A thread about BIG, FAKE Titles

#51

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
21,218
Likes
10,202
#51
I’d also argue UCF’s bogus national title is no more bogus than BYU’s 1984 bogus national title. BYU also went undefeated without playing anyone. At least UCF played a legit opponent in their bowl game.
It's not a question of who played a tougher schedule. BYU won every consensus selector. UCF won an Excel spreadsheet.
 
#53

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
12,778
Likes
9,019
#53
It's not a question of who played a tougher schedule. BYU won every consensus selector. UCF won an Excel spreadsheet.
IMO there are two definitions of "bogus title." The first is a title where most of the polls select a team as national champion, but their selection of said team as #1 is controversial for some reason(s). The second is a title where very few polls, or an obscure poll(s), selects a team as a national champion, and said team decides that is good enough and claims a title that year.

BYU's is the first definition. Tennessee 1967, UCF 2017, a bunch of Alabama's claims, and many others are the second definition.

In the first definition, it is more the pollsters themselves that take heat for the outcome. After all, if every poll or most polls say you're #1, it's kind of dumb not to claim it. In the second definition, it is the school that takes heat for the outcome - not many people are saying you're #1, but you claim it anyway because this one guy said so.
 
#54

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
21,218
Likes
10,202
#54
IMO there are two definitions of "bogus title." The first is a title where most of the polls select a team as national champion, but their selection of said team as #1 is controversial for some reason(s). The second is a title where very few polls, or an obscure poll(s), selects a team as a national champion, and said team decides that is good enough and claims a title that year.

BYU's is the first definition. Tennessee 1967, UCF 2017, a bunch of Alabama's claims, and many others are the second definition.

In the first definition, it is more the pollsters themselves that take heat for the outcome. After all, if every poll or most polls say you're #1, it's kind of dumb not to claim it. In the second definition, it is the school that takes heat for the outcome - not many people are saying you're #1, but you claim it anyway because this one guy said so.
I'm sorry, but definition 1 is not "bogus." Prior to the BCS (with a special caveat for '03) if the consensus of selectors says Team A won the title, then Team A won the title. One can argue that Team B should have won it, but they didn't. I have no problem arguing that Bama should have won titles instead of Notre Dame in '66 and '77, but no one of any consequence selected them. That doesn't mean that either of Notre Dame's claims are "bogus."

Either the trophy is in your case or it's not.
 
#55

Lawrence Wright

Troll Brother #1
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,711
Likes
8,745
#55
IMO there are two definitions of "bogus title." The first is a title where most of the polls select a team as national champion, but their selection of said team as #1 is controversial for some reason(s). The second is a title where very few polls, or an obscure poll(s), selects a team as a national champion, and said team decides that is good enough and claims a title that year.

BYU's is the first definition. Tennessee 1967, UCF 2017, a bunch of Alabama's claims, and many others are the second definition.

In the first definition, it is more the pollsters themselves that take heat for the outcome. After all, if every poll or most polls say you're #1, it's kind of dumb not to claim it. In the second definition, it is the school that takes heat for the outcome - not many people are saying you're #1, but you claim it anyway because this one guy said so.
Quality post, to me.

Up until the Alliance/BCS era national titles in football were referred to as “mythical” national titles.
 
Likes: tntar heel
#56

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
12,778
Likes
9,019
#56
I'm sorry, but definition 1 is not "bogus." Prior to the BCS (with a special caveat for '03) if the consensus of selectors says Team A won the title, then Team A won the title. One can argue that Team B should have won it, but they didn't. I have no problem arguing that Bama should have won titles instead of Notre Dame in '66 and '77, but no one of any consequence selected them. That doesn't mean that either of Notre Dame's claims are "bogus."

Either the trophy is in your case or it's not.
Sure they can be bogus, because the system in those days for awarding national titles (especially before the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition days) was totally bogus. And that was OK, because nobody was really playing for them. We're trying to retrofit modern-day thinking about national titles onto how the sport operated generations ago. The sport wasn't originally "made" and sanctioned for the purposes of awarding a "national champion" - it's been in relatively modern times where teams and fans of the sport have wanted to crown one of those.

Bo Schembechler is given credit for popularizing that term "mythical national championship" that LW mentioned, and I think he had a self-serving reason for doing so because he never won one, but that also doesn't mean that he didn't have a point. For most of college football's history, teams didn't even necessarily play to win national titles because whoever won them was decided by pollsters. There wasn't even an attempt made, even a halfhearted attempt like the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition were, to settle it on the field. Therefore what you were really trying to do in those days were win your big rivalry game(s) and win your conference. Kind of like high school football still is today.
 
#57

McCat

Old School Kentucky
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
8,506
Likes
825
#57
In basketball, the Helms titles are stupid to claim. Kentucky has 2 of them but doesn't count them. UNC however counts theirs, LOL.


Now that I got your attention, this thread is about some of the (dubious) claimed national titles for SEC schools. Were there some of our titles that we didn't deserve. Were there a couple of years where we deserved to be declared national champs?

We know Bama has more than a handful of BIG FAKE titles. Are there other SEC schools that have them? What are some of the most illegitimate ones?

Yes, this is 100% an offseason thread.
 
Likes: RDU VOL#14
#58
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
3,386
Likes
4,646
#58
Quality post, to me.

Up until the Alliance/BCS era national titles in football were referred to as “mythical” national titles.
Some years there were clearer national champions than others. I think back on my lifetime and sometimes it would work out where there wasn't any real dispute, like Bama in 79, UGA in 80, Clemson in 81', Penn State in 86', Miami in 89', other years it was a crap show. I think it was 77' they jumped ND to No.1 from No. 6 on New Year's Day. 83' should have been Auburn not Miami. 90 was BS also. Georgia Tech should have been outright champs instead of splitting with Colorado who got the fifth down.
 
Last edited:
#60

UTK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
16,292
Likes
13,501
#60
Not an Auburn fan at all but USC’s 2004 stripped title needs to be awarded to the war eagle guys. This doesn’t exactly apply to this thread but oh well. I still struggle to this day trying to figure out why BYU has the 1984 natty.
I still can't wrap my head around how Oklahoma who was beat down in the Big 12 title game got in the National championship over undefeated Auburn.
 
#64

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
21,218
Likes
10,202
#64
Yeah you're right. My bad. But still Oklahoma shouldn't of got invited over Auburn regardless lol
That's easy to say with the gift of hindsight. Personal opinion: it might have been closer than the pitiful effort OU put out, but USC was the clear cut best team in '04, and they would have pounded Auburn, too.
 
#65

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
12,778
Likes
9,019
#65
That's easy to say with the gift of hindsight. Personal opinion: it might have been closer than the pitiful effort OU put out, but USC was the clear cut best team in '04, and they would have pounded Auburn, too.
I'm not so sure about that. USC might have beaten them, but it would have been stunning if they pounded Auburn. To be fair, it was stunning that they pounded Oklahoma too. Auburn had the tougher schedule that year, and they each had close wins over a common opponent (Virginia Tech). Auburn's running game likely would have really challenged USC.
 
#66

PEPPERJAX

Let's Do A Ritual....
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
5,882
Likes
7,564
#66
I'm not so sure about that. USC might have beaten them, but it would have been stunning if they pounded Auburn. To be fair, it was stunning that they pounded Oklahoma too. Auburn had the tougher schedule that year, and they each had close wins over a common opponent (Virginia Tech). Auburn's running game likely would have really challenged USC.
Auburn had some impressive wins that year. Beat UT twice when we were in top 15. LSU at number 5, UGA @ 8, and VA TECH at number 9. I guess scheduling the Citadel could have been a deciding factor leaving them out. USC had 3 wins over opponents in the top 15 in Cal, ASU, and sooners.
 
Last edited:
#67

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
21,218
Likes
10,202
#67
I'm not so sure about that. USC might have beaten them, but it would have been stunning if they pounded Auburn. To be fair, it was stunning that they pounded Oklahoma too. Auburn had the tougher schedule that year, and they each had close wins over a common opponent (Virginia Tech). Auburn's running game likely would have really challenged USC.
Maybe. But OU had Adrian Peterson and couldn't do squat.
 
#68

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
12,778
Likes
9,019
#68
Maybe. But OU had Adrian Peterson and couldn't do squat.
Peterson also had a running style, especially in college, where he got the ball and could just run away from people. Harder to do that against a defense like USC's, and Auburn's running game at the time was more predicated on being physical.
 
#71

Boca Vol

Fan of #31
Lab Rat
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
23,766
Likes
15,909
#71
When a team wins a national title it should be celebrated and talked about. Oddly, you will find no mention of UT's '67 NC in the '68 publications. UT didn't claim it until '90 or '91 IIRC.
 

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top