Online Now 3244

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1912
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3196
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Alabama v. Notre Dame v. USC

  • theharbinater said...

    you want the short version or the long one?

    short version:

    4 - (25, 26, 30, 34) pre-1936 titles are rose bowl national titles. every team that won a rose bowl before the ap claims a national title. legit as anyone else's and as good as can be for the time period.

    4 - (61, 79, 92, 09) undefeated, untied, bowl winning teams that won both polls. as legit as can be. no argument possible.

    3 - (11 bcs, 78 ap, 65 ap) lost a game in reg season, but won out and won bowl, and won at least 1 major (bcs/ap/coaches) poll, but had help along the way. (79 usc beat bama, but later lost and bama jumped them (usc won coaches), 65 bama went into bowl ranked 4th, but #1-3 all lost and bama jumped to #1, in 11 got 2nd chance at lsu)

    2 - (64, 73) undefeated reg season, but lost bowl, but won major polls cause at time they did poll pre-bowl. these are debateable, but every team that won a major poll claims a title, regardless of bowl outcome. (and no, bama is not the only team to claim a title after losing their bowl, texas, tenn, ou, mich st to name a few, do also.)

    1 - (41) - no real good reason at all. won a minor poll, finished 20th in major polls, had 2 losses, didn't win sec. just not legit anyway you look at it.

    there's your 14 claimed titles in short story form.

    . . . . . .

    long version: (i did this a while ago, and just copy and pasted it, so it has some other things in it that might not pertain, but i'm too tired to try to clean it up. good read, though, if interested.)

    basically any pre-ap (pre-1936) is what i consider a rose bowl mnc. there was only one bowl, the rose, and every team the won the rose bowl before the ap poll started claims it as a mnc. this includes nd, usc, mich, osu, etc. so that's 4 for bama (1925, 26, 30, 34). all were undefeated going into the rose bowl, and only 1 didnt win, the 26 team tied stanford 7-7 (who, if im not mistaken, also claims that year as mnc).

    i'll go year by year from here on, as they all have unique characteristics.

    1941 - joke. no way around it. anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. lost 2, didnt win sec, didnt finish in top 20 in ap poll. really dont like this one.

    1961 - undefeated, won bowl, crowned both ap and coaches. no one can argue this one.

    1964 - little hairy. undefeated going into bowl, lost to arky in bowl game. won both polls again, but they were pre-bowl. this is simply how it was done then, and other teams have won and claim mnc when the lost bowls in this time period (includes texas, tenn, ou, mich st and some others), so this is legit, imo. also, consider that every team that has won a coaches or ap poll claims it, bowl win or not, and it strengthens it.

    1965 - finished 9-1-1, won bowl. this year, the ap decided to do poll after bowls. everyone in front of bama lost their bowl, and bama was next in line. so ap votes bama #1. legit, imo.

    this is where i'd put a "what if" scenario type thing, but i'll save it for the end, since there are multiple years (45, 66, and 77) with what if things.

    1973 - undefeated regular season. lost bowl to nd. voted, pre-bowl, coaches poll mnc. this one is harder than the others to call legit, since the ap had been doing post-bowl for several years now. but, again, everyone who has ever won a coaches or ap poll claims it, so this one is ok. weakest one so far (besides the terrible 41)

    1978 - 11-1, won bowl. won ap poll. lost in regular season to usc, who won the coaches. but usc lost a game late in the year, which allowed bama to jump them. this happens all the time, and still does. it's a true split, imo, and a legit claim by bama.

    1979 - 12-0, won bowl. won both polls. no arguments. legit.

    1992 - 13-0, won bowl and both polls. legit.

    2009 - 14-0, won bowl and all polls. legit.

    now, for the what if's:

    in 45, army, i think, won it. and rightly so. but bama was also undefeated, beating usc soundly in the rose bowl. however, army won the ap (no coaches yet, 1950). bama doesnt claim it, and the one who does has a legit claim, so it's hard to argue. but it should be mentioned.

    1966 - bama was 2 time defending mnc, started preseason #1 in both polls, went undefeated and untied (1 of only 2 teams in nation to do so, san diego st was other), won their bowl game over a top 5 team, and didnt win the mnc. only time in history that has happened. nd won both polls, after playing to a tie with mich st (in a weak way, i might add, but that's another story). msu finished 2nd, bama 3rd. bama played more teams with winning records (6) than either nd (4) or msu (2). bama should have been awarded this mnc and, imo, should claim it. but it's hard to without either major poll. this should be legit, and the 1st and only 3-peat, imo.

