Poll: Who believes Alabama's national championship is mythical?

[dave12]

I've taken exception to the use of the MNC term in a few topics over the past few months. After seeing the term used yet again, I noticed I certainly was no longer in the minority in taking exception to the use of the term in regards to the BCS championship (if I ever was).

To be completely frank, I never thought about it much when I started seeing the "MNC" term because I never felt like a actual game being played could somehow be regarded as mythical. I actually assumed mythical national champions were for the Auburns and Utahs of the world.

Are Nick Saban's championships mythical? Are all of Alabama's championships mythical? I don't think you'll find a more clear cut champion this year than Alabama. They went undefeated, won the SEC, won 14 games, played one of the hardest schedules in the nation, beat the #1 and #2 teams in a row and I can not imagine a team doing more to earn a championship. They got every single vote in the AP and beat the two teams directly below them. What more would one want?

So rather than debate it every time someone uses the "MNC" term, why don't we just stop using it? Ultimately the question is do you believe Alabama won a mythical championship or a real one? If you think it's real then I think the proper term would be "National Championship" but I don't care if you call it a BCS Championship, BCS National Championship, SEC championship or what not. Just please stop calling it mythical. It is disrespectful to the sacrifice the coaches and players made to call it that. Legendary but not mythical.

It's not a myth, It's Real.


RTR:BigA:

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I think it's downright "mystical." (SIAP)

 

[RTR_UA#1]

The National Championship is only mythical to the ones that don'y have it.

ROLL TIDE!!
13 MYTHICAL National Championships!!
More that any other MYTHICAL school!

 

[uafan4life]

I'm surprised that this question has gotten so much play.

This might have been stated already, but I don't feel like reading the entire thread.

I voted no, but it depends entirely on how you define "mythical".

If mythical means not actual or, in this case, not deserved, earned, or whatever then it's absolutely not mythical.

If, however, mythical means not settled on the field through a playoff or not awarded by the NCAA but by third parties voting on it then, yes, it is mythical. After all, the NCAA awards National Championships for every level of football except for Division 1 (FBS), because we don't have a playoff.

So, it really depends on how you look at it. We are clearly the best team in the country and we proved that by playing and beating the best teams. Not many people would honestly say that they believe Boise State would beat us on the field, but the gripe is that they went undefeated and didn't get a shot to prove it on the field. Next year, with their schedule, they should get a fair shake, but this year they were hurt by their conference and schedule. As long as there isn't a playoff of some sort, there will always be those who say it isn't technically settled on the field. Plus the NCAA won't officially award a NC unless there is a playoff, either. So, from either, or both, of those perspectives it is mythical.

That doesn't change the fact that we earned and deserved it.

 

[jeremy]

What does that even mean "mythical?" When I hear the word mythical, I think of things like dragons and wizards. So Im not sure how that fits in the context of football.

 

[KrAzY3]

I'm surprised that this question has gotten so much play.

Why wouldn't it? I (and others) feel the MNC term is derogatory and a good way for snide people to be dismissive of the accomplishments of teams like Alabama.

If, however, mythical means not settled on the field through a playoff or not awarded by the NCAA but by third parties voting on it then, yes, it is mythical.

I know you're just presenting the argument, but this whole line of thought really lacks logic, reason and well... coherent thought.

How on earth could mythical mean "not settled on the field through a playoff"? That's a incredible reach and to see people say it's the "proper" term after making such a leap is beyond my ability to comprehend. Look, I didn't like the hiring of Mike Shula but I didn't go pretending he was a Dryad.

It basically comes down to selective parsing of words and non-existent definitions to discredit the National Champion. It's not a full fledged playoff, but it is a one game playoff.
"play-off
(in competitive sports) the playing of an extra game, rounds, innings, etc., in order to settle a tie."

So, if one goes by actual definition of words the BCS championship game certainly comes closer to a playoff than to anything "mythical". Furthermore, while the NCAA does say they don't endorse the results, they do recognize "National Poll Champions" and BCS champions. So, to say they NCAA doesn't award the champion, they just recognize them (as though that somehow invalidates the champion) is playing with words.

There you have it. A one game playoff with a NCAA acknowledged champion. Yet, I surmise we'll still see people using imaginary definitions to call teams like Alabama "Mythical National Champions".

I am of the opinion that the BCS system provides the best possible champion given the factors in play. For instance you say Boise State would have had a chance to prove it on the field. Well, they weren't overly concerned about that when they scheduled UC Davis and had the 96th hardest schedule. Furthermore, to make a assumption that Boise State would have been in a playoff is a stretch. Finally, while it's nice to imagine Alabama with a injured quarterback would have won a playoff (because the 2nd hardest schedule just wasn't hard enough to some), more than likely a team with one loss or more would have been victorious. I can not imagine how that would have provided a more clear cut champion...

 

[uafan4life]

I know you're just presenting the argument, but this whole line of thought really lacks logic, reason and well... coherent thought.

