- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Debunking Alabama's 12 national titles...
Posted on 12/18/11 at 12:00 am to CrimsonFlame
Posted on 12/18/11 at 12:00 am to CrimsonFlame
quote:
Alabama is in it because we earned it
What was earned? A division title? No. A conference title? No. I guess you did beat two ranked teams, that's earning it.
Your rode the coattails of the conference success in recent years (which UA contributed to), being a historically relevant program, and preseason rankings.
You have a great team, probably the second best in the country, but rest assured, you didn't earn the chance to be in this game.
3
Posted on 12/18/11 at 12:51 am to Ghostfacedistiller
Counting titles before the BCS simply wrong. You can't have a legitimate title unless all sides agree on the rules before hand. Until the BCS non of the teams were ever even asked to agree on a system. So an AP title is about as legit and omegaman title.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 2:11 am to Ghostfacedistiller
bama earned it by whipping everyone on their schedule except the number 1 team in the country (which they lost to by 3 in OT at home.)
OSU on the other hand lost to a 21 point underdog (don't really give a shite if it was at home, on the road or on fricking mars, shouldn't have happened, PERIOD.) They also squeaked by a TAMU squad that proved to not be very good.
OSU on the other hand lost to a 21 point underdog (don't really give a shite if it was at home, on the road or on fricking mars, shouldn't have happened, PERIOD.) They also squeaked by a TAMU squad that proved to not be very good.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 5:49 am to omegaman66
quote:
Counting titles before the BCS simply wrong. You can't have a legitimate title unless all sides agree on the rules before hand. Until the BCS non of the teams were ever even asked to agree on a system. So an AP title is about as legit and omegaman title.
By your logic BCS titles won't count when we go to a playoff. How do you draw the line? You can't. I believe you have to go with the best measurement for each era. For the 1920's it was the conference championship and the Rose bowl. In 1936 the AP began. In 1950 it included the UPI. In 1992 the conference championships began their influence on the voting. In our time its the BCS. Each time it got a little better but you can't just say they didn't exist or they weren't important.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 5:55 am to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
What was earned? A division title? No. A conference title? No. I guess you did beat two ranked teams, that's earning it.
Your rode the coattails of the conference success in recent years (which UA contributed to), being a historically relevant program, and preseason rankings.
You have a great team, probably the second best in the country, but rest assured, you didn't earn the chance to be in this game.
We earned it just like LSU did. We were one of the top 2 teams. That's all that matters for the BCSCG. And if we win we will be crowned BCSNC. And you will cry about being 1-1 with us, beating us at home, and winning the SECCG when we didn't. But it won't matter. We'll have the trophy and you won't.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 9:29 am to gptigers
I thought it was 27? 
bama 
bama 
Posted on 12/18/11 at 10:04 am to attheua
quote:
Well at least you're being honest. Your stance has more to do with Alabama than with validity of the claims, which is fine by me.
No, that's not what I mean I agree those schools should be called out. If you want to start a thread debunking Notre Dame's title claims or Michigan's I'll be happy to join in and agree. But we really don't hear those schools fans bragging about how many national championships they've won, especially in the SEC, and like I said they don't put out helmets with a number on the side like Alabama does. I've said I don't think titles before 36 should be counted and titles in years where they lost a bowl should have an asterisk, that goes for anyone.
The CFBDatawarehouse has a pretty good criteria. For their all time rankings, the award 50 points for what I'd term Legit" national titles, The AP, Coaches Poll and BCS and they give 15 points for other titles, mostly before 1936. For Alabama, they recognize 12 NT's. Notre Dame has 11, but has more points for theirs. Like Bama, USC has 1 title the site doesn't recognize. For Auburn its 3
LINK
The past should be recognized, but NT's before 1936 are total different. I'd break it down into 4 categories. pre 1936, 36-68 AP, 50-73 coaches, titles award before bowls, 68/73-97 (titles after bowls, 98- BCS.
This post was edited on 12/18/11 at 10:20 am
Posted on 12/18/11 at 10:05 am to cajunjj
quote:
I thought it was 27?
That's Yale, bitch!
Posted on 12/18/11 at 10:13 am to LSUROCKS52
quote:
So an AP title is about as legit and omegaman title.
False, the AP is a consensus poll of professional sports writers. Its recognized by the NCAA. Now if you want to argue titles with the BCS are "better", fine, but there were some matchups pre BCS that would have been the same with the BCS, like Miami-Penn St in 86, Bama Miami in 92.
quote:
OSU on the other hand lost to a 21 point underdog (don't really give a shite if it was at home, on the road or on fricking mars, shouldn't have happened, PERIOD.) They also squeaked by a TAMU squad that proved to not be very good.
So a season boils down to 1 game, it doesn't matter who plays more ranked teams or accomplished more right?
As for A&M, they lost several close games, if it was only OSU that barely beat them, you'd havea point, but seeing as they lost to #6 Arky by 4 on a late TD and #7 KSU in 4 OT's, you can't say they were a "bad" team, they just doinked a lot of games. That's not the same as struggling with a clearly inferior team, cause they were not.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 10:44 am to gptigers
It's all BS anyways before around 1970 or even later. Teams were way to segragated. The best football wasn't being played by Bama or LSU alot of these early years I'd say. Wasn't Grambling putting the most players into the NFL back in the day? Didn't Bear Bryant become one of the first SEC coaching to bring in black dudes. I'd say the storyline is wrong worrying about anything before the race barrier was broken.
The past 10 Years --- LSU is the best.
The past 10 Years --- LSU is the best.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 11:39 am to macdatiger
quote:
It's all BS anyways before around 1970 or even later. Teams were way to segragated. The best football wasn't being played by Bama or LSU alot of these early years I'd say. Wasn't Grambling putting the most players into the NFL back in the day? Didn't Bear Bryant become one of the first SEC coaching to bring in black dudes. I'd say the storyline is wrong worrying about anything before the race barrier was broken.
Now you're playing the race card to make your arguments? Those old white teams weren't the best in their era because they had no black players? Well who had the best team then? Please check your medication next time you post.
This post was edited on 12/18/11 at 11:41 am
Posted on 12/18/11 at 12:00 pm to Lacour
Good post Lacour! Many of the Alabama titles were given before the bowl games in which they lost.
Posted on 12/18/11 at 12:53 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
So a season boils down to 1 game, it doesn't matter who plays more ranked teams or accomplished more right?
way to ignore the fact i said bama dominated their whole schedule except losing by 3 to the number 1 team in the country.
quote:
As for A&M, they lost several close games, if it was only OSU that barely beat them, you'd havea point, but seeing as they lost to #6 Arky by 4 on a late TD and #7 KSU in 4 OT's, you can't say they were a "bad" team, they just doinked a lot of games. That's not the same as struggling with a clearly inferior team, cause they were not.
never said they were "bad" i said "not very good". 6-6 is not very good, its "average"
Posted on 12/18/11 at 1:19 pm to LSUROCKS52
quote:
Counting titles before the BCS simply wrong. You can't have a legitimate title unless all sides agree on the rules before hand. Until the BCS non of the teams were ever even asked to agree on a system. So an AP title is about as legit and omegaman title.
This. Plus 1
Posted on 12/18/11 at 2:08 pm to Chadwick
how does this keep getting attributed to me? I never said it
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News