Online Now 1281

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

Online now 1306
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Reply

Charles Robinson from Yahoo on who could be investigated next.

  • AuburnUndercover

    CptAUmerica21

    jadennis said... (original post)

    Here are the programs I consider HISTORICALLY to be above Auburn's in the pecking order (no particular order)....

    Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Penn State, and just barely, Tennessee.

    In more recent history (last 25+ years), Florida, Florida State, and Miami have all crept up into that crowd, although Auburn holds a head-to-head lead with all three of them (42-38-2 vs UF, 13-4-1 vs FSU, and 7-4 vs Miami).

    You are included in that HISTORICAL list of blue blood programs that are unquestionably ahead of Auburn.

    But just like Notre Dame, the success that your "blue blood" status was built on has long since passed. It's been since Bear Bryant retired that Alabama and Auburn have been essentially identical. Do you realize that he's been gone longer than he was there? It's been 30 years now since you consistently dominated college football. It's not like you've had a few down years or one bad coaching tenure and I'm jumping to conclusions. It has been an entire generation now that Auburn and Alabama have been on equal ground on the football field.

    That's why, in the list you gave, anyone that knows what they are talking about, and doesn't live by perception and assumption, understands that the only edge you have is a larger fan base and a better overall history. That's it. Facilities, coaching staff, resources, etc...it's all a wash and at best anyone's opinion.

    And for you and everyone else that wants to put your head in the sand and pretend the last 30 years hasn't been equal in nearly every way imaginable, here are some actual numbers. Don't just roll your eyes and skip to the end, take time to actually read it all.

    National Titles since 1981
    Auburn: 1 (2010)
    Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

    SEC Titles since 1981
    Auburn: 6 (1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2004, 2010)
    Alabama: 5 (1981, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2009)

    Undefeated Seasons
    Auburn: 3 (1993, 2004, 2010)
    Alabama: 2 (1992, 2009)

    Iron Bowl Wins
    Auburn: 17 (1982, 1983 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)
    Alabama: 13 (1981, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009)

    Wins since 1981
    Auburn: 254 (11 nationally)
    Alabama: 226 (22nd nationally)

    SEC Wins Since 1981
    Auburn: 141
    Alabama: 129

    Bowls Since 1981
    Auburn: 22 (15-6-1)
    Alabama: 19 (12-7)

    Heisman Trophy Winners since 1981
    Auburn: 2
    Alabama: 1

    NCAA Probations since 1981
    Auburn: 1
    Alabama: 3

    Top 25 Appearances in final poll:

    1. 21 : Florida
    2. 19 : Auburn
    2. 19 : Georgia
    2. 19 : Tennessee
    5. 17 : Alabama
    6. 17 : LSU

    Top 15 Appearances in final poll:

    1. 20 : Florida
    2. 16 : Alabama
    2. 16 : Auburn
    2. 16 : Tennessee
    5. 14 : Georgia
    6. 12 : LSU

    Top 10 Appearances in the final poll:

    1. 16 : Florida
    2. 11 : Alabama
    3. 10 : Auburn
    4. 9 : Tennessee
    5. 8 : Georgia
    5. 8 : LSU

    Top 5 Appearances in the final poll:

    1. 11 : Florida
    2. 5 : Tennessee
    3. 4: Alabama
    3. 4 : Auburn
    3. 4 : Georgia
    3. 4 : LSU

    I know that all of the above information doesn't suddenly mean Auburn joins Alabama on the list of blue bloods, contrary to what you think, I'm not actually delusional.

    Auburn is #13 on the all-time wins list and is one of only 10 programs that have 700+ wins and 20+ bowl wins. I know who we are....and I know who we're not.

    But after 30 years, the bragging rights of Alabama as "superior" have essentially been revoked. You can only live on the "history" of a certain part of the past for so long before it becomes a smaller part of the larger history. You haven't adjusted.

    That's why the arrogance that RIGHTLY thrived in the 60s and 70s looks like ignorance today, in 2011. I know who Auburn is and who Alabama is.

    Here's a question that I would interested to know your answer to. How do you view Florida, historically? Above you? Below you? Equal to you? Give me your answer and then explain why....just for good off-season football discussion.

