Laughed at Mark Howard on 104.5 this morning

#7

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
19,002
Likes
7,850
#7
Thats correct just like AP didnt give Alabama any of their claimed national championships before 1961.
True. But various non-math organizations did. Pre-AP titles are certainly up for debate. But as long as human beings determined that a team deserved a national title, I'm okay with anyone who wants to claim it. If a spreadsheet determined it? Nope.
 
#10

wmcovol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,728
Likes
4,967
#10
True. But various non-math organizations did. Pre-AP titles are certainly up for debate. But as long as human beings determined that a team deserved a national title, I'm okay with anyone who wants to claim it. If a spreadsheet determined it? Nope.
There was a lot of bias against southern teams even as late as the 1970s. I trust numbers sometimes more than humans.
 
#16
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
5,442
#16
there was a lot of bias against southern teams right up until the BCS in 1998.
That's a great point and one that pretty often gets overlooked. "SEC bias" has only really been a thing since the late 2000s, when it clearly became the superior conference and rattled off that streak of consecutive national titles. Before that, there was a pretty clear media bias towards the upper midwestern teams (Michigan, Ohio St, Notre Dame).

Can you imagine Peyton Manning not winning the Heisman today, or an undefeated SEC champ not playing for the national title (as happened in 2004)? The SEC has always been the conference/part of the country where the greatest number of people cared the most about college football, but it was not the preeminent conference in the eyes of many in the national media until about 10 years ago.
 
#17
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
53,269
Likes
21,016
#17
I don't know why anyone really even cares that much about NCs before around the 80s anyway. I mean people can crap on the Bowl Coalition, BCS and Playoffs all they want, but at least it's an attempt to actually crown an NC through a process, however flawed they might be. I'll take that over hoping just maybe #1 and #2 meet in a bowl game..
 
#18
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
5,442
#18
I don't know why anyone really even cares that much about NCs before around the 80s anyway. I mean people can crap on the Bowl Coalition, BCS and Playoffs all they want, but at least it's an attempt to actually crown an NC through a process, however flawed they might be. I'll take that over hoping just maybe #1 and #2 meet in a bowl game..
People care about titles before the 80s because we care more about national titles today than they did back in the day. Hence we'll look back into the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc., see who the pollsters said was #1, and rank programs/coaches based on that. Winning a national title back then wasn't a big of a deal then as it is today. It isn't necessarily what a team was shooting for. There was a time where college football looked at a national title like a high school team would. High school football is about state championships. If somebody wants to rank all the high school teams in the country in a poll, that's cool if they pick you #1, but ultimately it doesn't really mean a whole lot. What they really want to win, and what the really measure success by, is winning a state championship.

In hindsight, it is amazing that college football didn't come up with a system to force #1 and #2 to meet in a bowl game until 1998. Bo Schembechler frequently spoke about the "mythical national championship." Times have definitely changed. College football was (and still is, but not to as great of an extent as in the past) about winning your conference and winning your rivalry games. It has always been a much more parochial sport compared to professional sports.

Mythical national championship - Wikipedia
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top