Guest Tigrinum Major Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 You can't be that dense. 214701[/snapback] I've got you fooled. Come on work with me here. The premise of the article and the subsequent crowing by you guys was that Bama hasnt been doing as well recently in recruiting. 214701[/snapback] And you blamed probation. Unless you can say, with a straight face, that being on probation has no effect on recruiting...then my point holds true. And if you honestly believe that probation doesnt hurt recruiting, there is plenty of previous precident to prove you incorrect. 214701[/snapback] Not arguing the point. I just get tired of hearing about it now. Again I ask...where should we be ranked in recruiting if we can only sign 17 guys? Name me ONE team that killed it in recruiting while they were on probation. 214701[/snapback] I have the same opinion of rankings of recruiting classes as I do of emoticons. Fascinating and useful to most, but useless to me (unless I want to use an emoticon to ensure someone doesn't misunderstand my smart aleck replies.) Let's just play it on the field and determine who is the best team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI....i_menu.homepage Like I said I might have misread it, we either lost 11 total for those 3 years, or we lost 33 with 11 each year. Probably 11 for the 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Bo 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI....i_menu.homepage Like I said I might have misread it, we either lost 11 total for those 3 years, or we lost 33 with 11 each year. Probably 11 for the 3 years. 214724[/snapback] T4A, The summary says 11 each year. If you look at the full report (the first link I posted) it says 1 each year. I'm not sure which one is correct, but I seem to remember the worst part of Auburns probabtion being the no TV, for a season and no bowl for 3. Since it didn't involve recruiting really, they didn't reduce the schollies much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 You can't be that dense. 214701[/snapback] I've got you fooled. Come on work with me here. The premise of the article and the subsequent crowing by you guys was that Bama hasnt been doing as well recently in recruiting. 214701[/snapback] And you blamed probation. Unless you can say, with a straight face, that being on probation has no effect on recruiting...then my point holds true. And if you honestly believe that probation doesnt hurt recruiting, there is plenty of previous precident to prove you incorrect. 214701[/snapback] Not arguing the point. I just get tired of hearing about it now. Again I ask...where should we be ranked in recruiting if we can only sign 17 guys? Name me ONE team that killed it in recruiting while they were on probation. 214701[/snapback] I have the same opinion of rankings of recruiting classes as I do of emoticons. Fascinating and useful to most, but useless to me (unless I want to use an emoticon to ensure someone doesn't misunderstand my smart aleck replies.) Let's just play it on the field and determine who is the best team. 214723[/snapback] uat has not had any success lately "playing it on the field". That is why they had rather play it on paper. 4 in a row and the THUMB to go ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI....i_menu.homepage Like I said I might have misread it, we either lost 11 total for those 3 years, or we lost 33 with 11 each year. Probably 11 for the 3 years. 214724[/snapback] T4A, The summary says 11 each year. If you look at the full report (the first link I posted) it says 1 each year. I'm not sure which one is correct, but I seem to remember the worst part of Auburns probabtion being the no TV, for a season and no bowl for 3. Since it didn't involve recruiting really, they didn't reduce the schollies much. 214733[/snapback] Ya, I looked at the second link first, then noticed the same thing on the first link.. them being different. I'm sure we lost more than 3 schollies total though. I think it was a total of 11 across that 3 year span, cause 33 total really sound way to high when I think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI....i_menu.homepage Like I said I might have misread it, we either lost 11 total for those 3 years, or we lost 33 with 11 each year. Probably 11 for the 3 years. 214724[/snapback] T4A, The summary says 11 each year. If you look at the full report (the first link I posted) it says 1 each year. I'm not sure which one is correct, but I seem to remember the worst part of Auburns probabtion being the no TV, for a season and no bowl for 3. Since it didn't involve recruiting really, they didn't reduce the schollies much. 214733[/snapback] Ya, I looked at the second link first, then noticed the same thing on the first link.. them being different. I'm sure we lost more than 3 schollies total though. I think it was a total of 11 across that 3 year span, cause 33 total really sound way to high when I think about it. 214742[/snapback] E-L-E-V-E-N...That should be an easy number for all uaters to REMEMBER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Actually I found a old article and it says that Auburn lost 3 over that 3 year period Bo, but then states that Auburn was required to remain 2 under the limit for those 3 years also. So I guess that could equal out to be 9 total. So appears you were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Bo 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nay4AU 2 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Actually weren't the AU classes of 94 and 95 highly ranked? 214706[/snapback] I know the 95 class was. I remember reading an article during the 3-8 season of 1998. It went through all of the top recruits Auburn had gotten in 1995. Many never panned out, some flunked out, and Takeo went to the NFL. I wish I could remember the details of the article. It was just one of the examples of why I don't put a whole lot of stock into recruiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeagleDMS 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me! 214765[/snapback] You would have to be pretty old for 12 to be familiar to you! You would also have to be pretty naive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me!  214765[/snapback] You would have to be pretty old for 12 to be familiar to you! You would also have to be pretty naive! 214777[/snapback] Thanks for the assist DMS ! ! ! WDE ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Bo 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me!  214765[/snapback] You would have to be pretty old for 12 to be familiar to you! You would also have to be pretty naive! 214777[/snapback] I've only been alive for 5 of them. I was only 5 years old for the first one, but I still know about all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vatz22au 142 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me!  214765[/snapback] 12? Try 3 legit NCs (only 2 NCs of bama were unanimous): "1925 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with Dartmouth. Who awarded the NC? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. So Bama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation started in 1941. Another incredible retroactive NC.From College Football Data Warehouse The Associated Press Poll has been active since 1936. The AP took their final poll prior to bowl games from 1936 - 1964 and in 1966 and 1967. They took their final poll after the bowl games in 1965 and from 1968 - Current. 1926 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with 3 other teams with equal or better records! Once again it is the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1941 that awards it! 1930 National Championship- The Davis poll says that Bama tied Notre Dame for NC this year. This was the only one to award it to Bama. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) did his in 1933! 1934 National Championship- Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was an individual who came up with his own system. Williamson was a geologist who came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus first appeared in 1946! 1941 National Championship- This is a complete joke. The AP ranked Alabama 20th in the nation with 14 teams with better records in the top 20. Once again it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards it. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year. 1961 National Championship- Finally a legitimate NC. One poll didn't give it to Bama though. 1964 National Championship- While the AP did award the NC to Bama (10-1-0), Arkansas had the better record, 11-0. Alabama played Texas in their bowl and LOST. The AP final poll was before the bowl. 1965 National Championship- The AP gave this to Bama. That year there were three teams with better records than Bama. Bama 9-1-1, Michigan St 10-1-0, Arkansas 10-1-0, Nebraska 10-1-0. 1973 National Championship- AP puts Bama 4th after their bowl game loss. Bama claims a NC from the UPI poll that was taken before they met Notre Dame in the bowl game and lost. There were 3 teams with better records than Bama that year. The embarrassment of naming Alabama number one caused the UPI to name champions after bowl games. 1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC!!!!!!!!!. UPI gave the NC to USC. 1979 National Championship- Their second legitimate NC. Their first Unanimous NC. 1992 National Championship- Their third legitimate NC. Their second Unanimous NC. History of polls - http://www.volsfootball.com/history.html Polling systems - http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football...s.html#HOULGATE Simply just stirring the boiling pot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLink02 8 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC!!!!!!!!!. UPI gave the NC to USC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeagleDMS 0 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That might be the first time I've ever had an fan say that I was right. Oh yeah WT, 11 (+1) is very familiar to me! 214765[/snapback] You would have to be pretty old for 12 to be familiar to you! You would also have to be pretty naive! 