Started By
Message
re: New Bham News article comparing Bama NC's to Notre Dame
Posted on 1/2/13 at 1:58 pm to TxTiger82
Posted on 1/2/13 at 1:58 pm to TxTiger82
This discussion isn't going to end in either one of us changing our opinions.
I'm gonna stick by 14 and you will say they are invalid or whatever.
So no thanks I'll just see my way out of this here tread. You have fun though.
I'm gonna stick by 14 and you will say they are invalid or whatever.
So no thanks I'll just see my way out of this here tread. You have fun though.
1
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:22 pm to Patton
quote:
I'm gonna stick by 14 and you will say they are invalid or whatever.
We should go by 13.
And we will never drop below that until teams like Michigan, Ohio State, ND, USC, Pitt, and Tennessee remove all their pre 1936 titles from the record books.
So, get ready for 15 this next week. Even though it should be 14.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:24 pm to FlukerFlakes
Should be 15 already. But I am willing to claim only 14 .. kinda a two for one..with getting shafted in 45 and 66. 
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:24 pm to FlukerFlakes
just to chime in... anyone that doesn't recognize all of what we claim outside of 1941 is biased, regardless of what they claim.
and we ought to claim 1941 because of getting screwed out of 1966? yeah, i think it was 66...
anyhow. carry on!
and we ought to claim 1941 because of getting screwed out of 1966? yeah, i think it was 66...
anyhow. carry on!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:27 pm to m2pro
Well it's mainly AU and LSU fans who always bring it up, I wonder why.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:28 pm to USMC Gators
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:29 pm to m2pro
quote:1934 isn't really legitimate either and isn't even recognized by the NCAA.
anyone that doesn't recognize all of what we claim outside of 1941 is biased, regardless of what they claim.
I think only a biased person would argue less than 9 and most reasonable people, even if biased, would likely concede 12 (even if one or two of those would be reluctant concessions).
An argument can be made for 13, but I think the argument against 1934 is stronger than the one for it.
Anyone claiming 14 or more is being a total homer IMO. Which is ok I suppose.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:33 pm to WDE24
quote:
Anyone claiming 14 or more is being a total homer IMO. Which is ok I suppose.
well, i didn't claim i wasn't biased!
i can dig your count. that's far more than i think maybe any other boog i've seen tally us up.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:40 pm to WDE24
quote:
isn't even recognized by the NCAA.
The NCAA currently lists 12 national titles recognized for Alabama.
And i hope you realize that the NCAA is using nothing but retroactive selectors to name national champions during that era. So, the Auburn butthurt talk about a title being retroactively awarded is pretty dumb.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:43 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:
FlukerFlakes
seems like you're fairly defensive against a pretty damn reasonable boog to me. you aight there, boss?
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:45 pm to m2pro
quote:
seems like you're fairly defensive against a pretty damn reasonable boog to me. you aight there, boss?
That boog has been in this thread for longer than this one page
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:48 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:Yep. I wouldn't argue too hard againt those 12. There are some that people can argue shouldn't have been awarded (the split one with ND when you lost HtH against ND being the primary one and the 3 way split one), but I'm not invested enough to care. Also, the pre AP poll ones are tough to figure given the way cfb was at the time. However, if the NCAA is willing to recognize them (even if it is unofficial), I'm not going to fight about it.
The NCAA currently lists 12 national titles recognized for Alabama.
That leaves Bama with 12 at most and 8 or 9 at the least. Something to be very proud of and one reason many are confused by the seeming need to over inflate an already impressive resume.
Either way, I hope you dont get number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 36 on the 7th.
quote:Which is a shame and an embarrassment to me. however, I have only really argued the merits of the 1934 title and the mischaracterization of one of the Bama arguments in favor of it.
That boog has been in this thread for longer than this one page
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:48 pm to FlukerFlakes
meh, i didn't bother to read up. i'm sure he's busy boogin it up. that's what they do. part of their job description... but still, his count is pretty damn reasonable compared to 99% of people that tend to allow themselves to be locked into utter denial and only count what ESPN shows as countable.
to me, that's pretty damn admirable for a boog.
to me, that's pretty damn admirable for a boog.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:55 pm to m2pro
But you guys!!
Football championships are important!!
Football championships are important!!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 2:59 pm to WDE24
And that's where i have a problem. With 1934, Bama went into the game with the Rissman system of determining a champion set......the winner of the Rose was given the Rissman trophy. This was known before the game. The Rissman trophy had for years been given to the national champion as determined by the Dickinson system.
This is just like in modern times when the Coaches' trophy began to be given to the BCS #1/#2 game winner. Previously it simply went to the poll winner of the UPI poll. Same trophy, just a different way to determine who wins it.
