Alabama's best non-national championship teams?

[selmaborntidefan]

1964 title was decided before the bowl game. Bama lost the bowl game but had already been named the national champion. Sportswriters centered in the midwest weren't going to allow that to happen again so they agreed to name the champion AFTER the bowls in future years.

The other choice would have been Arkansas, which isn't exactly in the Midwest. The controversy, as it were, involved Alabama losing to the same team Arkansas had beaten during the regular season. I don't dispute that the champion was named before the bowls - and similar scenarios of teams losing their bowl game after being awarded national titles had happened in 1950 (Oklahoma), 1951 (when Tennessee lost to unbeaten Maryland), and 1953 (when Maryland lost to #4 Oklahoma). Of course there was one key difference: Alabama lost to Texas, Arkansas beat Texas. None of this involved anything to do with the Midwest.

1965 after the bowl games they HAD to name Bama the champion or lose all credibility.

No, they didn't. They could very easily have argued that:
a) Michigan State had already beaten UCLA that season
b) they had beaten them by more points than they lost
c) Michigan State had a better record than Alabama did
d) cite the UPI coach's poll that chose Michigan State over Alabama

Sparty got 18 votes in the final poll, Alabama got 37.
It was still a split national title.

1966 going into the lastr weekend of the season ND and Mich. State were ranked 1 & 2. Undefeateed juggernaut Bama was #3. Fearsome Nebraska was #4. ND & Mich. State played to a 10-10 tie in their final game of the regular season.

You left out Notre Dame blowing USC off the field, 51-0.

and MSU was on probation and couldn't go to a bowl.

Michigan State WAS on probation, but it didn't matter. The Big Ten had a rule back then barring teams from appearing in the Rose Bowl in consecutive years as well as barred from any non-Rose Bowl game. So Sparty wasn't going to the Rose Bowl anyway.

#3 Bama destroyed #4 Nebraska in the bowl game.
Then sportswriters voted. ND #1, MSU #2, and Bama #3. Midwestern sportswriters could not allow a southern team to win 3 championships in a row.

The last point is debatable, the first point is correct, and the second point is incorrect.

The AP poll was published after the REGULAR SEASON concluded - again. So they didn't have the Orange Bowl to consider because it occurred nearly a month after the vote. Furthermore, there was genuine fear at the time in both East Lansing and South Bend that what would happen was a split of the votes that benfited Alabama.

I've meet Keith Dunnavant, and I've read his book, and he seems like a nice enough guy. But his emotion comes out on this, and the idea amongst Alabama players that they somehow lost because of George Wallace is, well, ridiculous given 1965, when Wallace was also governor. I don't dispute Northern animus against the South.

I'm also bothered nowadays because the brutal fact is that Alabama played the softest schedule of the three. And I'm told now that SoS matters. Well, then it should also matter in 1966, and despite the additional game of Nebraska, Alabama's SoS falls short.

I "get" it, I wasn't there, but I just don't think a "they denied us" argument really works in this case.

 

[CB4]

The 1966 Notre Dame - MSU was built up as the Game of the Year (if not the cliched “Game of the Century). I was six years old at the time in a Bama family. I barely remember the game but I remember my Dad’s take on it. And I certainly remember in the following years the “we got robbed” talk.

My Dad’s position: Hands down the game was hyped as “the unquestionable best two teams in college football”. So when “the best two teams play to a tie”, how do you adjudicate it? In the minds of voters, most couldn’t placed Alabama ahead of either. You’ve been told Alabama was a distant third. How do you take a team in a perceived distant third and put them ahead of first and second that tied? He never said it was right. And he never agreed that “Alabama wasn’t capable” of beating either or both. But he understood how it happened.

My Dad always said they (voters) looked at the game, took into account ND lost starting QB (Terry Hanratty) early in the game, their starting RB as well and had others go out as well. The voters then rationalized (rightly or wrongly) a full strength ND would have beaten MSU, thus the final poll had ND carrying the significant portion of first place votes. Notre Dame didn’t participate in bowl games. At that point, it didn’t matter how bad Bama beat Nebraska.

I do agree to some extent with Dunnavant that social and political events in the south and in Alabama certainly could have made the the decision for AP voters significantly easier.

 

[colbysullivan]

2016 IMO. The defense alone managed around 6 points per game that year, it was insane. And no, I don't mean they only gave up 6 points. I mean they SCORED 6 points a game...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I do agree to some extent with Dunnavant that social and political events in the south and in Alabama certainly could have made the the decision for AP voters significantly easier.

I don't disagree that it MAY have made it easier, but I think Dunnavant goes too far with "when they looked at Bryant, they saw George Wallace." If that's the case, you have to explain 1965, when Alabama had a worse record and giving it to Michigan St even in the wake of the Rose Bowl loss would have been defensible.

1966 Notre Dame had beaten:
- a 9-2 Purdue led by Bob Griese that went to their first-ever Rose Bowl
- an Oklahoma that was unbeaten when they played but wound up 6-4
- a top 10 ranked USC team by 51 points on the road

Basically, Notre Dame got the rub from beating a top 10 foe in September, a top 10 foe in October by 38 points, and a top 10 foe in November by 51. In the midst of that, they wound up in a tie game with Michigan State while missing an All-American running back (Nick Eddy) and losing an eventual College Football HOF quarterback (Terry Hanratty) in the first quarter. They had two common opponents: Northwestern (ND by 28, MSU by 22 both on the road) and Purdue (ND by 12, MSU by 21 both at home). And while Notre Dame played three teams ranked on game day (plus Michigan St) and blew two of them off the field, Sparty only beat Purdue and nobody else who was ranked. SEVEN of the Big Ten teams had losing records in 1966 and another (Michigan) was 6-4. The only good teams were Sparty and Purdue.

I know everyone keeps bringing up "Notre Dame didn't play in bowls" but that was irrelevant in 1966 since the voting was before the bowl games.

However, I AM willing to go along with the fact that Alabama probably had the unconscious bias of "well, because of their racism, they don't HAVE to play other teams from other conferences that are good - and especially on the road.


I understand there's no winning on this question regardless. Maybe the magic of the sport of 1966 is that here we are nearly 60 years later STILL discussing it.