One afternoon, I was traveling through a rural Alabama town. The cotton crop was harvested. Trailers were stacked high with white cotton against a blue sky. The town seemed abandoned on a weekend.
A gas station attendant explained to the stupid Yankee: "Bama's playing." I realize any analysis of Alabama's National Championships may be met with similar disbelief that anyone could be so ignorant, but I'll give it a go.
Alabama claims twelve national championships: 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, and 1992. Additionally, some individuals have awarded a national championship for 1945, 1962, 1966, 1975, and 1977. Over 19 years from 1961 to 1979, Alabama (or someone else) claims the Tide as national champions.
Each school determines which years they are national champions. The NCAA only provides a list of selections and the entities that selected them. Different standards are used by different schools.
National Champions - No Question
Three of Alabama's 12 national championships (1961, 1979, 1992) are consensus choices of both the AP and Coaches Polls.
In 1961, Alabama (10-0) was the only undefeated, untied team in America. Only the Football Writers and the Poling System picked Ohio State (9-0-1).
In 1979, Alabama (12-0) crushed Arkansas and again was the only unbeaten, untied team in America. Only College Football Research Association retrospectively picked USC.
In 1992, Alabama (13-0) was the consensus choice of the AP, Coaches and Football Writers. Only Jeff Sagarin chose Florida State.
Mark down three titles for Alabama. But put the Poling System, Football Research, and the Sagarin Rankings on the Collins Index of Rankings Suspicion.
1920s
Prior to the first AP Poll in 1934, Alabama has clear claim to titles in 1925 and 1926. In 1925, undefeated Alabama won a thrilling victory over once-tied Washington in the Rose Bowl in "The Football Game That Changed The South."
The National Championship Foundation (NCF), the Helms Athletic Foundation (HAF), and the College Football Researchers Association (CFRA) picked Alabama as champions retrospectively. Dartmouth was chosen by the Poling System and by the contemporary Dickinson System.
In 1926, Wallace Wade's Tide team (9-0) traveled to Pasadena to face Pop Warner's Stanford Indians. The game was a tie. HAF and NCF split their vote. CFRA picked Alabama alone.
Parke Davis, a historian who published in 1933, picked Lafayette (9-0). Sagarin picked Michigan (7-1). Navy (9-0-1) was chosen by the Boand System and the Houlgate System.
Houlgate was another mathematical system that syndicated in newspapers with collective work published in "The Football Thesaurus" in 1946. Doesn't it seem clear that Stanford and Alabama should split the title?
Add Parke Davis, the Boand System and the Houlgate System to the Index of Suspicion.
Up to five national championships for Bama.
1930s-40s
The 1941 national championship is a fairy tale. Alabama (9-2) had lost to Mississippi State (SEC champs) and Vanderbilt. The Tide finished ranked 20th in the Associate Press Poll, behind four SEC teams.
Minnesota (8-0) swamped Duke (9-0) - now coached by Wallace Wade - in the final poll voting with 84.5 to 9.5 first-place votes. (
1941 AP Poll) Minnesota swept the consensus picks (AP, CFRA, HAF, NCF). How can you be a national champion when you do not win your conference, were ranked 20th and had two more losses than the consensus champion?1941 was the last year anyone claimed a championship who did not win the AP or Coaches Poll. Only Houlgate picked Alabama.
In 1934, Alabama was Co-Champion of the SEC, but finished third in the inaugural AP Poll. Minnesota beat the Tide 50 to 5.5 first-place votes. All of the consensus selectors picked Minnesota.
Who picked Alabama? Houlgate, Poling, and Williamson. Paul Williamson was a geologist from New Orleans. His picks have a distinctive bent. Eliminating the years when no Southern schools were at the top of the rankings and overwhelmingly consensus picks, he disagreed seven times.
Of the seven, six went to the Sugar Bowl the year he picked them. Williamson was a member of the Sugar Bowl Committee.
In 1930, Notre Dame (10-0) was chosen as champion by Helms, NFF, Dickinson, and almost all others. Alabama (9-0) was third, but beat No. 2 Washington in the Rose Bowl. Who picked Alabama? Parke Davis, Sagarin, and Football Research.
So far, Alabama has five legitimate national championships and three have been discounted. Four claimed titles remain.
Last Four Claimed Championships
We expect "National Champions" are the champions of their conference, a bowl winner and often undefeated. In two of the four years, Alabama did not win their bowl, leading to changes in when the polls were taken.
In 1965, Alabama was fourth entering the bowl season. Undefeated Michigan State won the Coaches Poll, prior to the bowls. Arkansas and Nebraska, also undefeated, were second and third. All three ahead of the Tide lost their bowl games.
Joe Namath led "Bama to victory over Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. The Football Writers split the title. The AP Poll, because it was taken after the bowls for the first time, gave the title to Alabama. Alabama was clearly the best team in the nation.
Add a sixth title to the Tide's list.
In 1964, Alabama won both the AP and Coaches Polls, only because both were taken prior to the bowls. Bama lost to Texas in the Orange Bowl when Namath was stopped on a quarterback sneak at the 1-yard line in the last minute.
The Football Writers, who always waited until after the bowls, chose Arkansas, America's only undefeated team, as national champions. Alabama finishes the season with a bowl loss.
If you agree with the reasoning behind awarding Bama the title in 1965, Arkansas, as best team after the bowls, gets the national title in 1964.
If you stick to the AP and Coaches Poll results whenever they were taken, Alabama does not get the title in 1965. Michigan State is national champion.
Either way, Alabama has six titles at this point.
In 1973, Bear Bryant's Tide, ranked No. 1, met Ara Parseghian's No. 3 Fighting Irish in a legendary Sugar Bowl. Notre Dame topped Alabama with a last-minute field goal, 24-23.
Every authority gave ND the championship except the Coaches Poll, which still gave its trophy prior to the Bowls. The Coaches Poll rectified their embarrassment by changing their final vote to after the bowls, beginning the next year. Alabama ends their season with another bowl loss.
Strike another title from the list.
In 1978, Alabama (11-1) lost to USC in the regular season. USC lost to a conference foe during the season. Alabama won the most consensus picks, but USC won the Coaches Poll. Some say USC is champion due to the head-to-head matchup. To me, this is a true split in the national championship.
Add a seventh title to Alabama's list.
Varying Opinions
Bo Schembechler voiced his opinion: "You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season. If they choose to vote you number one, then you're the national champion. But a national champion is a mythical national champion, and I think you guys ought to know that. It's mythical." (NY Times)
Experts differ on Alabama's number of championships from 11 to 9 to 7 to 5. Notre Dame, who uses the strict "consensus standards" claims eleven championships, two less than the 13 usually attributed to them. (Oklahoma is the only other team to claim fewer championships than are usually attributed to them.)
Combining consensus and non-consensus standards, Notre Dame could be credited with twenty-one championships and Alabama could have seventeen. (Section at the end of the D-1 National Championship article.)
The excellent College Football Data Warehouse has two classifications for Alabama: "Recognized National Championships" with 11 (1941 is missing) and "Total National Championship" with all consensus and non-consensus entities with 25. 17 (above) or 25 consensus + nonconsesus titles? Even experts lose track of the non-consensus entities declaring who were national champions.
Without an overall sponsoring agency like the NCAA settling the question, we can make up our own minds. Caution: the subject can get emotional.
Further references:
AP Polls - http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/index.cfm
Discussion of Standards for Determining National Championships - http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2006/11/defining-champion.html
NCAA listing of champions and selecting entities - http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
A bit of Alabama Tide history, including how the Tide got its name and The Elephant Story - http://www.collegefootballhistory.com/alabama/history.htm
46 comments Last one added 6 months ago — Leave a Comment
CrimsonTusks.com 8 months ago
"Experts differ on Alabama's number of championships from 11 to 9 to 7 to 5. Notre Dame, who uses only the strict consensus standards, claims eleven national championships, two less than the 13 usually attributed to them. (Oklahoma is the only other team to claim fewer championships than are usually attributed to them.) "
If you will take a moment, go to the NCAA website, and look you'll find that your statement is false. Alabama has been selected as National Champions 17 times in their history.
For what it's worth, once again, I find another teams fan looking at Alabama and its history and tradition. One would think ND had enough of her own history to be proud of without comparing herself to others around the NCAA.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
RollTide,
My statement is true. I did look at the NCAA website. I said in the third paragraph:
"Each school determines which years they are national champions. The NCAA only provides a list of selections and the entities that selected them. Different standards are used by different schools." One of my references at the end is the NCAA site.
At the end of the artilce, I also said: "Combining consensus and non-consensus standards, Notre Dame could be credited with twenty-one championships and Alabama could have seventeen. "
No one believes the 1941 title claim outside of some in Alabama who have never examined it.
As for dismissing any other college football fan's opinion other than those of Tide fans, I read that kind of response a number of times in respose to anyone bringing up the subject of Alabama's claims. Feel free to discuss Notre Dame's eleven consensus championships - or thirteen, or twenty-one if you wish.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sullivan 8 months ago
Ahh Revisionist history at it's best.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
A note on revisionism. Of the consensus selectors approved by the NCAA - including Helms, NFF, Football Reserchers and Dickinson - only Dickinson was contemporary to the 1925, 1926, 1930 titles.
Dickinson picked:
1925 - Dartmouth
1926 - Stanford
1930 - Notre Dame
In 1934, Dickinson was joined by the AP. Both picked Minnesota.
Because of contemporary selections, many do not give Alabama any of those four titles (and 1941 of course). They award Alabama its first national championship in 1961.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sullivan 8 months ago
Exactly my point. Next you will start skipping world war I or the Holocaust because someone dosen't recognize it. You can say it as many times as you want, it just isn't true. I don't know if you are grinding an axe or what exactly you are attempting to accomplish. It's been tried before and I and so many others tire of it. It is BS.
If you think that there are people out there that belive what you say and take it as gospel you are mistaken. you are also mistaken if you don't think its happening.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445979/Teachers-drop-Holocaust-avoid-offending-Muslims.html
I dont usually post but my God man....this rubbish cannot go unchallenged its just not true.
link to 12 Bama championships.
http://bryantmuseum.ua.edu/direction.cfm?dir=champs
End yellow journalism and the spread of known untruths, join together to expose those that have no truth in them. It is what it is, if you don't like it I'm sorry (a little) but you not liking it dosen't make it untrue.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
I recognize you're emotional about this, Scott. I don't have an axe to grind or think that WWI or the Holocaust did not happen. I don't think this article is yellow journalism or rubbish.
What do you think of Alabama's 1941 national championship? Here's the final AP poll by the writers from across the country.
RK PVS Wk Team (FPV) WLT PTS
1. 1 Minnesota (84 1/2) 8-0 945 1/2
2. 3 Duke (9 1/2) 9-0 725 1/2
3. 4 Notre Dame 8-0-1 675
4. 10 Texas (1) 7-1-1 494 2/3
5. 6 Michigan 6-1-1 455
6. 8 Fordham (NY) 7-1 399 1/3
7. 7 Missouri (1) 8-1 328
8. 5 Duquesne (PA) 8-0 309 2/3
9. 2 Texas A&M 8-1 229 2/3
10. 11 Navy (MD) 7-1-1 220 2/3
11. 9 Northwestern 5-3 167
12. 17 Oregon State 7-2 132 2/3
13. 15 Ohio State 6-1-1 81
14. 20 Georgia 8-1-1 62 2/3
15. 13 Penn 7-1 61 2/3
16. NR Mississippi State 7-1-1 18 2/3 (SEC champ and victor over Ala)
17. 14 Mississippi 6-2-1 10
18. NR Tennessee 8-2 8
19. NR Washington State 6-3 7
20. 18 Alabama 8-2 6
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
The abbreviations for the poll are:
Ranking (that week); (PVS Wk) - Prevous Week's Ranking; (FPV) - First Place Votes; WLT - Won, Loss, Tie; Pts (Total Points)
The poll had 96 pollsters. The total points numbers are a bit jammed at the end of the record. But, Minnesota had Total Points of 945 1/2 with 84 1/2 first place votes.