    1977 - little harder to justify, but there should be some sort of claim. 1 loss. won bowl. was #3 headed into bowls. #1 and #2 lost, we beat #8 team, #4 lost, and #5 nd beat #1 texas. nd won the polls. like i said, hard to justify, but there is some merit there. imo, it should be a split. but it is what it is.

    finally, since the polls are so funky and quirky, there is a simpler way to see who has accomplished greatness the most without subjective opinions. undefeated and untied, bowl champions. and for the big ten and nd people who will argue with this, i have something for them as well.

    bama now has 9 undefeated, untied, bow champion teams. (25, 30, 34, 45, 61, 66, 79, 92, 09)

    #2 on the list is psu with 5 undefeated, untied bowl champion teams.

    #3 & 4 is nebraska and usc with 4 each.

    #5 is a jumble of osu, nd, texas, ou, miami and an outlier in toledo (didnt seperate for major vs non major bowls)

    now, about the bigten and nd, they didnt go bowling for several year during the first half century. the bigten only allowed 1 team per year, and not on consecutive years. nd just didnt because school policy. however, during that time frame, (nd i'm being extremely generous here in assuming this) lets assume that they would have won their bowl for every year that they finished the regular season undefeated and untied. only considering nd and osu, since those are the only 2 that come even remotely close.

    osu would be the same, since they didnt have any years in which they went undefeated and untied in regular season and didnt go bowling (years are 46-75 that the bigten didnt allow more than 1, non-consecutive bowl team)

    nd would be 7 (+4) (the years they didnt go bowling is from 25-70)

    so bama is still on top here, regardless. simply put, bama has done more than anyone where it counts: on the field.

    hope you enjoyed this book.

    no

    signature image signature image signature image

    Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898

    msucantmakebcs ●

  • good post. I think the top 3 are USC,Bama,Michigan in no particular order. Notre Dame has been irrelevant way too long to be still considered a top 3 program. Also, they have a losing record in bowl games.

    Fear16 ●

  • FSUTrackLove said...

    Not to hate but I'd put Michigan ahead of all of them...then ND and the I like the Bama-USC equality cause thats kinda how I see it too... Bama gets the nod as they are the most recent dominant program but USC dominated for a long time before they got their sanctions too...

    I have much respect for UM's program, but you've got to be kidding me. No way a team that wins 1 title in 65 years can sit at the top of this discussion.

    bigwilly64

  • theFightingtide said...

    The only one that should truly be discounted is the 1940's one. All of the others we have outright won, or were just fortunate in the way they awarded the championship 1973 and prior.

    I agree, FightingTide. 1941 is a joke. Other than that, Alabama has a good case for every one that they have and for every beautiful trophy that sits on those massive shelves.

    It's humorous the way some posters don't understand, because they are teenagers, that there used to be such a thing as co-national champions. Their brains just can't process that.

    Also, it's kind of funny the way that some posters are just adamant, just absolutely convinced that Alabama didn't win a NC in, say, 1964, even though both the AP and the UPI both awarded their trophies to Alabama.

    It's this kind of idiocy that is hard to stomach among opposing fans. They screech and scream and cry blood read tears while shouting that the AP changed it's voting procedure after '64 and started awarding their trophies after the bowl games just because of Alabama.

    They think because the AP changed their procedures because of '64 Bama, that '64 Bama wasn't really the NC. It's like their minds don't work right. I always thought the AP changing their policy after '64 was one of the funniest things in college football.

    The AP goes to an "after bowl" award policy in '64, specifically because of Alabama and some feeling that Arkansas got cheated and the uproar that followed the '64 season. Then, what do you know, coming back to slap the faces of the AP in '65 and taking their award again, even after they made all these changes, was who? That's right, Alabama, the '65 AP champs too. The AP couldn't win for losing; Alabama almost put them out of business.

    Of course, we changed the UPI's policy too, right after the '73 loss in our bowl game to Notre Dame. Again, some people who really don't have smarts on their side, will stand right in your face and tell you that Alabama doesn't really have a NC in '73 because of their loss in the bowl game to NC.

    They feel they know better than the UPI did, even if they weren't alive in '73, and will argue with you 'till the cows come home that Alabama doesn't really have a NC trophy from the UPI in '73 and it's all just propaganda and lies and stupid Bammers behaving badly. It's quite the phenomenon.

