>>150316870
About fucking time. The point is that Alabama, Tennessee and other schools claim a lot of bullshit titles, while schools like Auburn and Penn State look comparatively bad because they only claim major poll natties. This is just leveling the playing field. It’s far too late but better than never.

I have to say they truly went all out with it. Let me educate /cfb/ on each of these claims.
>1910
Not even close to a “legit” title. Not selected by an NCAA selector.
>1913
Selected by an NCAA selector, incorrectly. The south was not good at football yet, so Auburn dominating the south didn’t mean much. Still, to 2025 odds I’m sure it looks like a legit claim.
>1914
Same as 1910.
>1958
Better than 1910 and 1914, but quite simply Auburn did nothing to put them ahead or even tied with LSU. Not selected by an official selector.
>1983
100% legitimate claim. Hardest schedule in the country and best record in the country. Case closed. Should be shared with Miami. It’s regretful that the coach is dead and many other members of this team are probably too. Selected by official selectors.
>1993
Going by resume alone this would be a legitimate claim, but in the era of the bowl coalition and conference championship games it isn’t enough for most people. Still, selected by official selectors.
>2004
The opposite of 1993. A legitimate claim with no official selectors. A lot you can say about this one. In a just world USC and Auburn would have split this year, but not even one official selector chose Auburn. USC was stripped by some selectors, but the number of people who care about those particular violations dwindles every day. Auburn is the #1 team who didn’t have any wins stripped. I’m biased but that’s good enough for me.

In conclusion,
>rock solid claims
1957, 2010
>rock solid claims, fuck you
1983
>okay but controversial
2004
>wrong but looks correct
1913
>wrong but whatever
1993
>among the worst claims of all time
1910, 1914, 1958