Started By
Message
re: "If we counted championships like bammer does" - here's how many your team has
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:22 pm to Tuscaloosa
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:22 pm to Tuscaloosa
Excellent troll of State, truly the Lord's work.
0
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:26 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
by any selector.
I'm curious who some of these selectors are.
quote:
Georgia - 11 (2)
1920
1927
1941
[i]1942
1946
1966
1968
1980
1982
1983
2007
Although we "officially" have 2...27, 46, and 68 are also somewhat recognized by us. We "unofficially" have 5. Some of these, like 2007 for instance, I have no clue how or why ANY selector would have us there.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:31 pm to WG_Dawg
Which is why people should only use the records book.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
What you fail to mention, WildTchoupitoulas, while copying and pasting rails against the strength of Southern teams is that no one really knew how strong or weak Southern teams were.
You can't copy and paste quotes about total shite quality of Southern teams, in those long gone days, and just expect us to gobble it up as gospel.
News-writers and sports journalists, in those times, were all from the North. They didn't know the names of Southern teams. They didn't know the names of players on Southern teams. They didn't know the schedules. They didn't know the quality of the players or the quality of the teams.
Ever wonder why a player on a Southern team didn't win a Heisman trophy for about a thousand years? Ever wonder why when Alabama, a team that broke barriers for all Southern teams, finally got a Rose Bowl invite, it was just a gift to those stupid Southerners because other Northern teams wouldn't accept it that season for various reasons?
You parrot that, because you are ignorant of the facts, only West, Midwest, and Northern teams were considered powerhouses. Why? Because post Civil-War, the general perception of the rest of the nation was that Southerners were mentally retarded, less athletic, and were far too ignorant to play the game of football, to even grasp the concept of the game.
Southern teams simply didn't exist to the rest of the nation and that is why they had no All-Americans, no Heismans, no invites to bowl games, no NC's, etc...
How in the frick do you know what the talent level of Southern teams were? How do you know what the strength of schedule for teams like Alabama and Tennessee and LSU were compared to teams like Harvard, Washington, Dartmouth, or Colgate?
Simple answer is that you don't, no one then did and certainly no one now does. You don't know football history, you only copy and paste and then attempt to bash others based on what you just read, with no context to what you have read.
Who did know the strength of Southern teams? Southerners did. And when Alabama was finally granted a great privilege by the football Gods of the North, Midwest, and West to be given a chance, they burst onto the scene like a caged animal being set free.
After the final beating of USC by Alabama, in yet another Rose Bowl slaughter of yet another supposedly superior team with smarter players, better players, and more athletic players, the powers that be had finally had enough and made the Rose Bowl a private affair between the current Big10 and Pac12.
Your SOS arguments that you copied and pasted hold no merit. Southern teams were just as good and just as tough as anyone.
Our Southern team's schedules weren't like Div.1 AA compared to Northern teams Div.1-A schedules.
I thought all those silly arguments died when Alabama came out swinging and decimating the "powerhouses". Guess not.
You can't copy and paste quotes about total shite quality of Southern teams, in those long gone days, and just expect us to gobble it up as gospel.
News-writers and sports journalists, in those times, were all from the North. They didn't know the names of Southern teams. They didn't know the names of players on Southern teams. They didn't know the schedules. They didn't know the quality of the players or the quality of the teams.
Ever wonder why a player on a Southern team didn't win a Heisman trophy for about a thousand years? Ever wonder why when Alabama, a team that broke barriers for all Southern teams, finally got a Rose Bowl invite, it was just a gift to those stupid Southerners because other Northern teams wouldn't accept it that season for various reasons?
You parrot that, because you are ignorant of the facts, only West, Midwest, and Northern teams were considered powerhouses. Why? Because post Civil-War, the general perception of the rest of the nation was that Southerners were mentally retarded, less athletic, and were far too ignorant to play the game of football, to even grasp the concept of the game.
Southern teams simply didn't exist to the rest of the nation and that is why they had no All-Americans, no Heismans, no invites to bowl games, no NC's, etc...
How in the frick do you know what the talent level of Southern teams were? How do you know what the strength of schedule for teams like Alabama and Tennessee and LSU were compared to teams like Harvard, Washington, Dartmouth, or Colgate?
Simple answer is that you don't, no one then did and certainly no one now does. You don't know football history, you only copy and paste and then attempt to bash others based on what you just read, with no context to what you have read.
Who did know the strength of Southern teams? Southerners did. And when Alabama was finally granted a great privilege by the football Gods of the North, Midwest, and West to be given a chance, they burst onto the scene like a caged animal being set free.
After the final beating of USC by Alabama, in yet another Rose Bowl slaughter of yet another supposedly superior team with smarter players, better players, and more athletic players, the powers that be had finally had enough and made the Rose Bowl a private affair between the current Big10 and Pac12.
Your SOS arguments that you copied and pasted hold no merit. Southern teams were just as good and just as tough as anyone.
Our Southern team's schedules weren't like Div.1 AA compared to Northern teams Div.1-A schedules.
I thought all those silly arguments died when Alabama came out swinging and decimating the "powerhouses". Guess not.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
you mad
You are at a loss for words when not reading a script off a webpage you found, aren't you? I figured as much.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:48 pm to Alert Mi
quote:
You are at a loss for words
Oh, ooooh...
quote:
What you fail to mention, WildTchoupitoulas, while copying and pasting rails against the strength of Southern teams is that no one really knew how strong or weak Southern teams were.
Didn't know it was a "rail", it just looked like discussion to me.
quote:
You can't copy and paste quotes about total shite quality of Southern teams, in those long gone days, and just expect us to gobble it up as gospel.
I have no expectations, link?
quote:
News-writers and sports journalists, in those times, were all from the North.
"One of the earliest such polls was the AP College Football Poll, first run in 1934[3] (compiled and organized by Charles Woodroof, former SEC Assistant Director of Media Relations)" - wiki
quote:
Ever wonder why a player on a Southern team didn't win a Heisman trophy for about a thousand years?
A southerner, Davey O'Brien, won the Heisman in its third year - 1938, then another southerner, Frank Sinkwich, won it 4 years later with 99.9% of the vote. Don't confuse Alabama and Tennessee not winning Heismans in forever with all southern teams not winning Heismans.
quote:
Ever wonder why when Alabama, a team that broke barriers for all Southern teams, finally got a Rose Bowl invite, it was just a gift to those stupid Southerners because other Northern teams wouldn't accept it that season for various reasons?
No. You?
quote:
You parrot that, because you are ignorant of the facts, only West, Midwest, and Northern teams were considered powerhouses.
I didn't parrot shite, I just posted some material to the board for discussion, then you got all bent out of shape accusing me of various and sundry things.
quote:
Why? Because post Civil-War, the general perception of the rest of the nation was that Southerners were mentally retarded, less athletic, and were far too ignorant to play the game of football, to even grasp the concept of the game.
No, it's because we had hookworms due to a lack of indoor plumbing - or even outdoor plumbing.
LINK
quote:
How in the frick do you know what the talent level of Southern teams were? How do you know what the strength of schedule for teams like Alabama and Tennessee and LSU were compared to teams like Harvard, Washington, Dartmouth, or Colgate?
Now you're getting excited. Read the article and he discusses that at some length.
quote:
Simple answer is that you don't, no one then did and certainly no one now does. You don't know football history, you only copy and paste and then attempt to bash others based on what you just read, with no context to what you have read.
And all you do is get mad and throw a fit. Nice.
quote:
Who did know the strength of Southern teams? Southerners did. And when Alabama was finally granted a great privilege by the football Gods of the North, Midwest, and West to be given a chance, they burst onto the scene like a caged animal being set free.
Yeah, beating Washington by a point and tying Stanford is really getting all un-caged.
quote:
After the final beating of USC by Alabama, in yet another Rose Bowl slaughter of yet another supposedly superior team with smarter players, better players, and more athletic players, the powers that be had finally had enough and made the Rose Bowl a private affair between the current Big10 and Pac12.
That must have been after y'all were shut out by Cal.
quote:
Your SOS arguments that you copied and pasted hold no merit. Southern teams were just as good and just as tough as anyone.
Dude, I didn't make any arguments - not one.
quote:
Our Southern team's schedules weren't like Div.1 AA compared to Northern teams Div.1-A schedules.
Some of Alabama's foes just from 1920-1929:
Marion (non-IA)
Bryson (non-IA)
Southern Military Academy (non-IA)
Oglethorpe (1-9)
Spring Hill (non-IA)
Case (non-IA)
Union (Tennessee) (non-IA)
Birmingham-Southern (non-IA)
Millsaps (non-IA)
Rhodes (non-IA)
Mississippi College (non-IA)
Tennessee-Chattanooga (non-IA)
Not exactly murderer's row, there.
quote:
I thought all those silly arguments died when Alabama came out swinging and decimating the "powerhouses". Guess not.
First of all, Alabama didn't always decimate their opponent in the Rose Bowl, and second the Rose didn't always select the two best teams.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:50 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Some of these, like 2007 for instance, I have no clue how or why ANY selector would have us there.
Yeah, some of these are just weird. I mean you have multiple loss teams that didn't even finish in the top 15 and were 3rd or 4th in the SEC on the list for bama. UGA 2007 is another that makes no sense and so is UGA 1983 which lost twice while 4 teams finished ahead of them with 1 loss.
One thing about Auburn's 8, all could be argued as legit. And there could be others added that could be argued as legit such as 1908 which has already been discussed and had the best resume in football in 1908 under Donahue
Auburn - 8 (3)
1913 - Undefeated against a difficult schedule. Only played 2 homes games all year. Destroyed everyone. Combines 213-13. Very first Southern team to EVER be recognized as national champ.
1914 - 9 game schedule. Undefeated for the second year in a row. Even more dominant than 1913. No one scored on AU the entire season. Total destruction. Defeated 10-1 Carlisle at Carlisle after Carlisle rested its varsity team to prepare for AU (the Carlisle JV team smoked bama 20-3 the week before). Jim Thorpe had turned pro the year before, but Carlisle was a power that AU beat in the final game of the 1914 season - again, no one scored on AU all year.
1957 - NC.
1958 - Undefeated for second year in a row, played a tougher schedule than LSU but probation was a black cloud that many voters looked for a reason not to vote AU champ.
1983 - NC.
1993 - The weakest of the NINE potential championships. Only undefeated team in he country. Beat the SEC West and SEC champs, etc.
2004 - NC.
2010 - NC.
I mean every one of AU's 9 potential claims were all undefeated teams that actually have strong claims.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:53 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
First of all, Alabama didn't always decimate their opponent in the Rose Bowl, and second the Rose didn't always select the two best teams.
Yep. Not even close. Some of those Rose Bowls did not even feature two top ten teams. Bama was often way down the list on invitees for the Rose Bowl after the top teams in the country turned down the invitation.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:54 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:Except for your favorite.
every one was undefeated
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:59 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
One thing about Auburn's 8, all could be argued as legit. And there could be others added that could be argued as legit such as 1908 which has already been discussed and had the best resume in football in 1908
Well, except for that loss at home to undefeated LSU.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:03 pm to JuiceTerry
Oh yeah, kinda overlooked that one. I just take 1983 for granted as an obvious one for AU.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:27 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Tuscaloosa
LSU doesn't claim 1908 for some reason.
Other than that good offseason work. The Holtz and MSU pics
.Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:52 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
quote:
You are at a loss for words
Oh, ooooh...
Yeah, yeaaahh.
quote:
quote:
What you fail to mention, WildTchoupitoulas, while copying and pasting rails against the strength of Southern teams is that no one really knew how strong or weak Southern teams were.
Didn't know it was a "rail", it just looked like discussion to me.
Nope. I was a cut and paste with a lot of disingenuous information in it. You were railing against facts, with a little help from someone slightly more intelligent.
quote:
quote:
You can't copy and paste quotes about total shite quality of Southern teams, in those long gone days, and just expect us to gobble it up as gospel.
I have no expectations, link?
Why don't you have any expectations? Let me give you some hope in that regard. Here you go:
"And like LSU in '08, they were all just regional powerhouses playing weak schedules-- big fish in small ponds, as they say. No one names any of those other teams national champions, as well they shouldn't."
Lookie. Look at that. It's something you cut and pasted just one page back. Still no expectations?
quote:
quote:
News-writers and sports journalists, in those times, were all from the North.
"One of the earliest such polls was the AP College Football Poll, first run in 1934[3] (compiled and organized by Charles Woodroof, former SEC Assistant Director of Media Relations)" - wiki
1934? You cut and paste an article deriding Southern teams from the early days of the 20th century, talking about 1908 LSU, and now you skip to 1934?
Try to stay on topic.
It's as if you are talking about college football in the 1960's and suddenly jump to the state of college football in the 1990's to make a point that doesn't really exist.
And frankly, it's a stupid point, no one was talking about college polls at all.
quote:
quote:
Ever wonder why a player on a Southern team didn't win a Heisman trophy for about a thousand years?
A southerner, Davey O'Brien, won the Heisman in its third year - 1938, then another southerner, Frank Sinkwich, won it 4 years later with 99.9% of the vote. Don't confuse Alabama and Tennessee not winning Heismans in forever with all southern teams not winning Heismans.
That was a mistake on my part. I meant to use the example of the disproportionate number of All-Americans that Northern/Western/Midwestern teams have to Southern teams.
quote:
quote:
Ever wonder why when Alabama, a team that broke barriers for all Southern teams, finally got a Rose Bowl invite, it was just a gift to those stupid Southerners because other Northern teams wouldn't accept it that season for various reasons?
No. You?
Sure I do, and so should you. Why weren't Southern teams considered worthy of playing with other teams in the nation?
quote:
quote:
You parrot that, because you are ignorant of the facts, only West, Midwest, and Northern teams were considered powerhouses.
I didn't parrot shite, I just posted some material to the board for discussion, then you got all bent out of shape accusing me of various and sundry things.
