12 National Championships? Really?

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

This has been posted several times before on other sites, maybe even here, but I just thought it would be interesting to see how Bama fans refute this guys claims.

Again this isn't my research, just taken from recent thread on Rivals.



If you read the NCAA records (online), you won't be left with a sense that Bama can legitimately claim 12 NCs. When you hear a Bammer fan say that Bama has 12 NCs, you can immediately confront the LIE.

Here are THE FACTS:

1925: There was no national champion (or championship) in 1925. Without exception, every poll mentioned in the NCAA record book was assigned retroactively no less than 1 year later, and as many as 55 years later. The two polling methods Bammer quotes are Helms (applied retroactively in 1941) and Football Annual/College Football Researchers Association (whose retroactive application of their method was no earlier than 1982, and is described in the NCAA Record Book as "conducted on a poll by Harry Carson Frye"). Who the hell is Harry Carson Frye? A Bammer? I just didn't get a good feeling about this, so I did a little more research. What I found was that Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim to the 1925 championship, as the method used (Dickinson) came into being prior to 1925, although it was not marketed to newspapers until 1926. Dickinson's method seems to be the first to employ strength-of-schedule and a trophy (the Rissman Trophy).

There is a lengthy write-up about the Dickinson poll on the USC website ( Default :: The University of Southern California Trojans - Official Athletic Site (http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports/) m-footbl/spec-rel/101504aah.html); if you read it, it's pretty obvious that this was the prevailing method of the day. Scratch the alleged 1925 championship. This Bammer lie has been exposed and repudiated.

1926: According to Dickinson (the poll in use in 1926), Stanford is the 1926 National Champion. But wait a minute, the Bammers say... Alabama tied Stanford in its final game of the season (the Rose Bowl), and both were otherwise undefeated. The question is - was Dickinson applied after the head-to-head matchup? The answer is YES - check the Stanford website - Stanford received the Rissman Trophy. If there's any doubt - Notre Dame (believe it or not) has/had permanent possession of the Rissman Trophy; it may have an inscription indicating the 1926 National Champion. My guess is that it's got "Stanford" next to "1926", but if you want to be sure, call the Notre Dame Athletic Department; maybe they can tell you for sure. Without any better information.... Scratch the alleged 1926 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1930: Notre Dame is ranked #1 by 9 of the 13 polls recognized by the NCAA records for 1930. Of the 13 polls, only three were actually used in 1930: Dickinson, Boand, and Houlgate, and all three selected Notre Dame. The modern day NCAA consensus pick is also Notre Dame. Scratch the alleged 1930 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1934: Here's our first potential dilemma. Of the polls in use mentioned in the NCAA records, six are actually in existence in 1934, and they're evenly split between Minnesota and Bammer. The edge would seem to be in Minnesota's favor (Dickinson picked'em), but if we look further at the NCAA data, on p. 89, the modern-day NCAA consensus pick is Minnesota - who also at least shared the 1935 National Championship with SMU (who lost in their bowl game to Stanford). Minnesota also won the 1936 National Championship outright. Scratch the alleged 1934 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1941: Woops.... it's Minnesota again. Of the seven polls in existence at the time, Minnesota comes out on top in six (including Dickinson, and the Associated Press). Bammer comes out on top in only one (existing) poll, and no retroactive polls. But it gets better! During the season, Bammer lost to Vanderbilt (who ended the season unranked according to the AP) and Mississippi State (who ended the season ranked #16 according to the AP). AP puts Bammer at #20. No question here... Scratch the alleged 1941 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1961: No doubt here - it's Bammer's first National Championship. 1964: Sorry Bammer! No cigar!: Bammer was undefeated until it lost to #5 Texas (who was the unanimous 1963 National Champion) in the Orange Bowl. And if you can't beat #5, then you can't be #1. Isn't this obvious? Scratch the alleged 1964 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1965: Not much doubt here - Michigan State loses its bowl game, and Bammer moves up to #1 from #4. Bear gets National Championship #2.

1973: Sorry Bammer, no cigar here! #1 ranked Bammer plays #4 Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl - and LOSES 24-23. Notre Dame moves up to #1, and is the consensus National Champion; to say Bammer is better than Notre Dame in 1973 is beyond delusional - it's an outright lie. The only reason Bammers claim they were National Champions in 1973 is because, at that time, the UPI poll didn't consider bowl games as the AP and other polls did. It would seem to most people that if you can't beat #4, then you can't be #1, but a deception based on an outdated poll is good enough for the Mullet Nation... Scratch the alleged 1973 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1978: Looks like a winner... Bammer loses early in the season to USC, but not long after, USC loses to Arizona State. Both win their bowl games, and finish 10-1. Bammer wins the AP poll, USC the UPI poll. It's Bammer's third National Championship.

1979: No question here... Bammer's 4th National Championship.

1992: No question here either - Bammer's 5th National Championship.

SO..... in review: 12 - 7 = 5. FIVE NCs. And five only. Now that we know the correct number... what would have happened had the NCAA uncovered the corruption at Bammer back in 1958? I dare say there would be ZERO national championships, and perhaps several hundred FELONY CONVICTIONS...



So.. what is your opinion on how many NC's Bama has? I'd say 6 is reasonable after considering the circumstances of each claimed title. It doesn't really matter in the long run, because very few people outside of the Bama fanbase care/actually believe Bama has any more than 5-6 titles.

Lets hope the playoff system is implemented in the near future and titles that were not undoubtedly won before it will be marked with an *.


(This is in the Trash Talk section because this will more than likely have some flaming, just a hunch).

[DELTOR]

Wow, I never realized all the sketchiness to those "national titles".
Good find.

[Cianne]

All national championships within these areas are subject to the same "sketchiness"

[gatorunvrsty]

Wow. I had no idea it was that bad. I couldn't even give them the '78 NC because they lost to eventual Co-Champion USC. That's some good research.:thumpsup:

[AUFootball24]

This is definitely worth posting every once in a while. I still remember the first time I read it.

[Gator2753]

Wow. This is all news to me.:headscrat

[azamugg]

isnt it funny that some obsessed "poster" has to refute the NC's and think that their "research" effectively does so.............humm, how come ESPN or any of the other major networks, or for that matter the NCAA or any individual or entity hasnt challenged them? either on a public forum or in court for that matter?

EVERY SINGLE NC, up until the BCS is challengeable, idiots, wonder if Auburn has a problem w/a one inparticular, though they werent awarded an NC since it was in the BCS era, had it not they wouldve been awarded one by a legitimate sourse, POSSIBLY, just sayin is all

[azamugg]

isnt it funny that some obsessed "poster" has to refute the NC's and think that their "research" effectively does so.............humm, how come ESPN or any of the other major networks, or for that matter the NCAA or any individual or entity hasnt challenged them? either on a public forum or in court for that matter?

EVERY SINGLE NC, up until the BCS is challengeable, idiots, wonder if Auburn has a problem w/a one inparticular, though they werent awarded an NC since it was in the BCS era, had it not they wouldve been awarded one by a legitimate sourse, POSSIBLY, just sayin is all

a couple of his points were "they werent the NCAA consensus pick"......well there isnt such a thing, maybe that's why

for those interested in go to cfbdatawarehouse.com for statistics on NC's

[AUFootball24]

isnt it funny that some obsessed "poster" has to refute the NC's and think that their "research" effectively does so.............humm, how come ESPN or any of the other major networks, or for that matter the NCAA or any individual or entity hasnt challenged them? either on a public forum or in court for that matter?

EVERY SINGLE NC, up until the BCS is challengeable, idiots, wonder if Auburn has a problem w/a one inparticular, though they werent awarded an NC since it was in the BCS era, had it not they wouldve been awarded one by a legitimate sourse, POSSIBLY, just sayin is all

Do some research and your own and disprove his claims. 'ESPN said so' is such a weak argument.

[azamugg]

and interestingly enough, he says "only 5" are legitiate, hell we have SIX AP national championships as it is, what a goof

[azamugg]

Do some research and your own and disprove his claims. 'ESPN said so' is such a weak argument.

please don't act your age here 24, reread the post

[AUFootball24]

please don't act your age here 24, reread the post

....and so we have the next shot fired in the long line of 'age' comments.


