Thank you for reading The Dope. We depend upon Paid subscriptions.
In this era of post-intelligence, I think we all can agree that you don’t understand what “championship” means.
I am speaking to you yourself, or, as college sports people sometimes think of it, all y’all. You don’t get the meaning of things like championships or, let’s say, the winning of national titles in college football, even if the season in question is 115 years old and the school suddenly claiming said title went a perfectly okay 6-1 that year, which was 1910.
The school is Auburn, except it wasn’t called that at the time. It was called Alabama Polytechnic Institute. It also didn’t play in the SEC, because the Southeastern Conference wasn’t created until December of 1932. So instead, Alabama Poly won the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1910 with a 5-0 mark.
It nevertheless was not crowned national champ that year. Know why? Because they didn’t do such foolish things back then. Instead, the NCAA says that both Harvard and undefeated Pitt — not ‘Bama Poly — were declared 1910 national champions. Those distinctions, however, were only bestowed in retrospect over the next several decades, as a few different look-over-your-shoulder ratings systems did indeed take a gander into the past and try to declare this and that.
It sounds hopeless. But wait! It turns out that two more such systems have retroactively declared Auburn (nee Poly) as the 1910 champ. In your face, Harvard Crimson! And although no one in the world knew or cared about that until just now, Auburn has decided to formally adopt that finding of partial, non-unanimous post-mortem approval, and add the century-plus-ago season to its title belt.
National champions! Because we say so! Who says no? All y’all don’t care anyway.
Auburn didn’t stop there. Citing a variety of mostly ludicrous poll votes or probations they shouldn’t have been on, university officials announced this week that they’re adding four more titles and claiming three other seasons as “meeting national championship qualifications.”
That would bring Auburn’s total to nine, considering that up until now, the Tigers had won…well, only two, one in 1957 and the other in 2010.
But listen, why should Auburn be held down by silly other people’s expectation that the school actually earn or be voted a championship? That is sooo last century.
“For too long, Auburn has chosen a humble approach to our program’s storied history — choosing to recognize only Associated Press national championships,” athletic director John Cohen said Tuesday. “Starting this fall, we have made the decision to honor the accomplishments of our deserving student-athletes, coaches and teams from Auburn’s proud history.”
Both proud and storied, Cohen says. No doubt the dead guys from 1910 will be happy to hear it. The other titles being added are from 1913, ‘14, ‘58, ‘83, ‘93 and 2004.
This is pretty good history, actually. The 1983 team went 11-1 but finished No. 3 in the final AP rankings behind Miami and Nebraska. Miami memorably knocked off the undefeated and top-ranked Cornhuskers in the Orange Bowl that season, but who were these stupid voters who somehow left Auburn out of the mix? We can fix that with a simple proclamation.
Auburn’s 1993 team was unbeaten — but, alas, banned from bowl consideration because of some no-doubt-undeserved NCAA violations. Wasn’t everybody cheating back then? What gives? Why can’t we claim that season, too? Y’all don’t care, do you?
And 2004 was a doozy. Auburn again went undefeated but didn’t make the BCS Championship Game, in which unbeaten USC played unbeaten Oklahoma for the title. You may remember that game.
Not to worry, though: Then-coach Tommy Tuberville said he’d take a No. 1 designation from any publication that was willing to give it, and so Golf Digest did. (True story.) Who are you all these years later to discount a No. 1 ranking?
Auburn’s people are on to something. First, the NCAA has used all sorts of methods to crown a champion, and they’ve usually been a mess. The voter polling system employed for decades was flawed at best, corrupt at worst and almost always subject to protest, and your various playoff schemes have come and gone without attracting too much satisfaction.
Also, the Tigers are hardly alone. Plenty of schools have tried to pad their resumes with iffy or downright dubious title claims through the years. Auburn’s rival, Alabama, may be the worst of the bunch when it comes to this, so there’s probably a little geographical football friction going on here.
I realize that by invoking Tommy Tuberville’s name, we have ensured this would be a nonsensical matter driven by nothing approaching actual knowledge — but listen, if you stamp your feet and say anything loudly enough here in 2025, you’ve got an even-money chance. What does Auburn have to lose? You’ve read the papers: The truth is what you say it is. Bring on the expanded trophy case.