Alabama had Total Points of 6.
We have different standards for a National Champion.
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Wren 8 months ago
I agree with the facts; I disagree with your reason.
Yes, your article is true. I've read information about each national championship that Alabama claims and find things that don't make sense, but unless you're a 95-year-old man who knows how to use the internet, I proclaim that you don't know what you're talking about.
BUT, 12 National Titles is the correct number. I've seen all 12 championship rings myself (in the Bear Bryant Museum). You can pile up facts day in and day out - and I'll agree with you that it doesn't make sense...but it is, indeed, 12.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
I respect your beliefs and appreciate your respect for the facts.
Edit Comment Cancel
Vincent Franco 8 months ago
I'm curious... how does one get a national championship ring... does the NCAA have them made or does the college just order them?
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
The polls and Football Writers, etc. give out trophies. The BCS crystal trophy is well known. Any rings must have been constructed by the school.
Here's some pictures of the trophies:
http://www.footballfoundation.com/images/Macarthur.jpg (National Football Foundation)
http://www.antiqueathlete.com/football-trophy-c.jpg (AP Poll)
http://www.sportswriters.net/fwaa/news/2007/rice080108.html (Football Writers)
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sullivan 8 months ago
Im not emotional about this. Im just not going to let lies pass for the truth.
Your wrong, that's all. I am trying to be helpful to you. You can't believe everything you read and this simply isn't true. end of story.
Just because someone says something is true doesnt make it true.
the facts state you are wrong. I am simply pointing them out.
Have a good one, Im done here :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Isaac Luber 8 months ago
Great article, great research. Did a president ever proclaim a National Champion? YES! I remember...Texas was named National Champion over PSU because of the dumb prez. Some of these have similar situations, not all should be credited.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Thanks, Isaac.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 8 months ago
i recognize 7 of bama NC's......but i'm just one man.
i read something similar to this over the summer at deep south sports blog or something similar like that. the author went through the legitimization process for all 12. after reading that i liked them for 7.
but hey 7, 12, either way that's a load of NC's more than two times what my school has.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Thanks, Justin. I felt I got to express my opinion, get comments, and add a poll to see what others think. I'd appreciate it if you forwarded the deep south blog article should you ever run across it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Raj Kamruddin 8 months ago
Interesting. I wish the NCAA would have been the only sole power to declare an NC. its like having two boxing champions with two different belts. I am one to agree with facts, and dont like how a school has the power of declaring themself the champ. As for rings, that is meaningless. Syracuse could declare themself the national champ this year and then pay someone to make a nice ring.
If we shouldnt believe everything we read, lets not jump so fast because we say a replica ring either.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
And what about if a school feels they deserve the accolade of a national championship, declare it, and then, decades later, look at it and feel that it just does not meet their current standards? Once it is declared, it is almost written in stone.
Without a playoff - settling it on the field - the BCS is the best we can do for now. Unless we have three wise men (or women)....
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 8 months ago
Good article. Back in the old days, they had all these different agencies recognizing their own champion. For that reason, you don't personally have to recognize it, but the school has every right to claim it.
The fact that the NCAA doesn't recognize its own champion in division 1A, but does in 2A and 3A, is mystifying. It causes all the problems like we have now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Thanks, Lisa. You nailed it. And we all grew up with different viewpoints.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Dockery 8 months ago
Wow, you're a brave man, wading into this particular fray.
A couple of points I would make. A lot of fans like to toss the consensus titles that were given prior to a bowl loss, but at the time the argument was that the bowls weren't "real" games. They were played weeks after the end of the season, and (everyone knew but no one would admit) after the teams both spent a week getting hammered in some far-away city.
(Of course, to accept this argument you have to toss all the bowl results, which would create a brand new mess to sort out.)
Also, some of the championships you tossed could easily be replaced by ones that are arguable in other years. For example, the 1977 season (for which Alabama was awarded a championship that it doesn't claim.)
If you look at just the "major" polls (AP/Coaches/UPI) plus the BCS, Notre Dame's on top with 8, followed by Alabama, Oklahoma and USC with 7. The important thing to notice, of course, is that of those four, only one of them is out of the running in 2008. ;-)
Nice research.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Thanks, Mike. Until doing the research, I was not familiar with many of the specifics.
You've made some good points. Not only the fans but the polls may not have looked at the bowls as "real games". That may have deprived some teams of opportunities to show they were the best. Alabama's titles in the 20's, whose bowl wins brought them into national prominence, would have been dismissed. Also the title in 1965 would not have been Bama's should the AP had not changed its thought on this after the previous year.
I did not consider possible championships which the University does not acknowledge. I assumed that the University's claimed championships were those it considered most legitimate.
We have hindsight without agreement on standards. If we can agree on a standard, we can move towards consensus. Perhaps it's more fun to argue.
As for the Irish, look on them as building a foundation.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Dockery 8 months ago
It's extremely difficult to figure out why Alabama chooses to recognize the championships that it does. I can say that it has very little to do with which championships the University considers the most legitimate, though, because everyone in Alabama *knows* that the Crimson Tide were the National Champions in 1966.
Frankly, the only reason I can come up with for the 1941 championship is that Frank Thomas was about to retire, and Frank had to go out on top. Nevertheless, I think the University's gracious refusal to acknowledge the 1966 championship more than makes up for '41. Notre Dame's 1966 "title" was an utter and complete farce.
In fact, since 1966 was one of Notre Dame's AP titles, I'd like to revise my earlier statement: I'm hereby taking away Notre Dame's 1966 AP title and giving it to Alabama. I'm sure the Irish feel this is harsh, but it's the only reasonable solution I can come up with. You can have '41, but Alabama gets the AP in '66.
Which, of course, means that the Crimson Tide is now the undisputed leader with 8 consensus national championships!
Congratulations, Tide fans!
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
I've never thought it was that difficult to understand why Alabama and its fans claim so many non-consensus championships. Whether Alabama is now the "undisputed leader" in national championships has a great deal to do with thoughts of college football fans in the other 49 states.
My personal feeling about Alabama football is best summed up by the Capstone Report which said: "The truth is that no other Southern school has such an acclaimed history. In the pantheon of college athletics, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Michigan represent the pinnacle of achievement."
