Check your numbers

by Jackson
(Atlanta, GA)

1) Penn State and Ohio State have more wins than Alabama as well. Check your numbers.

2) Pre-1936 polls are retroactive in nature. Take away a couple national titles. I see you noted they were "unofficial". By the way- this also takes Michigan out of the argument.

3) I don't see the coach argument. Every prominent school has at least 1 great coach. ND might be the only one with more than 1. Michigan had Yost (again, retroactive national titles) and Bo never won any. Florida State has Bowden. Penn State has Paterno. Ohio State MAY have two (Woody, possibly Tressel).

4) I don't see the player argument, at least not during the last 20 years.

5) Culture and Tradition?? This is complete opinion. Lots of great programs have lots of great traditions. I can't equate them. I can't say that one is better than another.

6) If Alabama breaks out with a title this year, they have a great argument. Otherwise, I think they have a historic argument only. Let's face it: We're 16 years removed from their last title, and 29 years removed from the one before that. Other SEC teams have seen multiple titles since that time. Where's Bama?

Comments for Check your numbers

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Nov 25, 2008
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
You're mistaken
by: Jeffrey

It's a common myth that pre-1936 titles are all retroactive. "Titles" did not start with the AP poll.

Also, IMO, it's a better measure to count retroactive title in any "all-time" list. Counting things that only existed for part of "all-time" would naturally skew the list to make it an unreliable measure for any true all-time list.

May 04, 2009
Rating
starstarstarstarstar
pre 1936 era?
by: Michael

There is no doubt that Penn State & Ohio State are among the greatest football programs of all time. While I understand the pre-1936 history of college football is questionable, I find it interesting that we split College Football history unlike any other sport. No one argues the legitimacy of the cubs last major league championship in 1908. Any Montreal Candadian (NHL) fans out there? They have won over 25 Stanley Cups, most of them in an era where there were only 6-12 teams in the league. Should we penalize them for this lack of competition? No.

Secretariat, considered by many as the greatest horse to ever race won the triple crown by an enormous length in the Belmont Stakes. However, history tells you that Secretariat only competed against 4 other horses in the Belmont. Does this make his era less legitimate than today? No. Could he have won today in a bigger pool? That's debatable.

I understand that these examples are less controversial due to the simple fact that there is only one champion. However, in a sport such as college football where debate is as common as touchdowns, the pre-1936 era shouldn't be left out.

How many Auburn fans on this site believed they were the best team in the 2004 season going undefeated? They may have been the best team that year and there should be an asterick by their name in the history books. However, should we not consider 2004 a legitimate year of college football because of this controversy? Of course not. 2004 was a typical college football season and Southern Cal deserves claim to that title.

The point here is you don't have to go far in the history books to find controversy in college football. Whether examining the 1903 Michigan National Title or the 2004 Southern Cal National Title, there will always be questions and debate in college football.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to College Sports Discussion.

By Mo Johnson, Copyright © 2006-2016 SECSportsFan.com

Top of this Page

Online Colleges
Online Colleges

Please Visit our Amazon, Ebay, Etsy and Better Display Cases stores.



Like this Page

Visit Our Social Media Pages

Become a Fan of SecSportsFan on Facebook Follow SecSportsFan on Twitter
Find SecSportsFan on Google+ Follow SecSportsFan on YouTube