How a Rival team is affected by NCAA Sanctions
- Thread starter Widespreadz.sixpack
- Start date
No they did not. USC was the unanimous national champion for the 2004 season.
http://scorecenter.espn.go.com/college-football/rankings?year=2004&seasontype=3
http://scorecenter.espn.go.com/college-football/rankings?year=2004&seasontype=3
Last edited:
I was looking at season-by-season results and the site I was on claimed the 2004 Championship for them since USC vacated it, sucks I didn't look into it more before the embarrassment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Auburn_Tigers_football_seasons
From the same website, I'm really wondering if they claim it in some capacity?
This is a very interesting topic but it appears you completely failed at delivering.
Seriously, a look into the last 5-10 major schools with severe football sanctions and how their primary 2-3 rivals did in the following 3-5 years would be interesting data that this board would love, assuming you spell all words correctly.
Seriously, a look into the last 5-10 major schools with severe football sanctions and how their primary 2-3 rivals did in the following 3-5 years would be interesting data that this board would love, assuming you spell all words correctly.
I was just saying though that the list clearly outlines them as winning a NC in 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Auburn_Tigers_football_seasons I'm not doubting you're right I'm just genuinely interested if there is any valid reason for them to claim it on there, because the only one I can come up with is USC vacating their's in 2004.
How can you win a national championship and still finish #2 in the BCS? I know it's highlighted pink for national champions, but this is Wikipedia that we're talking about. Not even Auburn claims that they won a natty that year.
I know, the only reason I thought it was correct was that USC vacated it, but it's odd that someone highlighted it must have been a fan, who was pissed about the 2004 season.
We actually have someone that edits the posts, which spelling wasn't an issue, a vacated National Championship was. Secondly, we don't make any money off of or website nor have we tried to so how would we pay someone that is a serious editor.
Seriously^^ What is the deal with the site? I have seen MANY of us try to give them advice and yet they refuse to accept any of it.
No, you don't give advice it's a disputed NC that caused this whole argument, and one I shouldn't have even posted on here, 2. I feel like the dumbest person on the planet, 3. The only advice I ever received was that you guys made high on the English portion of the ACT, and expect quality. 4. We only were trying to be a new alternative this isn't a business, it's a blog. We aren't SB Nation or FanSided where we can pay to have editors, we rely on volunteers, who actually have jobs.
If you need wikipedia to tell you what actually happened in the 2004 season, you really should consider writing about something different. All college football fans over 18 years of age are going to remember that, the second of the back-to-back hose jobs in National Title games that rewrote the BCS formula.
A vacation is not a forfeit. USC lost the title -- no one else got it. Shouldn't attempt to be an authority on something without understanding the very basics of it.
It is not and never has been a disputed NC.
Last edited:
I'm actually glad you guys absolutely destroy me because ED just agrees with everything I post. Lol if getting me to quit is the goal for you guys, it isn't going to happen I have thick skin, but argue my point when I've worked on something for a long time.
Here's a suggestion - maybe DON'T use Wikipedia as a source.
Good luck in Comp I, I just gave you a head start.
Good luck in Comp I, I just gave you a head start.
You had an interesting article idea with potential. But you botched the execution. People here would have read that article had it been by well done/by a trusted source. Everyone here is going to hammer you until the content/your approach improves and you start to actually listen to honest advice when it's obvious to most of us you don't know very much about what you are doing. Personally, I question the judgement of anyone that sets out to start yet another MSU fan site at this point in time when there are literally dozens of them now and everyone already has established places to get their news on everything MSU. There is already information saturation on this stuff.
Instead of wasting time arguing with or explaining yourself and your thick skin to us, it would be more prudent to just let c34 or John Bond proofread/fact check these articles for you. They will catch most of the stuff you are being hammered for.
Instead of wasting time arguing with or explaining yourself and your thick skin to us, it would be more prudent to just let c34 or John Bond proofread/fact check these articles for you. They will catch most of the stuff you are being hammered for.
Yeah there are much better sources as I prefer not using wikipedia but it was at least accurate in my example-- not to mention I was on my iPhone and could do a quick google search as a demonstration to Widespreadz.
Here's the thing - it's NOT a disputed championship. USC was recognized as champions in all polls; however, as a result of their probation some (not all) of the same polls vacated their championship-- no other university has claimed any of those portions of the championship.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Bulldogs prepare to level up competition, starting with Xavier in neutral site meeting
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Who carries the load?
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Run vs. Run
-
04
Maroon and White Basketball
Mississippi State 79-57 Troy: Bulldogs build big early lead in home win over Trojans
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Kamario Taylor speaks on return to Mississippi State for 2027