    Now, of course, since Alabama has changed the BCS, we are sure to soon have fans of other teams declare Bama's last BCS NC invalid because the BCS was demolished because of Alabama being in the game. They will work it out, in their own heads, and come up with a formula to completely invalidate Alabama's BCS crystal ball from last season and tell us, with a straight face, that it doesn't exist and isn't really on a shelf down in Tuscaloosa and we are just making it all up.

    Watch and see.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by CtrlAltDel on 7/6/2012 at 7:45 PM

    signature image

    http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/CtrlAltieDel/Bama/

    CtrlAltDel

  • Not this shit again. facepalm_msu

    signature image signature image

    This is Michigan, fergodsakes.

    Never Lose Hoke

  • Never Lose Hoke said...

    Not this shit again. facepalm_msu

    We are going to keep repeating it, all across the Internet, in books, on television, everywhere you go and everywhere you plan to go in the future until everyone gets it right. It's a mission.

    signature image

    http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/CtrlAltieDel/Bama/

    CtrlAltDel

  • CtrlAltDel said...

    We are going to keep repeating it, all across the Internet, in books, on television, everywhere you go and everywhere you plan to go in the future until everyone gets it right. It's a mission.

    Sounds good, I guess I'll do my part then. List goes: Michigan, everybody else, Bama. IMO. shrug

    signature image signature image

    This is Michigan, fergodsakes.

    Never Lose Hoke

  • Never Lose Hoke said...

    Sounds good, I guess I'll do my part then. List goes: Michigan, everybody else, Bama. IMO. shrug

    thumbsup

    signature image signature image signature image

    Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898

    msucantmakebcs ●

  • maize&blue21 said...

    Michigan is basically a better Notre Dame except for Heismans, yet you have Michigan as #4 and Notre Dame as #1.

    having grown up in ann arbor, i am a um supporter. The difference between michigan and the top 3 are recent poll or bcs titles. simply non existent except for 97.
    um is also one of the most historically over rated programs. Alabama is usually one of the most under rated programs of all time. I know you're young (not going to make fun of your age) but it would do you and all people well to read a few books on the history of the south and southern football. I've lived basically 20 years in the north and 25 in the south and texas.
    IT's just different. It goes back to reconstruction and the ravaging of the southern states.
    Anyway, i may post a diff thread because few people understand the historical significance Alabama played in the 20's and following.
    Michigan has had a great past and will have a great future, but they have failed to match the speed of the pac 12 in the rose bowl, as has most the big 10 since the mid 60's.

    hubcitytider

  • CtrlAltDel said...

    I agree, FightingTide. 1941 is a joke. Other than that, Alabama has a good case for every one that they have and for every beautiful trophy that sits on those massive shelves.

    It's humorous the way some posters don't understand, because they are teenagers, that there used to be such a thing as co-national champions. Their brains just can't process that.

    Also, it's kind of funny the way that some posters are just adamant, just absolutely convinced that Alabama didn't win a NC in, say, 1964, even though both the AP and the UPI both awarded their trophies to Alabama.

    It's this kind of idiocy that is hard to stomach among opposing fans. They screech and scream and cry blood read tears while shouting that the AP changed it's voting procedure after '64 and started awarding their trophies after the bowl games just because of Alabama.

    They think because the AP changed their procedures because of '64 Bama, that '64 Bama wasn't really the NC. It's like their minds don't work right. I always thought the AP changing their policy after '64 was one of the funniest things in college football.

    The AP goes to an "after bowl" award policy in '64, specifically because of Alabama and some feeling that Arkansas got cheated and the uproar that followed the '64 season. Then, what do you know, coming back to slap the faces of the AP in '65 and taking their award again, even after they made all these changes, was who? That's right, Alabama, the '65 AP champs too. The AP couldn't win for losing; Alabama almost put them out of business.

    Of course, we changed the UPI's policy too, right after the '73 loss in our bowl game to Notre Dame. Again, some people who really don't have smarts on their side, will stand right in your face and tell you that Alabama doesn't really have a NC in '73 because of their loss in the bowl game to NC.

    They feel they know better than the UPI did, even if they weren't alive in '73, and will argue with you 'till the cows come home that Alabama doesn't really have a NC trophy from the UPI in '73 and it's all just propaganda and lies and stupid Bammers behaving badly. It's quite the phenomenon.

    Now, of course, since Alabama has changed the BCS, we are sure to soon have fans of other teams declare Bama's last BCS NC invalid because the BCS was demolished because of Alabama being in the game. They will work it out, in their own heads, and come up with a formula to completely invalidate Alabama's BCS crystal ball from last season and tell us, with a straight face, that it doesn't exist and isn't really on a shelf down in Tuscaloosa and we are just making it all up.