Such bickering about if you take this away, we'll claim this, just denigrates Alabama football achievements.
1966, 1977, and 1973? Feel free to take them all away from Notre Dame.
Congratulations, Tide fans.
Come to South Bend for the trophies.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
We will start with '25 and '26. Many, many, many teams claim NC's from this time period and Alabama doing it is nothing unusual, nothing out of the ordinary at all.
1.) 1925. The facts in the case for 1925 is that Alabama, at the time, was widely considered to be the champions of college football during that year to all the football going public alive at that time. If you were a football fan and followed football, the University of Alabama was the team to be envied this particular year.
'Bama (10-0) traveled out to sunny LA for their first of many Rose Bowls. They defeated a 10-0 Washington team.
Dartmouth, the team that was even halfway in the picture, was 8-0, didn't play a bowl game, and played 4 non-1a teams out of 8 opponents.
'Bama, if there was no such thing as a NC at that time, was certainly the best team in the country. Deal with it. This is the game that made 8,000 Northern sportswriters and West Coast fans commit suicide, lol. Bama(10-0)
2.) 1926. This one is really easy. People were not stupid back in those days. They had just as much sense as modern day folk. They knew champions when they saw them. Let me lay it out for 'ya:
Stanford was 10-0-1 after the TIE in the Rose Bowl with 'Bama. Alabama was 9-0-1 after the TIE with Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Pretty close, right?
Wrong.
Stanford played 6 of what are now considered non-1A opponents out of a total of 10 reg. season games. How many non-1-A opponents did 'Bama face? One, yes, just one.
Bama was once again the best team in the land and the people who were not walking morons at that time knew that and understood it. You walk up to the regular Joe on any street corner in America and ask him who the best team in college football was that year and the answer would be Alabama.
Therefore, Alabama was what we call in our time National Champions 2 years in a row.
3.) 1930 Another clear cut NC for 'Bama. 'Bama went 9-0 reg. season and then ventured out to sunny LA again, they got tired of seeing us, and stomped a hole clean through the chest cavities of a very strong 9-0, at the time, Washington State team. The final score = Champions 24, Wash. State 0.
Ouch, that one hurt the pride of lot's of folks out on the West Coast.
What did Notre Dame do? They went undefeated at 10-0 just like 'Bama but they stayed at home and said "no mas, no mas" we don't wants to play no bowl game.
Advantage = 'Bama. Number 3 baby, number 3 on our way to greatness. (Bama 10-0)
4.) 1934. A very strong Alabama team this year. Gritty and determined.
In 1934, Alabama surged through a regular season destruction, utter destruction of all opponents, and finished it all off with a face shattering pummeling of a very strong Stanford team whose record, at the time, stood at 9-0-1.
We shamed them and once again made everyone curse those stupid Southern boys who keep bursting apart stupid ideas about football supremacy on the West Coast and in the North.
The score was 29-13 in favor of who? That's right, 'Bama.
3 time Rose Bowl Champ-Ions by this time. You can't stop a team that drops 316 points on the bald heads of their opponents and lets them only score 46, you just can't stop that type of juggernaut.
What did any team that was even close do? Minnesota went 8-0 and beat a bunch of 4 win teams and naturally, didn't play in a bowl game, no sir, not their style.
Chalk another one up for what very well may be the greatest football team to ever strap on helmets, the Alabama Crimson Tide. (Bama 10-0)
And on we go:
And on we go:
1941. Not a NC. The year 1941 was put on the list to keep Alabama fans humble.
#5.) 1961. AP + UPI + just about everything and everyone else chose 'Bama. Enough said. 5 so far, many more to come. ('Bama 11-0)
#6.) 1964. AP & UPI, the two big dogs, chose Alabama plus a couple of other selectors. To hell with Arkansas or anyone else. Sure, the AP gave out their trophy before bowl games, that is the way it was. Who is Alabama to tell the AP that what they are doing is wrong? They were just a humble football team doing it's best.
If the BCS decided to give out NC trophies before bowl games in '08, I am sure whoever won it would take it. Let's get real everyone. Don't revise history. 50 years from now, BCS championships may be considered to be invalid, that does not negate the fact that your team may have won a BCS championship. It is what it is. ('Bama 10-1)
#7.) 1965. #7. A great one. This particular trophy is very beautiful and well designed, it looks wonderful. For this one, I am going to give a link to a much more well thought out summary than I can come up with.
Here you go:
Anxious to avoid the uproar that followed its regular season final poll last year, AP waited until after New Year's to crown the 1965 national champion.
Good move. At the end of the regular season Michigan State, Arkansas and Nebraska were all 10–0, with Alabama at 8–1–1 (the Tide lost their opener to Georgia and tied Tennessee). The bowl match-ups had Arkansas playing LSU in the Cotton, Michigan State vs UCLA in the Rose, and Nebraska vs Alabama in the Orange. Each game followed the other on TV.
The three top-ranked teams all lost. Arkansas, denied the '64 national title it deserved, had its 22–game winning streak snapped in Dallas. LSU took a 14–7 lead in the second quarter then shut the Razorbacks out in the second half.
Michigan State, UPI's national champ, had opened the regular season with a 13–3 win over UCLA. The Spartans hoped to close the year on the same note, but couldn't overcome the Bruins' 14–0 halftime lead. The victory was UCLA's first Rose Bowl win ever.
So the Orange Bowl, in its second year at night, became the national championship game. Underdog Alabama built up a 24–7 lead by halftime then held off a Nebraska comeback to win 39–28.
Bama's Bear Bryant joined Minnesota's Bernie Bierman (1940–41), Army's Red Blaik (1944–45), Notre Dame's Frank Leahy (1946–47) and Oklahoma's Bud Wilkinson (1955–56) as the only coaches to win back-to-back national titles.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0746746.html
End of story. For 'Bama fans, it was a story book ending. ('Bama 9-1-1)
#8.) 1973. Love this one. 'Bama was undefeated at the end of the season and the UPI decided we were the best team in the country. It is a nice trophy too, kind of big. See, what many people don't understand is that at this time and during the preceding years, bowl games did not determine NC's, they weren't really important.
