Question: Alabama's 4 Game Stretch Of Ranked Opponents

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. However, if Nebraska had gone for the tie, then IMO the NC should have gone to Auburn. Since they went for it and failed, I still say Auburn deserved the NC over Miami. IMO, Miami did not deserve even a share of that title, unless Auburn lost the Sugar Bowl.
undefeated vs one loss should still go to undefeated teams. Plus the fact that Dye himself has intentionally went for ties pretty much makes Osbourne and Nebraska more deserving had it happened. Because you know Dye would've went for the tie instead of the win.

Again it's harder to not justify Nebraska as the NC that year. They blew everyone out except OU, OKie Lite (jimmy Johnson ), and Miami. And if not for an unnecessary two point play we aren't arguing who is national champs.
 
Last edited:

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
I remember a stat during 2010 during our 3 game stretch against @ark, UF, and @USCe (all ranked) that no one in the modern era had done it. The only other attempt was USCw under CPC (he failed as well). So we might be the only ones now to do it. I defer to Selma on stats like this, but I'm kinda leaning that we are the only ones to do 3 straight in the modern era. Could be wrong though, and if so this is unprecedented.
That stat pertained to playing three teams ranked in the AP Top 15 in three consecutive weeks. Arkansas was ranked at #16 in Week 6 this season. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. However, if Nebraska had gone for the tie, then IMO the NC should have gone to Auburn. Since they went for it and failed, I still say Auburn deserved the NC over Miami. IMO, Miami did not deserve even a share of that title, unless Auburn lost the Sugar Bowl.
Aside from what 81 said, why wouldn't/shouldn't Miami jump Auburn in that era. That kind of thing happened all the time back then. It really came down to the "eyeball" test. The reality - Auburn looked like a hot mess in their bowl win while Miami looked pretty darned good against the team that everyone had ranked #1 going into the game. Look at the Nebraska roster - offense and defense. They were clearly the best team in the country. And Miami beat them.

So, how do you go from #5 to #1 - have 3 of the teams ahead of you lose, the 4th look terrible in a win, while beating the #1 team.
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,982
3,421
187
Gadsden, Al.
since the team has a bye week coming up , I had time to relax and have been thinking about Bama's remarkable run so far . it led me to inquire about this question:

can anybody tell me and this board when was the last time Alabama played 4 straight ranked opponents let alone defeating 3 out of 4 thus far.
more amazing is the fact that 3 out of the 4 games during this stretch is on the road!!
2 were B2B Top 10 teams ( Tennessee and Texas AM). :eek:

TIA
I thought it would have been tougher.
Turns out our Offense is better than predicted, our Defense is better than predicted,
( I would like to get used to a high powered Offense ;) )
Our Special Teams is much better than predicted, and...
CLK has been more unpredictable than ever.
 
Last edited:

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Aside from what 81 said, why wouldn't/shouldn't Miami jump Auburn in that era. That kind of thing happened all the time back then. It really came down to the "eyeball" test. The reality - Auburn looked like a hot mess in their bowl win while Miami looked pretty darned good against the team that everyone had ranked #1 going into the game. Look at the Nebraska roster - offense and defense. They were clearly the best team in the country. And Miami beat them.

So, how do you go from #5 to #1 - have 3 of the teams ahead of you lose, the 4th look terrible in a win, while beating the #1 team.
Miami is the champs to me because neither Nebraska or Auburn have claimed it when no one would object to a claim had they made it. I think most people have issue with it because the Auburn team looked good, Miami lost to Florida while Auburn beat them, the game was in the orange bowl, and it started the Miami decade. Personally I would say #1 Nebraska #2 Miami and #3 Auburn, but for whatever reason Nebraska's season is never mentioned when we are talking about this issue. So in that case I give it to Miami because Auburn played around in the sugar bowl while Miami actually played to be champs.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
undefeated vs one loss should still go to undefeated teams.
In context, I agree with you. Osborne probably COULD have kicked the point and won the title with a tie since he already knew Texas had lost. But let's just say Osborne didn't go to Notre Dame, heh heh.

Plus the fact that Dye himself has intentionally went for ties pretty much makes Osbourne and Nebraska more deserving had it happened. Because you know Dye would've went for the tie instead of the win.
The evidence is mixed. Dye only had one tie prior to 1987, and in the 1984 Iron Bowl he DID go for two to set up the winning field goal (when he didn't have to) and then outcoached himself by going for it when there was a chip shot waiting.

Plus - nobody can argue in 1983 about a game not played until 1987. One can argue the situation later, but it used to be acceptable IN CONFERENCE to play for the tie. (Whether it should have been is another story).

Again it's harder to not justify Nebraska as the NC that year. They blew everyone out except OU, OKie Lite (jimmy Johnson ), and Miami. And if not for an unnecessary two point play we aren't arguing who is national champs.
But we can argue the fact that Nebraska - while getting a boatload of hype - did not exactly play anything resembling a challenging schedule, either. They played exactly THREE good teams in the regular season: UCLA, Okie St, and OU. They blew out the Bruins, edged Okie St by four, and needed both a comeback and horrible officiating call to beat Oklahoma.

One of the stronger arguments against Auburn is the fact that if it weren't for the bowl tie-ins, we'd have had Nebraska vs Texas and nobody today would even be arguing about 1983.

However, it DOES seem to me if you do a post-bowl poll, Auburn should have been the choice.
 

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. However, if Nebraska had gone for the tie, then IMO the NC should have gone to Auburn. Since they went for it and failed, I still say Auburn deserved the NC over Miami. IMO, Miami did not deserve even a share of that title, unless Auburn lost the Sugar Bowl.
Perhaps you are right about Auburn. Just learned that the notion back in 2010 that no team had ever defeated three AP ranked Top 15 teams in three consecutive weeks had actually been done by that '83 team. And in answer to the OP's question in this thread, that team won a five game stretch over ranked opponents.

The 1983 Auburn team's last five games of the season were:

Beat #5 Florida 28-21
Beat #7 Maryland (w/Boomer Esiason) 35-23
Beat #4 Georgia 13-7
Beat #19 Alabama 23-20
Beat #8 Michigan 9-7

Those first three games were in consecutive weeks.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Aside from what 81 said, why wouldn't/shouldn't Miami jump Auburn in that era.
This will be enlightening for both of us I think, because I know where you're coming from.


That kind of thing happened all the time back then.
There is ample evidence to prove you are absolutely correct right here.

1965 Last Regular Season Poll
1) Michigan State (10-0)
2) Arkansas (10-0)
3) Nebraska (10-0)
4) Alabama (8-1-1)
5) UCLA (7-2-1)

Ironically, this controversy was caused by the 1964 vote, where Alabama was declared national champions and then lost to the same Texas team that Arkansas had beaten by a point earlier in the year. So in 1965, the AP decided to wait until after the bowl games to declare a champion.

Michigan State was contractually bound to the Rose Bowl, where they met UCLA. What makes this amusing is that the Spartans had actually beaten UCLA, 13-3 in East Lansing, in the opener. This time, the Bruins shocked Sparty, 14-12, perhaps due to Michigan State's verbally mocking UCLA during pre-game drills. Arkansas was obligated to the Cotton Bowl to win the title outright....and somehow lost, 14-7, to LSU. This meant that Nebraska-Alabama was actually for the whole bowl of wax, and the Tide won the first-ever prime time Orange Bowl telecast, 39-28. The Tide and Michigan State (UPI) split the championship. And the case for Alabama is even stronger when you consider: a) their loss to UGA was due to a flea flicker where the lateraling player was down; b) the Tide tied Tennessee, who promptly beat UCLA in Memphis in the last regular season game; c) the Tide crushed LSU, 31-7, who had beaten Arkansas. This one was difficult to argue although the Michigan State argument was that they had a better record and had beaten the team that later beat them.

Or maybe you mean...

1973 Final Regular Season Poll
1) Alabama (11-0)
2) Oklahoma (10-0-1)
3) Ohio State (9-0-1)
4) Michigan (10-0-1)
5) Notre Dame (10-0)
6) Penn State (11-0)
7) USC (9-1-1)
8) LSU (9-2)

Alabama got the UPI title (MacArthur Bowl). The Tide were NOT contractually obligated to the Sugar Bowl...it was a normal circumstance to invite the SEC champion to New Orleans (the contract did not begin until 1976). Oklahoma was on probation and bowl ineligible. Controversy ensued over the Rose Bowl selection of Ohio State. The Wolverines overcame a 10-0 deficit to end it in a 10-10 tie and probably should have won the game (their kicker missed not one but TWO field goals that would have won it). It is worth noting that Archie Griffin was injured in the third quarter, a fact that contributed to the Big Ten ADs VOTING FOR (yes, you read that right) Ohio State to represent the Big Ten because the Buckeyes were considered their best shot at winning the Rose Bowl, where the B1G had lost four in a row. So Ohio State got to square off against USC, the defending national champions. Unbeaten Penn State had the Heisman winner in John Cappelleti, and they drew LSU in the Orange Bowl. Incidentally, the tie for Oklahoma and USC was....against each other.

Which left...Notre Dame. (The Big Ten did not go to other bowls at the time and had only recently overturned the longstanding 'no consecutive Rose Bowls' rule, so Michigan got the equivalent of Shreveport by staying home).

The Irish beat Alabama, 24-23, in a thriller. Ohio State mauled USC, 42-21, and Penn State edged LSU, 16-9, which left the country with two unbeatens, Penn State (for the third time since 1968) and Notre Dame. The Irish got the nod, mostly because the voters could not bring themselves to vote for a team on probation as champion (that would change soon enough).

Or maybe we should look at:

1978 Final Regular Season Poll
1) Penn State (11-0)
2) Alabama (10-1)
3) USC (11-1)
4) Oklahoma (10-1)
5) Michigan (10-1)
6) Nebraska (9-2)

USC and Michigan were obligated to the Rose Bowl. Penn State was sitting with the option because they were (in those days) an Independent. Joe Paterno wanted to play the highest-ranked team eligible to play - which was Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The Orange Bowl opted to invite Big Eight co-champions Nebraska and Oklahoma for a rematch (as Nebraska had knocked OU out of the title picture in November with their only defeat).

In other words, Penn State had nobody to play BUT Alabama. The Tide won a thrilling 14-7 game with a goal line stand (almost everyone forgets Penn State blowing both feet off with a 12 men on the field call later in the game).

But.....there was a controversy because Alabama had not only lost to USC in September, they'd lost AT HOME by double digits, 24-14. USC had more wins plus the head-to-head while Alabama had beaten number one. But maybe the voters were responding to the controversial non-touchdown that Charles White scored in the Rose Bowl, without which USC would not have won the game.

Whatever the reason, #2 beat #1 and that was the ball game.


It really came down to the "eyeball" test. The reality - Auburn looked like a hot mess in their bowl win while Miami looked pretty darned good against the team that everyone had ranked #1 going into the game.
Well, there was a dispute, particularly down in Texas.

But let's go look at it a little bit closer.

Final 1983 Regular Season Poll
1) Nebraska (11-0)
2) Texas (11-0)
3) Auburn (10-1)
4) Illinois (10-1)
5) Miami (10-1)
6) SMU (10-1)

You are correct that Auburn did not look impressive against Michigan; they did not lead at any point in the game until the final seconds on the last Del Greco field goal. But my problem with that is this: Nebraska didn't look impressive, either, against a team that - if all that hype was correct - it should have blown off the field. They had SIX FUMBLES!!! True, they recovered five of them. They fell behind, 17-0, and their first touchdown was a Fumblerooski trick play where the lineman scored.

Auburn never led until the very end. But Nebraska never led one single time, either. Of course, we get down to the argument about how impressive Miami looked. And they did. Bernie Kosar threw for 300 yards, which in 1983 was about like throwing for 450 nowadays. The problem is that the vote is such a wax nose. The argument here is, "Well, Miami beat number one and the team ranked ahead of them didn't look impressive" (the implied rhetoric says that if Auburn had blown out Michigan, they'd have been the champions). But now I'll show you why I don't believe that for a second

1977 Final Regular Season Poll
1) Texas (11-0, SWC champion)
2) Oklahoma (10-1, Big Eight champ)
3) Alabama (10-1, SEC champ)
4) Michigan (10-1, Big Ten champ)
5) Notre Dame (9-1, Independent)
6) Arkansas (10-1, only loss to Texas, SWC runner-up)
7) Kentucky (10-1, this is NOT a joke....Wildcats were on probation, though)
8) Penn State (10-1, Independent and only loss to......Kentucky)
9) Ohio State (9-2)

Texas was obligated to the Cotton Bowl, OU to the Orange, Alabama to the Sugar, and Michigan to the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame got to pick their shot and - obviously - chose Texas, whom they blew out, 38-10. Arkansas massacred OU, 31-6.

This should leave #3 Alabama, right? Was the Tide impressive? I'd say 35-6 over Ohio State qualifies. But what happened instead? Notre Dame pole vaulted Alabama (Michigan also lost, so the basic argument was really about Alabama or Notre Dame)...and the argument was reduced to, "well, Notre Dame beat #1 and Alabama didn't." Which would have been okay if Alabama was DUCKING Texas, but we had no choice in the matter. Notre Dame benefited from the mandatory obligations of all the other teams, which hardly seems fair.



Btw - we agree on over 90% of the stuff, so I don't want to beat it to death nor am I any sort of Barner apologist, but it's a consistency thing with me. My problem is the notion of the 'eyeball test' getting reduced to: a) hype that wasn't justified; and b) one game of an entire season.


Look at the Nebraska roster - offense and defense. They were clearly the best team in the country. And Miami beat them.
Nebraska had 20 players that went to the NFL (according to Wikipedia, assuming that's correct). Auburn, on the other hand, had one athlete who exceeded probably any three guys from Nebraska combined - Bo Jackson. I don't see a site that counts up the Auburn players but a cursory look shows Jackson, Lionel James, Tommie Agee, Ron Middleton, Brent Fullwood, Al Del Greco, David King, Greg Carr, Steve Wallace, Ben Tamburello. That's ten, there may be more.....and keep in mind that at the time Nebraska was a powerhouse and Auburn a nobody that was coming out of the shadow of Coach Bryant's dominance. In the context of time and place, Auburn's NFL players are every bit as good (and in many cases superior) to Nebraska's team.

Nebraska was a team that scored a bushel of points, but they were not a great team, they were a great offense. I've long pointed out (even on this board) that if you look VERY CLOSELY at Nebraska during most of Tom Osborne's tenure (excluding the final 4-5 years), they were notorious for blasting Big Eight teams without talent into oblivion and then losing every single game against a team of near equal talent for over a decade. I did some research in an argument with a fella over Osborne (whom I note was VERY GOOD but not an all-time GREAT) and discovered this amazing fact:

Do you know what Osborne's record against 'teams with 9 or more wins' was from 1974-1993? 18-31 (not counting 9-win N Illinois, who was not big time when they met). In twenty years, he only faced 49 opponents with 9 or more wins (you know - REALLY good teams), an average of just more than two per year, and he lost 60% of them

Nebraska didn't just lose to Miami - they lost 3 of 5 times they played a decent team.

So, how do you go from #5 to #1 - have 3 of the teams ahead of you lose, the 4th look terrible in a win, while beating the #1 team.
Or you can just be Notre Dame and you get the same benefit of the doubt. My point is that 1977 refutes this line of reasoning. Alabama didn't toy with Ohio State that year, the Tide blew them out......and still didn't win the championship.


Thanks for a lot of your thoughts here, though. I appreciate your contribution to the board and it challenges my own presumptions as well. And for that I appreciate you so much.
 

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.