Bama's 12 National Championships

[BigSammyK 171]

Something my friend just showed me. Pretty amazing.

http://www.geocities.com/bafflemaster/nc.htm

[chinook 0]

boy, this will open a can of worms.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Thats been around for and in circulation for awhile. Doesn't mean all have seen it though.

Now prepare to go into Bama Obsession Mode as I'm sure its coming from some Bama fans. Always does when you say something like hey, that 78 NC is kinda shady given the circumstances.

[WarTiger 3,909]

The bammers claim an SEC championship in 1934 as well...which didn't happen. TULANE finsihed 8-0 that year while UAT finished 7-0.. you do the math...

[Captain Liger 0]

God how I hate bama.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Here is another site that I think is good. It shows both (AP) and (USA) picks. http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/alman...l/cfbnatch.html

The 1930, 1934, and 1941 NC's don't even show up on there, so that is 3 NC's that don't even exist for bammer.

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

same old song and dance...who cares...

no offense guys, but how many times can we talk about the "national championships" that bama claims???

[quietfan 233]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

same old song and dance...who cares...

no offense guys, but how many times can we talk about the "national championships" that bama claims???

226954[/snapback]

Yeah, sometimes it seems like we live in the past as much as we accuse Bama of doing. However you add it up, they have a past to be proud of and more MNC's than us.

But past is past...history, not football.

...and I will love my Auburn Tigers if we never won another game in future!

[abrnfanatc 6]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

same old song and dance...who cares...

no offense guys, but how many times can we talk about the "national championships" that bama claims???

226954[/snapback]

Yeah, sometimes it seems like we live in the past as much as we accuse Bama of doing. However you add it up, they have a past to be proud of and more MNC's than us.

But past is past...history, not football.

...and I will love my Auburn Tigers if we never won another game in future!

226955[/snapback]

AMEN. Now can we move on to talk of the 2006 MNC?

[jumbo 0]

I think this is so funny

[RVTiger 0]

pcola:

good analagy about the 1934 SEC championship. the same sort of thing happened to AU in 1972 (remember the punts).

AU finished 5-1 in the SEC with it's only loss being to LSU. UAT finished 6-1 in the SEC with it's only loss being to AU. LSU ended up with 2 SEC losses (I believe). UAT is considered the SEC champ because the "technically" had a better SEC record, although they lost head-to-head with AU.

What happened was this: ole Bahr scheduled an extra SEC game (back then we only played 6 SEC games per season) instead of an out of conf team. The SEC changed the rules the next year to only recognize the 6 "sanctioned" games when determinig the champ.

[ROLL TIDE FOREVER AMEN 0]

All National Championships are mythical National Championships anyway until we have a playoff. Just as Auburn could lay claim to prior MNC's and at least shares in MNC's over the past century. So could Bama. I think Auburn could have a legitimate beef over 4 or 5 of them if I am not mistaken. Bama, using the same parameters could beef 20 of them. And Notre Dame could beef all of them.

[WarTiger 3,909]

pcola:

good analagy about the 1934 SEC championship. the same sort of thing happened to AU in 1972 (remember the punts).

AU finished 5-1 in the SEC with it's only loss being to LSU. UAT finished 6-1 in the SEC with it's only loss being to AU. LSU ended up with 2 SEC losses (I believe). UAT is considered the SEC champ because the "technically" had a better SEC record, although they lost head-to-head with AU.

What happened was this:  ole Bahr scheduled an extra SEC game (back then we only played 6 SEC games per season) instead of an out of conf team. The SEC changed the rules the next year to only recognize the 6 "sanctioned" games when determinig the champ.

226979[/snapback]

according to secsports.com Auburn finished 6-1 in 1972 and UAT finished 7-1. LSU finished 4-1-1. But yeah, same technicallity.

[BamaGrad03 0]

You could nitpick all you want. But I think Alabama has VERY legitimate claims to 10 of the 12 they claim. Hell college football data warehouse lists us with 11.

Yes there are one or two ? marks in there...but even with 10 thats pretty darn impressive.

[tgr4lfe 220]

So, I guess all the years of bama cheating during the bahr term is of no factor in this talk......Maybe bahr was a good coach, but facts are facts, take out his cheating and coersion during that time and he doesn't win half that. IMO, those won during his era are tainted with the stench of a low down cheating, drunk.

[WarTiger 3,909]

So, I guess all the years of bama cheating during the bahr term is of no factor in this talk......Maybe bahr was a good coach, but facts are facts, take out his cheating and coersion during that time and he doesn't win half that.  IMO, those won during his era are tainted with the stench of a low down cheating, drunk.

