ESPN on Bogus and controversial National Championship claims

[81usaf92]

ESPN

Atleast they list UCF before tearing into our titles.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I can't fault anyone being critical of the 1941 claim. However, all others are legit. The pre-AP poll titles were all undefeated Rose Bowl champions (1926 team tied Stanford in the Rose Bowl to finish 9-0-1). The Rose Bowl was the only bowl in those years and was generally thought of as the best team from the West facing the best team from the East each year.

 

[81usaf92]

I can't fault anyone being critical of the 1941 claim. However, all others are legit. The pre-AP poll titles were all undefeated Rose Bowl champions (1926 team tied Stanford in the Rose Bowl to finish 9-0-1). The Rose Bowl was the only bowl in those years and was generally thought of as the best team from the West facing the best team from the East each year.

Honestly we should ditch 41 and claim 45 or 66. I really think 41 has a bad look on us.

 

[dtgreg]

My guess is we wanted to claim a title in the 40's so it wouldn't be more than 20 years between last title and Coach Bryant in '61. I imagine that the old-timers didn't want to claim '45 out of patriotism and since we WERE awarded '41 by someone, well...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

ESPN

Atleast they list UCF before tearing into our titles.

ESPN is full of idiots that miss the story (which is a lot of why their "woke" nonsense leaves me cold - they're not even good at what they're SUPPOSED to to).

Before anyone anywhere can criticize ANYONE about anything - you FIRST, I repeat FIRST - you have to agree on the criteria BEFORE discussing the subject. Plain and simple. You have to spell out your assumptions BEFORE offering criticism. Let's look at a good one here.


1936: Minnesota, Pitt or ... Slippery Rock?
The AP Poll has become one of the pillars of college football rankings, standing side by side with the coaches' poll in many newspapers and websites, but that wasn't always the case.

In fact, the first championship the AP awarded to Minnesota in 1936 wasn't even unanimous. UPI -- another news gathering service -- instead ranked Pitt as No. 1. And the stats-based Boand and Duke Houlgate systems would back that assessment, bolstering the Panthers' argument for the seventh of its nine championships. Even a look at the final AP poll favors that conclusion: Whereas Minnesota (7-1) beat two ranked teams, Pitt (8-1-1) beat three, including a 21-0 rout of Washington in the Rose Bowl.

But those claims were child's play compared to the little known (and mostly satirical) campaign to crown unranked Slippery Rock as national champs that season. It is perhaps the first and most ridiculous application of the ever popular transitive theory to college football. The school's official website continues to tell the story of one brave journalist who was so disenchanted by the Minnesota-Pitt debate that he set about to compare the scores of the 1936 season and came to his own conclusion: "Slippery Rock beat Westminster, which beat West Virginia Wesleyan, which beat Duquesne, which beat Pitt, which beat Notre Dame, which beat Northwestern, which beat Minnesota."

So what if the Rock finished the season at 6-3? The math totally checks out.

1) Now I'm open to correction on this, but I'm not aware of UPI (now the coaches' poll) providing a ranking system before 1950. They MIGHT have "recognized" Pitt, but I don't see it anywhere on Pitt websites so.....

2) Why didn't these ignorant blowhards ask the more important question: why was Minnesota selected over Big Ten champion Northwestern as national champion?

RECORD
Northwestern 7-1 (lost to #11 Notre Dame, 26-6)
Minnesota 7-1 (lost to #3 Northwestern, 6-0)

Shouldn't the imbeciles who in this same article wrote - and I quote - "The Tide lost to Auburn in that year's Iron Bowl and missed the SEC championship game altogether"......have pointed out Minnesota wasn't even the Big Ten champion (something about conference championships mean something something)?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize Alabama for 1978, how in the world do you give Minnesota a pass in 1936? If you're gonna criticize Alabama as "didn't even win their conference," how do you not point this out about Minnesota?

And why not point out the nation's only unbeaten team in 1936 was 8-0-1 Alabama?

See, this is why I tire of this garbage. I will open admit my bias without shame, but I think my analytics and reviews show I can evaluate situations fairly EVEN when it involves my own team. But the problem is that most articles that offer such criticism START with the assumption the criticism is VALID. The criticisms of UCF in 2017 and Alabama in 1941 are FULLY legitimate and in the bounds of fairness. But for reasons that still tick me off royally, we have nonsense like the 1936 title, where if you applied the very same argument, you'd wind up with a different champion other years, too.

