Crimson Red Sports

ESPN keeps saying this is the 11th championship for Alabama.  I can see that the 1973 one should be questioned, but nobody is discussing the old Rose Bowl wins.

Anybody got a clean list of the 16?  I'd like to see which ones ESPN questions and why.

 :popcorn2:

Found it.  Guess I'll move these to another thread.

(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/Chechem_2008/Football/Bama%20NC_zps5ypkvqsk.jpg)

(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/Chechem_2008/Football/Bama%20NC_zps5ypkvqsk.jpg)

So, if you dismiss the early championships and the 1973 one, we've got only 10.

 :( :(

We should continue to claim 16 until next year.  Then claim 17 after we repeat.

way more than the barn  :dunno:

DETAILS:

1925.  Bama beat Washington 20-19 in the 1926 Rose Bowl, and was "awarded the national championship".  No polls?  Wiki says just "various" under "Selectors" who voted Alabama #1.  See 1941 listing.

1926.  Bama tied Stanford 7-7 in the 1927 Rose Bowl. Wiki says just "various" under "Selectors" who voted Alabama #1. 

1930.  Bama beat Washington State 24-0 in the 1931 Rose Bowl.  Wiki says just "various" under "Selectors" who voted Alabama #1. 

1934.  Bama beat Stanford 29-13 in the 1935 Rose Bowl.  Wiki says just "various" under "Selectors" who voted Alabama #1. 

1941.  Bama beat Texas A&M 29-21 in the 1942 Cotton Bowl.  No mention of a national championship in anything except the Houlgate Poll.  Houlgate used his system, based on strength of opponents, to select national champions on a current basis from 1929 to 1958.  According to wiki, Houlgate also selected Alabama in 1925 and 1934.

1973.  Bama lost to Notre Dame 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl, but were voted #1 by the Coaches Poll prior to the bowls.

Anybody find a list of "selectors" for the 1920s and 1930s championships??

 :popcorn2:

I think the "selectors" were just a variety of magazines back in that time.  I personally have no problem with NOT counting the 41 championship.  Bama didn't win their conference that year, Mississippi State did and Bama finished in 3rd place.  Also, Minnesota had the best overall record as far as I could tell but didn't play in a bowl game. I think at this point I would be fine with just counting 15.  I do feel that Bama got beat out of the '66 championship but I wouldn't claim it even so...

Good point about 1966.  Alabama was the only undefeated, untied team in America.
Notre Dame played for a 10-10 tie (ran out the clock while tied) with Michigan State, and the polls picked ND.  Neither ND or MSU went to a bowl game.  That sucked.  Anyone too young to remember should read about it.  Alabama had a dominant defense that year (6 shutouts), and Kenny Stabler was the QB.  We deserved that one!!

Here is a link to all of the national championships named (by season and team):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:College_football_national_champions

Here is a couple of more links that discuss the championships we claim.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/1/11/10727668/alabama-football-clemson-football-national-championship-claims-count

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/01/ranking_alabamas_16_national_c.html#0

The past way of ranking teams was based on different formulas or systems which were popular at the time. Do we accept that Princeton has 14 National Champions using he same system that selected the 1925 & 1926 Tide teams as NC? It also has Yale with 17 NC's, Michigan with 7, a ranking used from 1869 to 1935? No doubt the 1925, 1930, & 1934 teams were great, but really, do we then accept the legitimacy of the others? I think the modern era of the polls from 1936 to present is the way to go. The AP, UPI (Coaches) into the current playoff system is best. This would equal 11 NC's.

The AP Poll Championships Lists the most Championships like this:

Alabama 10
Notre Dame 8
Oklahoma 7
Miami 5
Ohio State 5
USC 5
Nebraska 4
Minnesota 4


 :wave:

ED ZACKERY ! if for no other reason , just to pizz off all the haters   :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

I am claiming 16 until the VARIOUS people can prove me wrong. RTR!

ESPN says 11th championship "since the poll era."  And while there is a question about '73, Bama should have been voted in 1966.  So with ESPN's qualifier, 11 is accurate. 

But Bama should claim 16 without ESPN's qualifier.  Four of those five wins were "Remember the Rose Bowl..." wins. 

I'm agreeing with X.  Let's just keep claiming 16 for spite!!

 :lol: :lol:

4/8 of the Notre Dame "championships" happened during the 40s. 

In 1966 we were the only undefeated, untied team we were also the two time defending Champion having won tiles in 64 and 65. We beat a good Nebraska team 34-7 in the Sugar Bowl. Bama fatigue was going on in the 60's, 70's and early 80's just like it is today. The pollsters were not going to let a southern team win it 3 years in a row which had never been done before and still has not been done today.

