I hope someone is dusting them, they've been on the trophy shelf for some time now, and they won't be getting another for the next few years for sure. :grin:
Until there's a playoff, you all sound ridiculous arguing this stuff. EVERY national championship is mythical. Yes, even the 2 we have...
I see no reason to single out Bama when this issue is discussed. I realize that they claim more than the other SEC teams, but, that's not a good reason. Let's discuss the issue without animosity towards Bama or any other team, because, it's not any team's fault that we have no clear cut way to determine a MNC for a season. Discussion of this issue reveals just how flawed the system was in the past (and today). I humbly submit that the current BCS system is better than anything that we've had in the past. :lsup: LSU! :crystal:
I just wanna know why we're so infatuated with the Bama football program. These threads are alarming (see Jimmy Ott thread). Bama won't beat LSU for at least another decade. Who gives a crap?
your facts are wrong....the year lsu nebraska tied was opening game of '76 .When we played USC and bama and both were ranked #1 it was Mccendons last year ...79.In 1976 nebraska had one of the great names ever in college football I M Hipp.I wonder if he has a brother U.R . Hipp.
Thi debate could go on forever. Bama has several titles they dont count. Princeton also has like 26 titles.
I'm hoping this was "tongue in cheek." If it wasn't, I'm wondering what basis you have to use the word delusional when talking about any fan, fan base, or program. As example, in the middle of sanctions, under a Saban coached team...you know the rest of the story... Personally, what is entertaining is the rival fan base talking about Bama's MNC's. What might should be discussed in this thread is why the '66 team didn't get the nod. It's just another example of how subjective it is...
This thread should go lay down next to the Bear. It had it's time, it has passed, there's nothing left for it and IT'S NOT COMING BACK.
Re: Sheesh To a certain point, you are right. Mostly, I would like to use this as an opportunity to comment on how the polls really work and how they don't. In any other ranking system, losing a head-to-head matchup means you lose the tie breaker. College football is exactly the opposite--if you lose, it's better to lose early to the team you are in contention with than to beat them and lose later. Let's look at this year: LSU and Auburn each lose 1 division and 1 non division game. LSU loses to Auburn (ignore the controversy for now). Auburn's non-division loss was to an admittedly weaker Georgia team, while LSU lost to the East winner. In the race to qualify for the SECCG, Auburn had the upper hand because that is entirely decided on the field. However, since LSU's losses were to top teams on the road early, a 10-2 LSU team has a strong bid for a Rose Bowl bid, while 10-2 Auburn has no chance at any BCS bid. 1993 is the classic example of this. Florida State and Notre Dame were #1 & 2 when they met in November in South Bend. ND won, taking a big lead and holding on in the end. ND lost the next week to an unranked Boston College team at home. This meant that while FSU was the loser in the game, they finished the season ranked ahead of an ND team with the same record. That meant FSU played #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl and ND played aTm in the Cotton Bowl. By being the #2 and beating the #1 team, FSU wins the MNC. Lou Holtz whined for a long time, but FSU hold the trophies. OBTW, computers won't fix this. Again, look at the 93 example: FSU lost to a much better team than ND did. The computers will favor FSU in that comparison, despite the fact it was a head to head matchup. So, while I think the 73 NC is a fraud, the 78 is at least understandable. (One correction though, Southern Cal won the MNC in 74 after ND beat AMAB in the Orange Bowl, based on SC's 55-24 win over the Irish.) GEAUX TIGERS
