Started By
Message
re: New Bham News article comparing Bama NC's to Notre Dame
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:33 pm to FlukerFlakes
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:33 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:Are we going to rely on these or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Those are retroactive organizations that the NCAA is citing.
quote:That just isn't true. It is a mischaracterization. There was a time when the Rissman trophy was awarded to the Dickson National Champ. That time had ended several years prior. The Rose Bowl was not a defacto National Championship game and that isn't what anyone in the country entered the season believing in 1934. That is revisionist history spewed by bama fans to justify the claims made by an AD in the 1980s. That argument had never been made prior.
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.
quote:That was when the Rissman followed the Dickson ratings which deemed Stanford the National Champions and was the go to poll prior to the AP. Dickson and everyone else except the Rose Bowl named Minnesoata Champs in 1934. (Also, this assumes Stanford couldn't claim a dubious national title.)
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.
quote:No, it hadn't. There was no system nationally except the Dickson system. The Rose Bowl had started and tried claiming their champion as national champion to puff up their brand. There was no system or attempt to to match up the 2 best teams to determine a national champion as under the BCS.
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.
The primary and recognized system at the time (Dickson) and every recognized retroactive poll names Minnesota the champion of 1934.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 3:35 pm
3
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:38 pm to WDE24
LOL at the Bama fan reading this thread and editing wikipedia.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:41 pm to WDE24
quote:
LOL at the Bama fan reading this thread and editing wikipedia.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:42 pm to WDE24
quote:
quote:
Those are retroactive organizations that the NCAA is citing.
Are we going to rely on these or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
quote:
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.
That just isn't true. It is a mischaracterization. There was a time when the Rissman trophy was awarded to the Dickson National Champ. That time had ended several years prior. The Rose Bowl was not a defacto National Championship game and that isn't what anyone in the country entered the season believing in 1934. That is revisionist history spewed by bama fans to justify the claims made by an AD in the 1980s. That argument had never been made prior.
quote:
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.
That was when the Rissman followed the Dickson ratings which deemed Stanford the National Champions and was the go to poll prior to the AP. Dickson and everyone else except the Rose Bowl named Minnesoata Champs in 1934. (Also, this assumes Stanford couldn't claim a dubious national title.)
quote:
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.
No, it hadn't. There was no system nationally except the Dickson system. The Rose Bowl had started and tried claiming their champion as national champion to puff up their brand. There was no system or attempt to to match up the 2 best teams to determine a national champion as under the BCS.
The primary and recognized system at the time (Dickson) and every recognized retroactive poll names Minnesota the champion of 1934.
Pretty much a BOOM, end of thread gumps are dumb IMO.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:42 pm to WDE24
For someone that doesn't care..you've been quite invested in the thread. 
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:42 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Has to be Fluker Flakes. I bet he was about to link it as proof of his argument.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:44 pm to Alahunter
quote:I know. I'm embarrassed and should bow out, but I can't resist a good debate. Especially when I am being reasonable and conciliatory with Bama fans and still getting an argument.
For someone that doesn't care..you've been quite invested in the thread.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:47 pm to Alahunter
Still butthurt Aubies in here? Damn sad bunch.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:50 pm to WDE24
I like how the retards claim the Rose Bowl was a defacto NC game everytime bama won one. Laughable, but a lot of them actually believe it.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:51 pm to crimsonian
quote:I've been pretty reasonable and I don't think I've demonstrated any butthurt. I would be happy to discuss any of the finer points of the debate if you would like to raise your level of posting beyond overused and mostly useless internet memes.
Still butthurt Aubies in here?
Otherwise,
You mad I'm stylin on Bama's fake 1934 Championship.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:51 pm to crimsonian
Poor Aubs.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 3:53 pm to WDE24
quote:Actually, given that the history of the person that edited wiki involves almost exclusively FSU and Gator football, I think it was USMC Gator that did it. Confess Gator, I know you are lurking.
Has to be Fluker Flakes. I bet he was about to link it as proof of his argument.
ETA: Also, I keep inadvertently referring to the Dickinson System as the Dickson System. Pardon my mistakes.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:04 pm to WDE24
Auburn fans talking shite in a thread about National Titles is like the Pope talking about sex! 
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:06 pm to Crimson1st
No one is talking shite about national titles. Catch up and try to contribute to the conversation if you have anything meaningful to add.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:16 pm to WDE24
quote:
No one is talking shite about national titles
I was referring to you Aubs in general. I just hit the reply button to your post since it was last in queue(do I need to translate?)and believe me, I only had to read the first couple of pages to see all the shite talk from Aubs I needed to see....you seem to kinda have a complex though WDE24. It's understandable for Auburn fans to have those deep rooted feelings of paranoia and inferiority! Sorry to bring those to the surface with my post!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:20 pm to WDE24
quote:
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.
Upon further review...I did "catch up" as you requested and noted that you were indeed talking shite about Alabama's National Titles...
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:21 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
I just hit the reply button to your post
quote:I have a complex because you don't know how to respond to the right poster?
you seem to kinda have a complex though WDE24.
I was just trying to help you out. There are flame war threads and legitimate debate threads and some that get intertwined.
The newer posters (and those from Nov 2010) such as yourself tend to just stick to flaming and repeating the homer talking points. I was merely inviting you to engage in real discussion. That is what typically makes this a better site than the homer boards. Although things have really taken a turn for the worse over the past couple of years in that regard.
ETA:
quote:A step in the right direction. Now explain where I am wrong and how that qualifies as talking shite. We might get somewhere after all.
Upon further review...I did "catch up" as you requested and noted that you were indeed talking shite about Alabama's National Titles...
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:28 pm to WDE24
Ok...upon even further review I found this nugget:
"Anyone claiming 14 or more is being a total homer IMO."
So anyway, for as many NC's as we claim that others say are invalid, we have been cheated on just as many SO with that said 14 should be a solid number. Stating fact isn't a homer "talking point". If the facts favor the team in question, I can't help that. WDE24, you seem somewhat reasonable my friend...let the truth set you free from your homeritic state!
"Anyone claiming 14 or more is being a total homer IMO."
So anyway, for as many NC's as we claim that others say are invalid, we have been cheated on just as many SO with that said 14 should be a solid number. Stating fact isn't a homer "talking point". If the facts favor the team in question, I can't help that. WDE24, you seem somewhat reasonable my friend...let the truth set you free from your homeritic state!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:28 pm to WDE24
quote:
Are we going to rely on these or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I was referring to the fact that the NCAA doesn't use any measurements from the day. They use retroactive orgs only until 1936.
You can rely on them or you can rely on what actually happened during the day.
quote:
That just isn't true. It is a mischaracterization. There was a time when the Rissman trophy was awarded to the Dickson National Champ. That time had ended several years prior. The Rose Bowl was not a defacto National Championship game and that isn't what anyone in the country entered the season believing in 1934. That is revisionist history spewed by bama fans to justify the claims made by an AD in the 1980s. That argument had never been made prior.
Then tell me....why did Southern Cal in 1933, not modern times, accept the Rissman as the national title trophy even though it wasn't tied to the Dickinson system. I've posted the image of this prior. USC, at that time, wasn't using any of the retroactive polls the NCAA uses now and they definitely weren't using the Dickinson system since they didn't win it. Yet, they still accepted the Rissman trophy as the national title trophy. Explain that.
quote:
That was when the Rissman followed the Dickson ratings which deemed Stanford the National Champions and was the go to poll prior to the AP. Dickson and everyone else except the Rose Bowl named Minnesoata Champs in 1934. (Also, this assumes Stanford couldn't claim a dubious national title.)
USC in 1933 Rose Bowl applies here again.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:35 pm to Crimson1st
Again, you have been unable to offer any counterpoint or reasoning. Let me give you a summary and invite you to engage in real discussion.
Some Bama fans claim 14. However, most reasonable Bama fans and every non Bama fan discounts 1941. Let's toss that one aside and start at 13.
1925, 1926 and 1930 (I could be off on the years as I am going from memory) were not awarded by the preeminent system in place at the time, the Dickinson system, but awarded retroactively. Even so, the NCAA recognizes (though not officially)three of the retroactive systems, so I won't argue to0 much.
As for 1934, well neither the Dickinson System, the retroactive systems or the NCAA recognizes it for Bama. I have made the reasonable arguments why no one but bama fans recognize it and I would be happy to discuss that with you.
There are others that one could very reasonably squabble with, but the NCAA (unofficially) recognizes 12 and I will (somewhat begrudgingly) accept that number.
So, where am I talking shite? Where would you like to start?
Some Bama fans claim 14. However, most reasonable Bama fans and every non Bama fan discounts 1941. Let's toss that one aside and start at 13.
1925, 1926 and 1930 (I could be off on the years as I am going from memory) were not awarded by the preeminent system in place at the time, the Dickinson system, but awarded retroactively. Even so, the NCAA recognizes (though not officially)three of the retroactive systems, so I won't argue to0 much.
As for 1934, well neither the Dickinson System, the retroactive systems or the NCAA recognizes it for Bama. I have made the reasonable arguments why no one but bama fans recognize it and I would be happy to discuss that with you.
There are others that one could very reasonably squabble with, but the NCAA (unofficially) recognizes 12 and I will (somewhat begrudgingly) accept that number.
So, where am I talking shite? Where would you like to start?
Page 13 of 15
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News