    That is good info and actually not that biased as I thought it would be. You will probably get, "why can't you start at 1925?" Fact is, people in the south value the past more than any other area of this country. We value tradition and family values passed down for generations. The problem with the post is that people in Alabama and Mississippi are at the zenith of this mindset. Facts don't change what your fathers instilled in your mind as children. Its funny because I have friends at UAT and they are the worst. They were born almost ten years after Bear Bryant's death, yet they still firmly believe 'Bama has a death grip on college football... which most people outside the state know is most certainly not true. However, the modern student at UAT is the perfect example of my point about what dad used to tell me about Auburn and Bama.

    signature image signature image signature image

    @rpayne2107

  • BamaOnLine

    DrStache

    I don't think it is Alabama but if it is the NCAA will absolutely hammer us. Probably cripple us because we are currently on probation. It would be devastating but I'm not concerned at this point.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • BamaOnLine

    Grand Slam

    kitemac said... (original post)

    No. That is called selecting time frames that best fit your agenda. To hell with 1925. Let's just put the 70's in there.

    Exactly. It's pathetic. Of course, the guy that posted it is the only true believer I"ve seen on this site so far, so I'm not shocked. Hopefully, none of ours will make it over for a while.

    signature image

    !!!

  • kitemac said... (original post)

    That is good info and actually not that biased as I thought it would be. You will probably get, "why can't you start at 1925?" Fact is, people in the south value the past more than any other area of this country. We value tradition and family values passed down for generations. The problem with the post is that people in Alabama and Mississippi are at the zenith of this mindset. Facts don't change what your fathers instilled in your mind as children. Its funny because I have friends at UAT and they are the worst. They were born almost ten years after Bear Bryant's death, yet they still firmly believe 'Bama has a death grip on college football... which most people outside the state know is most certainly not true. However, the modern student at UAT is the perfect example of my point about what dad used to tell me about Auburn and Bama.

    Great points. As for starting at 1925, there really is no point. I concede that Alabama has the superior overall football history, it would be idiotic to do otherwise. Bear Bryant dominated the sport and the SEC for around 25 years, that's a fact. And he didn't just dominate Auburn, he dominated the entire SEC. In fact, Auburn's winning % against Alabama during his 25 years is the highest of any SEC program....so at least we put up a decent fight. Regardless, we were still dominated.

    However, that 25 years is no excuse for ignoring the 30 years that have passed since then. I spend a lot of time on Auburn boards shooting down 'black helicopter" theories from our own fans. I don't even think we were screwed in 2004, and I defend that position against other Auburn fans all the time. I consider myself a reasonable fan of college football in general, not just Auburn. But when it comes to Alabama fans acting like the Saban years started the day after Bryant retired....I have a hard time just rolling with it, because it simply isn't true.

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • AuburnUndercover

    CptAUmerica21

    kitemac said... (original post)

    No. That is called selecting time frames that best fit your agenda. To hell with 1925. Let's just put the 70's in there.

    That was one of my points! I know I singled out bama, but that really wasn't my intention.

    signature image signature image signature image

    @rpayne2107

  • Grand Slam said... (original post)

    Exactly. It's pathetic. Of course, the guy that posted it is the only true believer I"ve seen on this site so far, so I'm not shocked. Hopefully, none of ours will make it over for a while.

    Are you guys seriously this stubborn and proud?

    What am I a true believer of? That Alabama's football history is superior to Auburn's, but for the last 30 years they have been equal. Of no, we have a believer of reality here folks, first one on this site I guess.

    I'm showing that time frame because it's the time frame you refuse to observe. I'm using that time frame because it's the THAT time frame I'm discussing.

    I conceded multiple times that historically Alabama is above and beyond Auburn. Bear Bryant had a 25 year run that sealed the deal. Auburn was 12-9-1 vs Alabama before Bear Bryant, and is 16-12 since Bear Bryant. But the Bryant years dominated all of college football (well, except Notre Dame and Texas, who he was 0-7-1 against).

    I can easily say Alabama's entire history is superior to Auburn's. No problem. I don't hesitate or stutter.

    I can also say that for 30 years, three consecutive full decades, the programs have been equals.

    Can you bring yourself to admit that?