Wait, wait, how can that be, you may say. That is just the way it was. Bowl games were meant to be consolation prizes, not determinants of who was the NC. That was already decided after the regular season.
Once again it comes down to modern man attempting to place his mindset and values and ideas about how things should have been done to times past. Guess what? It don't work that way.
'Bama shared this one with Notre Dame, the team that beat them in a fantastic and 6 or 7 lead changing Sugar Bowl game. Don't believe Alabama won a NC this year? Come on down and take a look at the UPI trophy. That ain't no People's Championship, folks. ('Bama 11-1)
I will come back tomorrow and wrap it up. It only gets better from here. So, really, far from being outrageous NC's that 'Bama claims, we have rock solid claims to 11 of the 12 the university lists as being theirs. Stay tuned.
Just remember, you are living in present times. The BCS rules don't apply to past times, you have to beat that into your heads. It was pretty routine to have 2 National Champions and no one batted an eyelash about it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Let me take some time to read this and get back to you, C-A-D. I agree about 1941 and that legendary 1973 classic Sugar Bowl. Thanks.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
C-A-D,
We agree on eight - awarding the seven I chose and eliminating 1941. Four left - 1930, 1934, 1964, and 1973.
You say about 1973 - "See, what many people don't understand is that at this time and during the preceding years, bowl games did not determine NC's, they weren't really important.
Wait, wait, how can that be, you may say. That is just the way it was. Bowl games were meant to be consolation prizes, not determinants of who was the NC. That was already decided after the regular season." (ND over Alabama in a great Sugar Bowl game)
--- same thought about 1964 when they lost to Texas in the Orange Bowl?
But you say about 1930 - "What did Notre Dame do? They went undefeated at 10-0 just like 'Bama but they stayed at home and said "no mas, no mas" we don't wants to play no bowl game."
and about 1934 - "Minnesota went 8-0 and beat a bunch of 4 win teams and naturally, didn't play in a bowl game, no sir, not their style."
Do you just prefer bowls Alabama wins? Or any result that gives Alabama a National Championship?
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
No, of course not, Michael, I don't just prefer bowls that Alabama won or any result that gave Alabama a NC. We are discussing two very, very different time periods in the history of college football. The '20's, and '30's as compared to the '60's and even early '70's.
They are not comparable in hardly any fashion. Just as the '80's are not comparable to present time with the BCS setup we have now. Two totally different worlds.
The AP had not even been dreamed of back in the early part of the 19th Century. In fact, in the '20's, only Davis, Poling, Dickinson, NCF, Houlgate, and Litkenhous were active. There was not UPI or API.
Bowls were a very big deal back in those times. You know, the Rose Bowl was it, the Granddaddy of them all. If you were invited to the Rose Bowl and if you won the Rose Bowl, man, that was like winning the BCS NC game is today. You were it.
Now, on the other hand, let's look at a situation we have today. The BCS was a universally accepted format among major conferences. Basically they all said that they would agree to recognize the BCS champion as the sole champion, the true champion.
But, alas, Southern Cal had to blow all of that to hell by accepting the AP and promoting themselves as the real national champions when LSU won the BCS game a few years ago.
That was a clear violation of agreed upon principles. Alabama has never done anything like that. We mostly accepted what was given to us and didn't tell the AP or the UPI what to do or how to do it, it wasn't our place.
That sort of changed with the advent of the UPI and AP.
The UPI was a very well respected poll and was universally used to determine who the NC's were when it was in use. It along with the AP were the main determinants of NC's. Naturally, with polling systems eventually gaining the respectability that they did, they started to be more and more important and bowl games were less and less important. Bowl games were simply what could be described as holidays, time to enjoy yourself.
Who in the world was Alabama to tell the UPI to go to hell back in '73? Alabama should have said that they would not accept the UPI NC trophy because we know that in the future some people on something called the Internet will not think it appropriate?
Of course, bowl games gained ascendancy again and all voting systems in place starting awarding their NC votes after bowl games.
Times change, things change. The BCS will very likely be deemed as inconsequential 20 years from now, but does that mean that the BCS NC's were all shams, not be given any validity?
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
Ok, I won't read this. :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
MICHAEL, don't read the post right above this one. I patched in part of it in the wrong place and screwed up the whole article. Read this one, thanks.
---------------------------------------------
No, of course not, Michael, I don't just prefer bowls that Alabama won or any result that gave Alabama a NC. We are discussing two very, very different time periods in the history of college football. The '20's, and '30's as compared to the '60's and even early '70's.
They are not comparable in hardly any fashion. Just as the '80's are not comparable to present time with the BCS setup we have now. Two totally different worlds.
The AP had not even been dreamed of back in the early part of the 19th Century. In fact, in the '20's, only Davis, Poling, Dickinson, NCF, Houlgate, and Litkenhous were active. There was not UPI or API.
Bowls were a very big deal back in those times. You know, the Rose Bowl was it, the Granddaddy of them all. If you were invited to the Rose Bowl and if you won the Rose Bowl, man, that was like winning the BCS NC game is today. You were it.
That sort of changed with the advent of the UPI and AP.
The UPI was a very well respected poll and was universally used to determine who the NC's were when it was in use. It along with the AP were the main determinants of NC's. Naturally, with polling systems eventually gaining the respectability that they did, they started to be more and more important and bowl games were less and less important. Bowl games were simply what could be described as holidays, time to enjoy yourself.
Who in the world was Alabama to tell the UPI to go to hell back in '73? Alabama should have said that they would not accept the UPI NC trophy because we know that in the future some people on something called the Internet will not think it appropriate?
Of course, bowl games gained ascendancy again and all voting systems in place starting awarding their NC votes after bowl games.
Times change, things change. The BCS will very likely be deemed as inconsequential 20 years from now, but does that mean that the BCS NC's were all shams, not to be given any validity?
Let's look at a situation we have today. The BCS was a universally accepted format among major conferences. Basically they all said that they would agree to recognize the BCS champion as the sole champion, the true champion.
