Started By
Message
re: Why does Alabama claim som many national titles
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:15 pm to JaxTiger10
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:15 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
I know 1-2 of their titles are claimed using polls that didnt exits until later. Ill look and see
So does ND and others. Some people have a vested interest in diminishing Bama success because their team has less. They would be better off just accepting their team's lesser tradition and not worrying about the loftier accomplishments of others.
0
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:16 pm to GregAl
Even if we claim one that might be questionable, we have been cheated out of others.
Your link shows you trailing Princeton with 26 and Yale with 18.
Your link shows you trailing Princeton with 26 and Yale with 18.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:16 pm to skrayper
No, 1957 is a legit claim. There are others bama claims when they lost their bowl game and I am leaving those alone.
1973 just isn't legit for bama because they played and lost against another undefeated team in the bowl.
No other team has a stronger claim than AU in 1957. Bama doesn't have a claim at all in 1973.
1973 just isn't legit for bama because they played and lost against another undefeated team in the bowl.
No other team has a stronger claim than AU in 1957. Bama doesn't have a claim at all in 1973.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:19 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Gumps are so fricking dumb.
Really?
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:20 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
1973 just isn't legit for bama because they played and lost against another undefeated team in the bowl.
So what? We should just throw out a national championship from a MAJOR selector? That's dumb.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:25 pm to RollTide1987
This entire debate is like watching two pit bulls fight for a stick that won't break...
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:26 pm to RollTide1987
Well I think you should claim the NC when no other team has a stronger claim (equal is ok).
I'm actually being generous as there are 3 other years where other teams have a stronger claim than bama, which would put bama at 6 years when no other team has an equal or greater claim to the NC.
If you are wondering, the number would be 4 for AU.
In 57, 83, 04, and 10, no team has a stronger claim as being the nation's best than AU. USC has an equal claim in 04 though.
I'm actually being generous as there are 3 other years where other teams have a stronger claim than bama, which would put bama at 6 years when no other team has an equal or greater claim to the NC.
If you are wondering, the number would be 4 for AU.
In 57, 83, 04, and 10, no team has a stronger claim as being the nation's best than AU. USC has an equal claim in 04 though.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:40 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Well I think you should claim the NC when no other team has a stronger claim (equal is ok).
So who has a stronger claim than us in 1925, 1926 and 1930?
In 1925 Alabama and Dartmouth were the only two undefeated and untied teams in college football. Alabama was 10-0 and Dartmouth was 8-0. They also happen to be the only two teams who claim that year as a national title.
In 1926, Stanford finished #1 and 10-0 in the only poll operating at that time: Dickinson. Alabama was also undefeated and played Stanford to a 7-7 tie in the Rose Bowl. Doesn't it stand to reason that Alabama and Stanford could split the championship that season?
In 1930, Notre Dame finished #1 in Dickinson's final poll, followed by Washington State at #2 and Alabama at #3. Notre Dame declined an invitation to play WSU in the Rose Bowl so the invitation went to Alabama. Alabama destroyed #2 Washington State by a score of 24-0. Does Alabama not deserve a share of the national title for doing that?
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:53 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
In 1925 Alabama and Dartmouth were the only two undefeated and untied teams in college football. Alabama was 10-0 and Dartmouth was 8-0. They also happen to be the only two teams who claim that year as a national title.
quote:
However, if there had been an AP poll in 1925, 8-0 Dartmouth would have finished #1 by a landslide, and in fact Alabama would likely have finished no better than 3rd (at best), behind 7-1 Michigan. And that's a post-bowl poll-- Alabama would have been more like #8-15 before their big win over 10-1-1 Washington in the Rose Bowl.
Bama played no one in 1925. That is why they were the 7-8th choice of the Rose Bowl after all the top teams declined. As a side note (though not necessarily relevant here - the only reason bama won the Rose Bowl was they assigned 3-4 guys to attach Washington best player on every play to try and get him out of the game. They succeeded and were able to come from behind and win after the player that did everything for Wash was injured.
quote:
In 1926, Stanford finished #1 and 10-0 in the only poll operating at that time: Dickinson. Alabama was also undefeated and played Stanford to a 7-7 tie in the Rose Bowl. Doesn't it stand to reason that Alabama and Stanford could split the championship that season?
No. Dickenson actually had bama #7 before the Rose bowl. Stanford and bama tied, but the score was misleading. Stanford destroyed bama.
quote:
Stanford also thoroughly dominated Alabama in their Rose Bowl game, except, of course, on the scoreboard. Stanford outgained them 311 yards to 92, but Alabama blocked a punt to set up a late touchdown to get the tie.
quote:
Eliminating Alabama
So yeah, Navy and Lafayette are 2 legs up on Alabama, Stanford 1. And then there is the issue of Alabama's one big accomplishment, their Rose Bowl tie with Stanford. Stanford outgained Alabama 311 yards to 92, and Alabama had no chance at all to win that game. The blocked punt in the final minutes enabled them to get the tie, but that was their only scoring chance, meaning that they were never in position to do anything more than tie. Props to Alabama for scrapping out the tie, but Stanford was clearly the better team that day. And that's 3 legs up for Navy and Lafayette, 2 for Stanford, and that's more than enough to eliminate Alabama.
If Stanford were the only other contender, then it would make sense for Alabama to share the MNC with them, since they went 9-0-1 and tied Stanford. But 4 teams is just too many to split the MNC amongst-- it's already an imaginary title, but 4 teams sharing it would make it completely meaningless. And Alabama is clearly the weakest of the 4. Their only win of merit came over a team that was #21-25 team at best (I have them #26), they had the worst performance of any of the contenders (2-0 over 2-6 Sewanee), and they were badly dominated in the Rose Bowl despite managing the tie.
1930 I would need to look into further and can't right now. Have to go.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:08 pm to Scoreboard
quote:
Even if we claim one that might be questionable, we have been cheated out of others.
Your link shows you trailing Princeton with 26 and Yale with 18.
It's more than one.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:09 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
No, 1957 is a legit claim. There are others bama claims when they lost their bowl game and I am leaving those alone.
1973 just isn't legit for bama because they played and lost against another undefeated team in the bowl.
No other team has a stronger claim than AU in 1957. Bama doesn't have a claim at all in 1973.
Yet 57 is legit for y'all despite being banned from a bowl?
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:10 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
So who has a stronger claim than us in 1925, 1926 and 1930?
In 1925 Alabama and Dartmouth were the only two undefeated and untied teams in college football. Alabama was 10-0 and Dartmouth was 8-0. They also happen to be the only two teams who claim that year as a national title.
In 1926, Stanford finished #1 and 10-0 in the only poll operating at that time: Dickinson. Alabama was also undefeated and played Stanford to a 7-7 tie in the Rose Bowl. Doesn't it stand to reason that Alabama and Stanford could split the championship that season?
In 1930, Notre Dame finished #1 in Dickinson's final poll, followed by Washington State at #2 and Alabama at #3. Notre Dame declined an invitation to play WSU in the Rose Bowl so the invitation went to Alabama. Alabama destroyed #2 Washington State by a score of 24-0. Does Alabama not deserve a share of the national title for doing that?
All 3 are listed by the NCAA: LINK
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:17 pm to Scoreboard
quote:
In the 80's their SID decided he would add 6 national titles. They went from 6 to 12
They have 12 because 1 guy, Wayne Atcheson, thought 12 sounded better than 6. He even included 1941, when Bama finished third in the SEC behind Mississippi State and Vandy, both of whom shut out Bama.
At least get the count right. 5 were added. Not 6. The 12th one came in 1992.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News