The USC Program might be getting a little nervous....

[weagle251]

I stopped reading when you claimed "there was no such thing as National Championships at this time."  

Absolutely unbelievable.

If there was a Championship awarded in '25, then why wait 50 years to claim it?

[jadennis]

1926 - Pop Warner was the coach of Stanford that tied Alabama in the Rose Bowl.  Pop Warner > Wally Wade.  Stanford is champ for 1926.

1930 - Notre Dame was named the champs by 29 different organizations.  Alabama was named by 8.  29 > 8.
Notre Dame is champ for 1930.

1934 - Minnesota was named the champs by 30 different organizations.  Alabama named by 11.  30 > 11.
Minnesota is champ for 1934.

1965 - Michigan State was named champs by 30 organizations.  Arkansas was named the champs by 21 organizations.  Alabama named by 9.  30 and 21 > 9.
Michigan State is champ for 1965.  Alabama was #3.

1973 - Notre Dame was named champs by 15 organizations.  Oklahoma by 13.  Ohio State by 6.  Alabama by 5.  15, 13, and 6 > 5.
Notre Dame is champ for 1973, followed by Oklahoma, Ohio State, then Alabama (why is this one even debated?)

1978 - USC was named champs by 20 organizations (OU even had 12).  Alabama was named by 13.  20 > 13.
USC is champ for 1978.

[RWS]

Since the MNC is just a beauty contest, it should follow simple beauty contest rules.  When the winner of the contest has to forfeit the crown, the first runner-up becomes the winner.  Auburn was ranked second in the final poll, hence they are the first runner up.  There's really nothing to hash out here.  Still, there's not any kind of precedent, is there?  I don't believe the NCAA has ever forced a team to relinquish their title, have they?

I think the technical runner-up would be the team that lost the NC game, even though they finished #3. I think this because, well.....they actually played in the game. Oklahoma played in the game and was #2 at the time of the game, so they would be the runner-up in the game. The only reason AU was the final #2 was because Oklahoma lost the NC game. I don't really see how it would be logical to hand AU the NC when they didn't even play in the game. In any event, hypothetically, I think they would vacate it anyways instead of hand it to somebody else. Just my opinion, though.

[AUChizad]

I stopped reading when you claimed "there was no such thing as National Championships at this time."  

Absolutely unbelievable.

Weak.

[No Huddle]

It would produce monster sales at Walmart for sure! 

Walmarks would love you.

[weagle251]

I think the technical runner-up would be the team that lost the NC game, even though they finished #3. I think this because, well.....they actually played in the game. Oklahoma played in the game and was #2 at the time of the game, so they would be the runner-up in the game. The only reason AU was the final #2 was because Oklahoma lost the NC game. I don't really see how it would be logical to hand AU the NC when they didn't even play in the game. In any event, hypothetically, I think they would vacate it anyways instead of hand it to somebody else. Just my opinion, though.

I think that if Oklahoma had turned in a decent performance in that game, they wouldn't have been jumped in the final poll of the '04 season.  If Bama had blown out Texas this year, you likely would have seen Boise in the second spot.  Even with the BCS title game, it's still a beauty contest.  The National Championship is still determined by a vote.  The only guarantee is that the winner is elected number one in the Coaches Poll.  There is no guarantee that the loser of the game is awarded the second spot. I understand you have your agenda here, but there really is no gray area.

It doesn't really matter, though.  Who the hell cares about an ex post facto championship?

[Lurking Tiger]

I stopped reading when you claimed "there was no such thing as National Championships at this time."  

Absolutely unbelievable.

Even bummer didn't start claiming all these MNC until the 1980s. Your SID decided on his own to pump up the number in the media guide.

[RWS]

I think that if Oklahoma had turned in a decent performance in that game, they wouldn't have been jumped in the final poll of the '04 season.  If Bama had blown out Texas this year, you likely would have seen Boise in the second spot.  Even with the BCS title game, it's still a beauty contest.  The National Championship is still determined by a vote.  The only guarantee is that the winner is elected number one in the Coaches Poll.  There is no guarantee that the loser of the game is awarded the second spot. I understand you have your agenda here, but there really is no gray area.

It doesn't really matter, though.  Who the hell cares about an ex post facto championship?

I don't have an agenda. I have always said that I thought it was bullshit that AU didn't get to play in that game. You can look that up. However, they didn't. I just don't see how, in this day and age, you could hand a championship to a team that didn't even play in the game. If you're not going to vacate it, you have to hand it to the team that actually played in the game. It would be like if the NCAA made a team forfeit a bunch of wins, and instead of recording it as a win for the other team, just randomly picked teams to hand out those wins to.

In a foreit situation, the other team records a win. So, hypothetically, if USC has to forfeit that game, then Oklahoma is the technical winner, even though they lost on the field. And if they are the technical winner, how are you not going to hand them the NC, but hand it to a team that didn't even play in the game? Now, if USC is forced to vacate the win, then the NC will simply be vacated that season. Remember, there is a difference between vacating and forfeiting.

[jadennis]

RWS, I would go with your argument if this was a tournament and OU had made it all the way to the title game and got blown out.  Then sure, they could say they are the runner up. 

But in college football, there is no tournament....there is the champ and then everyone else.  There is a poll at the end to determine where everyone else ended up.   This is especially true of the AP, who even arrives at their "champ" via the poll.  To them, the "runner up" would obviously be the #2 team, not the team their #1 beat in a bowl game. 