There ARE legitimate reasons why Alabama did not win the 1936 title, but you find none of that discussed here or even hinted at that the writers even know about this. LSU had a legit claim, too, but nothing.


Alabama's 1964 title is often attacked with the old notion that we lost to Texas and Arkansas beat Texas and therefore if the polls were after the bowl games something something. Okay, fine. But my problem is you NEVER see those same writers mention the following:

1950 - Oklahoma voted national champ (loses to Bryant's Kentucky team in the bowl game, who ends the year with the same losses, one extra win, and a head-to-head bowl win. Either Kentucky or the Vols should be #1)

1951 - Vols win national title, lose to UNDEFEATED Maryland in bowl game by 15 points

1953 - Unbeaten Maryland loses Orange Bowl to #4 Oklahoma (9-1-1) after winning title.

Why don't these same writers pontificate about how Oklahoma and Tennessee and Maryland didn't REALLY win national titles? And who wins it in 1953? Unbeaten #2 Notre Dame? Or does Oklahoma pole vault Notre Dame using the "the team that beats #1 in the last game becomes #1 logic" of 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, and 1993 but set aside in 1989?

1973

"Alabama doesn't deserve that title because they lost to Notre Dame in the bowl game after the title was awarded."

Why don't these inconsistent idiots after say, "You know, Texas was given the 1970 UPI title and then lost their bowl to Notre Dame by a score of 24-11"?

Why don't they ever say, "You know, Michigan State was given the UPI title in 1965 and then lost the Rose Bowl to UCLA"?


There's an answer to this: their concern is NOT with fair and just outcomes or consistency, their concern is with ALABAMA.

You'd be amazed how many people I absolutely bury with that because they didn't bother to research anything beyond "How can I criticize Alabama." And just like everyone else, they'll never admit it.

Count it however you want. We're still on top.

 

[TiderJack]

I can't fault anyone being critical of the 1941 claim. However, all others are legit. The pre-AP poll titles were all undefeated Rose Bowl champions (1926 team tied Stanford in the Rose Bowl to finish 9-0-1). The Rose Bowl was the only bowl in those years and was generally thought of as the best team from the West facing the best team from the East each year.

Agreed. If we would have never listed 1941 to start with I don't think any of the others would even come into question.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I find it funny that the Colorado QB says "they earned it" in 1990. Uh no you didn't. If not for incompetent refs and incompetent well everyone, you did not "earn" anything.

Also funny they don't mention the other team in 66 that should have won the title.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

ESPN

Atleast they list UCF before tearing into our titles.

Did Wingnut's 2004 team make the list...?

The team received NC Rings.

 

[81usaf92]

Did Wingnut's 2004 team make the list...?

The team received NC Rings.

Honestly I don’t care and neither does Auburn. But they were the best team not to be put on probation that year. If they claim it down the line then I really wouldn’t care because we still claim 1941. But I doubt they claim it while Tubberville is still alive.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Honestly we should ditch 41 and claim 45 or 66. I really think 41 has a bad look on us.

The injustice of 1966 is well documented but the 1945 team is really a forgotten team. They dominated their schedule, then destroyed USC in the Rose Bowl. But that Army team was a juggernaut. If somehow we could have played Army, they likely would have been favored.

But you know, Bama's pluck and grit...

 

[81usaf92]

The injustice of 1966 is well documented but the 1945 team is really a forgotten team. They dominated their schedule, then destroyed USC in the Rose Bowl. But that Army team was a juggernaut. If somehow we could have played Army, they likely would have been favored.

But you know, Bama's pluck and grit...

I think claiming any of the ones we could’ve would’ve been better than the 41 claim. I think 66 is by far the easiest since Alabama was going for a 3 peat and went undefeated.

 

[Tider n LA]

With all this being said, doesn't Bama still have the most titles?

 

[Evil Crimson Dragon]

I find it funny that the Colorado QB says "they earned it" in 1990. Uh no you didn't. If not for incompetent refs and incompetent well everyone, you did not "earn" anything.

Also funny they don't mention the other team in 66 that should have won the title.

Georgia Tech went undefeated that year, and was a better team that Colorado

 

[crimsonaudio]

Yeah, '41 is bogus. Wish Bama would drop that one.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I find it funny that the Colorado QB says "they earned it" in 1990. Uh no you didn't. If not for incompetent refs and incompetent well everyone, you did not "earn" anything.

