OT: ESPN gets it right, Alabama wins 9th NC
I'm rarely pleased with ESPN, but last night they got it right. Alabama fans would love to claim that last night marked Alabama's 14th National Championship, even though that number, for all intents and purposes, is largely fabricated. So last night, I couldn't have been happier to see ESPN stop kissing the SEC's ass, and get the facts right.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
So if ESPN holds Michigan to the same standard as Bama, how many do we have?
honest question..
January 10th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
I think 4, I'm basing that on memory though.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
Schools like Alabama and Sparty claim championships that might have been awarded by one major selector (in Alabama's case I believe some of their claims aren't even backed up by one random poll), M only claims the eleven awarded by the big time sources.
For instance, Michigan has been awarded the MNC in 22 separate years going off of "major selectors". Obviously we don't claim 22 MNC's. OTOH Alabama claims 14/18 and Sparty claims 6/6, respectively.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
We would claim 22, if we were claiming them based on the same exact criteria? Technically speaking that is...not that we would necessarily do this.
I live in Birmingham, so I just need to have my facts exactly right in case this comes up in a 'discussion.' I am hesitant to talk about this as it is since most of these came in the modern era (post WWII) for bama, and ours did not.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
so in that case we would have 3
January 10th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
I think that number should be 4 so as to include 1973 when one of Bo's best teams went 10-0-1 and got snubbed for the Rose Bowl. They still were recognized as #1 by both the Poling System and the National Championship Foundation. Both are NCAA recognized.
You could make an argument about the 1964 UM squad (9-1) but that would be a much harder task since only the Dunkel System has them as MNC. Arkansas went undefeated that year but had to split with 10-1 Alabama team and a 9-1 ND team. The Bama ND losses happened in their respective bowls whereas the UM loss happened on the road at Purdue by 1 point. UM spanked the Beavers in the Rose Bowl 34-7. AP and UPI awarded their National Championships at the end of the regular season prior to the bowl season. Apparently bowls didn't count towards anything in those days as far as stats or records were concerned and were only there as a reward for a successful regular season.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
This is so ridiculous. Nine MNC's is something to be very proud of. Instead, they make themselves look like buffoons claiming that a team that finished third in their league with two losses and a time is one of the alleged championships. I just don't get it.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:21 PM ^
To be fair they finished 3rd in their league this year too. So did Michigan -- why didn't we get to play LSU for the title?!!?!!
Edit: Didn't moderate your post for flamebait -- just wanted to be clear on that.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
Can't have 3 losses and be national champs. Michigan never said hey we lost 3 games, but we are national champs.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^
Not to rain on your rare ESPN pleasure, but I'm not so sure they got it right.
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/1/10/2695952/alabama-football-national-championships-14
At least it was subtle ass-kissing?
January 10th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
often forgotten easily since most people are in the here and now. The modern day college game (last 15-20) years is far more competitive than it was way back when.
BTW: I think Brent Musberger killed the Honey Badger last night. He must have said it 20+ times when talking about Mathieu. He sounded hilarious trying to be hip and cool saying "honey badger don't care" etc, but I think he put it on the list of words/sayings to get axed this year.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
National Championships with sources
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/champions_national.html
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/2554072
Of course both are different...
January 10th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
"for all INTENSIVE purposes" god. get it right.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
At least, I assume you're being sarcastic...
January 10th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
Were we praying?
January 10th, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^
According to Bryson, "intents and purposes" is a redundant, commonly used phrase. It should be either "for all intents" or "for all purposes," but not both. One is sufficient.
(reply to the wrong person)
January 10th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
National Championships awarded by
- the AP Poll or
- the Coaches Poll
- since 1936 (the year that the AP Poll, the older of the 2, began)
January 10th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
...because the NCAA neither awards nor sanctions any national champions in FBS football.
Also keep in mind that up until 1968 the AP polls did their final voting after the regular season before the bowls, not in January after the bowls. The UPI poll continued with their final votes before the bowl games until 1974.
Lots more history available on wikipedia.org.
Also, great quote from Bo Schembechler:
| If there are any Big Ten teams that shoot for a national championship, they're damn fools...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. | ” | |
|
—Bo Schembechler of Michigan, July 1989[ |
||
January 10th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
I think the issue with some of Bama's NCs wasn't that they were from 70+ years ago, it was that the selectors or organizations they claim awarded them those championships weren't even around until years after the NCs they claim. Total BS.