re: Texas almost guranteed to be in NC yearly now

quote:

---

for Texas prehaps, buts it disengenous at best for a fan of Alabama, a state where dogs and fire hoses were used on peaceful demonstators a few years before 1970 and whose governor vowed to stand in front of the school with an ax rather than intergrate to be critizing another southern team for not having a black player a year or 2 later.

---

Again, Alabamawas integrated for their three titles in the 70's. (yes, fully integrated). Texas has won only one title with an integrated team.

quote:

---

Florida? In 1966? They were 9-2 before the bowls. It was my understanding they didn't even win the SEC until SOS got there.

---

Notre Dame- I juxtaposed their names (hence me being mad about 66- most Bama fans still are)
quote:

quote:

---

I don't know anything about that, but 78 is pretty lame, I know its legit since you were #1 in one poll, but most Bama fans I've known would bitch to holy hell if the tables were reversed.

---

O yeah? In 1977, Notre Dame jumped us- their loss was to a 5-6 Ole Miss team tht we crushed. Our loss was to a good Nebraska team. So how is it lame that we claim 78? Is FSU's title in 93 lame? (Same occurence- ND beat FSU but lost one game to BC). By the way, how is 78 any more lame than yours in 1970?

quote:

---

Again, Alabamawas integrated for their three titles in the 70's. (yes, fully integrated

---

Good for you, do you want a medal?

quote:

---

Texas has won only one title with an integrated team.

---

So what? What does winning a title have to do with integrating? All those schools more or less integrated around the same time Because Alabama won with black boys sooner and more often mean what exactly, other than you have a better football program, which btw no one is questioning)? Is that supposed to make up for people being hosed and attacked with dogs? You are just choosing an arbitrary standard to diminish a team you don't like because probably because you don't like the fact that while your team has been better on the field, their team is more powerful off of it.

quote:

---

O yeah? In 1977, Notre Dame jumped us- their loss was to a 5-6 Ole Miss team tht we crushed. Our loss was to a good Nebraska team. So how is it lame that we claim 78?

---

Because you lost to the team you split with, who gives a frick about the transitive property.

quote:

---

Is FSU's title in 93 lame?

---

yes, but at least they lost at Notre Dame. USC rolled in the Bham and smoked you guys.

quote:

---

By the way, how is 78 any more lame than yours in 1970?

---

I only have titles in 1958, 2003 and 2007. However, in 1970, Texas did not lose to Nebraska, they were undefeated going into the Cotton Bowl, I assume they were named NC before the bowl, if not, then yes it is lame they were NC over 10-1 ND

That Miami team you are referring to beat Florida, Florida State, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech. They earned it. The schedules we are going to see from Texas and OU are going to be pitiful in comparison. I mean, who did Texas play last year? Plus, now the SEC is stronger than it was (better coaching, better recruiting).

OSU's schedule that year was pretty pathetic. It was little more than Michigan and Penn State. UGA should have gotten in...

quote:

---

ohhh, I'm sure the rest of the country will make note to be scared

---

I never said the country would be scared. Only that there would be pissed off people. What are you? 12?