re: Questionable National Title Claims

quote:

---

And look at all the teams that didn't. 15 teams, just in your short 10 year period.

---

So what? In 7 out of 10 years during the 1920s, a Rose Bowl champion/participant lays claim to a share of the national championship - thus proving my point on how important the game was and how people saw it at that time. That's all I was arguing. Never once did I say the Rose Bowl Champion was the ONLY national champion from that year.

quote:

---

7 vs 15

---

Once again…so what? Your above quote does nothing to debunk or affirm my argument. You claimed the Rose Bowl was merely an exhibition game. I agreed with you except for the decade of the 1920s. At that time the Rose Bowl was viewed as the biggest venue in all of collegiate athletics.

quote:

---

You said the rose bowl was the national chmapionship game

---

As far as the national championship game aspect is concerned, I argued that this was the case in 1925 and 1926 and I backed this up with evidence:

Exhibit A


Exhibit B


Exhibit C


Never once did I argue it was the case for the other games. I simply said the press treated the game as if it were a grand national final during the 1920s - and they did for the most part. As for the team that shared the national championship with Alabama in '25 (Dartmouth), they were the first team invited to the Rose Bowl by the Rose Bowl Committee that year, but turned it down because the players didn't want to travel the 3,000+ miles to play a football game.

A few random newspaper clippings are extremely weak evidence to support a claim that bama was the national champ.

Personally, I will put more weight behind the fact that bama was the 6th choice to even play in the game and only played in it because the top teams were not interested.

quote:

---

A few random newspaper clippings are extremely weak evidence to support a claim that bama was the national champ.

---

That's because you're a biased dumb arse who wouldn't believe Alabama's national championship claims to those years even if God Himself told you otherwise. Those newspaper clippings accomplish 2 things:

1) Give Alabama the title of "national champion"
2) Refer to the Rose Bowl - a postseason football event - as a national championship game

Most people who try to discredit Alabama's title claims in this era (and foolishly I might add) tend to argue that there was no such thing as a national championship game in those days. However…we have at least two sources - one of which we know for sure is a non-Southern paper - arguing to the contrary.

quote:

---

That's because you're a biased dumb arse who wouldn't believe Alabama's national championship claims to those years even if God Himself told you otherwise

---

You are wrong. I am rational and look at the facts. The most in-depth analysis I have ever seen agrees with me. You on the otherhand... well whatever, you're just a gump that likes a few random newspaper clippings. And it is always the same 3 clips.

Maybe I'll look up those newspapers. Probably about as relevant as the Opelika times. Even back then.

quote:

---

I am rational and look at the facts.

---

And I'm a historian who is trained to look at primary as well as secondary sources. Three primary sources from three different papers from three different parts of the country is enough for any rational person to accept at face value. Clearly you are not as rational as you think you are.

quote:

---

Maybe I'll look up those newspapers. Probably about as relevant as the Opelika times. Even back then.

---

The Pittsburgh Press was the second largest newspaper in the state of Pennsylvania during that time period. Besides, that story was written by an AP reporter.