    Can you look at the last generation of football seasons and say the two programs are equal? Is it really that humiliating?

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • kitemac said... (original post)

    No. That is called selecting time frames that best fit your agenda. To hell with 1925. Let's just put the 70's in there.

    The point is that for the last 30 years the programs have been equal.

    How else do you make that point except to show the numbers FROM THE LAST 30 YEARS? It's pretty straight forward.

    I'm not hiding my agenda....have you actually read the posts? Selecting THAT time frame is specifically my whole point, which I admitted the whole time. I'm not trying to trick anyone.

    If it makes you feel better I can post numbers from other time frames that prove how superior Alabama was during different times. I have no problem acknowledging those time periods.

    Here....the last 30 years, and the 30 years before that.

    Alabama vs Auburn
    1951 to 1980 - 21-9
    1981 to 2011 - 13-17

    SEC titles 1951 to 1980
    Alabama - 13
    Auburn - 1

    SEC titles 1981 to 2011
    Alabama - 5
    Auburn - 6

    Bowl wins 1951 - 1980
    Alabama - 12 (12-10-2)
    Auburn - 5 (5-7)

    Bowl wins 1981-2011
    Alabama - 12 (12-7)
    Auburn - 15 (15-6-1)

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • 247Sports

    kitemac

    Wow way to turn this thread to crap.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • kitemac said... (original post)

    I don't have a problem with saying Auburn is a very good football program. You are the current National Champions. Won it on the field. Who doesn't respect that? I went to a bunch of Alabama football games during my youth in the 70's. We were at our all time best then. The time frame you have chosen to use(You are not the 1st to use that btw) omits that. It is an agenda driven time frame. Do you think 30 years has more value than say... 40 years? 35 years? Where did the arbitrary 30 come from?

    It's the natural response to Alabama fans that are as arrogant and condescending in 2011 as they were in the 60s or 70s, a time when they EARNED the right to be that way.

    If we were to have a conversation about football programs in 1980, Alabama and Auburn wouldn't even be the same discussion. The list Grand Slam gave was not open for debate, Alabama was so far ahead in almost every topic you could pick....facilities, financial backing, winning, recruiting, fan base, etc....and it wasn't really close at the time.

    However, for someone (Grand Slam in this case) to come out and portray things to be the same now as they were then, well, that's where I start to call BS. It's not like that now, and it's been a change that has taken place over the last 30 years. Over that time frame, Auburn has caught up on facilities, revenue, and most importantly, on-field results.

    That time frame is chosen (often) because it denotes a change in the histories of the two programs. Not only has Auburn won significantly more than we did prior to that, Alabama has won significantly less than they did prior to that. 1951 to 1980 you had 13 SEC titles. The next 30 years produced 5. Auburn had 1 SEC title from 51 to 80, and has had 6 since then.

    There is a natural point in both programs histories when things changed. And with that change has come "recent" (the last 30 years) equality in the programs. It doesn't rewrite history that led to that point, but the history that is the last 30 years is what it is.

    And in this case, agreeing on and acknowledging those facts is impossible for Grand Slam, as it is for most Alabama fans.
    If this was a case of arguing over 4 or 5 seasons, I wouldn't bother, but it's 30 years. 30 years of change for both programs and it seems only Alabama fans cease to be able to see it.

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • AuburnUndercover

    Big A

    lol I have a feeling quite a few threads may take this turn. 2 extremely passionate fan bases. That's what's great about the rivalry as long as it stays relatively civil.

  • kitemac said... (original post)

    I tried to leave it but got duped back in. My bad and agreed

    Why is it crap to have good conversation about the historical relevance of both programs.

    If it's done respectfully it's good conversation.

    If it's crap simply don't read it, which I suspect you haven't anyway.

    signature image signature image
  • BamaOnLine

    Grand Slam

    How have you caught us in facilities? Everyone with large stadiums are almost equal in revenue, but resources entail more than just revenue. Figure that out for yourself. That gap will widen even further with some of your big boosters headed for the slammer in the near future.

    Did I not say that Auburn has a very good program and always has? I thought I did. Keep on fighting the good fight. You alerted us to your ridiculous delusions early on with your REC bullshit. Congrats.

