Started By
Message
re: ESPN Program Prestige Rankings
Posted on 8/4/09 at 6:41 am to Alahunter
Posted on 8/4/09 at 6:41 am to Alahunter
quote:
They should include heads up with what they consider "major college programs" before 1936 then. Bama kicked USC's arse in the Rose Bowl, which was the standard before that time frame.
Renounce your 1978 "National Championship" and then we can talk head to head.
1
Posted on 8/4/09 at 7:03 am to loweralabamatrojan
It was awarded by the AP. It's legit. If you want to take that away, then I guess you could give back your 03. It would be less legit.
Posted on 8/4/09 at 7:09 am to TT9
quote:
Yeah we should be top 4...
lol
Posted on 8/4/09 at 2:28 pm to Alahunter
quote:We never played LSU in 03/04 so there's no way to know who'd have won head to head.
It was awarded by the AP. It's legit. If you want to take that away, then I guess you could give back your 03. It would be less legit.
In '78 we whipped you straight up at Legion Field, finished with identical records and you were still awarded a split. Ha!
Posted on 8/4/09 at 2:39 pm to loweralabamatrojan
A prestige ranking that uses stuff as far back as 1936 is retarded. It should always be done over the last 18 years. That way you see what type of program the incoming recruits have grown up seeing on with during their lifetimes.
The '03 AP title is about the same thing as giving out a BCS computer title. The AP was part of the system at that point. That is just the way it is and it is the AP's fault for it losing any form of relevance anymore. The BCS system is less biased than the AP.
The '03 AP title is about the same thing as giving out a BCS computer title. The AP was part of the system at that point. That is just the way it is and it is the AP's fault for it losing any form of relevance anymore. The BCS system is less biased than the AP.
This post was edited on 8/4/09 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 8/5/09 at 6:24 pm to Volmanac
quote:
That actually may not hurt Bama at all. Sometimes highlighting the accomplishments of one player does not help a team reach the highest level. I don't think Alabama would have won as many team championships if it had had Heisman winners.
And you gather that I disagree with this from my post? I said they count them in their "formula". In other words they give teams lots of points for having them. Clearly this hurt UT and Bama in the ranking.
I just saw your reply. What I meant was that if Bama had one or more heisman winners that it might not have as many other accomplishments (championships, etc) and therefore not be any higher under the formula.
Posted on 8/5/09 at 6:33 pm to usc6158
quote:
Michigan is overrated as frick
quote:
No way they are over bama or USC
x2.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News