- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 12/17/11 at 7:31 am to loweralabamatrojan
Posted on 12/17/11 at 7:31 am to loweralabamatrojan
That^
0
Posted on 12/17/11 at 8:17 am to loweralabamatrojan
Thanks man, much appreciated!! Like you said, the game will be here soon!! Geaux Tigers!!
Posted on 12/17/11 at 12:13 pm to gptigers
The original link was an auburn fabrication that is filled with incorrect information.
Frankly, I and most Bama fans are just tired of debunking the lies.
Frankly, I and most Bama fans are just tired of debunking the lies.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 1:18 pm to bama1989
quote:
Bama was undefeated and won the Southern Conference and then the Rose bowl in 1925. Its as legit a statement for the best team in CFB as any today. We did the same thing in 26' but tied Stanford in the Rose bowl that year. Split Championship. Won it all in 30' and 34'. No one has an argument that we weren't the best team in any of those years. And you should appreciate the historical significance of it. These teams put southern football on the map. Before that no one respected the Southern conference.
1)Before the AP, there was nothing even close to resembling what we would call a systematic championship. Sure, some local newspapers made some claims - but that was very chaotic and not at all legitimate.
2) The Rose Bowl was not a championship game, by any means. Back then the game pitted a PCC team (not necessarily the conference champion, even) versus the best team from the Eastern U.S. that they could get to play in the game. It cost a lot of money to go out to California for one football game, and bowl payouts were not what they were today.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 2:01 pm to TxTiger82
It dont matter ,we pwn the gump's .9-3 since 2000 gonna be 10-3 i looked up bama's natys and they only ave 10 legit titles .geaux tigers .Roll those Bammers up on Jan 9 and put em away 
Posted on 12/17/11 at 2:24 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
1)Before the AP, there was nothing even close to resembling what we would call a systematic championship. Sure, some local newspapers made some claims - but that was very chaotic and not at all legitimate.
2) The Rose Bowl was not a championship game, by any means. Back then the game pitted a PCC team (not necessarily the conference champion, even) versus the best team from the Eastern U.S. that they could get to play in the game. It cost a lot of money to go out to California for one football game, and bowl payouts were not what they were today.
1) Well I have to say the AP is not very systematic either except that people vote on it. They didn't vote back then but it was clear that we were the best team of each of those years.
2) I did read where some teams turned down Rose Bowl invites. And I agree it wasn't a renowned championship bowl. But it was the most prestigious post season event at the time and they tried to get the best teams from the west to play the best from the east. What more could you do to determine the best team at that time? The answer is nothing. This game has evolved dramatically over the years. But that doesn't mean you can just diss history because we have a better method today. If you do, are you going to throw out all of the BCSNC's and AP/UPI's NC's when/if we get a playoff? I think not. So, you can't throw out the only method used in 1925 either.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 2:31 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
1966 should need no explanation.
Yes it does, Bama was undefeated and finished behind ND and MSU who were also undefeated and tied each other. Not saying Bama should not be #1, but don't find it outrageous that Notre Dame was #1 after tying the #2 team on the road.
quote:
1977 is more subjective, but then again, for those who don't like the idea of Bama claiming a '77 title over Notre Dame, at least they have a major poll ranking them #1 from 1973.
The difference is, in 73 Notre Dame beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl. The AP started giving its NC after the bowls in 68.
In 77 Notre Dame beat #1 Texas 38-10 in the Cotton Bowl. To give Bama the title based on the transitive property of beating OM sound like Bama logic and if there's one team besides Bama I'd rather not see win the NC its Notre Dame.
Then's there's the 64-65 titles. In 64 the title is award before the Bowls, Bama wins title, loses bowl. In 65 they decided to wait until after the bowls. The #1 and #2 teams lost bowls and #4 Bama moves up.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 2:45 pm to bama1989
quote:
that doesn't mean you can just diss history because we have a better method today. If you do, are you going to throw out all of the BCSNC's and AP/UPI's NC's when/if we get a playoff? I think not. So, you can't throw out the only method used in 1925 either.
The point is there was no method used in 1925. At least from 1936 on, there is a consistent poll done by professional writers every year. The years where titles were given before bowls are legit titles. I just think its lame in years where teams that lost bowls won titles. There's a bitter irony in Bama "winning" a title in 64 when they lost a bowl, then winning the title in 65 only because for that year the AP waited until after the bowls and Mich St and Arky lost their bowls.
There is no disputing that Alabama has a great history, they are 1 of the elite programs historically and today. Counting 13 titles is just chest beating.
The Cleveland Browns have 8 titles, the Steelers 6, which do think is the better historical franchise?
This post was edited on 12/17/11 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 12/17/11 at 3:53 pm to bama1989
quote:
1) Well I have to say the AP is not very systematic either except that people vote on it.
There is a system, hence it is systematic. The polling system was the first attempt at creating a national, methodologically consistent way of determining a "national champion." Before this point, it is really difficult, empirically, to argue that such a thing existed.
quote:
it was clear that we were the best team of each of those years.
That is not really the point. There was no method for determining these things AT THE TIME. There was no trophy given out.
quote:
What more could you do to determine the best team at that time?
The Rose Bowl was a start but clearly it was not the method for determining the best team, if the best teams didn't even play in the game.
quote:
But that doesn't mean you can just diss history because we have a better method today.
Correct, but neither can we revise it to suggest the Rose Bowl was any sort of de facto championship game, which is what you are suggesting.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:17 pm to Dobermann
quote:
any claimed title pre 1936 is not legit IMO.
AP UPI BCS (and FWAA for Ole Miss and Hog fans)
Bama has 8 legit titles
This seems to be where most blue-blood programs split on title claims. Alabama, USC, Michigan, ND, etc all have undefeated Rose Bowl champion teams from the pre-poll era, and all claim titles for those years. OU, Nebraska, OSU, and others (LSU) who didn't really get started until after the poll era began tend to scorn titles from the pre-poll era. It's just a matter of perspective, I think. And really not worth the constant debate, because all NC claims are disputable and the very idea of a 'national' champion when you only play 12-14 other teams is about as laughable as the MLB champs being called 'world' champions.
Pre-poll claims were superseded by the polls, the poll titles were superseded by the BCS, and one day hopefully the BCS will be superseded by a playoff. I'm just proud that Bama has been and will be relevant and successful in all the major eras.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:21 pm to bama1989
In 1973, the UPI awarded before the Bowls, and was as prestigous a title as the AP. Part of the reasoning was that Notre Dame waited so long to play in Bowls, and also that bowl games were looked upon as a reward for the season, not as a playoff of sorts.
The 1966 hose job was absurd, as a two time defending Champion goes undefeated and loses out to a team with a tie.
Finally, ND did romp over Texas in 1977 - but Bama actually won by a larger margin over #8 Ohio State. Bama lost on the road to Nebraska, Notre Dame lost to Ole Miss. That alone would deter modern voters from voting ND to jump Bama, imo.
The 1966 hose job was absurd, as a two time defending Champion goes undefeated and loses out to a team with a tie.
Finally, ND did romp over Texas in 1977 - but Bama actually won by a larger margin over #8 Ohio State. Bama lost on the road to Nebraska, Notre Dame lost to Ole Miss. That alone would deter modern voters from voting ND to jump Bama, imo.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:31 pm to geauxalphaomega
quote:
quote:
Actually the truth is there are no national champions prior to the BCS. AP etc had no authority. They were just a groupoutside of the NCAA voting self appointed. No authority.
I could be reading this wrong but you do realize that the NCAA does not award a National Championship to Division 1 College Football right???
Prior to the bsc there was no champion awarded by the NCAA that is correct and is correct even now but the BCS is the first to have an agreement with the colleges on a way to determine the national championship team. BCS is not self appointed or just some outside organization that lots of people decided to look to to determine the champion.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:47 pm to bama1989
quote:
1925. ... 26' ... 30' and 34'.
And you should appreciate the historical significance of it.
Y'all need to get lives. Nobody cares about championships from many decades before they were born except for Bama fans.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:56 pm to CrimsonFlame
quote:
The 1966 hose job was absurd, as a two time defending Champion goes undefeated and loses out to a team with a tie.
The 2 time champs only because the AP changed the way it handed out titles in 64 and 65. In 64 they did it before bowls, in 65 after. If they did it the other way around, Bama would have won neither. And the teams with a tie in 66 tie another unbeaten team that was ranked in the top 2. How does #1 and #2 tying mean #3 is the best team?
quote:
but Bama actually won by a larger margin over #8 Ohio State. Bama lost on the road to Nebraska, Notre Dame lost to Ole Miss. That alone would deter modern voters from voting ND to jump Bama,
in your Bama fan opinion. Why don't you mention the Notre Dame also lost on the road? Beat the #1 team by 28 in their home state, trumps the transitive property.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:57 pm to Tigris
quote:
Nobody cares about championships from many decades before they were born except for Bama fans.
This board has a daily discussion on those titles. Obviously someone cares, just a little
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:01 pm to attheua
Okay....y'all are right, we only have eight championships. Damn it's good to be a fan of a program that should only claim EIGHT NC's. 
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:06 pm to gptigers
LSU National Championships
1908, 1935, 1936, 1958, 1962, 2003 & 2007.
1908, 1935, 1936, 1958, 1962, 2003 & 2007.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:11 pm to DennyChimes10
quote:
we only have eight championships. Damn it's good to be a fan of a program that should only claim EIGHT NC
exactly, you are one of the upper echelon teams in CFB history and as some said above, good in multiple eras. No real prolonged period on irrelevance. No need to brag about Mythical Titles from the 20's that were handed out after the fact.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:18 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
No real prolonged period on irrelevance. No need to brag about Mythical Titles from the 20's that were handed out after the fact.
Alabama wouldn't be keeping in line with all the other old programs like USC, Michigan, or ND if they ignored all the undefeated Rose Bowl teams. It's not really fair to bag on Bama when all the other programs in our class use the same standard, imho.
ND's total shrinks to 8 if you ignore the pre-poll claims
USC's total shrinks to 7
Michigan's total shrinks to 2
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:35 pm to gptigers
Alabama won the national championship in 64 and 65 being ranked #1 in the AP at the end of both seasons. They then went 11-0 in 66, won their 3rd straight SEC title and beat Nebraska in their bowl. Of course Two 9-0-1 teams finished above them. I saw one guy in this thread brought this up but screw the rest of you. Why don't y'all start a thread about 66 before you bitch about something that has already been beat to death.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News