Laughed at Mark Howard on 104.5 this morning

#1
wmcovol

wmcovol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
17,447
Likes
30,606
#1
He said he doubted Alabama would accept the national championship if it was discovered that Clemson had to forfeit it.

Alabama claims one NC when they lost to Miss St & Vandy for heavens sake. They’d claim any one that would come their way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy and Jax_Vol
#5
#5
wmcovol said:
Tennessee was 10-0 during the regular season in 1940.

Bowl games did not count in the national championship polls until the mid 60s.
Click to expand...

True. The AP didn't count bowl games until the late 60s. But that's kind of irrelevant since the AP didn't give the 1940 title to UT, before or after the bowls.
 
#6
#6
bamawriter said:
True. The AP didn't count bowl games until the late 60s. But that's kind of irrelevant since the AP didn't give the 1940 title to UT, before or after the bowls.
Click to expand...

Thats correct just like AP didnt give Alabama any of their claimed national championships before 1961.
 
#7
#7
wmcovol said:
Thats correct just like AP didnt give Alabama any of their claimed national championships before 1961.
Click to expand...

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
#10
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of bias against southern teams even as late as the 1970s. I trust numbers sometimes more than humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreveHaller and vols4evah
#12
#12
wmcovol said:
There was a lot of bias against southern teams even as late as the 1970s. I trust numbers sometimes more than humans.
Click to expand...

There was bias in the math systems, too. Dickinson was the first math system that was widely published, and he'd often tweak the numbers to avoid crowning a Southern team.
 
#13
#13
Meh, UT's claim of the 1967 NC is about as laughable as it gets.

For reference, go look through any 1968 game programs and nowhere mentioned is a NC from 1967.
 
#14
#14
bamawriter said:
There was bias in the math systems, too. Dickinson was the first math system that was widely published, and he'd often tweak the numbers to avoid crowning a Southern team.
Click to expand...

Many media members from the north openly stated they wouldn’t vote for a team with no minority players regardless of their record.
 
#16
#16
vols4evah said:
there was a lot of bias against southern teams right up until the BCS in 1998.
Click to expand...
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
#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
#18
VolsSportsFan said:
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..
Click to expand...
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
 
#19
#19
Hell we already know they'd come to your town and kill one of your favorite long liived trees over a Natty.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top