Started By
Message
re: Why does Alabama claim the 1941 championship?
Posted on 12/13/16 at 7:25 pm to AshleySchaeffer
Posted on 12/13/16 at 7:25 pm to AshleySchaeffer
Stupid, overdone topic that is brought up quite a bit. Yes, the 1941 claim is odd. But who really cares now? They are winning a lot more now. They run the damn show. They can do whatever they please.
0
Posted on 12/13/16 at 7:28 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:Well, well, well. Aren't we the little uppity Bammer?
And "hisself" is not a word.
Posted on 12/13/16 at 7:28 pm to AshleySchaeffer
He obviously got that tat 4 national championships ago. Do you realize how long 4 NCs ago was? Probably even that dude doesn't even care about 1941 at this point.
This post was edited on 12/13/16 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 12/13/16 at 7:34 pm to elposter
He could easily turn 41 into 45
Posted on 12/14/16 at 12:24 am to skrayper
Pathetic
Posted on 12/14/16 at 6:59 am to Che Boludo
There's no reason to compare Bama to Minnesota. Start by comparing them to Miss State and Vandy. State won the SEC and shut out Alabama. Vandy was second in the SEC and shut out Alabama. The AP poll placed 2-loss Alabama at number 20. How does it make any sense at all to arbitrarily jump 18 teams - including the 2 SEC teams above them - and compare Bama to Minnesota? It doesn't.
2 points -
The sports information guy said he only included 1941 because it sounded better to say Bama had a dozen titles than to say they had 11 titles at the time.
The year 1941 is inscribed in stone around the UA campus where all the championship years are inscribed. This is an embarrassment to the university, and they should be removed immediately.
2 points -
The sports information guy said he only included 1941 because it sounded better to say Bama had a dozen titles than to say they had 11 titles at the time.
The year 1941 is inscribed in stone around the UA campus where all the championship years are inscribed. This is an embarrassment to the university, and they should be removed immediately.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 7:01 am to AshleySchaeffer
Bama shouldn't claim 1941, but seasons like 1966 are legit claims though. College footballs champion has never been completely clear-cut, even with today's skewed playoff, so there's room for much discussion.
I try to be reasonable, and I'm fine with Bama sharing 2011's national title with LSU also. Bama and LSU were clearly the two best teams that year (Went 1-1 against each other) so a shared 2011 title is a reasonable solution...
I try to be reasonable, and I'm fine with Bama sharing 2011's national title with LSU also. Bama and LSU were clearly the two best teams that year (Went 1-1 against each other) so a shared 2011 title is a reasonable solution...
Posted on 12/14/16 at 7:02 am to Che Boludo
quote:
He could easily turn 41 into 45
If anything, I would do 1966. Nothing should detract from the 1945 Army team.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 7:05 am to AshleySchaeffer
As a '93 grad of UA, I don't claim it. Like a few others have stated, '66 should be claimed and '41 disappear from memory. It was all a marketing ploy I believe to further the brand of the University. I have never understood this season being claimed.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 7:06 am to AshleySchaeffer
Because we're the shite.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 8:06 am to AshleySchaeffer
Looking at the film Bama was arguably the best team that year
Posted on 12/14/16 at 8:32 am to AshleySchaeffer
Whatever metric one chooses to employ, Alabama is still regarded nationally as the historically preeminent program in college football
Alabama has won one another Championship since this poll was taken. Take 1941 or leave it, we have other years that are more worthy of a claim..... we're still undeniably the best
Alabama has won one another Championship since this poll was taken. Take 1941 or leave it, we have other years that are more worthy of a claim..... we're still undeniably the best
This post was edited on 12/14/16 at 8:41 am
Posted on 12/14/16 at 8:33 am to skrayper
quote:
I would do 1966. Nothing should detract from the 1945 Army team.
I'd prefer '66 as well, but the guy in the pic looks as if he prefers to put in as little effort as possible in most things, so changing 1 number vs 2 is the better choice for the person in question.
To your second point, the WWII Army teams' successes were an anomaly based in large part to war support propoganda (world's best Army can't be led by officers that don't represent the nation's truly best). That said, they also benefited greatly from National recruiting bringing in a lot of top tier athletes for the same reasons. The US was in its second WW of a generation, coming out of a depression with no real lasting peace or economic security in sight, so becoming an Army officer seemed like good pay and job securiry while buying into and promoting the patriotic fervor of the time. Meanwhile, West Point had produced 4 of 5 five star general officers; so if a military career was in mind, West Point may have seemed like quite a better choice in the 40s than at any other time.
Moreover, many more officers and troops entered service and served before and after college in non-military academies. aTm's 20k plus troops they put into WWII was by far the gold standard for non-military academies. So, giving the title to the best team (assuming of course the best team wasn't actually the USMA as I obviously didn't catch a lot of games to make a really informed decision) wouldn't exactly take away from anyone who supported the war effort let alone those West Point classes who were truly part of the greatest generation going far beyond football.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 9:09 am to Che Boludo
quote:
Houlgate? Who the hell, and why can we legitimately take that as a NC vote?
Glad you asked. In 1941, Houlgate was the oldest remaining recognized system for crowning National Champions. It began in 1927, and was highly regarded for its systematic approach to finding out who the best team in the nation was. In fact, it was the only system at the time that took strength of schedule into account, and which we’ll find out later, may have played a large roll in its final selection. The AP poll was in its infancy, 5 years old to be exact, while Houlgate was on its 14th year of service. You can essentially compare this to the AP poll versus BCS debate of 5 years ago. The AP poll of that day was the opinion of 44, grossly uninformed writers who could only keep up with teams from around their general area (due to the overall lack of national coverage), which just happened to be the northeast for the most part.
This isnt really true. Houlgate(at the time) was in a syndication of a few west coast newspapers, but mostly in a publication/advertisement put out by 7-up. Houlgate didnt become more popular(if you could call it that) until he was in the the annual, Illustrated Football and his annual, Football Thesaurus, both after 1941. The AP poll was more well regarded at the time and far more published. At the time the Tuscaloosa News makes no mention of the Houlgate yet mentions the AP, and the champs Minnesota
It is true his poll was a strength of schedule poll which is why bama is ranked so much higher than the AP. There was also another poll in the period that did as well, Dunkel.
The real issue is, was Bama actually selected as the 1941 Houlgate winner. No news article, that I have seen, states it and several state the opposite, both in his "final" or "permanent" 1941 polls proclaim Minnesota as Champ and Bama as 3rd. His poll in the weeks prior to the final have Minnesota at the top and Bama even further down his chart. I believe the first mention of Bama as the winner of the poll is roughly 20 years later in a NC database that was known to include a few inaccuracies.
Posted on 12/14/16 at 9:37 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
The real issue is, was Bama actually selected as the 1941 Houlgate winner.... I believe the first mention of Bama as the winner of the poll is roughly 20 years later in a NC database that was known to include a few inaccuracies.
NCAA Football records in PDF form from ncaa.org
1941
Alabama: Houlgate
Minnesota: AP,Billingsley,Boand,DeVold,
Dunkel,Football Research, Helms, Litkenhous,
National Championship Foundation,Poling, Sagarin, Sagarin (ELO-Chess)
Texas: Berryman, Williamson
Posted on 12/14/16 at 9:48 am to mattloc
I am aware of the NCAA records, but what is their source? is it the 60's database of NC's? because it is known to have wrong titles. Again, the newspapers who actually published the Houlgate rankings say Minnesota won.
News article after his final poll released on dec 2, Minn at 1, Bama at 3
News article before final poll with Minn as 1, bama at 4
News article after his final poll released on dec 2, Minn at 1, Bama at 3
News article before final poll with Minn as 1, bama at 4
Posted on 12/14/16 at 9:48 am to AshleySchaeffer
Why did Florida suck so badly before Spurrier came to coach?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News