By the way, I don't think Auburn (or anyone) is due anything should USC have to forfeit games.  Besides, the NCAA doesn't award a champion in football to begin with (which is the reason 50 different organizations feel comfortable naming champs....and Alabama feels comfortable accepting them).  All the NCAA can do is take away their victories.  The BCS organization would be the ones to name a retro-active champion (should they feel fit to do so).

It's the same as the Heisman.  The NCAA can't take someone's Heisma because they were cheating.  The Heisman foundation would make that call.

[Birmingham]

Weak.

What, you thinking there was no such things as a National Champion prior to the year 1925?  I agree, weak.  And of course, by "weak", I mean "you are fucked up beyond retardation".  

I'll admit, it is funny picturing you with a confused look on your face wondering why they took the time to record wins and losses.  Sitting there in 1925, as they'd been doing for 50 years, recording final scores with absolutely no intention on using that information to define one team as a "winner".  Followed by the documenting of each teams accumulated wins and losses with only the reason of, once again, doing absolutely nothing with it.  It certainly wasn't until roughly half a century later before we realized that all this time we could have been using this information to claim one team as an overall champion.  Thus satisfying the motivational agent known as "competitiveness".  Something that, until the late 60's, was just something young men were expected to surpress.  

I don't know how I can be any more sarcastic that that so let me say this in completely seriousness.  You have provided the single dumbest statement in this thread, which was already maintaining an elite level of historical mongolism along with the generic stocked-response ignorance already expected.

[Kaos]

What, you thinking there was no such things as a National Champion prior to the year 1925?  I agree, weak.  And of course, by "weak", I mean "you are fucked up beyond retardation".  

I'll admit, it is funny picturing you with a confused look on your face wondering why they took the time to record wins and losses.  Sitting there in 1925, as they'd been doing for 50 years, recording final scores with absolutely no intention on using that information to define one team as a "winner".  Followed by the documenting of each teams accumulated wins and losses with only the reason of, once again, doing absolutely nothing with it.  It certainly wasn't until roughly half a century later before we realized that all this time we could have been using this information to claim one team as an overall champion.  Thus satisfying the motivational agent known as "competitiveness".  Something that, until the late 60's, was just something young men were expected to surpress.  

I don't know how I can be any more sarcastic that that so let me say this in completely seriousness.  You have provided the single dumbest statement in this thread, which was already maintaining an elite level of historical mongolism along with the generic stocked-response ignorance already expected.

All those words just to confirm that your ass is dumb. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Just for clarification:

We care about the end of Southern Cal's NCAA investigation because Bama's up next, amirite? 

[Vandy Vol]

I'll admit, it is funny picturing you with a confused look on your face wondering why they took the time to record wins and losses.  Sitting there in 1925, as they'd been doing for 50 years, recording final scores with absolutely no intention on using that information to define one team as a "winner".

If you're suggesting that the reason for maintaining win/loss records is to identify a national champion, then you're admitting that the years in which other teams had better records than Alabama are years that Alabama shouldn't be recognized as the national champion.

While win/loss records are sub-par, inaccurate indicators of which teams were better than others, the point that has been made is that there was not a national championship selection process before 1925.  Teams were not named national champion prior to that date, and those that were named "national champions" for some time after that date were more often than not selected by random, unofficial individuals and organizations.  We might as well let John Madden develop a senile selection process and announce who he thinks the 2009 national champion is.

And last but not least, even if you want to tout the national championships that were awarded by unofficial individuals and organizations, then you still have to come to the realization that Alabama received less recognition from fewer "polls" than other teams for many of those years.  Any way you cut it, there just isn't a feasible way to defend the majority of those championships as valid victories.

[AUChizad]

What, you thinking there was no such things as a National Champion prior to the year 1925?  I agree, weak.  And of course, by "weak", I mean "you are fucked up beyond retardation".  

I'll admit, it is funny picturing you with a confused look on your face wondering why they took the time to record wins and losses.  Sitting there in 1925, as they'd been doing for 50 years, recording final scores with absolutely no intention on using that information to define one team as a "winner".  Followed by the documenting of each teams accumulated wins and losses with only the reason of, once again, doing absolutely nothing with it.  It certainly wasn't until roughly half a century later before we realized that all this time we could have been using this information to claim one team as an overall champion.  Thus satisfying the motivational agent known as "competitiveness".  Something that, until the late 60's, was just something young men were expected to surpress.  

I don't know how I can be any more sarcastic that that so let me say this in completely seriousness.  You have provided the single dumbest statement in this thread, which was already maintaining an elite level of historical mongolism along with the generic stocked-response ignorance already expected.

Side step all you want.

The concept of National Championships did not exist prior to 1925. Period.

Is it seriously beyond your comprehension that a century ago colleges played each other without it being part of a campaign for National Champion? That the competition between the schools was enough? Can Parks & Rec peewee football not exist unless the two best peewee teams in the nation meet on the field?  Hell, college football didn't even figure that part out until about 75 years later. They still don't have it right.

[Vandy Vol]

Can Parks & Rec peewee football not exist unless the two best peewee teams in the nation meet on the field?

I'd go to the peewee football national championship just to steal the quarterback's girlfriend.

[AUTiger1]

I'd go to the peewee football national championship just to steal the quarterback's girlfriend.

[The Prowler]

Just for clarification:

We care about the end of Southern Cal's NCAA investigation because Bama's up next, amirite? 

You hit the head with a nail.