disagree with people who say that Auburn wouldn't recognize the championship. They wouldn't do it now, but in about 50 years when Auburn fans are on a message board somewhere and they're arguing like he77 with some other fan, they will almost certainly include the 2004 National Championship as a way to prove Auburn's greatness. And eventually the Auburn atheletic department would begin to include the national championship on the media material they produced each year.

And I wouldn't blame either party in either situation. Gotta use all the bullets in your gun when you're talking about your program. I've even seen some fans on here argue about who REALLY WON a national championship in football several decades ago. I can't remember if it was a UGA fan or a GT fan, but it happened.

[youngbloodz]

Doesn't matter. USC was the best team in 2004. Auburn had a chance to beat the the year before in Auburn. And got smoked.

[Carter]

Doesn't matter. USC was the best team in 2004. Auburn had a chance to beat the the year before in Auburn. And got smoked.

That point is moot. USC and Auburn weren't playing for the 2004 title in 2003.

USC played the whole 2004 season with an ineligible player that made major contributions, resulting in a national title win. The title game should have been Oklahoma vs Auburn in light of these facts.

[SacFalcFan]

That point is moot. USC and Auburn weren't playing for the 2004 title in 2003.

USC played the whole 2004 season with an ineligible player that made major contributions, resulting in a national title win. The title game should have been Oklahoma vs Auburn in light of these facts.

yep.. usc didn't deserve to be in the title game and wouldn't have been without reggie bush.

[youngbloodz]

That point is moot. USC and Auburn weren't playing for the 2004 title in 2003.

USC played the whole 2004 season with an ineligible player that made major contributions, resulting in a national title win. The title game should have been Oklahoma vs Auburn in light of these facts.

The entire point is moot. Because the AP isn't changing its vote. And even if the BCS takes away the title, they won't award it to Auburn. And it still doesn't change the fact that USC was the best team in 2004. It doesn't matter

[Carter]

The entire point is moot. Because the AP isn't changing its vote. And even if the BCS takes away the title, they won't award it to Auburn. And it still doesn't change the fact that USC was the best team in 2004. It doesn't matter

Well in any case, we'll agree that it doesn't really matter. :ph34r:

[Mr. Hoopah!]

The entire point is moot. Because the AP isn't changing its vote. And even if the BCS takes away the title, they won't award it to Auburn. And it still doesn't change the fact that USC was the best team in 2004. It doesn't matter

I won't make the assertion that Auburn would have beaten them, but we could have given them a run for their money. That was such a fun year of Auburn football, my freshman year there.

[youngbloodz]

I won't make the assertion that Auburn would have beaten them, but we could have given them a run for their money. That was such a fun year of Auburn football, my freshman year there.

They would have gave them a better game than Oklahoma. I think we can all agree with that

[Mr. Hoopah!]

They would have gave them a better game than Oklahoma. I think we can all agree with that

Most definitely.

[SacFalcFan]

one thing most should agree on is calling usc the best team in 2004 is not a fact at all.. okay well i can agree on it .. no one should call them that because without reggie bush they aren't the same team which is the entire point of this. let me say this again because it's missed by many above usc WITHOUT reggie bush is not the same team that won the title. you don't lose the heisman winner who was ineligible to play that season and be the same team. he was the catalyst behind a lot of what they did that year. now that I am finished with that Auburn was the best team that year with usc without reggie bush (and i hate auburn) and don't give me the year before nonsense.. auburn the year before was not close to the same team in 2004..

[Carter]

I don't know Sac... that's tough. USC still had a ton of guys on that team besides Reggie Bush. I mean Leinart did win the Heisman, too... and I don't think there was a single skill position player that didn't get drafted. Most of the o-line as well.

A lot of people thought LenDale White was the better back anyways... but Reggie was magic when he got anything resembling an open look.

[Falconsfan567]

Nobody knows what would have happened had Auburn gotten their shot at USC in 2004. Sure we got shutout against them in 2003 but we nearly beat them in 2002 on their own field. Sure Auburn had basically the same team from 2003 to 2004 but none of that would have mattered going into that game.

It's just something us Auburn fans have to live with. We went undefeated in 2004 and all we've got to show for it is a #2 final ranking and a Suger Bowl win over VT.

[ramblinwreck9]

I'm all for this.. I will then be able to brag that GT beat the defending National Champions to start the 2005 football season.

[ChuyDawg]

I don't want to start any negative rumors about Auburn, nor do I have an ax to grind with the Auburn faithful. USC had an ineligible player but I don't think Auburn would be interested in an investigation of their 2004 team.

According to a guy that I have been doing business with for the last 5 years and who has become a personal friend of mine, Ronnie Brown had some academic issues while at Auburn. This buddy of mine served a small role in the Football Equipment staff. According to him, the talk going around the Auburn staff was how bad Ronnie's grades were and then suddenly he had a "B" average or something to that effect. He did say that he himself was not able to ever verify if it was fact.

Maybe nobody should be the National Champion.

[SacFalcFan]

I don't want to start any negative rumors about Auburn, nor do I have an ax to grind with the Auburn faithful. USC had an ineligible player but I don't think Auburn would be interested in an investigation of their 2004 team.

According to a guy that I have been doing business with for the last 5 years and who has become a personal friend of mine, Ronnie Brown had some academic issues while at Auburn. This buddy of mine served a small role in the Football Equipment staff. According to him, the talk going around the Auburn staff was how bad Ronnie's grades were and then suddenly he had a "B" average or something to that effect. He did say that he himself was not able to ever verify if it was fact.

Maybe nobody should be the National Champion.

my coworker was a friend of both guys and on campus and spent time with cadillac and ronnie brown and you are correct. my coworker who is a big auburn alumn told me about both guys and auburn does not want the ncaaa to look into what they were getting while on campus.

[ChuyDawg]

my coworker was a friend of both guys and on campus and spent time with cadillac and ronnie brown and you are correct. my coworker who is a big auburn alumn told me about both guys and auburn does not want the ncaaa to look into what they were getting while on campus.

I knew it wasn't just me who has heard these things. The guy I am referring to is a very credible guy, which is why I brought it up in the first place. He said the exact same thing; Auburn doesn't want anybody investigating their 2004 team. The only guy he brought up was Ronnie, he never really mentioned anything about Cadillac.