214777[/snapback] I've only been alive for 5 of them. I was only 5 years old for the first one, but I still know about all of them. 214788[/snapback] So you know about 1941 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC!!!!!!!!!. UPI gave the NC to USC. 214817[/snapback] Nitpick all you want. But even if you take out 78 and 41...10 NCs is reeeeeeaaaaaallly freaking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vatz22au 142 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC!!!!!!!!!. UPI gave the NC to USC. 214817[/snapback] Nitpick all you want. But even if you take out 78 and 41...10 NCs is reeeeeeaaaaaallly freaking good. 214894[/snapback] You mean 3 right? On all accounts BG, I was totally just messing with you bama guys....But I did think the research and that site was very interesting....didn't know you guys counted NC's through a system that didnt even exist until later after the seasons were already played and years have passed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Probation is also called CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless of course, you want to argue that schools being less interested in "churning out football prospects" means they're focusing more on academics--in which case it makes perfect sense that better educated high school seniors would be more likely to have the intelligence to avoid the Crapstone! Uh...ok. For the last ~4 years or so I think AU and UA have been within 5 spots of one another in the USA Today rankings. But whatever. And I think its obvious why our team was depleted of top talent over the last few years...its called probation. 214636[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 ...That's like a murderer complaining that he can't be a good father or get a job because he got sentenced to life in prison. 214715[/snapback] Yeah, but what if the crime "didn't really happen", the "murderer" was framed by some vast conspiracy, everyone was out to get him because they were jealous of his great tradition, the crime was committed by a hit man he had no control over, lots of others were bidding to get the same contract, the police failed to warn him not to do it, the courts were biased, and the sentence was too harsh for the crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auskull 239 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It would be nice if we actually had three ratings on a recruiting class. The first (preliminary) would be to rank the signing class. Then rank the signees that actually enrolled into class during that year. and then the final ranking would evaluate how that signing class actually performed on the field. I have to feel that CTT would be in the top of the SEC in the second and third rankings. Last year both UGA and UAT had high signing class rankings, however a significant number of the **** (stars) couldn't qualify for enrollment into school. This is a fluff ranking and does not help the team on the field. A rather meaningless excerise to rank the signing class and move on without re-evaluating it. I know, it sells magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLink02 8 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Nitpick all you want. But even if you take out 78 and 41...10 NCs is reeeeeeaaaaaallly freaking good. Ya but a majority of those other 10 are bull too Hell, UGA could claim 5 NC's! But come on....we didn't actually win 5. I would say we honestly won 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeagleDMS 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Nitpick all you want. But even if you take out 78 and 41...10 NCs is reeeeeeaaaaaallly freaking good. Ya but a majority of those other 10 are bull too Hell, UGA could claim 5 NC's! But come on....we didn't actually win 5. I would say we honestly won 2 214973[/snapback] That's what the ole espn college football encyclopedia gives UGA. I will credit bammer with 6; Seven if they get my pizza to me in less than 30 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwylie 0 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 If i am right, and i believe that i am, Coach Bryant ran Cecil Hurts tail off during Bryants first season at Bammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Nitpick all you want. But even if you take out 78 and 41...10 NCs is reeeeeeaaaaaallly freaking good. ...and not a single one of those MNCs does anything for Bama's future. Are Bama fans the only people in the country that don't refer to national championships as Mythical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It would be nice if we actually had three ratings on a recruiting class. The first (preliminary) would be to rank the signing class. Then rank the signees that actually enrolled into class during that year. and then the final ranking would evaluate how that signing class actually performed on the field. I have to feel that CTT would be in the top of the SEC in the second and third rankings. Last year both UGA and UAT had high signing class rankings, however a significant number of the **** (stars) couldn't qualify for enrollment into school. This is a fluff ranking and does not help the team on the field. A rather meaningless excerise to rank the signing class and move on without re-evaluating it. I know, it sells magazines. 214962[/snapback] ESPN does that occasionally. They will show you how a class performed over a 4 year period. They don't it every year (unless its some insider thing now), but at least one year they took the top 10 classes and showed who was left, who got drafted, and their record over the 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.