    Watch and see.

    I can't stand that we claim 41...i can see 44 (not claimed) undefeated rose bowl champ. screwed in 66 and 77...the stuff evens out.

    hubcitytider

  • hubcitytider said...

    having grown up in ann arbor, i am a um supporter. The difference between michigan and the top 3 are recent poll or bcs titles. simply non existent except for 97. um is also one of the most historically over rated programs. Alabama is usually one of the most under rated programs of all time. I know you're young (not going to make fun of your age) but it would do you and all people well to read a few books on the history of the south and southern football. I've lived basically 20 years in the north and 25 in the south and texas. IT's just different. It goes back to reconstruction and the ravaging of the southern states. Anyway, i may post a diff thread because few people understand the historical significance Alabama played in the 20's and following. Michigan has had a great past and will have a great future, but they have failed to match the speed of the pac 12 in the rose bowl, as has most the big 10 since the mid 60's.

    I personally don't put much weight to national titles in football because none of them are earned on the field. Every single National Champ in football has been voted on in some way or another. Until football has a true playoff format(at least 8 teams) then National Championships in football won't mean that much to me(including all of Michigan's).

    Calling Michigan a historically overrated program is just BS.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

  • Bottom line is this...these programs are elite
    Bama nd, usc, um, ou, texas, neb, osu...but the top of the elite would be bama, sc, nd (in spite of recent woes).
    with that said in the new era...your florida schools along with lsu ( thanks to nick saban...did you know lsu had 8 losing seasons the previous 11 years before saban got there) should be mentioned as teams to watch in the future. the 'u' needs another schnellenburger to resurrect the program. those canes were some freak show teams. loaded.
    fsu's run from 87-01 was amazing. florida probably had the best team in cfb in 84. and has enjoyed success the subsequent 25+ years.

    hubcitytider

  • WillyWolverine said...

    I personally don't put much weight to national titles in football because none of them are earned on the field. Every single National Champ in football has been voted on in some way or another. Until football has a true playoff format(at least 8 teams) then National Championships in football won't mean that much to me(including all of Michigan's).

    Calling Michigan a historically overrated program is just BS.

    that's laughable...you trolled a thread a few weeks ago. as far as over rated, do the research...michigan is either number 1 or 2 of all time...look at pre season ap and final ap. hell i remember 81 um...pre season #1...lost to iowa, osu, and another.
    90% of the national titles are legit. the only 1 that's a joke in recent memory is 1984...byu beat a 6-5 michigan team in the holiday bowl led by a scrub named chris zurbrug or something like that and had to wait a week for the new years day bowls. the bottom line is that um the past 60 years has not been able to handle pac 12 speed and hasn't had remotely the best team in cfb except for 97...not even close.

    hubcitytider

  • hubcitytider said...

    that's laughable...you trolled a thread a few weeks ago. as far as over rated, do the research...michigan is either number 1 or 2 of all time...look at pre season ap and final ap. hell i remember 81 um...pre season #1...lost to iowa, osu, and another. 90% of the national titles are legit. the only 1 that's a joke in recent memory is 1984...byu beat a 6-5 michigan team in the holiday bowl led by a scrub named chris zurbrug or something like that and had to wait a week for the new years day bowls. the bottom line is that um the past 60 years has not been able to handle pac 12 speed and hasn't had remotely the best team in cfb except for 97...not even close.

    I am being serious. I don't put much stock in football national championships. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

  • WillyWolverine said...

    I am being serious. I don't put much stock in football national championships. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

    that's neat. 99.999999999% of the people do. you must be an aclu lawyer.

    hubcitytider

  • hubcitytider said...

    that's neat. 99.999999999% of the people do. you must be an aclu lawyer.

    lol nope just a football fan with an opinion that you apparently don't like.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

  • hubcitytider said...

    that's laughable...you trolled a thread a few weeks ago. as far as over rated, do the research...michigan is either number 1 or 2 of all time...look at pre season ap and final ap. hell i remember 81 um...pre season #1...lost to iowa, osu, and another. 90% of the national titles are legit. the only 1 that's a joke in recent memory is 1984...byu beat a 6-5 michigan team in the holiday bowl led by a scrub named chris zurbrug or something like that and had to wait a week for the new years day bowls. the bottom line is that um the past 60 years has not been able to handle pac 12 speed and hasn't had remotely the best team in cfb except for 97...not even close.