But, alas, Southern Cal had to blow all of that to hell by accepting the AP and promoting themselves as the real national champions when LSU won the BCS game a few years ago.
That was a clear violation of agreed upon principles. Alabama has never done anything like that. We mostly accepted what was given to us and didn't tell the AP or the UPI what to do or how to do it, it wasn't our place.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
C-A-D,
Some teams in the 30s did not go to bowls. ND went to the Rose Bowl in 1925 and not again until 1970 when they changed their policy. I think you have your contemporaries wrong. NCF, CFRA and Poling were retrospective choices for the 30s. Parke Davis was retrospective prior to 1933, when he published and did not make choices after then. Litkenhous began in 1934.
So, the only contemporary selectors for 1930 were Dickinson, Houlgate, Boand and Dunkel who all chose Notre Dame.
The AP started in 1934 as did Litkenhous. Minnesota was selected by the AP, Dickinson and Litkenhous. In the AP, Alabama got 5 1/2 First place votes to Minnesota's 50. Your description of Alabama in 1934:
"In 1934, Alabama surged through a regular season destruction, utter destruction of all opponents, and finished it all off with a face shattering pummeling of a very strong Stanford team whose record, at the time, stood at 9-0-1." Bama beat Tenn 13-6, so not exactly utter destruction of every opponent. You mention they outscored opponents 316-46.
How about Minnesota's 270-38. Almost as good? But that was in eight games to Bama's 10.
Average game scores - Minn 33.75 to 4.75. Alabama 31.6 to 4.6. If Bama was "utter destruction" so was Minnesota.
Minn beat Pitts 13-7, but Pitts was ranked in the final AP as #4. Tennessee was unranked. I'll leave it to those who lived at that time - Minnesota.
Not sure I understand your disappointment about USC accepting the AP trophy for 2003. Don't you say: "We mostly accepted what was given to us and didn't tell the AP or the UPI what to do or how to do it, it wasn't our place."
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
I'll address your last inquiry first, Michael. Thanks for responding. The disappointment with USC is that they violated an agreed upon principle, not by accepting, but by promoting their AP title as still holding some validity. The AP is as worthless now as the People's National Championship awarded to Auburn by the 16 year old Auburn fan who ran an online poll. That is, if we hold people to their words and to their agreements.
In light of the above, I was using this scenario of USC and the AP to illustrate how different it was than Alabama's situation. No one had agreed to anything concerning the polls. No group of teams or conferences had made a bond or agreed to abide by any one certain poll. For example, when Alabama won the UPI in '73, it had more validity than USC's AP of '03. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that Alabama was indeed a valid national champion in '73 and several other years?
We all know there isn't a real NC, yada, yada, yada. But, with the systems that were in place, Alabama operated wholly within the rules of the time and did not force the AP, the UPI, or any others to award them their titles.
On to the AP. It may have been first run in '34, but was not continuously used until '36. If you will check, there is no record of an AP champion in '34 or '35, but only in '36 and beyond. If Minnesota was picked by the AP in '34, as you say, it isn't listed on the NCAA's site here:
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
You say Tennessee was not ranked in '34 when 'Bama beat them, I say they won 8 games and lost 2 games.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Tennessee.htm#1986
Were they ranked? I don't know. Perhaps you could direct me to a source to show me that they were not ranked. Everything I have seen say they were ranked, but I certainly could be wrong depending on how many teams were included in a ranking during that year. Were just the top 5 teams included, just the top 10, etc...
James Howell has 'Bama's SOS for that year at .592, with Minnesota's at .366
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf1934.htm
Was Minnesota a good team? Certainly. Was Alabama? Yes. I prefer to look at this as a split NC, not an either or for one or the other. I am proud of the fact that Alabama seemed to do a little more to prove themselves by trouncing a solid Stanford team in the Rose Bowl. That lent some prestige to the team.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
C-A-D,
I linked the inaugural AP poll for 1934 in the article under the discussion on the 1934 championship. Click on it for the final ranking that year prior to the bowls. As you said, bowls were considered window-dressing.
I think a SOS argument (Oh, not that) in 2008 carries less weight than contemporary selections.
I agree that Bama's trouncing of Stanford solidified the Tide's reputation and prestige throughout the country for doubters. I know 12 is a source of pride for Bama fans.
Are you rethinking 1930?
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
Wrong, I indicated bowls were extremely important before the implementation of the AP and UPI polls, don't misconstrue my statements. Then I went on to intimate that bowls lost their importance. Then, again, they gained back some level of prestige.
I would like you for to explain to me why Tennessee was unranked in an unused 1934 AP Poll ranking when they were 8-2.
On the website you gave a link to for the AP historical rankings, Tennessee is not listed at all in '34, yet were clearly better than most all of the teams that Minnesota played that season.
Also, on the NCAA's website, AP rankings are not utilized in the year '34, as you keep alluding too, or in '35, but only beginning in '36.
In fact, Minnesota doesn't even claim the AP for '34 in their history books, the supposed winner of the imaginary 'AP '34 poll that just didn't seem to exist except in the minds of AP voters.
In reality, when you say that Minnesota won the AP in '34, this is a misrepresentation of sorts, is it not?
On to the '30 NC that 'Bama claims. Why in the world would I back off of that one? We were Rose Bowl Champs, again, and undefeated.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
I said the first AP poll picked Minnesota. I already provided the list of contemporary selectors who chose Minnesota. None chose Bama.
Minnesota claims 1934 as a national championship. Not sure where you are getting your information. Here's the link to the official Minnesota athletics website:
http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml? &SPSID=39875&SPID=3280&DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=271608 (picture and article) Gophers had three All-Americans and this was the first of three national championships in a row. You could have verified this with a little research.
I assume you did not even look at the 1934 AP poll I provided. I was not around then to know why voters did not think much of Tennessee in 1934.
From 1900-1934 (start of the AP) only seven national champions or co-champions played in bowls. Bowls may have been "extremely important" in these early years to those seven teams.
Clearly, "champs" to you has a different meaning than national champions does to most of us. No worries. I think your standards change with the years.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ctrl-Alt-Del 8 months ago
Michael, which part of Minnesota does not claim an AP title in 1934 do you not understand? I never said Minnesota did not win a NC in '34, as I have not said Alabama did not.