I agree for the most part. This application of the term mythical was more apropos under the old bowl system, where the #1 team might play the #4 team and the #2 team might play #3. In that case, the #2 team didn't get a chance against number one, and there could be debate or even a split on the National Champion in that case.

The more apt usage of the term, under the BCS, is simply that it is not a NC officially recognized and awarded by the NCAA. It's awarded by the AP Poll and/or the BCS, and you can still have debate over and even a split National Championship. See LSU's NC for that one. In this way, I agree with the term. It's mythical in that it's unofficial, as far as the NCAA is concerned.

A true, as opposed to mythical, NC would be one that is official and the only one that matters, which would have to come from the NCAA, and that would only happen with a playoff.

 

[WishIwasInBama]

I think to many people are caught up in the terminology and taking it to literal. The fact remains that the NCAA doesn’t award a National Champion so that’s where the “mythical” comes into play it doesn’t necessarily mean the NC is not real. I think having issue with the term MNC is like having an issue with the term “World Series” when only teams from North America play. Either way I voted no but I don’t have a problem with the term.

 

[Probius]

I for one am sick of "MNC." Just because you don't like the system we play in doesn't mean that it is somehow mythical. A playoff is not the only way to award a championship.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I for one am sick of "MNC." Just because you don't like the system we play in doesn't mean that it is somehow mythical. A playoff is not the only way to award a championship.

They have been called "mythical" for as long as I have been watching college football. This is not something new, and it does not only apply to college football...

 

[Hal Bennett]

Well, having written a little history myself, and having had someone follow up what I had written by disclaiming some of what I had said, I feel a little resentment when someone starts discounting what teams did on the field, also discounting the award(s) they won for doing so, especially if/when the players, coaches, not to mention the writers who accorded the awards, are no longer around to defend themselves or their award.

We don't live in a day and age when history is that important -- not like it was in earlier generations in this country. The further we have gotten away from two world wars, this has become more and more the case. For example, we have a major religious denomination right here in the South who has pretty well declared by official action that a good deal of their history is either null and void or never happened in the first place. It is also evident to many of us that a lot of what used to be taught as history in our public schools -- things such as Washington crossing the Delaware -- has been either deleted from the textbooks or relegated othrwise to non-importance.

When Finebaum said today that it is a useless argument for Alabama to claim thirteen national championships, and when he said that two of those claims are "dubious," well, I cringed.

This issue is never going to be solved until someone takes the trouble to go back through the old newspapers, magazines, whatever is available -- on an across-the-country basis -- and looks up articles, etc., pertaining to the claims of national championships by all of the major schools who won them back before the AP (and UP) were up and running.

This term "mythical" is interesting in the light of what technology has recently done, not just regarding what a kid can conjure up electrically in his or her hand, but in the post-Star Wars era movies where a rushing mountain stream suddenly morphs into a "Terminator"-like "human" being. I for one cannot get into this sort of thing. I have trouble reading a novel all the way through. Give me non-fiction, period.

I seem to remember Bear Bryant saying that if we won the mythical national championship -- or whatever he called it -- as determined by the poll that was taken at the end of the year -- or the POLLS -- this was worth winning, because it was the only way we had in this country of determining who was champion.

Whatever it is that is making people want this and that, and discounting this and that -- I don't rightly know. I just don't believe that the University of Alabama, during the interim between two world wars, and after Alabama's well-publicized national championship of 1925 (As they say, "It was in all the papers") would fabricate the championships of 1926, 1930, 1934, and even 1941. SOMEWHERE, in some national publication or poll, each of these championships can be documented. And if someone has the gumption, as well as the ability as a historian, this whole matter can be cleared up one day. But it is going to take some work to do it. And it is going to take a thorough investigation of the pre-AP claims of other schools, such as those of Michigan and Notre Dame, not just the claims made by Alabama.

 

[JPT4Bama]

All the bcs conferences agreed to the system in place. As CNS says, "It is what it is." Alabama went undefeated through the BCS system and; therefore, deserves to be the Champion as defined by the system.

It is what it is.

Side note: Many CF fans are saying that Boise St deserves to share since they too went undefeated at 14-0. Why is that BSU deserves to share a championship but Bama doesn't deserve to share in past championships? Many argue that Bama only has 2 TRUE championships and the rest are split or shared, and they don't count.[/QUOTE]

First, it is was Wayne H. (don't know how to spell the last name) the owner of the Dolphins who made this now famous statement, not Nick Saban.

Second, I don't recall ever hearing this particular argument regarding shared or split or whatever you're referring to championships and have absolutely never heard the number "2" as far as "true" championships go.
Who exactly makes this "argument"?

And anyone seriously regarding Boise St. deserving the NC or a share simply because they're undefeated might want to try ingesting a large dose of reality and fast. :biggrin:

 

[J.Will]

It can't be mythical. Cause I seen it at the Wal-Mart!:biggrin: