skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Contact Us
Auburn Links
War Damn Bloggers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(443)
-
▼
November
(36)
- WRAS Picks the SEC - Week 13
- JINX
- 20 Years Later
- Footage of Eltoro Freeman as a 6 year old
- A year later, Auburn looks to strike back - ESPN a...
- Yes, some bammer really did this...
- So there is an asterisk on the Got 12 shirts?
- FAIL
- Got 4?
- WRAS Picks the SEC - Week 12
- The Turds are coming. Start Texting now.
- WRAS Picks the SEC - Week 11
- What do...
- Vote for Ben Tate
- Trovon Reed to AU!!!
- We Was In Knoxville
- I Think Ronnie Wins This Bet
- Benny Tate Doak Walker Award Semifinalist
- Beat Bama Food Drive
- Wild Boyz, Wild Boyz, Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha g...
- Like Father, Like Son?
- Michael Dyer's Website
- Maybe The Refs Got It Right After All...
- Julio & Ingram Can Take Them Fishing
- An SEC Ref Would Have Taken It
- Move Along, Nothing To See Here
- That Was Close!
- Everyone else sees it, why can't the S(puat)EC?
- Auburn Football Swaggometer - Week 10
- WRAS Picks the SEC - Week 10
- War Dyer Eagle!
- Someone Get This Play To Gustav!
- Vote Benny Tate for Heisman!
- Auburn Football Swaggometer - Week 9
- When are they gonna learn?
- Auburn-Georgia on ESPN at night
-
▼
November
(36)
2 comments:
Got 12?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCzJiHQFO9Q
You envious second rate, AUtards most certainly don't!
1925
The video says that because the national title was awarded retrospectively by only one “system”, then the championship is bogus. Problem is, the video is wrong. Houlgate was only one of eight “systems” that awarded the national title to Bama that year. Only two awarded Dartmouth the title (Dickinson & Davis), neither of which was Houlgate.
Also, Alabama finished the season 10-0 (Rose Bowl victory), while Dartmouth finished 8-0.
Maybe there should be some fact checking?
1926
Video — again — fact check. It says that Stanford was awarded the title after a tie by Dickson, which is, again, only partially accurate. Based on all of the selectors, Bama was awarded the national title by five, Stanford only by four. Why does the video leave these facts out???
1930
The video says we were only awarded the championship (or a share of it) by one selector. False. I know, you’re shocked. Notre Dame was awarded the title that year after going 10-0. Three selectors later gave Bama at least a share of the title. Bama was an undefeated 10-0 that year.
1934
Apparently the video is willing to concede that “this one’s debatable”, but still calls it bogus because a 10-0 Alabama finished sixth in one of the selectors polls. It’s funny that the video starts trashing systems like Dunkel’s here, because Dunkel gave Notre Dame the title in 1930, but apparently by 1934, things had changed.
1941
This is definitely the least credible of any title claims, but your problem is with Houlgate.
1961
AP/UPI, yet no bitching at Ohio State for claiming a share of the title in 1961, despite going 8-0-1???
1964
AP/UPI, even by the video’s own admission. Again, your problem is with the selection process. During this time period, the AP/UPI polls selected their champions prior to the bowl game being played as then, bowl games were considered "exhibition" games. You ever stop to think how Aubarn (AL) was awarded the title in 1957 without even playing in a bowl? Research my friend. Research.
1965
AP.
1973
UPI.
1978
Once again, the video plays fast and loose with the facts. The AP awarded us the title this year, after the bowl game. Clearly a legit title.
1979
AP/UPI
1992
AP/UPI
I also see where you fail to mention anything about 1936 where Alabama finished 8-0 yet the AP awarded the title to Minnesota who finished 7-1.
Or 1945, where Alabama finished 10-0, yet the AP awarded the title to Army who finished 9-0.
Or 1966 where Alabama finished 11-0, yet the AP/UPI awarded the title to Notre Dame who finished 9-0-1.
I also don’t want to hear that “by your logic we could claim ten” argument. If you award a national title, straight up, because any selector gave you one, Alabama would have sixteen (17), against Auburn’s four (4).
Post a Comment