Auburn Now Claims They Won The 1983 National Championship (And Two Others)

[BamaJama17]

Plus those Army teams were made up of 23-25 year olds who had returned from the war. No advantage there.

Actually most of those guys including their two Heisman winners Mr Inside and Outside never served in WW2. It was other schools like Notre Dame, Michigan, and Oklahoma in the late mid-late 40's who had guys coming back from the war. Army and Navy had such a big advantage because virtually all of America's most able bodied young men left to enlist in WW2 while the service schools kept their players because those guys would become officers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[selmaborntidefan]

We don't claim 1945 and shouldn't. We only beat one ranked team and that was the Rose Bowl win.

Insert BYU reference right here....

Army was undefeated #1 and clobbered 5 ranked teams and pitched 5 shutouts along the way.

Yes, we all know what powerhouses Louisville Field and Melvin PT Boats are - right up there with the guards from "The Longest Yard."

Aside from which they had officers in their prime preparing for future commissions playing fifth-string leftovers who weren't qualified to serve in WW2 - because that's about all who was left.

1977 we were maybe robbed a tad. ND was #5 and mudholed #1 while we were #3 and mudholed #8. ND beat the better ranked and #1 team by the same margin pretty much. Maybe we should have split the title anyway however...I dunno.

This would be a valid argument if there weren't any mandatory bowl tie-ins. Notre Dame only got involved in the picture because numbers 2, 3, and 4 were required to be elsewhere. One and two lost. Three blew out their opponents, 35-6. Sure Notre Dame beat Texas but that should be offset by the fact that Alabama was REQUIRED to go to the Sugar Bowl. OU had already lost to Texas as had Arkansas.

Let me put it this way: without bowl tie-ins, Alabama and Texas play for the championship and Notre Dame makes another movie about a bench warmer.

1966 is the only one we should be able to claim for sure over 1941. That '41 claim is embarrassing and we were horrendously robbed of the '66 NC.

You just complained about 1945 and not beating a ranked team until the Rose Bowl.

In 1966, we didn't beat a ranked team all year until we drilled Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl.

How in the world can 1966 be highway robbery and 1945 something we shouldn't claim when they're the same thing?

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Because it's not the same Selma. The '66 Team was the only unbeaten untied team left after crushing Nebraska while the ND slopfest Tie happened.

1945 is different because Army was the front running #1 team that finished 9-0 and by ranked schedule beat 5 top ranked teams. They didn't do anything to lose their #1 status other than not playing in a bowl. Bama trailed in the polls the entire season playing no ranked teams until winning the Rose Bowl. There is no strong case to outright leap #1 Army.

In other words the Tie is the difference. The blemish is the difference.

 

[dadleyblane5]

I've read that the NCAA itself recognizes 20+ NC's Bama has won & yet we claim less than what the NCAA oficially recognizes..If The Barn wants to play games we could too if push comes to shove..Is it true the NCAA recognizes more NC's for Bama than Bama recognizes for itself???..

Nuff said...

 

[BamaJama17]

Because it's not the same Selma. The '66 Team was the only unbeaten untied team left after crushing Nebraska while the ND slopfest Tie happened.

1945 is different because Army was the front running #1 team that finished 9-0 and by ranked schedule beat 5 top ranked teams. They didn't do anything to lose their #1 status other than not playing in a bowl. Bama trailed in the polls the entire season playing no ranked teams until winning the Rose Bowl. There is no strong case to outright leap #1 Army.

In other words the Tie is the difference. The blemish is the difference.

The main reason Alabama would have trailed in the polls in those days was because southern football was very much looked down upon back in those days. Army and Navy got all the favoritism through the mid 40's because of WW2.

Also the 1945 Alabama team (along with every other that played in and won the Rose Bowl) is responsible for the Rose Bowl changing it's tie-ins to PAC 12 and Big 10 teams after the 1946 game when Bama crushed So. Cal.

I know 1966 and 1977 get all the credit for being snubbed but it is not fair to forget about 1945 either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[B1GTide]

The 1945 choice comes down to sentiment AND achievement. Army was the beloved team for a lot of great reasons at the time - but they also played a really tough schedule and dominated.

Yes, Alabama did everything that it could do that year in that it beat every team that it faced convincingly, but giving Alabama that championship would be like giving Boise State a championship now when you have an undefeated SEC team out there. I had not even considered 1977 until now. I will have to do a little research on that season.

 

[IGetBuckets]

The 1945 choice comes down to sentiment AND achievement. Army was the beloved team for a lot of great reasons at the time - but they also played a really tough schedule and dominated.

Yes, Alabama did everything that it could do that year in that it beat every team that it faced convincingly, but giving Alabama that championship would be like giving Boise State a championship now when you have an undefeated SEC team out there. I had not even considered 1977 until now. I will have to do a little research on that season.

Some 1977 info...

As noted, ND lost at Ole Miss 20-13, Bama beat Ole Miss the week before 34-13.