I know you didn't parrot shite, you parroted a biased article full of inaccuracies and then made your own statements that used that article as their foundation.
quote:
quote:
Why? Because post Civil-War, the general perception of the rest of the nation was that Southerners were mentally retarded, less athletic, and were far too ignorant to play the game of football, to even grasp the concept of the game.
No, it's because we had hookworms due to a lack of indoor plumbing - or even outdoor plumbing.
LINK
Wrong again. Hookworms only help football players by giving them more durable tendon strength.
quote:
quote:
How in the frick do you know what the talent level of Southern teams were? How do you know what the strength of schedule for teams like Alabama and Tennessee and LSU were compared to teams like Harvard, Washington, Dartmouth, or Colgate?
Now you're getting excited. Read the article and he discusses that at some length.
But the article's author is a biased clown.
quote:
quote:
Simple answer is that you don't, no one then did and certainly no one now does. You don't know football history, you only copy and paste and then attempt to bash others based on what you just read, with no context to what you have read.
And all you do is get mad and throw a fit. Nice.
How you can equate the article you quoted with having a fit is kind of similar to how you can equate 1910's football to the year 1934 and the AP poll. :-)
quote:
quote:
Who did know the strength of Southern teams? Southerners did. And when Alabama was finally granted a great privilege by the football Gods of the North, Midwest, and West to be given a chance, they burst onto the scene like a caged animal being set free.
Yeah, beating Washington by a point and tying Stanford is really getting all un-caged.
But it was, it was. It astounded the fools and clowns all around the nation who actually imagined that Southerner's brains were in their feet and they could never possibly have a chance to win against a "powerhouse".
quote:
quote:
After the final beating of USC by Alabama, in yet another Rose Bowl slaughter of yet another supposedly superior team with smarter players, better players, and more athletic players, the powers that be had finally had enough and made the Rose Bowl a private affair between the current Big10 and Pac12.
That must have been after y'all were shut out by Cal.
Of course not. Try to understand what you actually read and you may notice that I mentioned USC. Alabama made it possible for Southern teams to play in the Rose Bowl and then they ended that possibility by making Southern Cal seem so ridiculous in 1946.
quote:
quote:
Your SOS arguments that you copied and pasted hold no merit. Southern teams were just as good and just as tough as anyone.
Dude, I didn't make any arguments - not one.
Not even one? Not a single one?
quote:
Some of Alabama's foes just from 1920-1929:
Marion (non-IA)
Bryson (non-IA)
Southern Military Academy (non-IA)
Oglethorpe (1-9)
Spring Hill (non-IA)
Case (non-IA)
Union (Tennessee) (non-IA)
Birmingham-Southern (non-IA)
Millsaps (non-IA)
Rhodes (non-IA)
Mississippi College (non-IA)
Tennessee-Chattanooga (non-IA)
Not exactly murderer's row, there.
Some of Michigan's opponent's from 1920-1929.
Case (non-IA)
Michigan State (non-IA)
Mount Union (non-IA)
Quantico Marines (non-IA)
Miami (Ohio) (non-IA)
Ohio Wesleyan (non-IA)
Albion (non-IA)
Denison (non-IA)
Eastern Michigan (non-IA)
Not exactly murderer's row there is it? You must have thought only Southern teams played shitty non-IA teams and that is why there weren't "powerhouses".
Want to do some comparisons of the other Northern or Western powerhouse team schedules to Southern team's schedules? Of course you don't. Hell, Michigan had the least non-1a opponents of any of them; it only gets worse from here. But, you know that. quote:
quote:
I thought all those silly arguments died when Alabama came out swinging and decimating the "powerhouses". Guess not.
First of all, Alabama didn't always decimate their opponent in the Rose Bowl, and second the Rose didn't always select the two best teams.
First of all, Alabama did often decimate their Rose Bowl opponents and secondly, the Rose Bowl usually had the two best teams.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 6:12 pm to WeeWee
Well, as to LSU 1908, several writers accused LSU of paying older semi pro players to come in from northern states to play football that year. Some publications didn't recognize LSUs wins that year and apparently some of the players left after the season and said yes they were older and paid. AU actually removed the loss from the record books.
Not trying to start a pissing contest about it, just responding to LSU not recognizing it even though they blew out everyone except AU.
Not trying to start a pissing contest about it, just responding to LSU not recognizing it even though they blew out everyone except AU.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 9:32 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Au claims 1983?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 9:36 pm to djsdawg
He does.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 9:40 pm to Korin
I like this game. Its like kids soccer. Let's all get trophies.
Posted on 6/17/15 at 12:01 am to Katy Tiger
quote:
I like this game. Its like kids soccer. Let's all get trophies.
Win more games.
Posted on 6/17/15 at 12:14 am to Tuscaloosa
@ Lou Holtz. I'm going to wake up the wife laughing.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News