Poll: Should we disavow the 1941 Championship?

Should we disavow the 1941 Championship?


  • Total voters
    148
Status
Not open for further replies.

banjeaux

All-American
Jun 6, 2007
2,131
1
0
Slidell, Louisiana
The continued claim of 1941 makes it harder to justify the other "non-poll titles" from the 1920s and 1930s.
Justify to whom? Rival doubters? Most will never be convinced. However, you'll never convince others, if you are not convinced yourself. Dismiss your 2012 view and look at the football world of 1941, as seen by Deke Houlgate and his followers. I suggest that you again read post #77 above & view the video. When you thoroughly grasp that Houlgate's system has a built in strength of schedule component, your opinion may change. Why not give it a try.
 

CapstoneGrad06

Hall of Fame
Jan 19, 2006
7,105
0
0
41
Houston, Texas
Justify to whom? Rival doubters? Most will never be convinced. However, you'll never convince others, if you are not convinced yourself. Dismiss your 2012 view and look at the football world of 1941, as seen by Deke Houlgate and his followers. I suggest that you again read post #77 above & view the video. When you thoroughly grasp that Houlgate's system has a built in strength of schedule component, your opinion may change. Why not give it a try.
Because Alabama was 9-2 and finished third in its conference, as well as not finishing inside the top 20. Let alone the top two.
 

Bruce014

1st Team
Aug 29, 2012
752
82
52
Alabama
For what it's worth, I made this comment on the thread about Alabama and Notre Dame being tied for AP Titles.

"The 1941 team stayed together following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then played one of the few other teams who had not disbanded, Texas A&M.

Many of the men from both schools were sworn into active duty during halftime of that Cotton Bowl game.

Alabama completely dominated Texas A&M on the field, and I believe Coach Thomas put in our second and third string after building a pretty hefty lead, 29-7, or something like that.

There were only three or four bowl games, and a lot of the conference champions had disbanded, so the remaining teams moved up in the pecking order.

At that time people here on the home-front had no earthly idea what was going to happen. For all they knew, that might have been the last football team UofA ever fielded.

The national championship was awarded during those very trying circumstances. I think that that is why the university chose to include that team among the other 13."
 

Mamacalled

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2000
6,786
22
157
58
Pelham, Al
Because Alabama was 9-2 and finished third in its conference, as well as not finishing inside the top 20. Let alone the top two.
Hell, we didn't even make it to the Conference championship game last year. Are we going to disavow last year?
As for games before 36, the newspapers refered to the Rose Bowl the National Champioship in those days. Aren't the newspapers writers considered as the AP?
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
For what it's worth, I made this comment on the thread about Alabama and Notre Dame being tied for AP Titles.

"The 1941 team stayed together following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then played one of the few other teams who had not disbanded, Texas A&M.

Many of the men from both schools were sworn into active duty during halftime of that Cotton Bowl game.

Alabama completely dominated Texas A&M on the field, and I believe Coach Thomas put in our second and third string after building a pretty hefty lead, 29-7, or something like that.

There were only three or four bowl games, and a lot of the conference champions had disbanded, so the remaining teams moved up in the pecking order.

At that time people here on the home-front had no earthly idea what was going to happen. For all they knew, that might have been the last football team UofA ever fielded.

The national championship was awarded during those very trying circumstances. I think that that is why the university chose to include that team among the other 13."
Great insight, sometimes we forget the historical nuances and meaning behind said nuances that get lost over time.
 

CapstoneGrad06

Hall of Fame
Jan 19, 2006
7,105
0
0
41
Houston, Texas
Hell, we didn't even make it to the Conference championship game last year. Are we going to disavow last year?
As for games before 36, the newspapers refered to the Rose Bowl the National Champioship in those days. Aren't the newspapers writers considered as the AP?
You're being obtuse. Alabama was still ranked in the top two. And won a consensus title in 2011. Had that been the case in 1941, I wouldn't have issue with it. I'm just a firm believer in claiming poll titles during the period of 1936-1997.
 

bonehouse81

All-SEC
Jun 30, 2006
1,206
0
0
Clarksville, TN
Fans of other teams are always going to joke about how Bama claims 50 championships, so I don't know that wiping one off the books is really going to make a difference there.

As for the actual validity of the title, I'm sure this Houlgate fellow was legit at the time, but for Bama to have lost two games, and have only one person/group name them champs, well, our '41 claim is shaky at best and ridiculous at worst.
 

TideFan in AU

Hall of Fame
The continued claim of 1941 makes it harder to justify the other "non-poll titles" from the 1920s and 1930s.
^^^That's your biggest problem. Why do we need to justify anything to our rivals? If you've read the barners "list" of bogus championships we supposedly have, they claim that 5 or 6 of out titles are bogus and feel better about us only having 3 or 4 more times the titles they have instead of 7 times as many. You're not going to win this argument with them, so its pointless worrying about it. LSU and OU fans try to discredit them as well for the same reason. They are jealous we have more - plain and simple.
 

IH8Orange

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2000
7,017
31
0
Trussville, AL, USA
Looking at the list of selectors for the national championships (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961,1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011) that the University claims, it seems that the criteria for claiming a national championship for a particular season is that there were multiple selectors, at least one non-retroactive selector, or at least one of the major polls as a selector for that season. The NCAA in the past had a list of recognized national championship selectors for NCAA Div 1-A football and laying a claim to a national championship was as legitimate as the credibility that one wanted to assign to the selector(s) for that season.

The Houlgate System was one of the national championship selectors that was recognized by the NCAA. It is a mathematical system that retroactively awarded national championships for the seasons 1885, 1887 to 1905, and 1907 to 1926. It began awarding national championships annually after the bowl games in 1927. Thus, in 1941, it awarded Alabama the national championship after the Cotton Bowl win over Texas A&M.

From the seasons 1927 to 1935, the national championship awarded by the Houlgate System correlated with the majority of the other selectors (including retroactive selectors) 5 of 9 times (56% of the time). From 1936 to the last Houlgate awarded national championship in 1949, the system agreed with the AP poll 8 of 14 times (57%) of the time. So, the Houlgate system was in agreement with other selectors slightly more often than not.

I don't mind if rival fans are bothered by the University recognizing 1941 as a legitimate championship. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize ANY national championships for the sport of football in the FBS (Div. 1-A) and all the championships are primarily awarded on the basis of either a mathematical formula or the opinion of one or more people who typically are focused on only one, two or three local teams and give only a cursory glance at what other teams are doing. With the BCS, at least the two teams that are considered to be the best get to play each other. For most years in the AP and UPI system, it was unlikely that the two best teams would meet, so it was always just a guess as to which would prevail in a head-to-head matchup. I see no valid reason to consider an AP, UPI, or any other championship as more legitimate than the Houlgate System. There's a reason that the Div 1-A football championship has always been widely referred to as a "mythical" championship.

For those that are overly worried about what rival fans say about the championships that we claim, I welcome you to join me and just not give a rip about them. At least as long as we keep them busy whining about our championship claims, they don't have time to do more harmful things, such as trying to frame our recruits with violations.
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
Looking at the list of selectors for the national championships (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961,1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011) that the University claims, it seems that the criteria for claiming a national championship for a particular season is that there were multiple selectors, at least one non-retroactive selector, or at least one of the major polls as a selector for that season. The NCAA in the past had a list of recognized national championship selectors for NCAA Div 1-A football and laying a claim to a national championship was as legitimate as the credibility that one wanted to assign to the selector(s) for that season.

The Houlgate System was one of the national championship selectors that was recognized by the NCAA. It is a mathematical system that retroactively awarded national championships for the seasons 1885, 1887 to 1905, and 1907 to 1926. It began awarding national championships annually after the bowl games in 1927. Thus, in 1941, it awarded Alabama the national championship after the Cotton Bowl win over Texas A&M.

From the seasons 1927 to 1935, the national championship awarded by the Houlgate System correlated with the majority of the other selectors (including retroactive selectors) 5 of 9 times (56% of the time). From 1936 to the last Houlgate awarded national championship in 1949, the system agreed with the AP poll 8 of 14 times (57%) of the time. So, the Houlgate system was in agreement with other selectors slightly more often than not.

I don't mind if rival fans are bothered by the University recognizing 1941 as a legitimate championship. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize ANY national championships for the sport of football in the FBS (Div. 1-A) and all the championships are primarily awarded on the basis of either a mathematical formula or the opinion of one or more people who typically are focused on only one, two or three local teams and give only a cursory glance at what other teams are doing. With the BCS, at least the two teams that are considered to be the best get to play each other. For most years in the AP and UPI system, it was unlikely that the two best teams would meet, so it was always just a guess as to which would prevail in a head-to-head matchup. I see no valid reason to consider an AP, UPI, or any other championship as more legitimate than the Houlgate System. There's a reason that the Div 1-A football championship has always been widely referred to as a "mythical" championship.

For those that are overly worried about what rival fans say about the championships that we claim, I welcome you to join me and just not give a rip about them. At least as long as we keep them busy whining about our championship claims, they don't have time to do more harmful things, such as trying to frame our recruits with violations.
nice post
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,919
187
I say we disavow all our titles. A team going for its first championship will play harder and that could give us an edge over Notre Dame.
 

thefloydian

Suspended
Oct 28, 2012
107
0
0
Why did it take Alabama until the 80's or whenever it was to claim these national titles if they are completely legit? Shouldn't they have been claimed from day 1? The whole thing just seems strange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.