The Alabama loss was at Nebraska, 31-24, in a game where Jeff Rutledge threw FIVE INTs and had his worst game as a Bama player.

The Alabama schedule included these games...

@ Nebraska
@ #1 USC
Georgia
Tennessee
@LSU
Ohio State (Sugar Bowl)

I think you make a good case for ND as well, but for them to JUMP #3 Bama from the #5 spot, and win BOTH Polls was just wrong. Also, the fact they lost to a team Bama beat by 3 TDs is very damaging to their case.

1977 was a year when a split Championship would have been a just and fair result.

 

[scrodz]

I'd love to debate my ND friends for the missing rings in '66 and '77, but 1941 pretty much kills my argument right from the start. What SID was responsible for that decision?

 

[IGetBuckets]

I'd love to debate my ND friends for the missing rings in '66 and '77, but 1941 pretty much kills my argument right from the start. What SID was responsible for that decision?

What does 1941 have to do with 66 and 77?

 

[NationalTitles18]

OK, folks, it's getting ridiculous. Who questions 2007 2-loss LSU? Virtually no one. Houlgate was the leading "poll" at the time​ and picked Alabama in 1941. Read. Learn. Deal.

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2009/7/8/942333/the-case-for-1941

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Because it's not the same Selma. The '66 Team was the only unbeaten untied team left after crushing Nebraska while the ND slopfest Tie happened.

But by your definition of 1945, we didn't play anybody in 1966. We went unbeaten against a bunch of nobodies and then won a bowl game by a big score. For the record, those schedules of the top three were all about equal.

1945 is different because Army was the front running #1 team that finished 9-0 and by ranked schedule beat 5 top ranked teams. They didn't do anything to lose their #1 status other than not playing in a bowl. Bama trailed in the polls the entire season playing no ranked teams until winning the Rose Bowl. There is no strong case to outright leap #1 Army.

In other words the Tie is the difference. The blemish is the difference.

But the flip side is that we won more games and the last one was the biggest.

Look, I understand some of the argument but this whole thing has gotten nuts.

 

[IGetBuckets]

But by your definition of 1945, we didn't play anybody in 1966. We went unbeaten against a bunch of nobodies and then won a bowl game by a big score. For the record, those schedules of the top three were all about equal.



But the flip side is that we won more games and the last one was the biggest.

Look, I understand some of the argument but this whole thing has gotten nuts.

Alabama was a 2 time defending Champ who went UNDEFEATED in 1966. There is absolutely no way a Notre Dame team that PLAYED for a tie should have been voted ahead of us.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm pretty well done with this thread except to make a few observations:

1) After 120 years of insisting national championships do not really exist, Auburn now admits they do.

2) By definition - by ANY definition - they are WAY behind us.

3) Too much time is wasted on discussions here on this issue.

The 1941 claim is a joke. I don't care who made the claim, it's preposterous. But the Alabama fan solution? Go find another year we can claim one and then try to find some way to make a case for it!!! There must be a difference in Barner logic and that tactic but I swear I can't see it.

Count since 1936 and use only recognized polls or selectors: Alabama 10 Auburn 2

Count since 1869 and use any "recognized" claim: Alabama 20 Auburn 9

Count only since 1998 and only BCS titles: Alabama 3 Auburn 1


Now let's talk about 1977 for our Buckeye friend. Here's the basic problem. I will remove the team names and you decide:


Team A - the nation's only unbeaten team but loses in the bowl game two Team B (schedule rank: 12)

Team B - one loss against the 9th ranked schedule; has two common opponents with Team C - it beat one opponent by thirty points at home and lost to the other at home by a TD (the opponent's overall record was 5-6); beat Team A in a bowl game by 28 points

Team C - one loss against the 41st ranked schedule; beat both common opponents with Team B, the first by one point on the road and the one Team B lost to by 21 points. Note that the win over the ranked opponent on the road ended a 15-game winning streak and knocked that team out of the number one spot (this is the same team that Team B later beat by 30); the loss was to a national power on the road by seven that ended the year 9-3. In the final game of the year, Team C won their bowl game by 29 points against a top ten opponent.

Team D - one loss (to Team A by four points at home) against the 61st ranked schedule; beat Team E by 25 points in the bowl game.

Team E - went 10-2 against the 25th ranked schedule; lost by 7 to team A and by 25 to Team D

Team F - went 11- against the 16th ranked schedule; lost at home by four to Team G; won the bowl game by 12 against a top 20 opponent; does not play in a conference

Team G - went 10-1 against the 36th ranked schedule in the nation, losing by 15 on the road to a 5-6 team that both team A and team D routed; not a conference champion nor a share due to being on probation.

----------------------------

Now who do you pick? We throw out A because it lost the bowl game, E because it had two losses, and G because it is on probation.

So who is the voted champ?

B?
C?
D?
F?

And why?


Is F eliminated because it lost to G? (I'll fill you in on names after you make a choice.


