In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
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.
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.
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 2 years ago
Not this shit again.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
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.
Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
that's neat. 99.999999999% of the people do. you must be an aclu lawyer.
nope just a football fan with an opinion that you apparently don't like.
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?
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.
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
4) Bowl Wins
5) national championships
The first 4 are all things teams control on the field. There is no voting or poll involved in any of those things.
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.
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 2 years ago
Walking up these hills you have no choice but to be fast!
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.
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.
It should be pretty obvious by now that people are going to favor the criteria that shows that their team is the best. Michigan fans will favor wins; Bama fans will favor championships; Oklahoma fans will favor post-WW2 success and claim that anything prior to that is basically a different sport; Notre Dame fans will claim "Tradition"; and other teams will make other claims.
What it comes down to is that you cannot objectively prove what school has been the most successful. It is literally impossible.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports