Instead of gormlessly staring at random selector names, why not do some basic research?
The stupidity of the 2004 national title claim is well known by anyone who was alive and had a working pair of eyes that year. USC was the national champion, full stop. Tuberville now gets to tout himself as a "national championship" winning coach on the campaign trail, so that's one more lie on top of the pile.
Auburn was on probation in 1994, didn't play in the SEC championship or a bowl game, and finished No. 4 in the AP poll. FSU went wire-to-wire at No. 1 under Bowden except for a blip against No. 2 Notre Dame (who subsequently lost to BC) and defeated top-ranked Nebraska in Miami. Auburn was an afterthought and never made it higher than #3 in the AP poll.
Auburn finished second in the SEC in 1958 after tying Georgia Tech and didn't play in a bowl game, while LSU swept through the conference with a perfect 10-0 mark and demolished Clemson in the Sugar Bowl.
Auburn again finished second in their conference in 1914 after tying Georgia. Texas and Tennessee had perfect seasons, but neither claimed this year as a national championship because at the time it was generally acknowledged that, with the exception of John Heisman's juggernaut teams at Georgia Tech, the level of football played in the South was still not equivalent to that played in the North and Midwest. This wouldn't change until the mid-1920s, when Alabama shocked Washington in the Rose Bowl, "the game that changed the South". If a football team in the South not named Georgia Tech claims a national title prior to 1925, it's a bullshit and lazy rewriting of history. I can thus safely dismiss the rest of Auburn's claims from before 1914.