Started By
Message
re: New Bham News article comparing Bama NC's to Notre Dame
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:40 pm to FlukerFlakes
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:40 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:Which benefits Bama to the tune of 3 national championship where they didn't receive the Rissman/Dickinson. You want to have it both ways.
I was referring to the fact that the NCAA doesn't use any measurements from the day. They use retroactive orgs only until 1936.
quote:I think it was the 1932 season, but awarded in 1933 and they had no reason to turn down the Rose Bowl trophy. However, the retroactive rankings recognized by the NCAA also give those to USC, so it is not the same as Bama's claim. If USC claimed it without the retroactive polls recognized by the NCAA, it would be as illegitimate as Bama's 1934 claim. Again, the Rose Bowl was puffing itself up and calling its winner the National Championship without any real justification.
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.
If you rely on the Rissman as the standard prior to 1936 then you have to give up 3 other titles to keep 1934.
quote:Again, USC was also awarded the NC by the retroactive polls accepted by the NCAA. Not just the Rissman.
USC in 1933 Rose Bowl applies here again.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 4:43 pm
1
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:41 pm to WDE24
You forgot the ones Bama deserves and doesn't claim. They could replace the ones thrown out. I am sure you just forgot to mention that most Bama fans believe this over your theory.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:44 pm to crimsonian
quote:Many schools can make arguments for ones deserved. Doesn't make them legitimate and is a red herring and deflection in a discussion based on facts.
You forgot the ones Bama deserves and doesn't claim.
quote:That doesn't even make sense. We are trying to get to the truth based on real information, not what most Bama fans believe.
I am sure you just forgot to mention that most Bama fans believe this over your theory.
It is like you just want to defend the revisionist history just because that is the thing to do as a Bama fan (especially if an AU fan is present), without any real consideration for the truth. That is fine and typical, but be honest about it just being pure homerism.
This post was edited on 1/2/13 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:46 pm to WDE24
You do know you are not giving facts when you start posting stuff like "some and most people would agree". Words like "questionable" make me think facts as well.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:47 pm to WDE24
quote:
Many schools can make arguments for ones deserved. Doesn't make them legitimate and is a red herring and deflection in a discussion based on facts
My friend if you can try to discount a couple of NC's with some hypothetical mess, then you have to accept valid arguments which show Alabama was jobbed out of just as many NC's the other way!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:47 pm to WDE24
Why do you care so much? Get over it already.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:48 pm to Crimson1st
He doesn't get that concept. Doesn't fit his agenda.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:48 pm to Merck
14 pages.
One for each of Alabama's national championships.
One for each of Alabama's national championships.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:49 pm to Crimson1st
quote:there is nothing hypothetical. There is 1 that is without question illegitimate. There is another that is almost certainly illegitimate. There are 3-5 others that a hater could argue against, but I won't.
My friend if you can try to discount a couple of NC's with some hypothetical mess
quote:We can have that discussion. It doesn't mean you can claim them as national championships just because you believe you were not given due consideration. Auburn has a few of those as well.
then you have to accept valid arguments which show Alabama was jobbed out of just as many NC's the other way!
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:49 pm to MrSEC
Looking good for 15 pages.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:50 pm to WDE24
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:51 pm to Merck
quote:I don't really, but why can't we have a legitimate discussion based on facts? Isn't that a role of these message boards? I'm not flaming or being unreasonable.
Why do you care so much? Get over it already.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:53 pm to WDE24
We know you are trying to see how far you can carry this thread and just to let you know, we don't care.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:55 pm to crimsonian
quote:Honestly, most of your replies have contributed nothing and come from a position of a Bama fan being defensive against an AU fan for that simple fact alone and nothing of substance. I am legitimately discussing the topic and welcome your input if you can move beyond typical talking points and internet memems.
We know you are trying to see how far you can carry this thread and just to let you know, we don't care.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:55 pm to crimsonian
WDE24 is simply trying to have a conversation. If you didn't care, as you seem to keep hinting at and also recently posted, why keep replying?
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:58 pm to TTsTowel
You obviously didn't understand my post, so GTFO.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:59 pm to crimsonian
You seem to care. Otherwise, you would leave the thread.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:59 pm to WDE24
Eventually you will learn the difference between fact and opinion.
Posted on 1/2/13 at 4:59 pm to crimsonian
Well, I'm signing out. Congrats on your 8-12 titles and go Irish! 
Posted on 1/2/13 at 5:00 pm to TTsTowel
Still don't understand my post, so GTFO.
Page 14 of 15
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News