Notre Dame loves to use "Consensus" titles because they benefit from blatant and overt media bias (1966,1977, etc)
The same reason Oklahoma fans want to start in 1936 with the AP - because OU has NO history before that time
Bama beat the hell out of the #2 team in the bowl all others dnp or got beat ...1941 story - hot team at the end of season
Another fact about '66 that not a lot of people mention, is that we were pre-season #1 and crushed everyone, I don't think we had a nail biter all year. how do you get jumped by two teams when you are winning all of them big ?
2) We only beat the Vols, 11-10
Here's the REALLY funny part:
We were pre-season number one and dropped before we played on September 24. Michigan State moved above us. Then Michigan State DROPPED the week they beat Ohio State.
So to recap for everyone:
Alabama unbeaten - dropped first to 2 and then to 3
Michigan State unbeaten - dropped to 2
Notre Dame PLAYS FOR A TIE - and STAYS number one
(Are you kidding me?)
Any Irish fan who wants to talk about 1973 (when we DID get an ACTUAL championship) needs to present a coherent argument for the double standard of 1966. You did beat us on the field in 1973; you did NOT beat us on the field in 1966 when we were TWO-TIME defending champions.
The first rule of Tidefans interactions - Selma does not use Google; Google uses Selma
1966 is among the seasons that many use as justification for calling pre-BCS college football championships "mythical". At least with the BCS system we have a real game for the championship, even if politics is involved in picking the two teams in that game. Before the BCS, we just had politics deciding championships. Play on the field had less to do with it than most care to remember.