But you need to lay off the "Minnesota were AP National Champions in '34" routine. The NCAA site doesn't list it and neither does anyone else, even Minnesota. Know what I mean? Minnesota doesn't claim an AP championship in '34.
I did look at the AP poll link you provide, it did no good. I will assume you read my post but did not comprehend what I was saying. The AP, for all practical purposes, was not a valid poll until '36.
You can keep on stating that Minnesota won the AP in '34, in an attempt to mislead others, but the AP was not recognized until '36. Yes, I know it was created in '34, but what does that mean? It was meaningless until '36.
I mean, if XYZ poll were created today, but it was not known about or used or taken into consideration until 5 years from now, what good does it do the teams who were voted on in it's polls for the first 5 years when it was a non-factor.
Maybe you need to contact Minnesota and let them know that you have decided they were AP Champs in '34, they don't claim it.
As far as your quip at the end of your response wherein you state that my standards change with the years, you again have a lack of understanding. My standards don't change over the years. The standards that college football in this division have been judged and ranked and evaluated with and by over the years have changed.
For the second time, please stop stating what I think and do not think when I have said or indicated nothing even remotely related to what you are insinuating.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 8 months ago
No offense intended. Suit yourself. Thanks for your remarks.
Edit Comment Cancel
brella black 6 months ago
The first and most obvious hypocrisy in the article:
collins attacks paul williamson, who ranked bama 1st in 1934 as having a southern bias, yet collins’ own article begins thusly, "One afternoon, I was traveling through a rural Alabama town. The cotton crop was harvested. Trailers were stacked high with white cotton against a blue sky. The town seemed abandoned on a weekend. A gas station attendant explained to the stupid Yankee: "Bama's playing." I realize any analysis of Alabama's National Championships may be met with similar disbelief that anyone could be so ignorant, but I'll give it a go." LOL. so, not only does he admit a bias, decidedly anti-southern, of his own, which gives him no ground to stand on in attacking williamson for bias, but he also admits that he had no idea that either a) it was saturday, or b) that saturday is GAMEDAY. what sportsfan, let alone sports WRITER, forgets that saturday is all about college football?! and to bring it full circle, he then presumes to be the first person to ever think about bama's football history, presumably bc everyone in the south is a moron, and Collins expects us to somehow believe that this football crazed culture doesn't really think about football at all, while he, who forgot all about it being gameday, is breaking ground somehow by looking into the past…
the second hypocrisy:
bama, ND, and washington were all undefeated at the end of the season and were 1,2,3 in the dickinson poll. they were obviously all great teams, and have a right to claim any title awarded to them. but look closely at what collins is trying to do here. he discredits bama's title based on polls occurring prior to the bowl game, where bama proved themselves by beating an unbeaten wash team. but later, he discredits the 1964 bama title BECAUSE the poll happened prior to the bowl game! seriously?! he is victimized by this same—I’ll be generous and call it “inconsistency of reason”— in his attempts to discredit 1934 too...
hypocrisy number 3:
in 1934 bama was 10-0, and manhandled unbeaten stanford in the rosebowl. that's a legitimate title claim. period. notice also that teh author only attempts to discredit 1934 on the basis that one guy, williamson, is biased, and that the AP poll, in its FIRST year of existence, awarded minnesota champs. so what? this was literally the trial run of the AP. they didn;t even have an AP poll in 1935! and they didn;t make it a permanent fixture until 1936. minnesota, of course, can clim 1934 as well, but it doesn;t mean that bama can't, or shouldn't. most important, notice that collins again uses a logic perfectly hypocritical to the logic he applies to bama's 64 and 73 teams. the trial-run of the AP awarded the title to minnesota PRE-BOWL games. minnesota didn;t play a bowl and bama beat another unbeaten team in the rose bowl. so, in this situation the PRE-BOWL poll takes precedence and bama, who wins their bowl, loses out to minnesota, but in 1964, the author wants to discredit the bama title for the very reason that the poll was pre-bowl game. that this hypocrisy manifests twice in Collins’ analysis suggest he either didn’t put much though into this or that he has some kind of agenda
1941:
i personally wouldn't claim this one, but you can't discredit the system that awarded it. houlgate was a math whiz and his system was the first attempt at objective ranking system, and as such it was widely published in newspapers around the country. it was around until 1950, during which time it only differed from the other polls three times, picking, in various seasons, bama, usc, and ND. neither ND or usc claim those years, so i wouldn't either. but i don't begrudge bama for doing so, since they claim neither 1) 1945, when they were undefeated, kicked the hell out of USC, and the AP selected army and 1 loss navy #1 and #2, shocker, as it was WW2 or 2) 1966, again undefeated and coming off back to back titles.
1964 and 1973:
bama was undefeated and won the ap and coaches (64) and coaches (73) prior to the bowls. That’s the way the systems worked then, so the titles are valid inherently. when we finally get a playoff system one day, all teh titles won prior to that system being installed will not suddenly be invalid bc teams only had to win one bowl game rather than a tournament. that would be preposterous. this fact is so obvious, i suspect anyone who argues the position Collins does here of having an agenda. bama lost to texas in 64 on a bad call at the goalline in teh 4th quarter and to ND on a last second field goal. so it's not as though bama was somehow exposed or even "beaten" in either loss.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 6 months ago
Too bad you made this personal, Brella. Just because I'm a Yankee, does that make me anti-Southern? Thanks for your opinions.
Edit Comment Cancel
brella black 6 months ago
Is that your catch-all response/dodge? Stirring the pot, then refusing to swirl around with the other onions? Look, your analysis is horribly confounded for the reasons I spelled out at length. That you focus on a single point, the treatment of southern bias, strikes me as evasive. I don't know you at all, so I can only judge your biases by this article. I can tell you this, the harvest times of both cotton and peanuts in the south correspond with hurricane season; the industry certainly doesn't shut down on a fairweather saturday to watch football. Furthermore, you clearly suggested that subjecting bama's title claims to analysis is a novel idea to southerners. I personally don't take any offense to that, as it was just your anecdotal device for introducing your topic, but for you to "too bad you made this personal," as though no one, no southerner, who read those comments could possibly take personally being called too dumb to have ever really investigated the matter is, frankly, naive. You are, after all, talking about the very fanbase who prior to this season had been widely ridiculed as living too much in the past, who has erected bronze statues of the coaches who won the titles you presume to brush away as insignificant. And yet they've never given them more than a passing thought? Right. It also strikes me as remarkably convenient to the case you're trying to make that you dismiss Williamson for a southern bias, but don't so much as touch on the biases behind the 1966 AP non-title. If bama can't, according to you, claim a title awarded by a body biased for them, shouldn't they, by your own way of thinking, be able to claim 66, which they were denied by a body biased against them?
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 6 months ago
We should honor the University's choice not to claim '66. I agree with you on '41. My comment on your making things personal can't be construed in any way that all southerners are dumb. Some of America's best writers were Southerners, for instance. My only statement in the article concerning level of intelligence was directed at me: "I realize any analysis of Alabama's National Championships may be met with similar disbelief that anyone could be so ignorant, but I'll give it a go."
Researching the topic though, I found quite a number of the criticisms of Alabama's national championship claims were from Southerners.
None of this takes away from my opinion that Alabama deserves its rank among the premier football programs in the nation historically.
Edit Comment Cancel
JoeGator Gator 6 months ago
Nice article. However, if you're going to dig up old fossilized national championships, you should include Harvard, Yale, and Princeton in the discussion. These were the powerhouse programs of their day and as dominant as any that you mention.
Edit Comment Cancel
brella black 6 months ago
of course it can be construed as offensive. you tried to sugarcoat it with self-deprecation, but you plainly suggested that analyzing bama's titles was a novel idea to the anecdotal townsfolk. that's not inherently offensive like certain taboo words, but it can certainly be construed as offensive. re 66, naturally UA wouldn't claim that one; by that time the AP was established as the principle metric. it was not the principle metric in 34, when it was new metric among many others. more to the point, you still haven't addressed the discrepancy in your analysis concerning your differential dismissals of bama's 34 and 30 claims, where you put all your stock in the pre-bowl polls and omit the bowl game, and 64 and 73, where you put stock in the bowl games and disregard the polls.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 6 months ago
The principle metric in the 30s was pre-bowl with bowls considered icing. Many of the top teams did not go to bowls. Check out the AP rankings in the latter 30s to see how many top teams stayed home.
As for not considering bowls, I personally awarded Bama the title in 1925 based on the Rose Bowl, and 1926 after the Rose Bowl indicated a split to me. Many awarded that title to Stanford.
While I won't compare different thoughts on bowls over decades like the 30s to the 60s, I did consider a pre-bowl title in '64, when they lost to Texas in the bowl, to a post-bowl title in '65, when they came from fourth pre-bowls. I consider that having it both ways for Alabama, one year apart.
As for 1973, Notre Dame beat Alabama. I choose to name the best team national champions for that year, not who has a trophy whose criteria changed because of the '73 game for the next year.
Your criteria may be who has one of the trophies. I assume you don't think Alabama was better than Notre Dame in 1973. If the roles were reversed, I'd acknowledge your championship.
Edit Comment Cancel
brella black 6 months ago
The gist of this sentence—“ The principle metric in the 30s was pre-bowl with bowls considered icing.”—is that you judge titles by the criteria of the era. I agree. Another salient feature of that era was a proliferation of title-conferring entities and scarcity of trans-geographical scheduling. Given all this, it’s futile, in this era more than any other, to try to crown a single champion each year, which is essentially what you’re up to— retroactively conferring a singular championship—and therefore I don’t bedrudge any program claiming titles awarded them by any of the numerous titular entities around back then. Contrary to the criteria-of-the-era sentiment, you later claim that bama is having it both ways in 64 and 65. The rules were spelled out each year; everyone knew that in 64 the AP title would be awarded pre-bowl, and everyone knew in 65 that the AP title would be awarded post-bowl. It’s not as though bama was the only program to get the memo. Mich St claims its 65 title, despite having lost their bowl.
Let’s look at this comment: “As for 1973, I choose to name the best team national champions for that year, not who has a trophy whose criteria changed because of the '73 game for the next year.” This begs umerous questions:
1) you begrudge the title claim bc the conferring entity changed its standards the following year, and yet you just said “I did consider a pre-bowl title in '64” when in 64 the exact same thing happened.
2) You “choose to name the best team national champions,” and yet you begrudge the claims in 30, 34, and applaud the non-claim in 66. In none of those years can you say definitively that anyone was a better team than bama. More to the point, you never even attempted such an analysis in your article, choosing rather to use ad hoc weightings of polls vs polls vs bowls.
3) It’s a dubious assertion that ND was the “best team” in 1973. They had the best bulletin board material a team could have—you’re playing the champs and can win a championship by beating them—while bama had the worst bulletin board material a team could have—no matter what happens in this game, you’re already champions. And the game was ultimately decided by a last second FG (which only would’ve tied the game had bama not missed a PAT). You can certainly make the case that ND was better, or that they won and that’s all that matters, but those are both different arguments than saying that bama ought not acknowledge a title bestowed on them by an entity whose pre-bowl criteria were clearly established and known prior to the season beginning. And that’s the rub. You’re article isn’t about who was best in a given year; it was about the legitimacy of claiming titles that some entity awarded. To prove those claims illegitimate is a task one in the same with proving that the teams in question were definitively not the best team. I think that argument can be made convincingly for the 1941 bama title claim, which is why I wouldn’t claim it. But as I said, bama also suffered blatant political bias by press voters in 34, 45, and 66, with 66 being a strong likelihood of a title otherwise.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 6 months ago
1973 - Alabama v. Notre Dame
The finish- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDyiutPA92c&feature=channel
Al Hunter's kickoff return and the 2 point conversion - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJIBqfTiZc&feature=related
My article was about the best team in college football for the years Alabama claimed national championships. You eliminate "political bias" when you put the top 2 teams in the nation on the same field and one of them wins, as in 1973.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.