This is just like in modern times when the Coaches' trophy began to be given to the BCS #1/#2 game winner. Previously it simply went to the poll winner of the UPI poll. Same trophy, just a different way to determine who wins it.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:05 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:Rissman didn't have a system. For years they followed Dickinson, who did have a system, but subsequently just awarded their trophy to the Rose Bowl winner. The Rose Bowl at the time touted there winner as National Champion because they were puffing up their own brand.
with the Rissman system of determining a champion set
This is my problem. You tout the Rissman trophy off of the back of the Dickson system, but the Dickson system never recognized Bama as National Champs, but rather recognized Minnesota (as did almost everyone else in 1934 and as the NCAA does).
quote:But was no longer in 1934 and hadn't been for 4 or 5 years.
The Rissman trophy had for years been given to the national champion as determined by the Dickinson system.
quote:No it isn't. It would be like the Coach's trophy going to Stanford this year because they won the Rose Bowl.
This is just like in modern times when the Coaches' trophy began to be given to the BCS #1/#2 game winner.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:06 pm to FlukerFlakes
like i said, i ain't gettin into scraping over one year. whoever is right or wrong, idgaf.
i get that the truth matters, and getting shunned out of a year that we ought to claim is bullshite. but i really don't give a shite atm. i just want to ride out this HORROR to other teams that Saban has currently built with Alabama's help.
it's something to behold and enjoy. and there's nothing i could think of that would rob me of the peace and fun/joy that this junk has brought me.
plans for January 7th are currently having my ribs already bought and marinating all night... about a case of beer, a ton of hickory smoke and a savory rack of ribs i'll be working on ALL day.
i couldn't be happier if someone told me i just won a free $10,000 trip to bora bora.
i get that the truth matters, and getting shunned out of a year that we ought to claim is bullshite. but i really don't give a shite atm. i just want to ride out this HORROR to other teams that Saban has currently built with Alabama's help.
it's something to behold and enjoy. and there's nothing i could think of that would rob me of the peace and fun/joy that this junk has brought me.
plans for January 7th are currently having my ribs already bought and marinating all night... about a case of beer, a ton of hickory smoke and a savory rack of ribs i'll be working on ALL day.
i couldn't be happier if someone told me i just won a free $10,000 trip to bora bora.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:13 pm to WDE24
quote:
No it isn't. It would be like the Coach's trophy going to Stanford this year because they won the Rose Bowl.
No it wouldn't.
During that time, there was ONE bowl game and every year it placed pretty much 2 top 5 nationally ranked teams in it. Even systems after during the 60's and 70's usually didn't pit as highly ranked teams.
quote:
The Rose Bowl at the time touted there winner as National Champion because they were puffing up their own brand.
Then tell me, why does Southern Cal claim 2 national titles using this same reasoning?
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:17 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:Probably because the same polls that recognized Minnesota as the 1934 national Champion, which are recognized by the NCAA, also recognized USC as National Champs those years. Thus, USC's claim is not identical to Bama's claim, but more identical to Minnesota's claim in 1934.
Then tell me, why does Southern Cal claim 2 national titles using this same reasoning?
ETA: Incidentally, these are the same polls that named Bama champs in 1925, 1926 and 1930, but apparently shouldn't be relied upon in 1934 even though they are the ones recognized by the NCAA.
ETA: Not to mention that your argument assumes that USC is impervious to claiming dubious national titles from the 1920's and 30's, which is silly logic.
quote:This is more evidence that the winner couldn't automatically be considered National Champion and that the Rose Bowl was puffing up their image and importance.
During that time, there was ONE bowl game and every year it placed pretty much 2 top 5 nationally ranked teams in it.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:25 pm to WDE24
quote:
Probably because the same polls that recognized Minnesota as the 1934 national Champion, which are recognized by the NCAA, also recognized USC as National Champs those years. Thus, USC's claim is not identical to Bama's claim, but more identical to Minnesota's claim in 1934.
Those are retroactive organizations that the NCAA is citing. Maybe they show another team had statistically better season buuuuuuuuuuuut,
that doesn't change the fact that during the time the actual game was played in 1934....both Alabama and their opponent went into the Rose Bowl knowing that the winner was going to win the Rissman trophy which had signified they were national champions.
If you want even further proof that the Rissman situation is comparable to the current Coaches trophy. Look at Stanfords website. They specifically cite the awarding of the Rissman trophy as their national title in 1926.
By 1934, the system changed and Rissman was using the only bowl game as the measuring stick for awarding the national title trophy. Just like today we use the #1 vs #2 BCS matchup for awarding the Coaches trophy.
Page 12 of 15
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News