Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/1/16 at 3:37 pm to LCTFAN
Can anyone find a link to Sagarin's past national championships? Years ago I wasn't able to find one through Google and just now I can't either. I mean a list from Sagarin or something official, not from some team who says Sagarin awarded them the NC.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 6:02 pm to MedDawg
Look in the NCAA records book.
1919-1977 retroactive and 1978-present.
Alabama: 1925, 1930, 1961, 1966, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015
Arkansas: 1964
Auburn: 1957, 2010
Florida: 1984, 1985, 1996, 2006, 2008
Georgia: 1942, 1980
Kentucky: 1950
LSU: 1936, 1958, 2003, 2007
Ole Miss: 1959, 1962
Tennessee: 1938, 1950, 1956, 1998
Texas A&M: 1927, 1939
1919-1977 retroactive and 1978-present.
Alabama: 1925, 1930, 1961, 1966, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015
Arkansas: 1964
Auburn: 1957, 2010
Florida: 1984, 1985, 1996, 2006, 2008
Georgia: 1942, 1980
Kentucky: 1950
LSU: 1936, 1958, 2003, 2007
Ole Miss: 1959, 1962
Tennessee: 1938, 1950, 1956, 1998
Texas A&M: 1927, 1939
This post was edited on 8/1/16 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 8/1/16 at 6:14 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I disagree. The bowl "system" has been money driven for its whole history. It's money and money alone that has perpetuated the asinine major college football post season.
Regrettably, that has foisted upon the public a perception that major college football is somehow different from other divisions, even the pros. Subsequently, we have missed out on glorious seasons followed by even better playoffs that would have seen some truly historic programs turn away all comers and others that suffered monumental upsets to teams that got stronger as the season went on.
You can't disagree though, it WAS a system that everyone agreed to play under (multiple times at that). You might not like it but facts are facts.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 6:38 pm to AlabamaAlum07
I can disagree because the everyone to whom you refer is not documented anywhere and because the powers of major college football have always been money-driven corporations who have dictated to the sport for decades. With the inception of the 4-team playoff, the first signs of rebellion appeared against silly systems that "pick the best 2 teams" (which has always been up for debate) to play for the mythical championship. Posted on 8/1/16 at 9:42 pm to Kentucker
But it's a fact that the BCS was a system everyone agreed to play under. That's not up for debate just because you didn't like it.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 11:26 pm to AlabamaAlum07
Well, we keep dancing as though we're each leading.
The first word abbreviated in BCS is bowl. The word made synonym for bowl in this context is corporation. Actually, corporate money.
Only the abbreviation changed. Nothing else.
Obviously not everyone agreed because a howling objection steadily increased from those not picked to play in the mythical championship game. That's why we have the 4-game playoff and will soon see an increase to 8 and then more.
Major college football has been a farce for far too long. It's time to crown champions on the field, not in some back room where money determines the outcome.
The first word abbreviated in BCS is bowl. The word made synonym for bowl in this context is corporation. Actually, corporate money.
Only the abbreviation changed. Nothing else.
Obviously not everyone agreed because a howling objection steadily increased from those not picked to play in the mythical championship game. That's why we have the 4-game playoff and will soon see an increase to 8 and then more.
Major college football has been a farce for far too long. It's time to crown champions on the field, not in some back room where money determines the outcome.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:35 am to Kentucker
Its still difficult to comprehend how this archaic farce is allowed to continue in 2016. The 4 team playoff was a step in the right direction. It will eventually expand to 8, that seems inevitable. I can't see it going beyond 16. Of course the NCAAT shouldn't have gone past 32 IMO and here we sit at 68 currently so who knows. If there's money to be made, then changes will happen.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 8:32 am to Kentucker
quote:
It's time to crown champions on the field,
Which happened during the BCS since there was a designated title game everyone agreed to.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 8:56 am to AlabamaAlum07
A "designated" title game with the two most, perceived, beautiful teams participating. They didn't get to the title game because they earned it necessarily.
Rather, they were usually chosen because their records were prettier. It's comparable to allowing beauty contestants have boob jobs and other plastic surgery to compete.
Rather, they were usually chosen because their records were prettier. It's comparable to allowing beauty contestants have boob jobs and other plastic surgery to compete.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 10:27 am to Kentucker
Just like none of the playoff teams "earned" their way either, they're chosen by a 12-13 panel of kangaroos who are supposed "experts."
Posted on 8/2/16 at 10:30 am to AlabamaAlum07
The BCS was better than the previous system, and the 4 team playoff is better than the BCS. An 8 team playoff would be ideal for football, though 16 would be sweet. More "meaningful" football is OK by me. The bowl games are just NIT invites. I don't know why its so difficult to admit football's postseason has been a giant crock for decades, other than the fact that Alabama has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of it. Would have loved if UK could skip all those pesky NCAA games and just get sent to the title game. We'd have a hell of a lot more titles.
This post was edited on 8/2/16 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/2/16 at 11:21 am to AlabamaAlum07
quote:
Just like none of the playoff teams "earned" their way either, they're chosen by a 12-13 panel of kangaroos who are supposed "experts."
Yes, it's still a very faulty system and, no, the best team will not always be picked to participate in the 4-team playoff. However, last year Alabama, and Ohio State the year before had to face a broader challenge on the post season field at least.
Clearly Bama was, by far, the best of the four last year. That's much more credible than saying the Crimson Tide was, by far, the best of the two when they played Notre Dame.
The implication was that Notre Dame was the second best team in the nation. That's just lunacy. If the Irish had beaten two or three teams in a playoff and then had gotten humiliated by Bama, they might have had a claim.
But then think what that would have said about Bama. They would have gone down in history as one of the greatest teams of all time, inarguably so.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News