    I would argue that either 98 or 06 were the top team in the country but underperformed in crucial games, but whatever. And pac 12 speed is a new term for me, how would that relate to ESSS EEEE SEEEE Speed?

    signature image signature image

    This is Michigan, fergodsakes.

    Never Lose Hoke

  • hubcitytider said...

    that's neat. 99.999999999% of the people do. you must be an aclu lawyer.

    How does being an aclu lawyer relevant at all? And NCs are a fairly recent phenomenon, as CFB used to be a lot more regional and people cared about winning their conference/beating their rival.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "The Michigan Man is certain he invented the Big Ten, along with intellect, cocktails and sex."

    Wendel Clark

  • WillyWolverine said...

    I personally don't put much weight to national titles in football because none of them are earned on the field. Every single National Champ in football has been voted on in some way or another. Until football has a true playoff format(at least 8 teams) then National Championships in football won't mean that much to me(including all of Michigan's).

    Calling Michigan a historically overrated program is just BS.

    You don't put much stock in them because UM has 1 in 65 years....just admit it. Let me guess, you put tons of stock in things like the Heisman, which is nothing but a popularity contest. Amirite?

    bigwilly64

  • bigwilly64 said...

    You don't put much stock in them because UM has 1 in 65 years....just admit it. Let me guess, you put tons of stock in things like the Heisman, which is nothing but a popularity contest. Amirite?

    Nope. My list would be

    1) Winning Percentage
    2) Conference Championships
    3) Wins
    4) Bowl Wins
    5) national championships
    6) heismans

    The first 4 are all things teams control on the field. There is no voting or poll involved in any of those things.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

  • Wendel Clark said...

    How does being an aclu lawyer relevant at all? And NCs are a fairly recent phenomenon, as CFB used to be a lot more regional and people cared about winning their conference/beating their rival.

    aclu lawyers represent the whacked out liberal minority...like the protestors that marched down my street in ann arbor michigan...on a blood drive for the viet kong.
    um cares about conference titles because they can't beat the best of the other conferences.
    At alabama we care about national titles.
    your viewpoint is like that of jim delaney's and this protect the rose bowl crap...we don't care about the rose bowl. i did as a kid in the 70's when the pac 8,10,12 beat the ever living &^^ out of the slow over rated big 10.

    as far as winning percentage. if Alabama played big ten teams in a conference it would look a little different.

    hubcitytider

  • WillyWolverine said...

    Nope. My list would be

    1) Winning Percentage 2) Conference Championships 3) Wins 4) Bowl Wins 5) national championships 6) heismans

    The first 4 are all things teams control on the field. There is no voting or poll involved in any of those things.

    I agree to some extent... Its unfair sometimes how much bias goes into voting... NC especially the ones before 1940 are a joke... the NC that were voted on before the bowl game are even more of a joke... the shared national champions are a joke... some of the BCS titles with teams in major conferences with records that should have at least given them a chance at a national title AU in 2004 for instance is a joke upon a joke... National champions is so stupid sometimes its like damn they really keep messing this up...

    But I do love National Champions!

    This post was edited by FSUTrackLoveFSU on 7/6/2012 at 8:50 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Walking up these hills you have no choice but to be fast!

    FSUTrackLoveFSU

  • WillyWolverine said...

    Nope. My list would be

    1) Winning Percentage
    2) Conference Championships
    3) Wins
    4) Bowl Wins
    5) national championships
    6) heismans

    The first 4 are all things teams control on the field. There is no voting or poll involved in any of those things.

    Wins loses a little luster when you have played 100+ games more than other schools. This game is all about championships. People can complain about varying systems that have been in place, but it doesn't change anything. UM's #1 goal going into this season is win the NC, no matter what the system or rules are that are in place.

    bigwilly64

  • bigwilly64 said...

    Wins loses a little luster when you have played 100+ games more than other schools. This game is all about championships. People can complain about varying systems that have been in place, but it doesn't change anything. UM's #1 goal going into this season is win the NC, no matter what the system or rules are that are in place.

    Actually, the goal is conference championships, as stated by Hoke himself. Also that's why Willy put Win % at #1.

    signature image signature image

    This is Michigan, fergodsakes.

    Never Lose Hoke

  • bigwilly64 said...

    Wins loses a little luster when you have played 100+ games more than other schools. This game is all about championships. People can complain about varying systems that have been in place, but it doesn't change anything. UM's #1 goal going into this season is win the NC, no matter what the system or rules are that are in place.

    That's why i put win percentage as number one.

    National championships lose a bit of luster to me when a team can go undefeated and not get a national title. See 2004 Auburn and 1994 Penn State.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports