Please do not let them forget about giving Coach Bryant a gold cigarette lighter, and Coach Rupp a gold Cadillac.
13 National Championships
- Thread starter Alabama Larry in Ky
- Start date
I think you have to go by the rules of the day. Before 1974, the UPI was always before the bowls so I would take 65 and 73. In 1977 we were #2 and won big and #1 was beaten by #5 ND and #5 jumped us. We didn't claim that so I think it evens out. You take them when you get them.
Texas was not undefeated in 1964. They lost to Arkansas, who was undefeated (I'm guessing this is who you're talking about). In 1965, we got the championship because we beat Nebraska and the three teams ahead of us all lost.
Except that we benefited both times by quirks in the rules.
In 1964, the UPI title was awarded BEFORE the bowl games. Because of the outcry over our loss to Texas, the UPI changed their rules for 1965 to INCLUDE the bowl games. Had they not done that then we would not have won the 1965 title because we had both a loss and a tie. But when we entered the bowls at #4 and smoked Nebraska and the three teams ahead of us lost...well, how can that one be illegitimate?
It is NOT our fault what the rules were at the time. That's like saying that Georgia Tech's 1990 title doesn't count because they didn't play Colorado. Since there was no BCS at the time, each title is legit.
Btw - do you think we should abandon our 1978 title since we actually did LOSE a head-to-head match-up on our home field with USC?
True, this would never happen today. This proves that it all evens out anyway.
I want to say that while I'm as strong a playoff advocate as anyone, even I realize this. There IS no perfect system for determining the champion esp in college sports.
How many people REALLY think UConn was the best basketball team this past year? Yet they won a playoff. Was Villanova REALLY the best team in 1985? (The one thing I can say about them is that they lost 8 games that year but 5 of them were to 2 of the other 3 teams in the Final Four).
Whatever the system it cannot be perfect. Even if we had a 120-team playoff and started November 1st, there would be complaints about how Team A that entered the playoffs at 0-10 was in no way better than 10-0 Team B but managed to knock them out in the first round.
And don't we get a bunch of whining every year from some Big Ten and SEC b-ball teams who insist "but we're better than 11-18 UCF, who only got there because they won a conference championship playoff?"
Does anyone really think VCU was one of the four best teams in b-ball this year?
So I salute your point about the system.
That wasn't really my point. That was explaining why championships were awarded before the bowls for so many years. I know the team didn't take the games lightly, and Coach Bryant certainly didn't. But a National Championship was still awarded before those games were played, and I won't apologize as a fan for the trophies in the case.
Let me point out this is NOT unique to Alabama.
Notre Dame claims a national title in 1947 that Michigan also claims.
Notre Dame claims a national title in 1947 that Michigan also claims.
Let me add that Michigan actually has the better claim. They played a tougher schedule, won a bowl game, and pounded teams by an average of 34 points. It's not Michigan's fault that Notre Dame didn't play bowl games. Yet I'll bet most of you reading it have never even heard of this controversy unless you were alive at the time.
During just my lifetime of watching college ball, the following national championships have been "disputed:"
1978
1982
1983
1984
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1996
1997
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2010
That's 17 times over 33 years, OVER HALF THE TIME!!! (And note I didn't include any Boise State or Tulane claims)
And had Miami beaten Tennessee in 1985, there would have been another disputed title since the Canes beat OU in Norman, 27-14.
(One could even argue I should have included 1987, when Auburn intentionally tied Syracuse and knocked them out of the race in the Sugar Bowl).
And what if Alabama had beaten Florida in 1994? The controversy would have been even bigger than it was.
And if Texas A/M had beaten Notre Dame in 1992, they'd argue they should be the 1992 champs.
(Better yet - how does one REALLY say Florida is the 1996 national champion when they split their series? Yes, Florida won by a bunch the second time after they had A MONTH to prepare for an opponent they
had already seen in a game they only got a shot at because another team, Nebraska, somehow lost to Texas).
Nobody says that LSU is NOT the 2003 champ even though they didn't beat number one in the polls. How is that any different than Alabama in 1964 or 1973? Yes, we had a loss but not only was
it controversial but it was NOT to Arkansas!!!
Miami beat Notre Dame in 1989 and that "logic" (head-to-head) got them the title.
Notre Dame did the exact same thing to Florida State in 1993 but the Seminoles somehow got the title.
Notre Dame also played for a tie - intentionally - yet got a title as well in 1966.
When we beat Miami in 1992, there were actually people who said we could not beat Florida State. But it wasn't our fault that Florida State lost to Miami, was it? We played the game we were given. And
let's not forget (those of us who were there) how NOBODY other than that guy from Arizona even gave us a chance at winning, much less killing Miami.
During just my lifetime of watching college ball, the following national championships have been "disputed:"
1978
1982
1983
1984
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1996
1997
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2010
That's 17 times over 33 years, OVER HALF THE TIME!!! (And note I didn't include any Boise State or Tulane claims)
And had Miami beaten Tennessee in 1985, there would have been another disputed title since the Canes beat OU in Norman, 27-14.
(One could even argue I should have included 1987, when Auburn intentionally tied Syracuse and knocked them out of the race in the Sugar Bowl).
And what if Alabama had beaten Florida in 1994? The controversy would have been even bigger than it was.
And if Texas A/M had beaten Notre Dame in 1992, they'd argue they should be the 1992 champs.
(Better yet - how does one REALLY say Florida is the 1996 national champion when they split their series? Yes, Florida won by a bunch the second time after they had A MONTH to prepare for an opponent they
had already seen in a game they only got a shot at because another team, Nebraska, somehow lost to Texas).
Nobody says that LSU is NOT the 2003 champ even though they didn't beat number one in the polls. How is that any different than Alabama in 1964 or 1973? Yes, we had a loss but not only was
it controversial but it was NOT to Arkansas!!!
Miami beat Notre Dame in 1989 and that "logic" (head-to-head) got them the title.
Notre Dame did the exact same thing to Florida State in 1993 but the Seminoles somehow got the title.
Notre Dame also played for a tie - intentionally - yet got a title as well in 1966.
When we beat Miami in 1992, there were actually people who said we could not beat Florida State. But it wasn't our fault that Florida State lost to Miami, was it? We played the game we were given. And
let's not forget (those of us who were there) how NOBODY other than that guy from Arizona even gave us a chance at winning, much less killing Miami.
Me too, but the 1945 team was undefeated and awarded the championship and decided not to calim it because of Army also being undefeated. Thay had 1 less win than we did. Alabama thought it would be best to let them claim it because of the war effort.
I actually found an NCAA site, at least I thought it was NCAA, that recognized 16 or 17 championships for Alabama. It included years where there were multiple magazines and polls that recognized champions for college football. We don't count any kind of "People's Champion" trophies at UA. All of our championships are from legitimate organizations who, at the time, were considered noteworthy. People who act like college football wasn't played before the 50s are being ridiculous. If those people want to add "since 1960" to their line of "Alabama has won eight national titles", then let them. However, I think our thirteen titles are completely legitimate.
Well the year before us didn't Notre Dame win the national title, despite having their lost against a team we beat when were a one-loss team and got voted #2? So I'd say that year (77) we had a legitimate claim to being the best team in the nation. The question I ask for determining national titles is can we legitimately claim to have been the best team in the nation that year, and were we recognized by a media outlet as such? But any way you slice it, we can at least claim 13...as Notre Dame and others have been more popular with the media at times when on-the-field achievements were equal or more impressive (66 and 77 come to mind). And I believe there were one or two undefeated seasons pre-Bryant when we were recognized by less authoritative media outlets as national champion but don't claim them.
I don't think the exact number of national championships we claim is that important...the point is we have a lot. We can legitimately claim more national championships than any other college program with the possible exceptions of Notre Dame and Michigan (although ND is iffy because of all the years they didn't play bowl games and had easy schedules). There isn't really an "authoritative" source on how many NC's we have. In college football, the quality of victories is much more important, and the specific plays and memories that go with them (the Kick, the Goal Line Stand, George Teague running down Lamar Thomas).
Some of y'all need to brush up on your Bama football history. The 65 team won their bowl game, Coach Bryant turned Steve Sloan loose on Nebraska and he passed them silly in the Orange Bowl.
The OFFICIAL NCAA record book lists 17...let them argue with that...
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2010/2010FBS.pdf
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2010/2010FBS.pdf
I think UPI changed after 1973, That is when we won their championship but lost to ND in the Sugar Bowl.
WOW, where have I been? Last WW I remember is 2, I don't rmember 3 - 11 at all. :biggrin2:
Oh, and I don't care what other jealous fans think, it will always be 13... until the next one!
Last edited:
Not that I would ever consider claiming it because it's as bogus as the day is long but Alabama was awarded a national title in 1994 from some no-name establishment .
I'm afraid we would have been left out with the major polls regardless. Nebraska and Penn State got much more love in the press because their offenses were piling up yards and points. Alabama got by on guts alone with several close games even against inferior opponents. It was just the Gene Stallings style. We certainly had a chance to beat Florida in the SECC... should have, but I do wonder how we would have matched up against Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.
Anyway, the press was determined to give the title to Osborne as Penn State didn't even get a share. I'm afraid we would have ended at 3rd no matter what.
Latest threads
-
What are yall thoughts about the potential of UNC making a bid for the SEC?- Started by Bama Lee
- Replies: 1
-
-
Trump signs executive order prohibiting 'third-party, pay-for-play payments' to athletes- Started by CrimsonJazz
- Replies: 10
-
