Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:40 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
Again, your opinion means less than shite.
And at the same time is 1,00 times better than yours, since you've admitted you're clueless.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:41 pm to boxedlunch
That's like your opinion, and it means less than shite. Move along
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:45 pm to BigOrangeBri
He most certainly knows what he's talking about. Do you post on Rivals?
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:46 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
That's like your opinion, and it means less than shite. Move along
On the contrary, an informed opinion always is better than an uninformed one. My opinion is informed and you've established the fact that you are clueless.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:54 pm to boxedlunch
quote:
On the contrary, an informed opinion always is better than an uninformed one. My opinion is informed and you've established the fact that you are clueless.
Tennessee Vols 1950 Co-Champions.
DWI
Again, your opinion means less than shite. Congrats on your Internet forum E-cred
Posted on 5/23/15 at 10:57 pm to semotruman
quote:
Pretty sure he's a hog alter, WG. Would not engage.
I've seen several Missouri fans make this claim and I am curious why you think this.
Honestly, I'm not sure why folks meltdown over this guy. From what I've seen he actually tries to discuss football unlike most of the board. Maybe I'm missing something about him.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:02 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
Tennessee Vols 1950 Co-Champions.
Agreed
quote:
DWI
Again, your opinion means less than shite. Congrats on your Internet forum E-cred
Again, I don't value my opinion much. However, I know my opinion is far more valuable than yours because you are clueless.
Feel free to defend your nonsense, though. I'm fully aware that who I name national champion in 1950 is worthless. However, in your selector counts you named a bunch of people who's value is equally as worthless. Here's a list of selectors you seem to value:
1st-N-Goal
Clyde Berryman
Jim Koger
Century Football Index
James Whalen
Jeff Self
Patrick Premo
The Fleming System
The State's National Champions
Could you explain who these people are and give reasons why anybody should value who they name champion?
This post was edited on 5/23/15 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:11 pm to boxedlunch
We've already established that the CFB Datawarehouse link is worthless. I'd be more interested in your opinion of the 6 selectors recognized in the NCAA document
This post was edited on 5/23/15 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:12 pm to BigOrangeBri
I just wish people would realize that CFDW is one random person's site that has a lot of unverified stuff on it. The guy who runs Winsipedia chose to use it for some reason.
This post was edited on 5/23/15 at 11:13 pm
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:19 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
We've already established that the CFB Datawarehouse link is worthless. I'd be more interested in your opinion of the 6 selectors recognized in the NCAA document
The selectors in the NCAA document are relevant to who claims what titles because those are the selectors that most of the schools use to claim their titles. My opinion of them makes no difference. These are relevant selectors. How relevant each is in each given time period differs, though and requires more research. Just looking at list will not provide an informed opinion either.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:25 pm to Korin
quote:
I just wish people would realize that CFDW is one random person's site that has a lot of unverified stuff on it. The guy who runs Winsipedia chose to use it for some reason.
Providing too much information is not necessarily bad. It's when people think that's relevant, even when the source doesn't say it that you get into trouble. The odd thing is that Auburn actually considered claiming some of these oddball title saying that "everybody else is", which is far from true. Sometimes even SIDs are clueless.
When talking to he guy who created the list that was the basis for one of the titles Auburn wanted, I pointed out that he was the one who started this and he thought it rather ironic. He didn't think Auburn should claim it either.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:25 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
Maybe this link will work better for you. NCAA
According to that link, we can claim not only our '64 title but '77 as well.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:26 pm to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
nebraskafaninwi
Whomever you are, wherever you are, I'm shite faced drunk and still ... you and I and everyone agrees - you're a fricktard.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:30 pm to boxedlunch
quote:
The selectors in the NCAA document are relevant to who claims what titles because those are the selectors that most of the schools use to claim their titles. My opinion of them makes no difference. These are relevant selectors. How relevant each is in each given time period differs, though and requires more research. Just looking at list will not provide an informed opinion either.
That's why I was asking your opinion. I won't claim to be an expert on selectors for a national title that was 65 years ago. My stance has always been that it was a faulty system and looking back, multiple schools have legit claims to national titles in different years. By looking at multiple factors, I feel Tennessee has a legit claim to 1950.
This post was edited on 5/23/15 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 5/23/15 at 11:49 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
That's why I was asking your opinion. I won't claim to be an expert on selectors for a national title that was 65 years ago. My stance has always been that it was a faulty system and looking back, multiple schools have legit claims to national titles in different years. By looking at multiple factors, I feel Tennessee has a legit claim to 1950.
There's no question they have a "legitimate" claim. It's not like they'd pull it from nowhere, like Auburn was discussing. It becomes a matter of which schools claim them with weaker credentials than others. Alabama takes a lot of grief for claiming 1941, to the point where even fans of the school wash their hands of it. I defend their right to claim it, because it's not what who you beat, who you played or who you lost to that matters, it's who gives you a title, and Houlgate was a respected selector at the time (though he named Alabama retroactively). I feel they can claim it, but should be a little embarrassed to do so because it's weaker than some other schools claim. SMU is the only school who claims titles based on one of the third tier selectors past 1970, in 1981 and 1982. In 1981, of all the selectors for that year, they won only NCF and that was a 5 way split. That's a lot of chutzpah. Michigan State claims all they can, even if other schools don't claim similar. Notre Dame doesn't claim some they could. These schools can claim these titles, but people don't have to value them if the claim seems weak.
The non-retro selectors for Tennessee in 1950 are Devold and Dunkel. Dunkel is/was fairly well respected and was even in the BCS. That claim is not bad.
Posted on 5/24/15 at 12:00 am to boxedlunch
quote:
There's no question they have a "legitimate" claim. It's not like they'd pull it from nowhere, like Auburn was discussing. It becomes a matter of which schools claim them with weaker credentials than others. Alabama takes a lot of grief for claiming 1941, to the point where even fans of the school wash their hands of it. I defend their right to claim it, because it's not what who you beat, who you played or who you lost to that matters, it's who gives you a title, and Houlgate was a respected selector at the time (though he named Alabama retroactively). I feel they can claim it, but should be a little embarrassed to do so because it's weaker than some other schools claim. SMU is the only school who claims titles based on one of the third tier selectors past 1970, in 1981 and 1982. In 1981, of all the selectors for that year, they won only NCF and that was a 5 way split. That's a lot of chutzpah. Michigan State claims all they can, even if other schools don't claim similar. Notre Dame doesn't claim some they could. These schools can claim these titles, but people don't have to value them if the claim seems weak. The non-retro selectors for Tennessee in 1950 are Devold and Dunkel. Dunkel is/was fairly well respected and was even in the BCS. That claim is not bad.
Thanks for the input. I wasn't insulting you so much as I was insulting the whole convoluted shitty system they had back then. Like I said, for me it's a lot of common sense and being able to look back and see multiple factors that prove there is a recognizable claim.
There are a couple Title years posted in our stadium that you'll never hear me argue for.
Posted on 5/24/15 at 12:04 am to BigOrangeBri
BTW. In 1950, did Devold and Dunkel choose post bowl game?
This post was edited on 5/24/15 at 12:05 am
Posted on 5/24/15 at 7:48 am to BigOrangeBri
quote:
Thanks for the input. I wasn't insulting you so much as I was insulting the whole convoluted shitty system they had back then. Like I said, for me it's a lot of common sense and being able to look back and see multiple factors that prove there is a recognizable claim.
There are a couple Title years posted in our stadium that you'll never hear me argue for.
Okay, what gets me is seeing "18 to 11" selectors when a majority of selectors are basically retro system made by joe average. That's not really significant information, but a lot of people treat it as gospel.
Posted on 5/24/15 at 7:52 am to BigOrangeBri
quote:
BTW. In 1950, did Devold and Dunkel choose post bowl game?
I don't believe so, but don't have solid proof anywhere. Houlgate is interesting in that aspect. His was not post-bowl until later he came out and released post-bowl ratings and those are the ones in the NCAA Record Book. His title was not retro or post bowl, but the ones they have are.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News