Hey, I guess it is the trash talk forum.

[bigsexxxy]

This is ridiculous in so many ways. Do you really trust research when its done with an obvious bias? When you say "Bammer, Bammer, Bammer" constantly, its obvious that you have an agenda against Alabama, because "Bammer" is usually a negative connotation of either program/state. And its usually used by an Auburn fan and with a certain lesser extent by other fans who dislike us.


So what if we really only have 5/6 legitimate NC's? Thats still enough to make us the most storied program in the SEC. And it still puts ahead of Auburn.

I'm 25, I remember our last national championship. How many Auburn fans can claim the same? :wink:

[azamugg]

....and so we have the next shot fired in the long line of 'age' comments.


Hey, I guess it is the trash talk forum.

I shouldnt have made that comment, youre right and I apologize

when a team is awarded a NC you accept it.......do you agree, is it okay to "disagree" w/the circumstances, of course, but that doesnt mean they werent awarded one..................it is true that up until the 70's AP awarded their NC BEFORE the bowl games so there is an argument for the AP award EVERY year, they obviously were tired of the controversy so they began awarding the NC AFTER the bowl games.................there are several arguments for Alabama being left out in many years because of the same arguments

if Auburn had been awarded a NC, would AU claim it? would the fans claim it? and rightfully so, but they werent

[AUFootball24]

I shouldnt have made that comment, youre right and I apologize

when a team is awarded a NC you accept it.......do you agree, is it okay to "disagree" w/the circumstances, of course, but that doesnt mean they werent awarded one..................it is true that up until the 70's AP awarded their NC BEFORE the bowl games so there is an argument for the AP award EVERY year, they obviously were tired of the controversy so they began awarding the NC AFTER the bowl games.................there are several arguments for Alabama being left out in many years because of the same arguments

if Auburn had been awarded a NC, would AU claim it? would the fans claim it? and rightfully so, but they werent

Yes, we'd probably claim any NC awarded. The original post doesn't argue against that, but rather that some of the NC's should not have been awarded in the first place.

I don't fault Bama fans in the least for claiming them.

[BamaDude06]

So.. what is your opinion on how many NC's Bama has?

Seventeen.

[Gator2753]

Seventeen.

LOL. Nice post. Great comeback... +rep:thumpsup:

[bigsexxxy]

So.. what is your opinion on how many NC's Bama has?


http://dazilgroup.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Dr%20Evil.jpg

Dr. Evil says One billion.

[Jay Bee]

Seventeen.

Just 7 more and you'll catch mighty Princeton!

WDE!
jb

[Gator2753]

infatUAtion-
1. the state of being infatuated.
2. the act of infatuating.
3. foolish or all-absorbing passion or an instance of this

or.....

infatUAte-
1. to inspire or possess with a foolish or unreasoning passion, as of love.
2. to affect with folly; make foolish or fatuous.

[WarEagle73]

I'm not 100% sure about this but I think the New York Times declared Auburn the NC back in 1983 and someone did so again in 1993.

[BamaDude06]

I'm not 100% sure about this but I think the New York Times declared Auburn the NC back in 1983 and someone did so again in 1993.

1983- FACT selected both Auburn and Nebraska as their NCs
1993-National Championship Foundation selected Auburn, Nebraska, and Notre Dame as NCs.

Past Division I-A Football National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html)

[azamugg]

I'm not 100% sure about this but I think the New York Times declared Auburn the NC back in 1983 and someone did so again in 1993.

I quoted it earlier........try College Football Data Warehouse (http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com) for NC statistics as well as a wealth of others

[Jay Bee]

1983- FACT selected both Auburn and Nebraska as their NCs
1993-National Championship Foundation selected Auburn, Nebraska, and Notre Dame as NCs.

Past Division I-A Football National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html)

beat me to it bamadude. AU even has one on that list from 1913! Great year!

Of course, the the M in MNC stands for Mythical. If you want to see the REAL champs in collegiate football go here:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf

WDE!
jb

[WarEagle73]

So i guess we can say that Auburn has 5 national championships...

1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, & 2004

cool.

[AUFootball24]

So i guess we can say that Auburn has 5 national championships...

1913, 1957, 1983, 1993, & 2004

cool.

GOT 5??



.

[gatorunvrsty]

beat me to it bamadude. AU even has one on that list from 1913! Great year!

Of course, the the M in MNC stands for Mythical. If you want to see the REAL champs in collegiate football go here:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf

WDE!
jb

Good picture of Leak on the front of that book.:thumpsup:

[WarEagle73]

GOT 5??
.

We can also say that we've won three mNC's in the post-Bear era wile Bama has won one. :whistle:

[BamaDude06]

We can also say that we've won three mNC's in the post-Bear era wile Bama has won one. :whistle:

I'll take Bama's one real NC over Auburn's 3 fake anyday of the week.:laugh:

[WarEagle73]

I'll take Bama's one real NC over Auburn's 3 fake anyday of the week.:laugh:

To be honest with you I think they all are fake until we get a playoff like every other sport this side of 4 year old soccer.

[Jay Bee]

I'll take Bama's one real NC over Auburn's 3 fake anyday of the week.:laugh:

Just curious. Which one is "real". The BCS didn't start until what 4 years ago?

WDE!
jb

[AU Blaaaaaaaake]

Man this thread blew up quick.

Once again guys I didn't do the research, just posted for some friendly debate. I mean, as a Bama fan, if the worst thing you have to argue about is whether you have 6 or 12 NC's then you shouldn't really care. =)

[BAMA NATE]

The guy that posted that was obviously a strong "Anti-Bammer". I understand that some people would want to challenge this. Doesn't surprise me a bit. The fact is that you could also make this argument against Notre Dame, USCal, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and all those schools who claim multiple national championships but no...the finger is pointed at Alabama. What a freakin' surprise!! If our NC's are not legit then I don't know which ones are. Does a system like the BCS make NC's legit? Can anybody honestly tell me that it does? Whatever...people believe what they want to believe. I for one believe we are the 12x National Champions!! :closedeye

[AUFootball24]

Ahem.

Auburn University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_University#Football)

Auburn can rightfully claim eight football national championships, but chooses to only recognize one, the 1957 National Champions. In 1957, Auburn (10-0) was coached by Ralph "Shug" Jordan and won the AP National Championship. Other national championships awarded to Auburn include: 1910-(6-1)by Loren Maxwell; 1913- (8-0) by 1st-N-Goal,Billingsley Report, and James Howell; 1914-(8-0-1) by James Howell; 1958 (9-0-1)-by Montgomery Full Season Championship; 1983-(11-1)coached by Pat Dye, by College Football Researchers Association Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions, Tournaments Massey Ratings, and the New York Times; 1993-(11-0) coached by Terry Bowden, by the National Championship Foundation, and 2004-(13-0) coached by Tommy Tuberville, by Darryl W. Perry, GBE College Football Ratings, The Peoples' National Champion and Golf Digest, and awarded in outcry for the snubbing by the BCS system, particularly after Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS title game by USC. Most other NCAA Division I universities recognize and claim their national championships when named by organizations other than the AP or BCS.

[UA0509]

well, you really can't use the guy's methods as used above. The MNC is awarded based upon the guidelines used by each set year. Thats like in basketball, saying a certain player wouldve scored a lot more points had he played when the 3 point line was put into play, when in reality, the player played when everything counted as a 2. You can't put modern guidelines to past events. Its something you have to learn to live with. If at that time in history they awarded NC's a certain way, you can't go back 70 years later and say they shouldve done it a different way, after all, 70 years is a long time to rethink these things.

my 2 cents

[AUFootball24]

well, you really can't use the guy's methods as used above. The MNC is awarded based upon the guidelines used by each set year. Thats like in basketball, saying a certain player wouldve scored a lot more points had he played when the 3 point line was put into play, when in reality, the player played when everything counted as a 2. You can't put modern guidelines to past events. Its something you have to learn to live with. If at that time in history they awarded NC's a certain way, you can't go back 70 years later and say they shouldve done it a different way, after all, 70 years is a long time to rethink these things.

my 2 cents

Ironic, as many of Bama's NC's were awarded several years after the actual season, when new systems were put in place...

...hmmm

[UA0509]

yea, its interesting, and even if we did that , i still say you shouldn't be able to put a Current year standard on a past year

btw, too bad we didn't play football in the 1870s like princeton
Recognized National Championships by Team (http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team_results.php?team=2637)

woulve been nice to only have to win 1 game a year to be called the "national" champion. I wonder what the stipulation was for firing coaches back then, a 3 game losing streak to your rival meant missing out on 3 NC's

edit:

by the way, while we are sort of on the subject, i still say we shouldve gotten the 1966 National Title, as we were the only undefeated AND untied team that year, and had a NC the two years prior
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/poll_results.php?year=1965

just too bad ESPN wasn't around back in those days, or we probably wouldve been given that 1966 title since that wouldve been our 3rd straight, and you know how ESPN likes repeat NC winners

[WallyGoat]

Wow. I had no idea it was that bad. I couldn't even give them the '78 NC because they lost to eventual Co-Champion USC. That's some good research.:thumpsup:

Um, the AP was the standard (for some reason) for championships won. If you didn't win the AP's vote, it seems, you didn't win. Thus 1966 - ND won the AP's approval, yet an untied, undefeated Alabama team who allowed no more than 14 points to be scored on them in a single game, was ranked 3rd behind Mich State and ND. Not to metion, Bama shut out 5 opponents and smoked Nebraska 34-7 in the Orange bowl. Everybody knows Bama deserved 1966.

As for 1978, if the AP selected Alabama, what's the fuss? I thought that's how everybody judged the teams (since 1936 when the AP started cfb voting), by the Associated Press Standard. Sorry bud, 78 is ours to keep. :thumpsup:

Just curious. Which one is "real". The BCS didn't start until what 4 years ago?

The BCS is almost 10 years old. It was founded in 1998. UT won the very first BCS Title. In 2008 it will be 10 years old.

Thanks Blake, for starting another Bama/Barn war. :laugh:

[WallyGoat]

Ironic, as many of Bama's NC's were awarded several years after the actual season, when new systems were put in place...

...hmmm

All championships before 1998 are debatable according the BCS standard. From 1936, the AP was the standard. Anyone elected by the AP was a National Champion. Anyone who wasn't, no matter how much they deserved it, was not a champion. Apparently that's the case. :wacko:

If the BCS is the new standard, and all championships are subjective before 1998, then what does it matter who claims what?

UT won the first REAL championship ever. The FSU, then Oklahoma, Miami, OSU, LSU, USC, Texas, Florida.

Only 9 REAL Champions exist in the college football world. 4 from the SEC. 3 from the state of Florida.

BTW, if you can read through the sarcasm in my post, there is a hint of truth.

WHAT THE STANDARD FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS WON BEFORE THE BCS ERA?

The Associated Press? I really want some definitive answers. How do you consider someone for a National Championship?

What about 1947 when Notre Dame was elected champs by the AP, but the AP came back after Michigan had won their bowl game and the AP also selected them National Champions?

Can UM and ND both claim 1947? What's the deal with that one folks?

[WallyGoat]

Ironic, as many of Bama's NC's were awarded several years after the actual season, when new systems were put in place...

...hmmm

It's funny. Because I know that AUNation.net claims 5 NC's. Including 1919, 1993, 1983, and 2004. None of those are legit according to the standards of the guy who "researched" and "outted" Alabama.

1919 doesn't count. 1993 doesn't count because of Probation. 1983 was not an AP selected team. 2004 didn't play for the National Title set up by the BCS system.

2006, the rules changed once again. 4 BCS Bowl games, and an additonal BCS National Title game. Before that, it was just a shift of which major bowl hosted the Title game.

Does that now become the new standard. Florida is the first ever to win outright the BCS National Championship Game (not as a bowl game).

I guess Florida is the only real champion ever to win a title right?

[bigsexxxy]

Ahem.

Auburn University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_University#Football)

Oh...wikipedia.org? I'm sure that page on Auburn University Football wasn't created by an Auburn fan now was it? :ohmy:

[WallyGoat]

Oh...wikipedia.org? I'm sure that page on Auburn University Football wasn't created by an Auburn fan now was it? :ohmy:

Auburn can rightfully claim eight football national championships, but chooses to only recognize one, the 1957 National Champions. In 1957, Auburn (10-0) was coached by Ralph "Shug" Jordan and won the AP National Championship. Other national championships awarded to Auburn include: 1910-(6-1)by Loren Maxwell; 1913- (8-0) by 1st-N-Goal,Billingsley Report, and James Howell; 1914-(8-0-1) by James Howell; 1958 (9-0-1)-by Montgomery Full Season Championship; 1983-(11-1)coached by Pat Dye, by College Football Researchers Association Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions, Tournaments Massey Ratings, and the New York Times; 1993-(11-0) coached by Terry Bowden, by the National Championship Foundation, and 2004-(13-0) coached by Tommy Tuberville, by Darryl W. Perry, GBE College Football Ratings, The Peoples' National Champion and Golf Digest, and awarded in outcry for the snubbing by the BCS system, particularly after Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS title game by USC. Most other NCAA Division I universities recognize and claim their national championships when named by organizations other than the AP or BCS.

:laugh:

[shk999]

I quit reading after the first line because the "NCAA" doesnt award the NC's. Also, if the titles won are questionable, then why not the titles that were not won. (1966 for example) Fact is, our 12 titles have stood the test of time, they arent a rumor dreamed up by a couple of Bammers on a message forum. Having a loss doesnt disqualify you from a NC just like being undefeated doesnt make you the NC. I personally think the titles have more value than the new and improved BCS titles because those Champions were picked by human beings that watched games and followed CFB as opposed to a computer that uses blind numbers and statisticss to decide.

[lacene]

The two polling methods Bammer quotes are Helms (applied retroactively in 1941) and Football Annual/College Football Researchers Association (whose retroactive application of their method was no earlier than 1982, and is described in the NCAA Record Book as "conducted on a poll by Harry Carson Frye"). Who the hell is Harry Carson Frye?

Harry Carson Frye was a great Hall Of Fame linebacker for the National Football League New York Giants.




there's my contribution to this thread......







http://www.asturcon3.com/emicons/KOLOBOK/aiwan_smiles/tease.gif

[timNem]

My opinion on the matter is that it doesn't really matter whether its 3,6,12,18 etc. What does matter is that Bama has won a few. Its pathetic that you hear it more from AU fans than you do Bama fans. I couldn't see myself spending that much time researching Auburns 1/2 NC in 1957.

[timNem]

Man this thread blew up quick.

Once again guys I didn't do the research, just posted for some friendly debate. I mean, as a Bama fan, if the worst thing you have to argue about is whether you have 6 or 12 NC's then you shouldn't really care. =)If you say so Blake. :rolling2:

[WarEagle73]

just too bad ESPN wasn't around back in those days, or we probably wouldve been given that 1966 title since that wouldve been our 3rd straight, and you know how ESPN likes repeat NC winners

no they would have been talking about how anyone from the Big 10(11) or the Pac 2 should get it.:laugh:

[azamugg]

Ironic, as many of Bama's NC's were awarded several years after the actual season, when new systems were put in place...

...hmmm


please tell us kind sir, exactly which specific ones were awarded several years after the actual season? and please reference your source

[gatorunvrsty]

Oh...wikipedia.org? I'm sure that page on Auburn University Football wasn't created by an Auburn fan now was it? :ohmy:

No. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It's got more info. than I've ever seen on just about every subject I can think of. It's not a school sponsored site. They have info. like that for everything ( all schools, sports, geography, science, etc. ). I don't know how they do their research, but they seem to be unbiased.