Well, given that the call the referees got wrong affected which plays Colorado would call, I don't think we get into, "But the refs gave it to them." Personally, I think that's a bit cheap, particularly since Missouri knew at the time that it was Fifth Down and didn't bother to call timeout and make that point.

Also funny they don't mention the other team in 66 that should have won the title.

For better or worse, I fall in line with Keith Jackson on this one. We were extremely lucky at the short-sightedness of the Associated Press. In all honesty, we should have the 66 banner but not the 65, but they jiggered the rules so oh well.

That's why I've always said - it all equals out in the end.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Georgia Tech went undefeated that year, and was a better team that Colorado

I don't agree with this. Tech was a good team, and Bobby Ross is right that the press underrated them. Hell, if Tech had been named Florida State, they'd have been national champions with that record.

We'll use the Top 25 since it was established (I'll use it when I compile the 90s data later on).

Georgia Tech
beat #23 Virginia by a field goal
beat #9 Clemson by two points
tied unranked (6-4-1) N Carolina
beat #24 Nebraska by 24 points when the Huskers were missing their starting QB (injured) and FB as well as the second-string QB and 2nd best DB for curfew violations. (We can argue all we want, but missing both your first and 2nd string QB and two other starters means Ga Tech and CU didn't even face the same team).

VS RANKED TEAMS 3-0
VS UNRANKED TEAMS 8-0-1

Colorado
tied #8 SEC champion (Tenn) at neutral site with best player suspended
lost on road to #24 3rd place Big Ten team by one point
beat #12 SWC champion (Texas) on road, the only reg season loss for the Horns
beat #5 Pac Ten champion (Washington) at home

(The latter three games above took place in a 15-day span)
beat #17 Oklahoma by 9 points at home
beat #24 Nebraska by 15 points on the road in a torrential downpour
beat #6 Notre Dame in Orange Bowl

VS RANKED TEAMS 5-1-1
VS UNRANKED TEAMS 6-0

Colorado played seven ranked teams, Tech three. Advantage: Colorado

Colorado lost on the road to a ranked team that scored their winning TD with 90 seconds left. Tech trailed unranked North Carolina, hitting a 27-yard game tying field goal with 61 seconds left (translation: Tech had the ball on the Tar Heels 10-yard line and intentionally played for a tie). Advantage: Colorado lost to a better team than Tech tied

Ranked teams? Advantage Colorado

Unranked teams? CU didn't lose to or tie any. Advantage Colorado.

It's Colorado, and it's not even close (and I say this as a guy whose grandfather was offered a scholarship by the standards of the 1920s to Georgia Tech and failed to complete high school as many did back then).



ETA:

Tech's ENTIRE argument is basically the UCF argument. "We beat Nebraska by more points than Colorado did."

But CU played a fully functional Nebraska on the road in the rain when Nebraska was was unbeaten - the week after they beat #17 Oklahoma. Tech beat a crippled Nebraska after having 30 days to prepare for one game.

 

[81usaf92]

Well, given that the call the referees got wrong affected which plays Colorado would call, I don't think we get into, "But the refs gave it to them." Personally, I think that's a bit cheap, particularly since Missouri knew at the time that it was Fifth Down and didn't bother to call timeout and make that point.



For better or worse, I fall in line with Keith Jackson on this one. We were extremely lucky at the short-sightedness of the Associated Press. In all honesty, we should have the 66 banner but not the 65, but they jiggered the rules so oh well.

That's why I've always said - it all equals out in the end.

I think 66 is the more logical replacement for 41. I just don’t think anyone can defend it. I don’t even think the 41 team really thought they were National champs after the Cotton bowl.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think 66 is the more logical replacement for 41. I just don’t think anyone can defend it. I don’t even think the 41 team really thought they were National champs after the Cotton bowl.

The question I have, though, is "why is any replacement needed?"

Atcheson wet the bed with the 1941 claim. The others one can at least minimally justify.

 

[81usaf92]

The question I have, though, is "why is any replacement needed?"

Atcheson wet the bed with the 1941 claim. The others one can at least minimally justify.

I would be okay with just nixing it entirely but you know that any attempt to replace it will be met with “ but we have sold too many 17 shirts”. So it’s more of an effort to get rid of 1941 in a realistic way for me.

 

[Ole Man Dan]

I think 66 is the more logical replacement for 41. I just don’t think anyone can defend it. I don’t even think the 41 team really thought they were National champs after the Cotton bowl.

IMO: We were robbed in 1966.
1941 don't mean anything to me either way.