Started By
Message
re: Majority National Titles (Football)
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:10 pm to USMC Gators
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:10 pm to USMC Gators
quote:
USMC Gators
Majority National Titles (Football)
Again, this was not intended at all to start shite. I think it's okay for a school to claim a title when they had the most selections even if they didn't get the AP and/or Coaches. Damn.
Agreed. If so, LSU would have 9:
1908, 1935, 1936, 1958, 1961, 1962, 2003, 2007,
2011.
0
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:10 pm to 870Hog
quote:Wait until their SID sees this thread.
Bama-28
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:12 pm to USMC Gators
The obscure selectors outnumber the nationally recognized ones (AP/UPI/BCS). I would say its better to have a minority of the ones that count than a majority of the total imho
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:12 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Ole Miss 1 (1960)
quote:
I'm surprised more State fans haven't jumped in here to dispute this.
Considering the fact that no one on this board was alive during this season, I'm completely fine with it.
FWIW though, Minnesota won that year
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:12 pm to undecided
I'm partial to Tennessee's 1967 Litkenhous recognized national title.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:13 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Well, it could have meant many things. For instance, Bama has the majority of football NC in the SEC. It didn't specify SEC though, so it could have been a list, that included ND and Oklahoma and Nebraska being in the top majority of National Titles in football.
How could it have been a list that includes Nd, Oklahoma, and Nebraska when the list didn't have any of those on there? I don't think the confusion had anything to do with what teams were on the list. But anyways, no point in arguing this so I'm done.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:13 pm to USMC Gators
There's been a push recently for Auburn to actually start recognizing more of our titles. Particularly 83, which we deserved. A solid argument can be made for 04 as well. I'm not saying we should do what Alabama does and nearly just make shite up, but there's no reason we shouldn't claim at least three.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:14 pm to attheua
quote:
The obscure selectors outnumber the nationally recognized ones (AP/UPI/BCS). I would say its better to have a minority of the ones that count than a majority of the total imho
He's not saying a majority is better he's just giving us a stat. I think everyone agrees with what you just said.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:14 pm to Weagle25
Now you're talking about the subject. I specifically mentioned the title of the thread and it's intent. For one talking about people not having reading comprehension...
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:15 pm to 15sammy34
quote:
There's been a push recently for Auburn to actually start recognizing more of our titles. Particularly 83, which we deserved. A solid argument can be made for 04 as well. I'm not saying we should do what Alabama does and nearly just make shite up, but there's no reason we shouldn't claim at least three.
Unless you're talking about whatever year way back when the NCAA recognizes, then yes there is a reason not to claim three.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:17 pm to pivey14
quote:
FWIW though, Minnesota won that year
Only by a few publications. More publications chose Ole Miss than them.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:17 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Now you're talking about the subject. I specifically mentioned the title of the thread and it's intent. For one talking about people not having reading comprehension...
Well unless people only read the title that would be a pointless argument.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:17 pm to 15sammy34
quote:
There's been a push recently for Auburn to actually start recognizing more of our titles
They tried briefly in 2009.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:18 pm to Weagle25
If the title had been worded better, the ensuing subject would have been more clear. Sorry you have a lack of simple understanding.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:21 pm to Henry Jones Jr
AP and Coaches took Minn. but who cares.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:21 pm to Alahunter
quote:
If the title had been worded better, the ensuing subject would have been more clear. Sorry you have a lack of simple understanding
I understand what you're saying. But people should be able to easily figure out what he's saying by using the subject of the thread. It's not hard. So unless you just use the title there shouldn't have been any confusion.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:22 pm to Weagle25
A lot of other programs claim championships that are far less legitimate than our 83 claim. I don't see a reason not to claim it. And if you're using anything the NCAA says or does as an argument then I just feel sorry for you.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:22 pm to Alahunter
No way we should claim '93. I would be upset if we did. '83 I could get used to but I don't really want to claim that either.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:23 pm to Weagle25
93 is a different animal. We were on probation and have no claim to that title at all.
Posted on 2/25/13 at 5:23 pm to 15sammy34
quote:
A lot of other programs claim championships that are far less legitimate than our 83 claim. I don't see a reason not to claim it. And if you're using anything the NCAA says or does as an argument then I just feel sorry for you.
Why would I care what other programs do? We got screwed in '83 and '04 but we didn't win the title so we shouldn't claim it just because we think we should've won.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News