[Gator2753]

No. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It's got more info. than I've ever seen on just about every subject I can think of. It's not a school sponsored site. They have info. like that for everything ( all schools, sports, geography, science, etc. ).
Ive also noticed that most anytime you "google" something, the top 3 results will almost always be from Wikipedia.com
Its a great site for sports information:thumpsup:

[gatorunvrsty]

Ive also noticed that most anytime you "google" something, the top 3 results will almost always be from Wikipedia.com
Its a great site for sports information:thumpsup:

Great information on the schools, especially. History, enrollment, athletics, budget, endowment, academic awards, faculty awards. Like, I didn't know UF had the 2nd most merit scholars of all universities (public and private), behind only Harvard. I had no idea our annual budget is $1.9 billion, and that our endowment is 3 times as big as even Alabama's ( right at $1 billion ). And while we're talking NC's, several publications gave UF the NC in '84... and we ended up on probation and forfeited the SEC crown for that year.

[Jay Bee]

No. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It's got more info. than I've ever seen on just about every subject I can think of. It's not a school sponsored site. They have info. like that for everything ( all schools, sports, geography, science, etc. ). I don't know how they do their research, but they seem to be unbiased.

I think Wikipedia was created by an Auburn grad.

WDE!
jb

[gatorunvrsty]

I think Wikipedia was created by an Auburn grad.

WDE!
jb

That whole database? Even if that's the case, I don't think the info. is geared towards preferential treatment for his school.

EDIT: Yeah, you're right. Except, he went to Auburn, Alabama, and Indiana.

[WallyGoat]

I think Wikipedia was created by an Auburn grad.

WDE!
jb

Well, I heard Guthrie's chicken restaurant around B'Ham and else where was created by some AU grads. That's an accomplishment. It's actually pretty good chicken. Sort of...

[Jay Bee]

That whole database? Even if that's the case, I don't think the info. is geared towards preferential treatment for his school.

EDIT: Yeah, you're right. Except, he went to Auburn, Alabama, and Indiana.

Looks like he went to both AU and uat.

WDE!
jb

Found this here:
Jimmy Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales)

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales is an American internet entrepreneur best known for his work with various wiki-related projects, including Wikipedia, the charitable organization Wikimedia Foundation, and the for-profit company Wikia, Inc..

Jimmy Wales
Education

After eighth grade, Wales attended Randolph School, a university-preparatory school, which was an early supporter of computer labs and other technology for student use. Wales has said that the school was expensive for his family, but that education was regarded as important. "Education was always a passion in my household … you know, the very traditional approach to knowledge and learning and establishing that as a base for a good life."[4] He received his Bachelor's degree in finance from Auburn University and started with the Ph.D. finance program at the University of Alabama, where he left with a Master's in finance.[4] After that, he took courses offered in the Ph.D. finance program at Indiana University. He taught at both universities during his postgraduate studies, but did not write the doctoral dissertation required to earn a Ph.D.[4]

[Jay Bee]

Well, I heard Guthrie's chicken restaurant around B'Ham and else where was created by some AU grads. That's an accomplishment. It's actually pretty good chicken. Sort of...

from here:
Guthrie's Chicken (http://www.guthrieschicken.com/history.html)

Guthries was founded in 1965 from Haleyville Alabama. His son, who I assume was going to AU talked his dad into opening one in Auburn in 1982.

I remember there was one in Athens Georgia for a long time, but I believe it's closed now.

I've heard that "Zaxby's" borrowed the concept and expanded on it and opened their first one in Athens Georgia.

I've got friends in the Northeast that say a Guthries or any chicken finger place would do great up North.


WDE!
jb

[WallyGoat]

from here:
Guthrie's Chicken (http://www.guthrieschicken.com/history.html)

Guthries was founded in 1965 from Haleyville Alabama. His son, who I assume was going to AU talked his dad into opening one in Auburn in 1982.

I remember there was one in Athens Georgia for a long time, but I believe it's closed now.

I've heard that "Zaxby's" borrowed the concept and expanded on it and opened their first one in Athens Georgia.

I've got friends in the Northeast that say a Guthries or any chicken finger place would do great up North.


WDE!
jb

Ah ha. I knew it had something to do with AU. It's really pretty good chicken. The sauce is a little different, but other than that, it's good.

Back to the 12 NC's. While some of Alabama's NC's are in question, subjective, I've always said 1966 belongs to Alabama, no matter how many others we have.

[bigsexxxy]

No. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It's got more info. than I've ever seen on just about every subject I can think of. It's not a school sponsored site. They have info. like that for everything ( all schools, sports, geography, science, etc. ). I don't know how they do their research, but they seem to be unbiased.

Look a little deeper. Wikipedia=Wiki+Encyclopedia. A wiki can be modified anybody who is registered to modify it. Because of this and the fact that lot of people put erroneous information on there, its frowned upon as a source by college professors.

He could have just written that on there and used it as fact is what I was hinting at.

[Jay Bee]

please tell us kind sir, exactly which specific ones were awarded several years after the actual season? and please reference your source

I'm not him, but since you asked: :laugh:

Untitled Document (http://www.geocities.com/bafflemaster/nc.htm)

1925 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with Dartmouth. Who awarded the NC? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. So Bama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation started in 1941. Another retroactive NC.

1926 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with 3 other teams with equal or better records! Once again it is the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1941 that awards it!

1930 National Championship- The Davis poll says that Bama tied Notre Dame for NC this year. This was the only one to award it to Bama. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) did his in 1933!

1934 National Championship- Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was an individual who came up with his own system. Williamson was a geologist who came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus first appeared in 1946!

1941 National Championship- The AP ranked Alabama 20th in the nation with 14 teams with better records in the top 20. Once again it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards it. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year.



WDE!
jb

[WallyGoat]

Look a little deeper. Wikipedia=Wiki+Encyclopedia. A wiki can be modified anybody who is registered to modify it. Because of this and the fact that lot of people put erroneous information on there, its frowned upon as a source by college professors.

He could have just written that on there and used it as fact is what I was hinting at.

True. I edited Denzel Washington's son one time. He's on the practice squad for the Rams. I deleted it all and typed, "He's good." :blink: It was back to normal the next day.

[Crimson Kicker8]

Ha! This guy cracks me up. He pulls out his dictionary, finds the definition of the word "repudiated" (and probably the definition of "lie" as well) and procedes to research Alabama's national championship history. He loses any shred of objective credibility when he asks, "who the hell is Harry Carson Frye? A Bammer?" What's wrong buddy, smart enough to use the word "repudiated" 1,000 times but not to check and see who Frye was so you assume he's a affiliated with Alabama? Nice.

The comedic gold continues, while many non-Bama fans who are sick of hearing about our 12 national championships are just beside themselves with glee knowing that this clown has "beyond a reasonable doubt proven that Alabama only has 5 NCs" point and laugh, I have a laugh of my own. Convenient, isn't it, that there is no mention of 1945 or 1966. Since so many of you are interrested in Alabama's NC history, let me elaborate.

In 1945 Alabama was passed up on a national title after going undefeated (10-0). Who won the title that year? Army. What was going on in 1945? Surely, if a World War can draft every able body man in the country, thus providing West Point with the cream of the football crop, then another university who goes undefeated in the same year surely deserves a share of the title.

Bozo further goes on to disclaim Alabama's 1965 title. That's fine, the Tide did have a loss and tie that year. But you're not going to take 65 away without talking about and awarding 1966. Bama went 11-0 in 66 and finished 3rd in one of college football's biggest screwjobs to date. I love how Mr. Cowardly can't comment on those two seasons.

So what does this all mean? Alabama's early titles are very much in the air as college football resorted to SO many polls with there rarely being one single champion. For the Bama haters out there, these years are easy to discount due to their lack of substance compared to today's BCS formula. For all other objective-minded individuals out there, to discount these titles would be to discount the titles of ALL other teams who were awarded such in the same year. Then come the Bryant years, 61, 64, 66, 78, and 79 are pretty clear cut Bama titles, even though 65 was awarded and 66 was not. 73 doesn't stick as a substantial title in my mind since the Tide did lose by one point to ND in their bowl game. Stallings caps off the winnings with a unanimous 92 title.

So what does that leave our final number? It really doesn't matter. The only important thing for us all to remember is that Auburn's claim to national title glory is still ONLY equal to Alabama's shadiest, and that's all I need to sleep well at night. Repudiate that.

[Mitch4bama]

GOT 5??