    Anyway, carry on. I'll do my best not to respond to you in the future.

    This post was edited by Grand Slam 3 years ago

    signature image

    !!!

  • Grand Slam said... (original post)

    How have you caught us in facilities? Everyone with large stadiums are almost equal in revenue, but resources entail more than just revenue. Figure that out for yourself. That gap will widen even further with some of your big boosters headed for the slammer in the near future.

    Did I not say that Auburn has a very good program and always has? I thought I did. Keep on fighting the good fight. You alerted us to your ridiculous delusions early on with your REC bullshit. Congrats.

    Anyway, carry on. I'll do my best not to respond to you in the future.

    Having a larger stadium doesn't mean you have better facilities. You made your list of how Alabama was superior and followed it with "and it's not even close". That last part is the problem. Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia....we're all relatively equal on football facilities. It's all top notch stuff. Each program may have a better weight room or player lounge or academic facility, but all in all they're on the same level..."it's not even close" is the delusion.

    And it's still so humorous how anyone that references the REC is delusional, and then you come with "your big boosters headed for the slammer". roflmao You can't even see how ironic that is. Boosters and the REC is something I usually spend about zero time posting about, because it's such a waste of time. I said way back that neither of us can vouch for the actions of hundreds of rich boosters and what they are or are not involved with. Because of that fact, discussing such things is a total waste of time.

    Aside from the fact that I mentioned the REC at all....what else has been delusional in your opinion? You have pretty much sidestepped what our conversation was about and have gone back to "REC" talk, as if that's what any of the last two pages has had anything to do with.

    So again, what has been delusional? I would love to have you correct the delusion and show me the light about how wrong I am in my assertions.

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image
  • 247Sports

    kitemac

    jadennis said... (original post)

    Why is it crap to have good conversation about the historical relevance of both programs.

    If it's done respectfully it's good conversation.

    If it's crap simply don't read it, which I suspect you haven't anyway.

    You are correct I haven't read it. Have at it though.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • BamaOnLine

    Grand Slam

    jadennis said... (original post)

    Having a larger stadium doesn't mean you have better facilities. You made your list of how Alabama was superior and followed it with "and it's not even close". That last part is the problem. Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia....we're all relatively equal on football facilities. It's all top notch stuff. Each program may have a better weight room or player lounge or academic facility, but all in all they're on the same level..."it's not even close" is the delusion.

    And it's still so humorous how anyone that references the REC is delusional, and then you come with "your big boosters headed for the slammer". roflmao You can't even see how ironic that is. Boosters and the REC is something I usually spend about zero time posting about, because it's such a waste of time. I said way back that neither of us can vouch for the actions of hundreds of rich boosters and what they are or are not involved with. Because of that fact, discussing such things is a total waste of time.

    Aside from the fact that I mentioned the REC at all....what else has been delusional in your opinion? You have pretty much sidestepped what our conversation was about and have gone back to "REC" talk, as if that's what any of the last two pages has had anything to do with.

    So again, what has been delusional? I would love to have you correct the delusion and show me the light about how wrong I am in my assertions.

    This will be the last time I respond to your dumb ass. Are you under the impression that some of your big money boosters aren't heading to the slammer? If you are, you're even dumber than I thought. Did I say that any of that had anything to do with Auburn? That's right, i didn't.

    signature image

    !!!

  • Grand Slam said... (original post)

    This will be the last time I respond to your dumb ass. Are you under the impression that some of your big money boosters aren't heading to the slammer? If you are, you're even dumber than I thought. Did I say that any of that had anything to do with Auburn? That's right, i didn't.

    And you're even more of a bammer than I anticipated.

    I'm mocking the "boosters headed to the slammer" because it's not going to "widen the gap" and cripple the program. Are you aware that one of those boosters also gave money to Alabama?

    Typical. Avoid all factual information. Never answer direct questions. And resort to "dumb ass" comments.

    I remember now why I never went to Rivals boards...too many bammers that can't have a conversation that involves logic, rational thought, respect, and well reasoned responses. Instead, you skip 95% of the information discussed to go back to a single comment about the REC, and end with "dumb ass" instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Too proud I guess? I don't know.

    This post was edited by jadennis 3 years ago

    signature image signature image