Started By
Message
re: Why does Alabama claim som many national titles
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:14 pm to boxedlunch
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:14 pm to boxedlunch
quote:
boxedlunch
Why does Alabama claim som many national titles
quote:
Yes, I'm aware of the rule...which MIchigan State as a Big Ten member helped propogate. The Pac 10 had the same rule. And Notre Dame refused to play in bowls. Funny how everyone but Bama fans want to give them a pass for that.
Helped propogate? What ignorance.
You do understand that, as full voting member of the Big Ten, they could have pushed to end the rule, right? So yeah, by continuing to support the policy, they helped to propogate the policy. Or was that point too complicated for your feeble mind to grasp?
1
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:19 pm to Lexie007
The 1984 Bama media guide shows 6 national titles. By 1985 Bama had won 6 more national titles.
This post was edited on 12/23/14 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:21 pm to Lexie007
Have you not realized yet that Bama fans dont have much going on outside of Alabama football? Hell,they murder each other over losses when they have the best program in all of cfb.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:21 pm to AU4real35
quote:
I've been here a year and this topic has come up at least 50 times...
Over.
You've missed some threads.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:23 pm to JaxTiger10
There's no debate. Bama dominated that '85 off season.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:28 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
The 1984 Bama media guide shows 6 national titles. By 1985 Bama had won 6 more national titles.
It was 82 to 83. The additional titles were added after Bryant retired.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:28 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
The 1984 Bama media guide shows 6 national titles. By 1985 Bama had won 6 more national titles.
That's because all of the great football powers were going back and retroactively adding titles, too. Why? Scholarship limitations were starting to go into effect and these schools were looking for any advantage they could find to exploit. Heck...as recently as 2004 a college football powerhouse was retroactively adding national championship claims to its trophy case. The USC Trojans went back and recognized 1939 as a national championship year.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:29 pm to JuiceTerry
That 1985 Bama spring team would curb stomp a merged 2011 bama/2011 lsu team. They didnt allow a single point all season.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:29 pm to RollTide1987
Michigan and Pitt are the worst offenders.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:31 pm to Korin
Here's a good one - Pitt claims 1934 based on a selector by the name of Parke Davis. Only problem is that PD died in 1933.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:34 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That's because all of the great football powers were going back and retroactively adding titles, too. Why? S
Ok but you claim titles from tge 1920's using a pol that didnt exist until the 1930's.
IMO all CFB national titles are subjective. Its a shame that the 2nd biggest sport, in American sports, has the most subjective champions. Also, Bama's 24 sec titles are far more impressive than some claimed National title. During the BCS era the sec title was harder to win than the bcs title" because you cant finish 2nd in the west/ east and play for a sec title ( not a dig at bama).really the only title the coaches and players have any control over winning is the sec title.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:35 pm to Korin
quote:
Michigan and Pitt are the worst offenders.
For sure. I know we give bama fans grief but Pitt's claims are down right laughable
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:36 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
Ok but you claim titles from tge 1920's using a pol that didnt exist until the 1930's.
IMO all CFB national titles are subjective. Its a shame that the 2nd biggest sport, in American sports, has the most subjective champions. Also, Bama's 24 sec titles are far more impressive than some claimed National title. During the BCS era the sec title was harder to win than the bcs title" because you cant finish 2nd in the west/ east and play for a sec title ( not a dig at bama).really the only title the coaches and players have any control over winning is the sec title.
Again, take a look at Michigan and Pitt. Retroactive city.
The NCAA does list 13 for Bama: LINK
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:46 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
You do understand that, as full voting member of the Big Ten, they could have pushed to end the rule, right? So yeah, by continuing to support the policy, they helped to propogate the policy. Or was that point too complicated for your feeble mind to grasp?
And you think one voting member has the power to overcome it? What ignorance.
I do know the history behind the rule, which is something you never bother to learn before opening your mouth.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:53 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
Ok but you claim titles from tge 1920's using a pol that didnt exist until the 1930's.
In 1925, there are only two recognized national champions - Alabama and Dartmouth. Both teams claim that title using organizations which awarded the national championship retroactively. Should we just leave that year blank along with all of the pre-1926 teams?
1926 was the first true season where someone attempted to award a national championship. Dickinson was the name of the selector and he awarded his trophy to Stanford before it played Alabama to a 7-7 tie in the Rose Bowl. Since both teams tied, I think Alabama has a right to claim a piece of the pie from that season. Dickinson had Alabama #6 in his final rankings which were conducted BEFORE the Rose Bowl.
In 1930, Alabama finished #3 in Dickinson's poll behind #1 Notre Dame and #2 Washington State. Alabama would meet Washington State in the Rose Bowl after the release of his final rankings and would dominate them to the tune of 24-0. Once again, Dickinson underestimated the strength of the Alabama football program. Notre Dame declined an invitation to the Rose Bowl to play Washington State.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:54 pm to Lexie007
Hows the weather in Yankee land?
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:54 pm to Korin
I know i was agreeing with you. IMO, conference titles( with conference title game) are the only indisputable titles in cfb. Thats sad.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 10:00 pm to RollTide1987
All I have to say to fans of other schools about this topic is this:
We've been very good for a very long time. Accept that we have more championships than your team (whoever they happen to be) no matter how you want to count them and move on with your life.
We've been very good for a very long time. Accept that we have more championships than your team (whoever they happen to be) no matter how you want to count them and move on with your life.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 10:02 pm to VVega
Paper Champions.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 10:03 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
You missed the whole point but that's par for your course...
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News