.

Yes Sir.:happy:

[DELTOR]

No. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It's got more info. than I've ever seen on just about every subject I can think of. It's not a school sponsored site. They have info. like that for everything ( all schools, sports, geography, science, etc. ). I don't know how they do their research, but they seem to be unbiased.

Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. It's not 100%, and it's definitely not always accurate. I can type in Clemson right now and "edit" it with Clemson sucks blah blah blah, etc. For the most part, it's a good source.

[WallyGoat]

Alabama has had some retroactively awarded titles. Big deal. So does Michigan in 1947. The AP had selected the Golden Girls (ND) as national champs. After the post season (the NC was usually decided just after the regular season), the AP also selected Michigan as National Champions. Both for the same season.

UK, in 1950 was not declared national champs. That honor belonged to OU. But in 2003, the AP selected a second champion of 1950, that was Kentucky.

The AP seems to be the standard for why people whine about NC's. If the AP didn't elect you champs, then you're not. But the AP wasn't a voting entity until 1936.

So, anytime before that is either null and void, or up for grabs. Who said the AP was the standard? Screw that.

Before 1998, we didn't have a definitive selecting body in place. 1998, UT was the first unanimous, unarguable champion. The AP really no longer mattered. The only team the AP has voted for since was USC in 2003. So is the 2003 USC title legitimate or not?

LSU won 2003, but somehow split the title with the Trojans on account of the AP voters.

So which is it? LSU unanimous champs of 2003, or can USC be considered co-champs by a now outdated voting system?

[Jay Bee]

Alabama has had some retroactively awarded titles. Big deal. So does Michigan in 1947. The AP had selected the Golden Girls (ND) as national champs. After the post season (the NC was usually decided just after the regular season), the AP also selected Michigan as National Champions. Both for the same season.

UK, in 1950 was not declared national champs. That honor belonged to OU. But in 2003, the AP selected a second champion of 1950, that was Kentucky.

The AP seems to be the standard for why people whine about NC's. If the AP didn't elect you champs, then you're not. But the AP wasn't a voting entity until 1936.

So, anytime before that is either null and void, or up for grabs. Who said the AP was the standard? Screw that.

Before 1998, we didn't have a definitive selecting body in place. 1998, UT was the first unanimous, unarguable champion. The AP really no longer mattered. The only team the AP has voted for since was USC in 2003. So is the 2003 USC title legitimate or not?

LSU won 2003, but somehow split the title with the Trojans on account of the AP voters.

So which is it? LSU unanimous champs of 2003, or can USC be considered co-champs by a now outdated voting system?

Neither. There is no National Champs in D1 football.. Gotta play Division II to win a championship! :stickpoke

[BamaDude06]

Neither. There is no National Champs in D1 football.. Gotta play Division II to win a championship! :stickpoke

Or in D1-Championship Subdivision (Formerly known as D1-AA)
:blink:
Anyone else find the new names stupid?

[WallyGoat]

Neither. There is no National Champs in D1 football.. Gotta play Division II to win a championship! :stickpoke

That's my point exactly. If there is no true National Champ, then what's the fuss about claiming national titles. Alabama could claim about 21 Titles if they wanted, based on who voted for them. They don't claim 1945 or 1966 when they very well, could and should.

12 is pretty generous if you ask me. Hell, ND can claim about 25-26 titles based on who voted for them.

[Jay Bee]

That's my point exactly. If there is no true National Champ, then what's the fuss about claiming national titles. Alabama could claim about 21 Titles if they wanted, based on who voted for them. They don't claim 1945 or 1966 when they very well, could and should.

12 is pretty generous if you ask me. Hell, ND can claim about 25-26 titles based on who voted for them.

Yep, we're in agreement. Hell must be freezing! :thumpsup:

Which reminds me of a timely joke I received earlier this week.

A guy from Indiana dies and is sent to Hell. He had been a
horrible man his entire life.

The devil puts him to work breaking up rocks with a sledge
hammer. To make it worse, he cranks up the temperature and the
humidity.

After a couple of days, the devil checks in on ! his victim
to see if f he is suffering adequately. The devil is aghast as the
Hoosier is happily swinging his hammer and whistling a happy tune.

The devil walks up to him and says, "I don't understand
this. I've turned the heat way up, it's humid, you're crushing
rocks; why are you so happy?"

The man, with a big smile, looks at the devil and replies,
"This is great! It reminds me of August in Indiana . Hot, ! humid, a
good place to work. It reminds me of home. This is fantastic!"

The devil, extremely perplexed, walks away to ponder the
man's remarks. Then he decides to drop the temperature, send down a
driving rain and torrential wind.

Soon, Hell is a wet, muddy mess.

Walking in mud up to his knees with dust blowing into his
eyes, the man is happily slogging through the mud pushing a
wheelbarrow full of crushed rocks.

Again, the devil asks how he can be happy in such conditions.

The man replies, "This is great! Just like April in Indiana
. It reminds me of working out in the yard with spring planting!"

The devil is now completely baffled but more determined to
make him suffer. He makes the temperature plummet.


Suddenly Hell is blanketed in snow and ice. Confident that
this will surely make him unhappy, the devil checks in on him.

He is again aghast at what he sees. The man is dancing,
singing, and twirling his sledgehammer as he cavorts in
glee.

"How can you be so happy? Don't you know its 40 below
zero!?" screams the devil.

Jumping up and down, he throws a snowball at the devil and
yells, "Hell's frozen over! This means the Colts won the Super
Bowl!"


WDE!
jb

[WallyGoat]

Yep, we're in agreement. Hell must be freezing! :thumpsup:

Which reminds me of a timely joke I received earlier this week.

A guy from Indiana dies and is sent to Hell. He had been a
horrible man his entire life.

The devil puts him to work breaking up rocks with a sledge
hammer. To make it worse, he cranks up the temperature and the
humidity.

After a couple of days, the devil checks in on ! his victim
to see if f he is suffering adequately. The devil is aghast as the
Hoosier is happily swinging his hammer and whistling a happy tune.

The devil walks up to him and says, "I don't understand
this. I've turned the heat way up, it's humid, you're crushing
rocks; why are you so happy?"

The man, with a big smile, looks at the devil and replies,
"This is great! It reminds me of August in Indiana . Hot, ! humid, a
good place to work. It reminds me of home. This is fantastic!"

The devil, extremely perplexed, walks away to ponder the
man's remarks. Then he decides to drop the temperature, send down a
driving rain and torrential wind.

Soon, Hell is a wet, muddy mess.

Walking in mud up to his knees with dust blowing into his
eyes, the man is happily slogging through the mud pushing a
wheelbarrow full of crushed rocks.

Again, the devil asks how he can be happy in such conditions.

The man replies, "This is great! Just like April in Indiana
. It reminds me of working out in the yard with spring planting!"

The devil is now completely baffled but more determined to
make him suffer. He makes the temperature plummet.


Suddenly Hell is blanketed in snow and ice. Confident that
this will surely make him unhappy, the devil checks in on him.

He is again aghast at what he sees. The man is dancing,
singing, and twirling his sledgehammer as he cavorts in
glee.

"How can you be so happy? Don't you know its 40 below
zero!?" screams the devil.

Jumping up and down, he throws a snowball at the devil and
yells, "Hell's frozen over! This means the Colts won the Super
Bowl!"


WDE!
jb

LOL! Good one. Looks like Hell might be freezing over soon than once thought. Just a few days until SB XLI! Go Bears! :happy:

[shk999]

Here are THE FACTS:


1925: There was no national champion (or championship) in 1925. Without exception, every poll mentioned in the NCAA record book was assigned retroactively no less than 1 year later, and as many as 55 years later. The two polling methods Bammer quotes are Helms (applied retroactively in 1941) and Football Annual/College Football Researchers Association (whose retroactive application of their method was no earlier than 1982, and is described in the NCAA Record Book as "conducted on a poll by Harry Carson Frye"). Who the hell is Harry Carson Frye? A Bammer? I just didn't get a good feeling about this, so I did a little more research. What I found was that Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim to the 1925 championship, as the method used (Dickinson) came into being prior to 1925, although it was not marketed to newspapers until 1926. Dickinson's method seems to be the first to employ strength-of-schedule and a trophy (the Rissman Trophy).