 :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

and tell em' we even win Championships in Spanish  http://bamahammer.com/2016/01/12/the-espn-deportes-call-of-kenyan-drakes-touchdown/

tell em' "don't tug on Superman's cape"   :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11991_10205637052184966_4323450288176441941_n.jpg?oh=491bac297fc523eaeaadb279f6dd00ec&oe=573AE54A)

Well, Mr Smarty Pants, Notre Dame played a ferocious schedule in 1943, playing football powers Iowa Pre-Flight (beat them 14-13), Great Lakes Navy (lost 19-14), plus beat Army, Navy, Georgia Tech, & other titans of college football.

In 1946 ND was 8-0-1 beating mighty Navy (1-9), Pitt (3-5-1), Purdue (2-6-1), Northwestern (4-4-1), Tulane (3-7), Iowa (5-4), USC (6-4), Illinois (8-2), & tying Army (9-0-1). The combined record of their opponents was 41-40-4. No doubt the toughest schedule in the country.

In 1947, ND played a truly ferocious schedule going 8-0-1 while playing teams with a combined record of   29-47-6 for the year.

In 1949, ND was 10-0 & played a schedule which might have been the toughest ever on college football history, with a combined record of 45-46-4, just awesome.

Now, do you have any doubt about these National Championships after being properly informed of the greatness of Notre Dame?




 :dog:

It appears ND's formula for success in the 40s, play a weak schedule with no bowl game and be the press darling, isn't going to work in the playoff era. 

I suppose they might have a chance if another world war breaks out and depletes rosters.   

No, it appears they've spent their energy on getting into the playoffs by playing a weak schedule and not winning a conference championship.

 :lol2:

I think the only Bama championship that has to be discounted is 1941. The pre-poll ones to me are legitimate. 1925 was ground-breaking - a Southern team who nobody believed should be on the same field as Washington beat them. In regards to 1973, UPI voted on the NC before the bowls - one of the two legitimate polls everyone recognized, so I definitely count it.

Are Princeton's 17 National Championships legitimate, picked by the same organization that voted for Alabama in the 1920's & 30's?



 :think:

I don't know anything about Princeton, but I do know this:  football was played a long time before they started having polls.  So, are we supposed to just ignore the first 50 years or so of the sport because the AP didn't take a poll?  They played, and somebody had the best team.

I don't have any issue with the Rose Bowl victories.  I have researched this before and at one time had several newspaper clippings proclaiming Alabama as national champions after those games.  It seemed to be a consensus at the time.

I would not claim '41 if it were up to me.  73 and 66 seem to even each other out, so I guess I would claim 15, since 73 was official.

^^^This, completely. Everyone in the country knew that Bama was the best team in the nation in 1966. That was a complete conspiracy by the poll voters that year. IMO, that should replace the 1941 NC. And what about the 1977 team. We beat the socks off of Ohio St, but the media darlings leapfrogged ND over us when they beat #1 Texas.

I'm good with 16 until next year.

Do we cheapen Alabama's accomplishments if we accept the 17 NC's each by Yale & Princeton, or the 4 in-a-row by Michigan? We can't have it both ways. Just wondering.


 :wave:

There were numerous "selectors" who named national champions from the 1870s to the 1920s: Billingsley Report, National Championship Foundation, Parke H. Davis, Helms Athletic Foundation, Houlgate System, Jeff Sagarin, Boand System, College Football Researchers Association, Dickinson System, and others.  Many times they disagreed on the champion.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:College_football_national_champions

The fact that they didn't agree on the champion each year doesn't mean there shouldn't have been a champion.  Each had its own system of determining the 'best'.  The fact that they disagreed doesn't mean we shouldn't have a champion, nor does it mean a team voted as champion shouldn't accept it.  Should we only recognize championships of the early years when the "selectors" were unanimous? 

Further, having a champion named when only 20-30 teams fielded teams isn't the same as giving everyone a trophy.  Those early teams had representatives deemed 'best', despite being best of 20-30 (instead of today's 128).  Judge those teams by their records and opponents of the time, not by their records and opponents of today.

Whatever is claimed as a number only matters to us. Alabama is the gold standard of college football, recognized by all.  :worship:

"Hear, hear."   #+

I love your logic & reasoning on this matter. Very good.


 #+

LOGIC is one thing Chechem is full of. Nobody could top his amount he has for the good.  :D :D :clap:, RTR!

The larger point is that the number of championships that are in dispute for Alabama would constitute a legacy of greatness for most teams. For us they are a rounding error.

Excellent point ALTU!  Ecred worthy...  #+ #+ #+