Oh - entering the bowl games, the rankings are:

1) A
2) E
3) C
4) unmentioned one-loss team that lost bowl game
5) B
6) D
7) G
8) F


Who you gonna pick?

In the bowl games, B beat A, C beat a team just below F, D beat E.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Hey Selma I just want to clarify for a second that I'm not trying to be super argumentative or abrasive with you or anyone else on this topic. I sense maybe you've been agitated and I promise that was not my intent. I'm just stating my opinion on a few of the Title years in question.

1941 - I think the majority of us have felt for a longtime that this is just an embarrassing title claim.

1945 - JMHO but I can't see a super strong case for us to outright jump Army. A split?....maybe but still I don't see it...maybe that's just me though.

1966 - Yes we trailed in the polls but we were the 2-time defending champ and smashed a #6 Nebraska team while #1 and #2 both blemished their record with a tie. Maybe I'm negative but I view a tie as 'half a loss' and not 'half a win'. Maybe some would say it meant ND and Mich St were equals but at worst it should have somehow been a 3-way split for the title if possible.

1977 - The more I've looked at this one the more I feel it's a worse injustice than '66 and that again we should have at least split the title. It also is a very similar situation to '83 Auburn which is why I wouldn't really blame them for claiming that one.

If you or anyone else disagrees with me it's all good my man. All of this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to infer that my way is the right way. I really respect your knowledge of CFB history it's just that we have differing thoughts here.

 

[BamaMoon]

OK, folks, it's getting ridiculous. Who questions 2007 2-loss LSU? Virtually no one. Houlgate was the leading "poll" at the time​ and picked Alabama in 1941. Read. Learn. Deal.

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2009/7/8/942333/the-case-for-1941

I've read that before, more than once. He makes as much of a logical argument as probably can be made, but in the end we shouldn't be surprised why people still doubt it.

Also, if you read the comments under the article a few good counter arguments are also made.

It's our weakest NC claim, but that article does shed some light on why we would claim a split title in an era when that was common.

FWIW, even though there are some other years when it seems (retrospectively) that we might have been more deserving, to change '41 and start claiming another (like '45 or '66) would probably be met with even more disdain so I recommend we just keep it like it is and be willing to admit that '41 is debatable.

 

[BamaMoon]

Don't know if it's been linked, but the NCAA website recognizes:
1. 1925
2. 1926
3. 1930
4. 1961
5. 1964
6. 1965
7. 1973
8. 1978
9. 1979
10. 1992
11. 2009
12. 2011
13. 2012

They leave off 1934 and 1941 and recognize Minnesota both years.

FWIW, they only recognize the barn in 1957 and 2010.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

 

[NationalTitles18]

Don't know if it's been linked, but the NCAA website recognizes:
1. 1925
2. 1926
3. 1930
4. 1961
5. 1964
6. 1965
7. 1973
8. 1978
9. 1979
10. 1992
11. 2009
12. 2011
13. 2012

They leave off 1934 and 1941 and recognize Minnesota both years.

FWIW, they only recognize the barn in 1957 and 2010.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

Not a complete list by any means. Try this:

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/FBS.pdf

Go to page 70.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

OK, folks, it's getting ridiculous. Who questions 2007 2-loss LSU? Virtually no one.

Which doesn't even rise to the level of apples and oranges but more like apples against bowling balls.

LSU also played number one in a head-to-head championship game. So OF COURSE nobody is going to question it - because unlike the 1941 claim, they won it on the field.

Houlgate was the leading "poll" at the time​ and picked Alabama in 1941. Read. Learn. Deal.

According to a blog post by a biased Alabama fan, Houlgate (whom most folks have never even heard of) was "the leading poll at the time."

Can that be substantiated anywhere else?

And incidentally, it wasn't even a poll, it was a mathematical system.

And since Houlgate picked LSU in 2011 - how many of us are willing to recognize that?

Where this gets hilarious is our fans talking out of both sides of the same mouth. Folks diss the AP poll that USC won in 2003 as if they didn't really win a national title, but I dare say it has (and still does have) more relevance than Houlgate ever has.

 

[IGetBuckets]

I have been told by one who should be in a pretty good position to know, that UA officials felt and SID Atcheson felt Bama had a really good claim in 1945, with a team that may have been one of our best. However, it was decided, out of respect for WWII and Army, NOT to claim that 45 NC.

Thus, 1941 became a compromise of sorts.

 

[BamaJama17]

Don't know if it's been linked, but the NCAA website recognizes:
1. 1925
2. 1926
3. 1930
4. 1961
5. 1964
6. 1965
7. 1973
8. 1978
9. 1979
10. 1992
11. 2009
12. 2011
13. 2012

They leave off 1934 and 1941 and recognize Minnesota both years.

FWIW, they only recognize the barn in 1957 and 2010.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

No way 1934 gets left off. That team had Dixie Howell and Don Hutson not to mention Paul Bryant. That is a very legitimate claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk