re: "If we counted championships like bammer does" - here's how many your team has

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.