Started By
Message
re: There have been 22 SEC national titles in football in the poll era (1936)
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:12 pm to Korin
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:12 pm to Korin
quote:
You just said the AP and Coaches were the authorities starting in the 30s and up through 97
Yes, as far as what the average person would count as "more important" than others. And I don't disagree with that. YOu asked a question and I answered, the reason UGA claims 42 is because no other team recieved more #1 votes than us. That's their reasoning, whether I agree or not.
And I expanded in the post above about our comparison with OSU in 42. The way things were settled back in the old days is a complete joke.
1
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:13 pm to Korin
quote:
You know, the same sites y'all use to justify the retroactive claims.
I don't need those sites. I have history on my side:
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:17 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
To expand a little more...
In '42 UGA finished the regular season 10-1 with wins over #3 bama (interestingly enough, at grant field. Idk why) and #2 GT in our finale. Only loss was to auburn. Afterwards, we shutout #13 UCLA in the rose bowl.
In '42 OSU finished the regular season 9-1 with wins over #13 and #4 and a loss to #6 wisconsin. They did not even play in a bowl game.
That's because Big 10 teams weren't allowed to play in bowls until the 46 season (with the exception of Michigan in the first Rose). The myth that the Rose chose UGA over Ohio St is just that...a myth.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:18 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I don't need those sites. I have history on my side:
Which Tuscaloosa or Birmingham paper is that from?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:19 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Yes, as far as what the average person would count as "more important" than others. And I don't disagree with that. YOu asked a question and I answered, the reason UGA claims 42 is because no other team recieved more #1 votes than us. That's their reasoning, whether I agree or not.
And I expanded in the post above about our comparison with OSU in 42. The way things were settled back in the old days is a complete joke.
Then you can't have a problem with Ole Miss claiming 60 and Arkansas claiming 64 since they got the most selections.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:22 pm to Korin
quote:
Which Tuscaloosa or Birmingham paper is that from
I don't know what paper it's from. But it's from the period, meaning they had some understanding what a national championship was back then.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:24 pm to RollTide1987
Fine then, let's assume it's real and some sort of national publication. What about 1930, 34, and 41?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:25 pm to Korin
quote:
The myth that the Rose chose UGA over Ohio St is just that...a myth.
did I ever say we were picked over them?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:26 pm to Korin
quote:
Then you can't have a problem with Ole Miss claiming 60 and Arkansas claiming 64 since they got the most selections.
have I ever in my life said that I dispute those? Seems like you're trying to argue with me simply for the sake of arguing.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:28 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
did I ever say we were picked over them?
Did I say you did?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:29 pm to Korin
quote:
What about 1930, 34, and 41?
1930 and 1934 were both pre-AP Poll and, as I have said many times in this thread, I have no problem with schools claiming titles pre-36 if they can hold up to scrutiny. Alabama's '30 and '34 teams can stand up to scrutiny IMO.
1941, however, should be gotten rid of. I think the only reason our SID office originally claimed that one is because it put us at 11 national championships - which was one more than Notre Dame claimed at the time.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:30 pm to RollTide1987
Then why didn't he claim 45 or 66 instead?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:31 pm to Korin
quote:
Did I say you did?
It was implied, otherwise why mention it?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:31 pm to WG_Dawg
Why even mention Ohio St didn't go to bowl when they literally weren't allowed to by their conference at the time?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:35 pm to Korin
quote:
Why even mention Ohio St didn't go to bowl
because I was comparing the 2 resumes, nothing more. You're the one looking for some deeper rooted meaning behind it...I litereally just put down both team's seasons.
quote:
weren't allowed to by their conference at the time?
so if they couldn't go to any bowl (not just rose, but ANY bowl) why should UGA be punished for that? We had a better record, beat better opponents, and played in a premiere bowl game.
I alreayd know the answer so that's mostly rhetorical, I'm just saying I dont' feel bad in the slightest about claiming '42.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:36 pm to WG_Dawg
"They did not even play in a bowl game."
Why even mention that when you know they weren't allowed to (like all Big 10 teams at the time)?
Why even mention that when you know they weren't allowed to (like all Big 10 teams at the time)?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:38 pm to Korin
quote:
Then why didn't he claim 45 or 66 instead?
Two reasons.
1. In 1941, the AP Poll conducted its final poll with two weeks left to go in the regular season.
2. In 1941, Houlgate awarded us his championship IN 1941. He had also been around since 1927 while the AP had only been around since 1936.
The few systems that have us #1 for 1945 were awarded retroactively. And, by 1966, just about everyone recognized the AP and the UPI as the gold standard.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:38 pm to Korin
you're worse than debating with a female.
I mentioned it because, once again, I was comparing the 2 resumes side by side. One team didnt' play in a bowl game, so I included that fact. Sorry it burns you up so much, for some odd reason.
I mentioned it because, once again, I was comparing the 2 resumes side by side. One team didnt' play in a bowl game, so I included that fact. Sorry it burns you up so much, for some odd reason.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:40 pm to WG_Dawg
But you already knew that they weren't allowed to play in a bowl per the Big 10 rules at the time. That's like criticizing UGA for not winning the Big 10 in 1942.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:44 pm to Korin
This will be my last post to you in here because you are either willfully obtuse or just being a fricktard, both of which are becoming annoying.
For the last time.....I put both team's resumes next to each other. Whether OSU was allowed to play in a bowl or not, the FACT remains that UGA played in one extra game, giving them a better record, and it was a big extra game at that. I'm not criticizing OSU and saying "hahahah look at these idiots, they didn't even play in a bowl game!!!!". I put it to illustrate that we played in one and they didn't. That's it.
That comparison is not even remotely close to the topic at hand. It would be literally impossible for UGA to win the bit 10 that year, since we weren't in the big 10. It would not be impossible for OSU to have a better resume than us that year, yet they did not.
For the last time.....I put both team's resumes next to each other. Whether OSU was allowed to play in a bowl or not, the FACT remains that UGA played in one extra game, giving them a better record, and it was a big extra game at that. I'm not criticizing OSU and saying "hahahah look at these idiots, they didn't even play in a bowl game!!!!". I put it to illustrate that we played in one and they didn't. That's it.
quote:
That's like criticizing UGA for not winning the Big 10 in 1942.
That comparison is not even remotely close to the topic at hand. It would be literally impossible for UGA to win the bit 10 that year, since we weren't in the big 10. It would not be impossible for OSU to have a better resume than us that year, yet they did not.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 3:45 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News