🏈 Byproduct of the "...Auburn Should Have Their Own Commercial" Thread

[alagator]

As a result of having watched the informative Auburn commercial from a different forum here, a question I have long had popped to mind again.

I was told that the AP title won by Auburn in 1957 was achieved by a little subversion and subterfuge by the SID (or someone who held that job but maybe not that actual title) at The Barn who worked the system instead of some season long trend.

I am not vouching for this information, and in fact trying to seek its authentication or rejection.

The story as I was told was that there was no preselected panel of voters who participated in the AP poll at that time. Anyone who worked in some capacity with The Associated Press in the media industry was automatically eligible to vote in the AP College Football Poll. And the number of votes cast varied dramatically from week-to-week.

This in part seems plausible because the entry on Wikipedia (I know, I know, not a source credible for academic cites), for the "1957 College Football Season" states that "as many as 360 sportswriters" cast ballots during that season and the preseason poll consisted of only 174 ballots.

Where Auburn is involved in all this comes near the end of the season. The media person at Auburn learned of the AP rule that allowed open voting by people affiliated with The Associated Press and proceeded to call and write virtually every such person in Alabama and Georgia to 'encourage' them to cast a vote for Auburn. And a great many of them did just that late in the year where they had not cast a ballot prior - thus raising the total voters from the pre-season 174 up to the higher 360 number.

The events of 23 November of that season raise some concerns and questions about this possibility too. Again, the Auburn man supposedly put his plan into motion late in the year when it looked like Auburn would be shut out by a Northern School (Michigan State). On 23 November Michigan State won its game by a score of 27-0 but FELL from first to third with Auburn (who that day won 29-7 over Florida State - then only a few years removed from being an all woman's college) ascending to the top spot. This gives some credence to this idea but I have been unable to learn from any source the total number of AP voters in the individual November polls to see if the switch and move by Auburn was the result of a spike in Southern voters or based on the repetitive voters moving an undefeated Auburn over a once beaten MSU.

Now, a smart move by the Auburn man - seeing a loophole and guiding people through it. But it cast a pall over whether or not even their lone 1957 title is legitimate - if all the things I have been told are true.

Perhaps our current media expert, TerryP, can do a little research into his bank of information and see if all this is accurate or not.

 

[TerryP]

I've been familiar with the story for years. But, I'll have to do some research to see if I can find the original report.

From what I understand/recall, you are exactly right.

If it wasn't for that "mail order vote" campaign the title wouldn't have been split with Ohio State that year, but have been tOSU's title entirely.

IF I recall correctly, the changes made to that rule were done in '58.

 

[psychojoe]

I don't know about the AP angle, but I know that Auburn at best could claim only a share of the title, since the UPI (the coaches poll) did not consider them because they were on probation, as they were in 1958. As you can see, probation has been a part of the Auburn tradition for a long time.

 

[TerryP]

If we have someone read this that has the time to run over to Reese-Phifer this afternoon, that's a good place to use their Lexis-Nexis database for a quick search on the article/story.

That's where I was when I originally found it back in 2000-2001...

 

[alagator]

Now, to maintain my street cred with all the Auburnites and their site monitors, let me be clear that I am NOT saying their historic 1957 championship should be written away because the rules in 1957 do not comport to the rules of 2009. I do not want to play in their sandbox of going back and rewriting the accepted rules of the day to somehow take away from their roster of championships (as so many of them want to do with any number of our twelve such national titles). Their lone 1957 title was achieved fair-and-square by the accepted rules and standards in place in 1957 so it is legal and legitimate and of merit.

The rules of the time are the rules of the time and if someone in their midst was wise enough to see such a loophole and devise and execute a plan to bring a title to his school then good for him, and them. I see no reason to apply some arbitrary 2009 standard in an ex post facto manner to rewrite history in 1957. No more than I see the wisdom of doing so with the years in which Alabama benefited from contemporaneous rules to win a title (see 1964 and 1965 as primary examples).

So be careful Auburnites. If rewriting the rules is acceptible in this modern day, then while you might find success in erasing four or five of our titles you will likely find yourselves losing your ONLY such claim to history. And six or seven is FAR greater than NONE.

 

[CtrlAltDel]

That would suck, to have zero NC's. Awww, screw it, we will claim 9 and the auNecks have 0.

 

[Swamptick]

Who is this awburn you speak of?

Sorry. I am too busy paying attention to Alabama Football to notice some other small agricultural trade school.