Hey, DS, it's working ...

[Shmuley]

From a Bama premium board, within a thread about defending their 12 titles:

<font size="2">Now, the "questionable" ones would be 1930, 1934 and 1941. In 1930, we won the Southern Conference championship with a 10-0 record. We gave up only 13 points all year and beat previously unbeaten Washington State in the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame also went 10-0 this year. At worst, both schools can claim a split national championship.

In 1934, Alabama again went 10-0, won the SEC championship and beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Minnesota went 8-0 and won the Big Ten. They did not play in a bowl game. At worst, again, both schools can claim a split national championship.

Add the 2 split national championships to the other 9, well, that's 11. The only one I can't defend is the 1941 championship claim. We went 9-2 with losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt. Minnesota again went 8-0, won the Big Ten and were named national champions by the AP. This title clearly belongs to them. However, considering the screwing we took in 1966 when Notre Dame and Michigan State tied yet both still finished ahead of undefeated and two-time defending national champion Alabama in the polls, I don't mind claiming one that might be a bit questionable as compensation.</font>

 

[Coach34]

From a Bama premium board, within a thread about defending their 12 titles:

<font size="2">Now, the "questionable" ones would be 1930, 1934 and 1941. In 1930, we won the Southern Conference championship with a 10-0 record. We gave up only 13 points all year and beat previously unbeaten Washington State in the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame also went 10-0 this year. At worst, both schools can claim a split national championship.

In 1934, Alabama again went 10-0, won the SEC championship and beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Minnesota went 8-0 and won the Big Ten. They did not play in a bowl game. At worst, again, both schools can claim a split national championship.

Add the 2 split national championships to the other 9, well, that's 11. The only one I can't defend is the 1941 championship claim. We went 9-2 with losses to Mississippi State and Vanderbilt. Minnesota again went 8-0, won the Big Ten and were named national champions by the AP. This title clearly belongs to them. However, considering the screwing we took in 1966 when Notre Dame and Michigan State tied yet both still finished ahead of undefeated and two-time defending national champion Alabama in the polls, I don't mind claiming one that might be a bit questionable as compensation.</font>

25 years from now Fla will be able to claim a NC this season should they somehow feel screwed by a poll?

 

[patdog]

I can't defend that one but I'm claiming it anyway. Hey, if you think you got screwed in 1966, why aren't you claiming THAT year instead of 1941?

 

[1984Dawg]

that two teams who tied each other can't be better than a team neither one of them played. Okay, maybe Bama was better. I wasn't around in the 60s. But you didn't get screwed if the #1 and #2 teams played and tied. Hell, just this year people were talking about a potential rematch between Bama and Florida if the SEC Championship game was close.... all while there's 3 or 4 other undefeated teams out there.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I can't say why, but Bama does list 1945, 1966, 1967, and 1977 as other years when the NCAA recognizes them for a title, but they don't recognize it.

Funny thing is, in 1941, the only title they won was the Houlgate title, which was some computer calculation title. It seems to me like some of the other ones that they don't claim are more legit.

 

[MedDawg]

I can't say why, but Bama does list 1945, 1966, 1967, and 1977 as other years when the NCAA recognizes them for a title, but they don't recognize it.

Funny thing is, in 1941, the only title they won was the Houlgate title, which was some computer calculation title. It seems to me like some of the other ones that they don't claim are more legit.

...that is funny when a school claims national titles gained through computer calculations. Or slide rule calculations.

 

[dawgnautique]

done on the ENIAC with vacuum tubes and what-not then, you, as usual, are once again full of crap.

 

[smootness]

There was some formula to determine the Houlgate champion, but that poll gave Alabama something like 4 or 5 titles retroactively after it had been designed.

 

[Johnson85]

done on the ENIAC with vacuum tubes and what-not then, you, as usual, are once again full of crap.

making an *** of yourself. I think you're problem is assuming that nobody would be full of enough crap to use computer calculations to declare national champions from twenty and thirty years ago and then using that erroneous assumption to call somebody else full of crap.

 

[bullysleftnut]

done on the ENIAC with vacuum tubes and what-not then, you, as usual, are once again full of crap.

 

[dawgnautique]

making as a$$ of yourself.