Talk:Auburn Tigers football

SEC Western Division Champions

Each Southeastern Conference division can have more than one champion in a given year. The champion moniker is given to the team or teams with the best record. The conference then uses a tiebreaking formula to determine which team goes to the SEC Championship Game.

As of 2005, Auburn has been champion of the western division six times. They have won the tiebreaker to go to the SEC Championship three times.

68.159.168.46, please stop reverting this article and the Auburn University article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

After 68.159.168.46's most recent reverting at 14:53, 6 December 2005, I'm thinking about requesting page protection for the article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What we need to do is get page protection for U of Alabama pages, Auburn pages, Iron Bowl, etc... Can't tell you how many times I've had to revert. AlaGuy 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the recent article in the NY Times on the Auburn athletes called "Top Grades and No Class Time for Auburn players." I'm also surprised that no one has mention that Auburn leads the SEC in NCAA violations. Besselfunctions 17:07, 23 August 2006

Well, I'm not that surprised. Admittedly, I wrote most of this article and was not seeking out info of the sort, but upon review, Texas, USC, Alabama, and every other program's football/athletics articles do not mention their past NCAA troubles either. Most likely fans would edit the info out anyway, to the point where we have a polar edit war going, but if you think it is necessary (and appropriate), by all means start a section to talk about the issue (include reputable reference links like NCAA.org). I doubt the validity of your claim that Auburn leads the SEC in NCAA violations. They have never had to forfeit past games for cheating (unlike several other SEC schools) and as far as I know the last NCAA violation/probation was in early 1990's (went into effect 1993) from the Eric Ramsey tape (a coach helped set up a loan). MANY other programs have had more recent indescretions with no mention so not sure why to single out Auburn on old stuff? Not to mention the lack of reputable sources for these "facts". Concerning the NY Times article, from what I read, there were no violations committed and no NCAA investigation looming. It was based on an internal memo whistleblowing by an AU professor complaining of the overcrowding of classes (Auburn has grown attendance rapidly with little/no increased faculty).[1] On top of that, only about 10% of the students taking that "directed-reading" class in question (only for seniors needing a few hours to graduate on time where other classes were full) were athletes (let alone football players). So if anything that is an indictment on the rapid growth (and perhaps questionable academic practices for those overcrowded majors) of AU recently and not necessarily the football program per se. The AP reported weeks ago that an internal investigation had cleared all the athletic programs - that is the last I've heard of it.[2] Again, I have no association to Auburn other than living in the state, but that is how I see it. I welcome other non-biased opinions. otduff (talk/contribs) 21:00, 25 August 2006

I'm bias towards Bama, but, I'm gonna offer and unbias opinion. I don't think that the info has to be on there about the bad stuff. It would start an editing war, but, that's not why I don't think it needs to be there. But, like you said, if someone wants to start a section and take care of it, more power to'm. AlaGuy 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also biased toward Bama, and I have to agree. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news agancy. If any action is taken against the university, then perhaps it would warrent addition to the article, but until then all we have is a newpaper article. Even if action is taken against the university, it would be for acedemic reasons and not athletic and any mention would belong on the main article for the univeristy and not its football page.76.18.100.128 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I admit my UGA bias, it seems like Auburn is the only college football team that doesn't have a Controversy section. In fact, most teams have just about every individual scandal or violation in the history of the program. (I don't know who could have possibly remembered the Jan Kemp scandal to put it on the UGA page.) The NY Times story was pretty highly publicized, so I don't see why it doesn't belong on the page. User:Saget53 18:37, 4 January 2007 {UTC)

Well, on the Bama article it talks about the probatoin. Why not include just a small bit, I guess. Might as well. Putting Bama out of my mind though, maybe we shouldn't try and make Auburn look like there's NOTHING bad about it. Everything there isn't good, same goes for every other university in the world. AlaGuy 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saget, you do overstate the case when you say "only college football team that doesn't have a Controversy section" when a quick look at just the SEC reveals LSU, Tennessee (Tutorgate?) and Florida (Charlie Pell anyone?) without a single negative word in their football articles. Plenty of people remember Jan Kemp (myself included), a scandal that was far more significant than the NYTimes article - your implied comparison of the situations smacks of recentism. Generally speaking though, the UGA article is more thorough than this and most other team articles; almost of the team articles suffer from a positive bias because they are usually created and maintained by alums and fans, who are naturally more inclined to write about the good rather than the bad. I personally work hard to maintain an NPOV even on articles where I have inherent or apparent bias (e.g. I've kept references to Dye's probation from being removed from his article) so I'm fine with adding appropriate information on major violations like that in the UGA article and even a small comment on the NYTimes article (you'll find I crafted an appropriate version on the Carnell Williams page because was trying to use it negatively against him). I'll even do it, but it goes on my To Do list with a bunch of other items. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm pretty surprised to see just how few teams actually have controversy sections. Either I'm the only UGA fan on Wikipedia, or UGA fans are the only ones that don't constantly delete anything negative about their team or their players. I say that because I have tried before finding this discussion to write Controversy sections on this page as well as Cadillac Williams' page, both of which were quickly deleted (It wasn't the section you say you improved FWIW. My interpretation of the story was very relatively unbiased, but it was completely taken down). I noticed that you put a controversy section on Williams and I'm surprised its not down by now. And as far as my recent post goes, I remember Jan Kemp, but before going to the UGA page, I had visited this page and the UF page and noticed not a single bit of controversy. I didn't expect an incident so long ago to be on the page. User:Saget53 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe, though, that it's up to us to try and fix other fans' problems with admitting that their schools have been wrong a few times. Why not go ahead and add the junk, people will look at Auburn with a better light if they know that they've been under probation, but have done MUCH better as of late. AlaGuy 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but thought I'd weigh in. The NY Times issue was resolved and was a problem within the sociology department and was blown out of proportion to the number of students who were athletes involved, as said above. The probations in the 1957 and 1993 seasons in my opinion bare mentioning in the National Champions sections, as those probations effected what polls could vote for Auburn and bowl selections. If I did not know the situation, I would wonder why the 1993 team especially was not a consensus national champ. AUburnTiger 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old discussion but I'm going to chime back in also. I agree with you on the 57 and 93 seasons. I think we should create a season page for those years and include a detailed account of both probationsam in lieu of putting the info into this article (except a short sentence with link to season article). The problem I have is lack of info - in particle quality links. From what I heard, there was a recruiting violation in 57 that prohibited us from playing in a bowl game but did not eliminate AU from the polls (hence the claim to the AP title) but were 'punished by the coaches' for the scandal (which also took them out of the 58 title hunt). As for 93, what I know I said above. I have tried to find links but since both events are very old, it is difficult to find sources. Perhaps someone could work this together because those criticisms are valid per the discussion of auburn football - and in particular auburn's claims to any national championships. otduff (talk/contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

USC's potential forfeiture of 2004 BCS Championship

This section needs to be deleted for several reasons. 1) The source link is dead. 2) The information contained in this paragraph concerns the USC football program, not Auburn's program. 3) Even if USC were forced to forfeit all games in which Reggie Bush played, it would mean that Oklahoma would be given credit for winning the BCS championship game, and therefore Oklahoma would be BCS national champions. So while the forfeiture MIGHT give Auburn a larger claim to the 2004 title, it would not ACTUALLY give them the title, and therefore this would be opinion, not fact. CH52584 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is long since removed but I just noticed this on the talk page. Anyway, at the time the article that was linked actually discussed Auburn as becoming the new BCS champion. It quoted some BCS representative who said they were discussing what would happen if Bush was in violation and USC had to forfeit the games. In the scenario the writer laid out, they said Auburn would be named the new #1 by the BCS (of the course the AP and everybody else are free to do what they want and were NOT discussed in the article). Anyway, I agree more with your argument, however, that it might give Auburn more of a claim but will not rewrite history. I personally don't think they are actually going to penalize USC because of the controversy that would ensue. It seems everybody wants to sweep that evidence under the rug...which is ironic considering Auburn's national championship history (see above). otduff (talk/contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Auburn as the "most successful" SEC west team since the conference realignment

You need to clarify in the article what you mean by this. Alabama has been to the SEC Championship Game more times than Auburn, and Alabama and LSU have both won more SEC Championships than Auburn since 1992. If you mean Auburn has the best SEC record, then state it (Also, I would not say that that makes them Auburn the "most successful" SEC west team). CH52584 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I clarified for you to explain that Auburn has the highest winning percentage in SEC league play since the divisional realignment. I thought it was obvious since that section was discussion winning percentage within the SEC but hopefully the minor change I made clarified so this isn't questioned again. Of course, if you checked the source link it should have been obvious and you could have made the change instead of removing it completely. Hopefully this is no longer considered vague - if it is, post here as to what change you would make as I don't really know how to re-word beyond this. --otduff ^t/_c 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A new section for Freshman All-Americans?

Rivals.com has just put out their 2007 Freshman All-American team. Lee Ziemba and Ryan Shoemaker were on the first team, and Zac Etheridge made the second team. Is that the kind of thing that deserves a spot on the main football page, or should it just go on the 2007 season page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.201.14 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AuburnTigers.png

The image Image:AuburnTigers.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All-time record vs. Current SEC teams

Opponent	Won	Loss	Tied	Percentage
Alabama	34	41	1	.453
Arkansas	11	10	1	.524
Florida	43	38	0	.531
Georgia	54	53	8	.505
Kentucky	25	6	1	.806
LSU	20	26	1	.435
Miss. St.	60	24	2	.714
Ole Miss	27	10	0	.730
South Carolina	9	1	1	.900
Tennessee	27	21	3	.563
Vanderbilt	20	20	1	.500
Totals	330	248	19	.571

Nav box standardization

A discussion of a rigid standardization of football team nav box templates is being discussed at College football Wikiproject. Editors pursuing this standardization have already significantly altered the Auburn football navbox, and you may wish to review those changes and add your input. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Auburn Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Modern History

I am not sure what the author was going for, so I did not attempt to correct it, but this sentence in the Modern History section seems unwieldy.

"The Tigers seem to perform best when facing their greatest challenge as, in addition to the success on the road in the SEC, Auburn teams have won 12 of their last 23 matchups versus top-10 opponents." El Heuro (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the NCAA's recognition of Auburn's National Championships

According to the opening lead, "Auburn has been recognized with 5 national championships by the NCAA." Doesn't the NCAA only recognize two Auburn national titles, 1957 and 2010? http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs --Southronite (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The NCAA does not officially recognize national titles, but they do document the rankings from several major selectors. Since Auburn is only credited with 5 national titles from said selectors, and only officially claims 2 titles, the banner should not be changed to reflect 'unclaimed titles' outside of 1913, 1983, 1993, and or claimed titles by Auburn outside the 1957, and 2010 titles. Since the NCAA doesn't officially recognize national titles in FBS language shouldn't be used that suggests that they do.

This link shows Auburn's CLAIMED National Titles. They are 1957, and 2010, AND THAT IS IT. Please stop vandalizing and or improper editing of this site claiming additional 'claimed titles' from Auburn University or 'unclaimed titles' from NCAA documented selectors. Auburn has 'claimed titles' outside of 'unclaimed titles,' just like every other program, which is why the distinction exists in the first place. In any case, there are only five national titles credited to Auburn by NCAA documented selectors, listing outside of this scope of five in is not encyclopedic, and rather disingenuous. I'm troubled also that some of those making changes are Auburn fans as identified by their ID name. Why would you want to inflate Auburn's history? Let's live the Auburn Creed of Honesty and Truthfulness and make sure all stated references are CORRECT. Recently Auburn released a chance to their website showing results from NCAA recognized selectors. This does NOT mean that Auburn is outright officially claiming these titles. Auburn has documented these titles in the Auburn media guide for decades without outright officially claiming them. Please add information and let's discuss this on the talk page if you think I'm wrong before making changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally, the Wikipedia free-for-all over this issue will come to an end within the next month according to this article. The years up for consideration include 1910, 1913, 1914, 1983, 1993, and 2004. While the NCAA only lists 3 of these candidate years (as stated and cited previously), each of the other years have received recognition from at least one minor selector outside of the NCAA record book's list of 'major selectors'. I might also add that the 2004 team was left out of Auburn's recent website update because it did not fit the 'NCAA-recognized' mold, even though they have been listed as 'national champions' in AU media guides since 2005 (along with 1913, 1983, and 1993). Ultimately, this issue will soon be taken out of the hands of faceless beings behind a screen and placed with people who have an honest interest in the legacy and history of Auburn football.

It would seem that Auburn University is still internally researching this topic, and yet to announce any changes. In the meantime, I think it would be consistent with other college football wiki pages to only cite national titles (claimed and or unclaimed) cited from the NCAA College Football Warehouse Database. Other titles are dubious and unencyclopedic. Granted, the university has decided to research 'titles' outside of that criteria, this should shouldn't lend those seasons any special credence as the university is free to claim any season as a national championship season. This wiki page should serve to give a broader more encyclopedic view. I think it's in this page's best interest to leave the title count at 2 claimed, and 3 additional unclaimed until the university closes their research on the topic.