There is a lengthy write-up about the Dickinson poll on the USC website ( Default :: The University of Southern California Trojans - Official Athletic Site m-footbl/spec-rel/101504aah.html); if you read it, it's pretty obvious that this was the prevailing method of the day. Scratch the alleged 1925 championship. This Bammer lie has been exposed and repudiated.

What an idiot. All this BS and he leaves out the part about how we were 10-0.

1926: According to Dickinson (the poll in use in 1926), Stanford is the 1926 National Champion. But wait a minute, the Bammers say... Alabama tied Stanford in its final game of the season (the Rose Bowl), and both were otherwise undefeated. The question is - was Dickinson applied after the head-to-head matchup? The answer is YES - check the Stanford website - Stanford received the Rissman Trophy. If there's any doubt - Notre Dame (believe it or not) has/had permanent possession of the Rissman Trophy; it may have an inscription indicating the 1926 National Champion. My guess is that it's got "Stanford" next to "1926", but if you want to be sure, call the Notre Dame Athletic Department; maybe they can tell you for sure. Without any better information.... Scratch the alleged 1926 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

Both Stanford and Bama finish 10-0-1, both undefeated with only 1 tie against each other. Bama has just as much claim as Stanford. Another Barner liex exposed and repudiated.

1930: Notre Dame is ranked #1 by 9 of the 13 polls recognized by the NCAA records for 1930. Of the 13 polls, only three were actually used in 1930: Dickinson, Boand, and Houlgate, and all three selected Notre Dame. The modern day NCAA consensus pick is also Notre Dame. Scratch the alleged 1930 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

He once again fails to mention that we were undefeated, again.

1934: Here's our first potential dilemma. Of the polls in use mentioned in the NCAA records, six are actually in existence in 1934, and they're evenly split between Minnesota and Bammer. The edge would seem to be in Minnesota's favor (Dickinson picked'em), but if we look further at the NCAA data, on p. 89, the modern-day NCAA consensus pick is Minnesota - who also at least shared the 1935 National Championship with SMU (who lost in their bowl game to Stanford). Minnesota also won the 1936 National Championship outright. Scratch the alleged 1934 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1934: Bama 10-0, Minnesota 8-0. Bama played 2 more games, why does Minnesota have more right to 1934 than Bama? Notice that once again, he fails to mention we were undefeated, im sure he just forgot.

1941: Woops.... it's Minnesota again. Of the seven polls in existence at the time, Minnesota comes out on top in six (including Dickinson, and the Associated Press). Bammer comes out on top in only one (existing) poll, and no retroactive polls. But it gets better! During the season, Bammer lost to Vanderbilt (who ended the season unranked according to the AP) and Mississippi State (who ended the season ranked #16 according to the AP). AP puts Bammer at #20. No question here... Scratch the alleged 1941 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

Amazing that he remember to mention our W/L record for a season that has a loss. He did in fact leave out that Bama played 11 games compared to Minn's 8.

1961: No doubt here - it's Bammer's first National Championship. 1964: Sorry Bammer! No cigar!: Bammer was undefeated until it lost to #5 Texas (who was the unanimous 1963 National Champion) in the Orange Bowl. And if you can't beat #5, then you can't be #1. Isn't this obvious? Scratch the alleged 1964 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

1964: Bama 10-1-0, Selected by both AP and UPI.

1965: Not much doubt here - Michigan State loses its bowl game, and Bammer moves up to #1 from #4. Bear gets National Championship #2.

1973: Sorry Bammer, no cigar here! #1 ranked Bammer plays #4 Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl - and LOSES 24-23. Notre Dame moves up to #1, and is the consensus National Champion; to say Bammer is better than Notre Dame in 1973 is beyond delusional - it's an outright lie. The only reason Bammers claim they were National Champions in 1973 is because, at that time, the UPI poll didn't consider bowl games as the AP and other polls did. It would seem to most people that if you can't beat #4, then you can't be #1, but a deception based on an outdated poll is good enough for the Mullet Nation... Scratch the alleged 1973 championship. Another Bammer lie exposed and repudiated.

Selected by UPI in 1973. Does anyone 'not' claim UPI titles? Who are these people?

1978: Looks like a winner... Bammer loses early in the season to USC, but not long after, USC loses to Arizona State. Both win their bowl games, and finish 10-1. Bammer wins the AP poll, USC the UPI poll. It's Bammer's third National Championship.

1979: No question here... Bammer's 4th National Championship.

1992: No question here either - Bammer's 5th National Championship.

SO..... in review: 12 - 7 = 5. FIVE NCs. And five only. Now that we know the correct number... what would have happened had the NCAA uncovered the corruption at Bammer back in 1958? I dare say there would be ZERO national championships, and perhaps several hundred FELONY CONVICTIONS...

Thanks Barner, for another nice try, even with your "Barner Math" it still comes out TWELVE!! Consider this post "exposed and repuiated".

[Crimson Kicker8]

Yep, you did a great job exposing this chump's agenda. This isn't some objective-minded research done to show how many titles Alabama has legitimately accumulated. Hell, any non-Bama hater could have done that and convincingly come to less than twelve (maybe eleven :happy: ). Instead, this guy offers twisted logic to justify his jaded view of Alabama's championships.

As you said, on virtually every year he discounts a Bama title he fails to mention their record. In addition, he fails to mention 1945 and 1966 as "should have been" Bama titles (upping our total to 14??:ohmy: ). He does this simply because mentioning that a Bama team went 10-0 would weaken his argument substantionally, so he chooses to sweep those FACTS under the rug. He insults our intelligence by introducing his information as THE FACTS but fails to include the ones that are a threat to his case.

Further more, he counters his own original argument with his own "facts". Let me show you; "1925: There was no national champion (or championship) in 1925". Then after some uninformative mumbo jumbo he goes on to say the following, "What I found was that Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim to the 1925 championship, as the method used (Dickinson) came into being prior to 1925, although it was not marketed to newspapers until 1926". How can there be no national champion (or championship) in 1925 yet Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim? For a year when college football titles were apparently illegitimate, Dartmouth sure did one hell of a job making one legitimate didn't they?

If the number 5 makes you feel better, then so be it. The ammount of side-stepping, flip-flopping, and shady evidence that you have provided to reach that number speaks volumes in itself.

[WallyGoat]

Blake, you originally posted, "....I just thought it would be interesting to see how Bama fans refute this guys claims." I know that wasn't a challenge or anything.

But, shk999 among others did a pretty dandy job of refuting, and also debunking his claims.

[AUFootball24]

Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. It's not 100%, and it's definitely not always accurate. I can type in Clemson right now and "edit" it with Clemson sucks blah blah blah, etc. For the most part, it's a good source.

All wikipedia articles that don't have credible sources are marked with a huge banner across the top of the screen. If you type in Clemson and edited 'Clemson sucks blah blah blah', it would certainly have no source.

They also have people who's jobs are to keep the info accurate. If you did that to Clemson's page, it would be back to where it was within minutes.

Try it.

[AUFootball24]

Shk your post is hardly credible when your debunkings are "What an idiot. All this BS and he leaves out the part about how we were 10-0", and that's it.

PS- this is not a flame. I just think he makes a better case against it than you do for it. Calling it 'BS' hardly makes you right.

[BamaDude06]

Using that some of that logic you could strip Auburn of their 1957 NC since they were on probation.

[WallyGoat]

Shk your post is hardly credible when your debunkings are "What an idiot. All this BS and he leaves out the part about how we were 10-0", and that's it.

PS- this is not a flame. I just think he makes a better case against it than you do for it. Calling it 'BS' hardly makes you right.

Doesn't make him wrong. Just because he didn't write a detailed and lengthy assessment, doesn't mean it's any less credible.

I agree with shk999. The original writer did not mention the fact that we had some great seasons, some undefeated. The writer fail to acknowledge a generous amount of information, including the undefeated seasons.

[shk999]

Shk your post is hardly credible when your debunkings are "What an idiot. All this BS and he leaves out the part about how we were 10-0", and that's it.

PS- this is not a flame. I just think he makes a better case against it than you do for it. Calling it 'BS' hardly makes you right.

Sorry for getting to the point. Felt like I "debunked" his "BS" pretty well with minimal wording and I really didnt think anyone wanted to read another thesis. If you are curious beyond my post, look it up, barners do it all the time. Even better, quit being AUbsessed with Bama and their 12, maybe AU should be more focused on getting them one.

PS Too You- Your tigerblind opinion means so much. Dont "BS", you know that was a "flame" but I believe thats what the Trash Talk forum is for. :glare: :laugh:

[shk999]

Yep, you did a great job exposing this chump's agenda. This isn't some objective-minded research done to show how many titles Alabama has legitimately accumulated. Hell, any non-Bama hater could have done that and convincingly come to less than twelve (maybe eleven :happy: ). Instead, this guy offers twisted logic to justify his jaded view of Alabama's championships.

As you said, on virtually every year he discounts a Bama title he fails to mention their record. In addition, he fails to mention 1945 and 1966 as "should have been" Bama titles (upping our total to 14??:ohmy: ). He does this simply because mentioning that a Bama team went 10-0 would weaken his argument substantionally, so he chooses to sweep those FACTS under the rug. He insults our intelligence by introducing his information as THE FACTS but fails to include the ones that are a threat to his case.

Further more, he counters his own original argument with his own "facts". Let me show you; "1925: There was no national champion (or championship) in 1925". Then after some uninformative mumbo jumbo he goes on to say the following, "What I found was that Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim to the 1925 championship, as the method used (Dickinson) came into being prior to 1925, although it was not marketed to newspapers until 1926". How can there be no national champion (or championship) in 1925 yet Dartmouth appears to have the only legitimate claim? For a year when college football titles were apparently illegitimate, Dartmouth sure did one hell of a job making one legitimate didn't they?

If the number 5 makes you feel better, then so be it. The ammount of side-stepping, flip-flopping, and shady evidence that you have provided to reach that number speaks volumes in itself.

Well said.:thumpsup:

[AUFootball24]

Sorry for getting to the point. Felt like I "debunked" his "BS" pretty well with minimal wording and I really didnt think anyone wanted to read another thesis. If you are curious beyond my post, look it up, barners do it all the time. Even better, quit being AUbsessed with Bama and their 12, maybe AU should be more focused on getting them one.

PS Too You- Your tigerblind opinion means so much. Dont "BS", you know that was a "flame" but I believe thats what the Trash Talk forum is for. :glare: :laugh:

Be focused on getting one? By the standards Bammer uses to get their '12', Auburn has 8. You can say we have 0, but then by those standards you have what, 2? Can't have it both ways, my friend :laugh:

When I said it wasn't a flame I meant that it wasn't a derogatory post made in your direction as a result of the past 'discrepancies' we've had. It was just an observation I made, regardless of the poster. That's all I was saying.

[Crimson Kicker8]

Be focused on getting one? By the standards Bammer uses to get their '12', Auburn has 8.

Oh my, surely you jest :ohmy: . Even if Auburn used the laxest standards possible in determining a national champion are you really claiming 8?!?!?! :laugh: Does Auburn even have 8 undefeated seasons in it's history? Does it have 4 undefeated seasons in it's histroy? Hell, I'm curious now, let's do some research and compare historical numbers between the Tigers and Tide shall we?

Going back to 1945 (so this doesn't count the 25, 26, 34, and 41 titles that Bama claims under its own "standards") we have the following undefeated seasons for each school.

Auburn:
1957 10-0
1958 9-0-1
1993 11-0
2004 13-0

Alabama:
1945 10-0
1961 11-0
1966 11-0
1979 11-0
1992 13-0

Lets check out 1-loss and/or 1-tie seasons since 45.

Auburn:
1972 10-1
1983 11-1
1994 9-1-1

Alabama:
1962 10-1
1964 10-1
1965 9-1-1
1971 11-1
1973 11-1
1974 11-1
1975 11-1
1977 11-1
1978 11-1
1991 11-1
1994 12-1

And finally, lets check out SEC Championships (either unanimous or shared) going back to 45.

Auburn:
1957 7-0 (in SEC)
1983 6-0
1987 5-0-1
1988 6-1
1989 6-1
1993 8-0 (Tigers on probabtion but I give them SEC title props for going 8-0)
2004 8-0

Alabama:
1945 6-0
1953 4-0-3
1961 7-0
1964 8-0
1965 6-1-1
1966 6-0
1971 7-0
1972 7-1
1973 8-0
1974 6-0
1975 6-0
1977 7-0
1978 6-0
1979 6-0
1981 6-0
1989 6-1
1992 9-0
1999 8-1

We all know that you can't win a national title with more than one loss and that you SHOULDN'T (see Oklahoma 2003) have a shot if you can't atleast tie for the title in your own conference, so that's why I have provided the above numbers for national title qualifications for each school. I don't think you could tweak Auburn's standards low enough to make a reasonable argument for 8 national titles. Likewise, if you were to tweak Bama's standards that low we'd be sitting at more than 12. Hope this clarifies things :happy:

For my numbers on season records see: Alabama Crimson Tide Historical Football Records (http://www.michigan-football.com/ncaa/f/alabama.htm)

For my SEC championship numbers see: Southeast Conference (SEC) Football Champions (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/college/secchamps.htm)

[AUFootball24]

Oh my, surely you jest :ohmy: . Even if Auburn used the laxest standards possible in determining a national champion are you really claiming 8?!?!?!

In 1957, Auburn (10-0) was coached by Ralph "Shug" Jordan and won the AP National Championship. Other national championships awarded to Auburn include: 1910-(6-1)by Loren Maxwell; 1913- (8-0) by 1st-N-Goal,Billingsley Report, and James Howell; 1914-(8-0-1) by James Howell; 1958 (9-0-1)-by Montgomery Full Season Championship; 1983-(11-1)coached by Pat Dye, by College Football Researchers Association Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions, Tournaments Massey Ratings, and the New York Times; 1993-(11-0) coached by Terry Bowden, by the National Championship Foundation, and 2004-(13-0) coached by Tommy Tuberville, by Darryl W. Perry, GBE College Football Ratings, The Peoples' National Champion and Golf Digest, and awarded in outcry for the snubbing by the BCS system, particularly after Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS title game by USC. Most other NCAA Division I universities recognize and claim their national championships when named by organizations other than the AP or BCS.



Take your seat. :dry:

[AUFootball24]

Oh my, surely you jest :ohmy: . Even if Auburn used the laxest standards possible in determining a national champion are you really claiming 8?!?!?! :laugh: Does Auburn even have 8 undefeated seasons in it's history? Does it have 4 undefeated seasons in it's histroy? Hell, I'm curious now, let's do some research and compare historical numbers between the Tigers and Tide shall we?

Going back to 1945 (so this doesn't count the 25, 26, 34, and 41 titles that Bama claims under its own "standards") we have the following undefeated seasons for each school.

Auburn:
1957 10-0
1958 9-0-1
1993 11-0
2004 13-0

Alabama:
1945 10-0
1961 11-0
1966 11-0
1979 11-0
1992 13-0

Lets check out 1-loss and/or 1-tie seasons since 45.

Auburn:
1972 10-1
1983 11-1
1994 9-1-1

Alabama:
1962 10-1
1964 10-1
1965 9-1-1
1971 11-1
1973 11-1
1974 11-1
1975 11-1
1977 11-1
1978 11-1
1991 11-1
1994 12-1

And finally, lets check out SEC Championships (either unanimous or shared) going back to 45.

Auburn:
1957 7-0 (in SEC)
1983 6-0
1987 5-0-1
1988 6-1
1989 6-1
1993 8-0 (Tigers on probabtion but I give them SEC title probs for going 8-0)
2004 8-0

Alabama:
1945 6-0
1953 4-0-3
1961 7-0
1964 8-0
1965 6-1-1
1966 6-0
1971 7-0
1972 7-1
1973 8-0
1974 6-0
1975 6-0
1977 7-0
1978 6-0
1979 6-0
1981 6-0
1989 6-1
1992 9-0
1999 8-1

We all know that you can't win a national title with more than one loss and that you SHOULDN'T (see Oklahoma 2003) have a shot if you can't atleast tie for the title in your own conference, so that's why I have provided the above numbers for national title qualifications for each school. I don't think you could tweak Auburn's standards low enough to make a reasonable argument for 8 national titles. Likewise, if you were to tweak Bama's standards that low we'd be sitting at more than 12. Hope this clarifies things :happy:

For my numbers on season records see: Alabama Crimson Tide Historical Football Records (http://www.michigan-football.com/ncaa/f/alabama.htm)

For my SEC championship numbers see: Southeast Conference (SEC) Football Champions (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/college/secchamps.htm)

Everything you just said is a perfect example of why you get accused of living in the past and absolutely will not accept the fact that Auburn is the dominate team in the present.

[shk999]

Everything you just said is a perfect example of why you get accused of living in the past and absolutely will not accept the fact that Auburn is the dominate team in the present.

Slow down barner, this thread (about our past) was started by a barner who was quoting another barner but when he corrects you guys, he is "living in the past". HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Its funny that when your arguments are "debunked", your only defense is to claim "living in the past" or "5 in a row". You are the only ones living in the past.

[shk999]

Take your seat. :dry:

You are the one that needs to "take your seat". So you are claiming 1993? I didnt know you could win a NC on probation. :mellow: You are also claiming a title awarded by "Golf Digest" HAHAHAHAHHAHAA! You claim 3 titles from before 1925, but in another post you defend the original post that says nothing counts before 1925, you cant have it both ways barner. You claim 1983, well, Miami was undisputed champ in 83. You even claim 2004 when both polls have USC as the "undisputed" champ. Personally, I could care less if API has 1 or 15 titles, you are still barners regardless. I think it is pretty obvious that Bama has 12 (or more), this point has been proven time and time again and this argument is stale. Im thru with this thread and this argument.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/rhYno15/OVERRATED2.jpg

[BamaDude06]

I didnt know you could win a NC on probation.

Auburn was on probation in 1957.

[AUFootball24]

Shk- I said could claim. I did not say I do claim.

That's an interesting twist. Auburn fans are the only ones living in the past, because of a present streak. Peculiar logic... Hmm...

:happy:

[DELTOR]

All wikipedia articles that don't have credible sources are marked with a huge banner across the top of the screen. If you type in Clemson and edited 'Clemson sucks blah blah blah', it would certainly have no source.

They also have people who's jobs are to keep the info accurate. If you did that to Clemson's page, it would be back to where it was within minutes.

Try it.

It is a reliable source, mostly. Regardless, I would research from multiple sources before I labeled anything from Wikipedia to be fact.

[AUFootball24]

It is a reliable source, mostly. Regardless, I would research from multiple sources before I labeled anything from Wikipedia to be fact.

That's not a bad idea. Many of the things out there on the net aren't true anyways.

[DELTOR]

That's not a bad idea. Many of the things out there on the net aren't true anyways.

Hahahaha. Quote of the day.

[Crimson Kicker8]

Everything you just said is a perfect example of why you get accused of living in the past and absolutely will not accept the fact that Auburn is the dominate team in the present.

LOL:laugh: I can't believe you're playing that card in this type of forum. It is, after all, a discussion of past national championships and each team's right to claim one. I'm not sure how I'm suppose to analyze that without talking about the past.

Alot of you Auburn fans absolutely hate it when there is a discussion about the current Iron Bowl streak and an Alabama fan resorts to talking about the past. Well, here we are talking about PAST national titles and you want to run to the present :brick: .

As for me taking a seat, I said earlier that I didn't think you could lower the standards far enough for Auburn to claim 8 national titles. Well, I was wrong and give you credit, you DID manage to lower the standards far enough, I'm impressed :happy: .

[AUFootball24]

LOL:laugh: I can't believe you're playing that card in this type of forum. It is, after all, a discussion of past national championships and each team's right to claim one. I'm not sure how I'm suppose to analyze that without talking about the past.

Alot of you Auburn fans absolutely hate it when there is a discussion about the current Iron Bowl streak and an Alabama fan resorts to talking about the past. Well, here we are talking about PAST national titles and you want to run to the present :brick: .

As for me taking a seat, I said earlier that I didn't think you could lower the standards far enough for Auburn to claim 8 national titles. Well, I was wrong and give you credit, you DID manage to lower the standards far enough, I'm impressed :happy: .

Right. It is a NC thread and you brought a list of Bama's 1 loss seasons as compared to Auburn's.

What purpose does that serve besides you, in a sense, trying to say 'Look, Bama is better than Awbarn' ? That changed the subject and I followed suit essentially saying 'Bama has the better past, Auburn is better now. Quit living in the past'.

You follow that? The original topic at hand had been left so don't try to use it as an anchor.

[WallyGoat]

Right. It is a NC thread and you brought a list of Bama's 1 loss seasons as compared to Auburn's.

What purpose does that serve besides you, in a sense, trying to say 'Look, Bama is better than Awbarn' ? That changed the subject and I followed suit essentially saying 'Bama has the better past, Auburn is better now. Quit living in the past'.

You follow that? The original topic at hand had been left so don't try to use it as an anchor.

I think he was saying that the one loss seasons could have very well had national title implications for Alabama. 11-1, 10-1, 12-1. Those types of seasons, back then, could be considered for NC's.

BTW, folks. Just talking about or reflecting on past traditions and titles doesn't constitute for living in the past. Besides, AU Blaaaaaaaake brought it up. :laugh:

[AUFootball24]

I think he was saying that the one loss seasons could have very well had national title implications for Alabama. 11-1, 10-1, 12-1. Those types of seasons, back then, could be considered for NC's.

BTW, folks. Just talking about or reflecting on past traditions and titles doesn't constitute for living in the past. Besides, AU Blaaaaaaaake brought it up. :laugh:

Yeah? Well my dad can kick your dad's ass.

[WallyGoat]

Yeah? Well my dad can kick your dad's ass.

Not quite. Not unless your father is bigger than 6'3" 310lbs. I don't take after him.

Needless to say, I take after my Mom. I'm only about 5'11" 190....Hey now! There I go getting technical again. :angry:

Let me start over. "Yeah? Him and what Army?!"

[Crimson Kicker8]

We all know that you can't win a national title with more than one loss and that you SHOULDN'T (see Oklahoma 2003) have a shot if you can't atleast tie for the title in your own conference, so that's why I have provided the above numbers for national title qualifications for each school.

I think he was saying that the one loss seasons could have very well had national title implications for Alabama. 11-1, 10-1, 12-1. Those types of seasons, back then, could be considered for NC's.

Can't argue with the text, good on ya Wally.

BTW, folks. Just talking about or reflecting on past traditions and titles doesn't constitute for living in the past. Besides, AU Blaaaaaaaake brought it up. :laugh:

And this point takes the cake. It reminds me of what Admiral Yamamoto said after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant".

[AUFootball24]

Not quite. Not unless your father is bigger than 6'3" 310lbs. I don't take after him.

Needless to say, I take after my Mom. I'm only about 5'11" 190....Hey now! There I go getting technical again. :angry:

Let me start over. "Yeah? Him and what Army?!"

My dad is a little guy. 2 of him might be able to take your dad, haha.

I was taller than my dad at age 11, let's just leave it at that :laugh:

[WallyGoat]

My dad is a little guy. 2 of him might be able to take your dad, haha.

I was taller than my dad at age 11, let's just leave it at that :laugh:

Aye. That's wild. I knew a kid in the eight grade. Parent were average size. He was 6'4". He's about 6'8"/6'9" now. He farms in Indiana. I don't know why he never played basketball.

:nonono: ....Wally. :glare:

[WallyGoat]

Can't argue with the text, good on ya Wally.

And this point takes the cake. It reminds me of what Admiral Yamamoto said after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant".

I've always loved that quote. He knew what was coming after the bombing. :thumpsup:

[iambigwilley]

Wow I Forgot How Much You Guys Complain About Bama Living In The Past