226992[/snapback]

well said. It's interesting to me that they lay claim to so many, yet refuse to use the same criteria when counting NC's by other teams, particularly Auburn.

Even Bear Bryant was quoted long ago saying "if a laundrymat in (insert city here) wants to name us National Champions, we'll claim it".

I guess we need to check with the bammers and see if its ok, but using their logic, we have almost as many NC's as they lay claim too.

We have NC's by "some organization"(like the Bear said himself) in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1957, 1958, 1983, 1993, 2004. that's EIGHT folks.

Bammers love to make up the rules, but don't like it when those very rules they create are applied to other teams, or used against them..

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Bammers love to make up the rules, but don't like it when those very rules they create are applied to other teams, or used against them..

226997[/snapback]

Isn't that the truth. I love reading posts where Bama fans count every single little thing and don't apply the same rules to Auburn. Like when they go we have 12 you have 1.

Lot of those pasts NC's are jokes, mean you have Bama, Texas aTm, and alot of other schools going back and claiming stuff from the 30's and 20's on a yearly basis.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

[MDM4AU 332]

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

227025[/snapback]

Here's some more (recent) history for you...

2001: Last time you beat AU

Never: The number of times you beat AU in Tuscaloosa on your "home field."

4: The Streak

11-14: Record v. AU in the last 25 years

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

227025[/snapback]

BG,

If it was just the bammies "claiming a few suspect titles" then you may have a point. But it isn't just that. Take a cold, hard objective look at your "history" -- it's not as stellar as you might like to believe. I refer you to our Classics Forum, specifically the Huie Article published in the 1941 Collier's magazine, and the thread entitled: Auburn & Alabama -- Some facts about how things really are. bammie football history is tainted by decades of academic fraud, "boosters" with more money than sense & ethics-challenged coaches who chose to look the other way. The vast majority of bammie fans still believe Albert Means was a set-up orchestrated by Phillip Fulmer. They can't even begin to comprehend that Means represented only the very top of the tip of the iceberg.

You go right ahead & tout the "most 10-win seasons record." We AU People are completely comfortable knowing that the last two times uat had a 10-win season, AU stomped a mudhole completely through those teams. WDE

[WarTiger 3,909]

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

227025[/snapback]

I'll address it.. No doubt UAT leads in SEC championships, but they claim at least one that they didn't win, just like they do with NC's. 1934 comes to mind.

You cling to the most bowl wins.....but what you certainly will NEVER mention, is UAT also has the MOST BOWL LOSSES of any other school in the country. Also, didn't your best coach lose like 9 straight bowl games??

Hang on to that "Most 10 win seasons" title. It will likely fall this year, when Oklahoma moves into a tie with UAT. See, when you make statements like this, you make it sound like UAT is head and shoulders above EVERYBODY, and that is simply not the case. Nebraska has 25, Ok. has 27, UAT has 28.

BG, I still want one of you bama fans to address my question in the earlier post. Why do bama fans decide their own criteria for claiming NC's, but refuse to allow others to use that same criteria. UAT fans don't even want to give us credit for the one that we won in 1957, much less the other SEVEN that we have. How are UAT's titles legitimate but ours are not? Its a double standard. UAT refuses to acknowledge other schools using the same criteria for claiming NC's.

[WarTim 3,456]

I hope the PAST and ancient HISTORY keeps 'em warm during Auburn's very BRIGHT future.

Let the dead bury the dead.

The FUTURE is ORANGE and BLUE.

[jumbo 0]

I agree with everthing you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

227025[/snapback]

I'll address it.. No doubt UAT leads in SEC championships, but they claim at least one that they didn't win, just like they do with NC's. 1934 comes to mind.

You cling to the most bowl wins.....but what you certainly will NEVER mention, is UAT also has the MOST BOWL LOSSES of any other school in the country. Also, didn't your best coach lose like 9 straight bowl games??

Hang on to that "Most 10 win seasons" title. It will likely fall this year, when Oklahoma moves into a tie with UAT. See, when you make statements like this, you make it sound like UAT is head and shoulders above EVERYBODY, and that is simply not the case. Nebraska has 25, Ok. has 27, UAT has 28.

BG, I still want one of you bama fans to address my question in the earlier post. Why do bama fans decide their own criteria for claiming NC's, but refuse to allow others to use that same criteria. UAT fans don't even want to give us credit for the one that we won in 1957, much less the other SEVEN that we have. How are UAT's titles legitimate but ours are not? Its a double standard. UAT refuses to acknowledge other schools using the same criteria for claiming NC's.

227035[/snapback]

[BamaGrad03 0]

Like I always say...you guys want to pick on our NC claims but NEVER EVER want to talk about our:

Record number SEC championships

Most bowl wins

Most bowl appearances

Most 10 win seasons

You act like just because we claim a few suspect titles we have no history.

227025[/snapback]

I'll address it.. No doubt UAT leads in SEC championships, but they claim at least one that they didn't win, just like they do with NC's. 1934 comes to mind.

You cling to the most bowl wins.....but what you certainly will NEVER mention, is UAT also has the MOST BOWL LOSSES of any other school in the country. Also, didn't your best coach lose like 9 straight bowl games??

Hang on to that "Most 10 win seasons" title. It will likely fall this year, when Oklahoma moves into a tie with UAT. See, when you make statements like this, you make it sound like UAT is head and shoulders above EVERYBODY, and that is simply not the case. Nebraska has 25, Ok. has 27, UAT has 28.

BG, I still want one of you bama fans to address my question in the earlier post. Why do bama fans decide their own criteria for claiming NC's, but refuse to allow others to use that same criteria. UAT fans don't even want to give us credit for the one that we won in 1957, much less the other SEVEN that we have. How are UAT's titles legitimate but ours are not? Its a double standard. UAT refuses to acknowledge other schools using the same criteria for claiming NC's.

227035[/snapback]

Ok...so Oklahoma and Nebraska may tie us in a category. Big deal. We are in the category with 2 other schools? WOOOOOW i guess thats why people always mention alabama in the top 5 most storied programs. Sounds good to me.

Most bowl losses? 2 things...one thats what happens when you have the most appearances. You cant lose if you dont play in a bowl. 2...when bryant was coaching bowls were completely different then they are now. For a long stretch back then...bowls were viewed as a reward not something you HAD to win. So we played a lot of players who didnt play much during the year or deserved the reward. That also has a lot to do with why we were rewarded NCs before a bowl loss. That is...unless you think there was a conspiracy with us and the AP poll.

If we went by the criteria that awards AU 6 or 7...we'd have like 20. If you want to do that...fine with me. See, AU fans want to apply that ONLY to their arguments. They ONLY want to credit us with the 12 we claim and go on to list every single publication that has named them. Fine...you got 7 we got 20.

[WarTiger 3,909]

Ok...so Oklahoma and Nebraska may tie us in a category. Big deal. We are in the category with 2 other schools? WOOOOOW i guess thats why people always mention alabama in the top 5 most storied programs. Sounds good to me.

I'm sure there are others that are within a few seasons of UAT. Those I found in about 10 minutes.

Most bowl losses? 2 things...one thats what happens when you have the most appearances. You cant lose if you dont play in a bowl. 2...when bryant was coaching bowls were completely different then they are now. For a long stretch back then...bowls were viewed as a reward not something you HAD to win. So we played a lot of players who didnt play much during the year or deserved the reward. That also has a lot to do with why we were rewarded NCs before a bowl loss. That is...unless you think there was a conspiracy with us and the AP poll.

You uaters brag about the most bowl wins, yet only 7 games above .500 in your bowl games. Not exactly stellar. Sounds like shallow justification for your "legend" of a coach to consistently drop bowl game after bowl game.

If we went by the criteria that awards AU 6 or 7...we'd have like 20. If you want to do that...fine with me. See, AU fans want to apply that ONLY to their arguments. They ONLY want to credit us with the 12 we claim and go on to list every single publication that has named them. Fine...you got 7 we got 20.

First of all its EIGHT not seven. No, actually I don't want to credit bama with 12, because everybody in the country knows UAT doesn't deserve seven of the 12 they claim to have won. This further proves the arrogance you bama fans constantly display. See, you change the rules right in the middle of a post, and add 8 more MNC's to bamas total right before our eyes, just when you see us mention EIGHT instead of the ONE, that even you don't want to give us credit for.

I'm not talking about just auburn here, I'm talking about EVERY SCHOOL in the country. Please answer my question. Why is it that UAT fans get to set the rules on what MNC's they claim but when those same standards are applied to ALL OTHER SCHOOLS, they are wrong? If you want to "claim" 12, knowing its not accurate, let every other school use the same criteria for claiming theirs. I know you think UAT is vastly superior to Auburn (and every other school in th country) in all things, and the very mention of Auburn having eight MNC's is terribly difficult to swallow. That closes the MNC gap to 4, and that is just simply unacceptable...so you add EIGHT more to UATs total right before our eyes. BG you are the poster child for the UAT double standard here.