Please cite references to 'minor selector' for seasons outside the five mentioned above. Examples include 1910, 1914, or 1958. These were great seasons for the Tigers for sure, but I can't find any reference to a national title for those seasons anywhere.

Team integration

Shouldn't the article contain information on when the team integrated?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Auburn Tigers football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131121023755/http://www.collegefootball.bz:80/auburn/opponents/mississippi-state to http://www.collegefootball.bz/auburn/opponents/mississippi-state
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071209131033/http://www.heisman.com:80/winners/hsmn-winners.html#winners-year to http://www.heisman.com/winners/hsmn-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Auburn Tigers football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121208052810/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/12/04/gus-malzahn-auburn/? to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/12/04/gus-malzahn-auburn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auburn Tigers football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110124121033/http://fs.ncaa.org:80/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2010/2010FBS.pdf to http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2010/2010FBS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

early names

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Auburn Tigers in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclaimed National Titles

Where do 1910, 1914, 1958, and 2004 come from? The only unclaimed years in the NCAA FBS records book are 1913, 1983, and 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.0.30 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for ceasing your WP:DE. The NCAA Record Book is irrelevant for determining unclaimed championships, as you know from reading your Talk page. Searching the article history shows some context for the language, here re 1910 - Maxwell Ratings, 1914 - Howell Ratings, 1958 - Montgomery Ratings, and and via 2004 Auburn Tigers football team for 2004 - People's National Champions and [2] GBE College Football Ratings.

I have tagged the content as Template:CN and similar to determine if these can be sourced, or if they should be removed. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel that the NCAA records book is irrelevant for determining unclaimed championships? Every program's claim is based off of that (even Alabama's 1941). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.0.30 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Read pg 107. It's an arbitrary list of selectors. A school can claim or not claim an awarded championship from any selector. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Auburn Tigers football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828063314/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108223720/http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215223026/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/auburn/yearly_totals.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/auburn/yearly_totals.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2010/2010FBS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

c. newton

cam newton played for florida and some junior college so it's not exactly true that auburn produced him. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Natty champ banners

When Auburn "claims" the 1913, 1983 and 1993 championships, are they putting up banners for them, or just mentioning them in media guides and web pages? If they don't put up signs, I believe the MO is to not treat them as claimed. @PK-WIKI Somarain (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Auburn claimed National Championships: 2 vs. 5

There have recently been a flurry of edits on this page changing the claimed national championships from 2 to 5. There is a rumor sweeping blogs and twitter that the university has officially claimed the 3 additional years on their Auburn Football Tradition and History web page.

The reality is that that webpage has been online in the same form since 2018 and is is no way a recent change to Auburn's claims. The 5 championship years still are always clearly attributed as sourced from the NCAA book:

The NCAA Record Book lists Auburn as National Champions in 2010, 1993, 1983, 1957 and 1913.

2010 | 1993 | 1983 | 1957 | 1913 (Source: NCAA Record Book)

Meanwhile, the athletic department constructed and maintains a giant sign on the side of Jordan-Hare Stadium, visible to the 88,043 fans attending each game:

Auburn Tigers
National Champions
1957 2010

This prominent display of the the 1957 AP Poll and 2010 BCS titles, and exclusion of the 1993, 1983, 1913 (as well as 1910 and 2004) titles, is the cited proof that Auburn University continues to claim only 1957 and 2010.

This issue was also previously discussed here:

• Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2018#Auburn's 'claims'
• Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2016#Auburn claims

If anyone has any additional details to add, please discuss them here. Please do not update this page's stable "claim" count until/unless the sign changes or additional citations are added.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting blog post discussion that Pat Dye and Auburn did claim the 1983 national championship immediately after the season.

• https://www.thewareaglereader.com/2017/01/pat-dye-claimed-the-national-title-for-auburn-in-1983-said-his-team-would-would-wear-new-york-times-national-championship-rings/

Does not change anything about the current Auburn claim on their stadium sign, but good contemporary evidence and discussion.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

1910 national championship

The 1996 NCAA record book has Billingsley selecting Auburn for the 1910 natty but not 1913. Billingsley later modified his formula as explained in the article. Each later version of Billingsley champions has Auburn selected for the 1913 natty but not 1910, as shown in the current NCAA record book. It seems a bit off to me to include 1910 based on the original formula, which neither the NCAA nor Auburn acknowledge (even in Auburn media, which do acknowledge 1913, 1983 and 1993 in some cases). Thoughts? Somarain (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)