Bama Denied MNC in 1966???????

[GalensGhost 0]

OKay, you explain how in 1941 Bama finishes #20 in the Country, 3rd in the SEC and yet you claim an MNC?

You explain how Bama finishes losing to ND in a bowl game in 1973 and yet you claim an MNC?

You explain how Bama finishes whipped at Home by USC in 1978 and yet you claim an MNC?

If you want to claim that ND wussed out in 1966 and didnt play a bowl game, then you guys have to give up the 73 claim because you claim an MNC when you got absolutely dusted in the bowl game. You cannot pick and choose MNCs like you pick your nose. If ND was wrong for claiming an MNC by not playing a bowl game, then you guys need to quit with claiming an MNC after you lose the bowl game in 1973.

It boggles the mind to see the irrational logic here.

Wallace's school house door speech was in 1963, not 1965 or 1966!

David this isnt a discussion about our other titles we claim. Please address my questions regarding 66.

Also, i dont slam ND for not playing in a bowl game...I slam the media for ranking them AHEAD of us after they Tied and we just beat AU 31-0...AND WE WERE PRESEASON #1

Simple proposition, BG. Claiming there was a sudden swell of bias against Alabama in 1966 when there were no such objections in the preceding two years or in the years following is utterly ABSURD. Only a fool would embrace such screwy logic.

[WarTiger 3,896]

OKay, you explain how in 1941 Bama finishes #20 in the Country, 3rd in the SEC and yet you claim an MNC?

You explain how Bama finishes losing to ND in a bowl game in 1973 and yet you claim an MNC?

You explain how Bama finishes whipped at Home by USC in 1978 and yet you claim an MNC?

If you want to claim that ND wussed out in 1966 and didnt play a bowl game, then you guys have to give up the 73 claim because you claim an MNC when you got absolutely dusted in the bowl game. You cannot pick and choose MNCs like you pick your nose. If ND was wrong for claiming an MNC by not playing a bowl game, then you guys need to quit with claiming an MNC after you lose the bowl game in 1973.

It boggles the mind to see the irrational logic here.

Wallace's school house door speech was in 1963, not 1965 or 1966!

David this isnt a discussion about our other titles we claim. Please address my questions regarding 66.

Sure it is. You can't have it both ways. You as a UAT fan lay claim to titles that is just completely absurd(see 1941, and all other years UAT choked in their bowl game, not to mention the ones you lay claim too that were "GIVEN" to UAT years after the season was completed) then cry over being slighted by the meida when you don't get recognized. You are always thinking UAT should win the MNC every year, when in reality, they haven't earned half of what they claim to have. I'm sure in bammer logic UAT should have won the MNC a few years ago when they finished 4-9...or last year with that stellar 10 win season...even though they were thoroughly dominated in all aspects of the game on that faithful day in mid November.

As far as 1966 goes...who cares? A fan base that actually claims an NC after having finished 20th in the country and 3rd in the conference they play in, deserves any slap in the face they get. Calling racism or (in the bammers eyes) jealousy is totally ludicrous considering they were awarded the MNC in years PRIOR and in years AFTER (whether they deserved it or not). Excuses and twisted bammer logic....

[WAR-MATT 2]

Didn't Notre Dame win the 66 NC? Look at how many sports voters there are in Chicago, then look at how close to Notre Dame and the number of Notre Dame alumn there is in Chicago, shouldn't really be a suprise that they got the nod over Alabama.

Yes they did. I agree that Notre Dame is college football's media darling. TXAU, the "game of the century" as it was dubbed between ND and Michigan State ended with Notre Dame kneeling the ball, tied. You're right, and I'm not arguing, segregation and racism did exist in 1964 and 1965. I am however trying to point out that George Wallace's segregation polices came to a headway in 1966 and the media, the entire nation, and ultimately the voters took considerable notice. The worst publicity came in 1966 when George Wallace stood on the steps of the University proclaming "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever." All of these events are well documented and during that year very well publicised. They had a huge impact on the voters and an undefeated, untied Alabama football squad paid the price. I could give countless links and countless reason for why things turned out the way they did but I don't think it would matter. Most on this board are going to believe what they want to (as long as it supports the AU cause) and that's fine. If you truely believe that it was justified to crown a Notre Dame team that settled for a tie as your champion, then that's your prerogative. I, as others do, believe there were greater underlying motives.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? I find it utterly disingenuous for you to complain about the wrongs of 1966 when there are at least six of the titles you claim that are so dubious as to be laughable. You dare complain about this when you proudly pimp a "national championship" in a year you finished third in the SEC?!?!

Absurd.

Which national titles?

Oh, holy hell. Do you really want to start that up again? There are ruts in this road, it's been so well traveled. If you really want to see it again, I can try to dig up the thread containing the documentation that debunks the majority of Bama's so-called national championships.

Start it up again? Didn't you bring it up ?

Do you really want me to dig up the info AGAIN? It's only been posted 1000 times already.

Post it, email me, or drop it off by my house on your way to Starkville I don't care.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Turds' MNC

[DKW 86 7,411]

The point of this thread was the 1966 MNC and Bama getting screwed over because of Reverse Racism.

That is TOTAL BS. If Alabama did win in 1964 and 1965, then they did so AFTER the worst racial tensions. The crux of this book is therefore junk. But it is just another in a long line of "publish it and the Turds will buy anything" long line of books. PF has interviewed several authors from up north that wrote books that never interviewed a soul nor even set foot in Alabama to write.

It is just a cash cow that many authors milk every year.

Rewrite the same stuff over and over again and the Dirt Road Alabama Alumni will buy it over and over again. Its not like they actually read the crapola anyhow.

MY POINT was that all we heard for a year in state was that 2004 Auburn WOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO ALABAMA. The very damn fact that it DID happen to Alabama and the VAST VAST MAJORITY of the Alabama fan base didnt even know about it is testimony that they are truly a mullet wearing bunch of dimwits that derive some source of pride in their otherwise meaningless little lives from vicariously watching Alabama football and buying books that they do not read and memorabilia that they do not even understand. IF THE DIRT ROADERS HAD EVER "READ" ONE OF THOSE UMPTEEN HUNDRED BOOKS, THEY WOULD KNOW ABOUT 1966 AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO WRITE ANOTHER NEW BOOK ABOUT "THE MISSING RING."

Roe Tahd!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

SI makes tons of money each year with their annual, "Alabama Football Tribute" issue. It doesn't take a marketing genius to figure this one out. Same reprinted garbage from the previous year's issue.....just change the year and the money comes flowing in $7 at a time. Honestly, a person could take a dump in a box, wrap it with themed paper and some redneck would shuck out $19.95 for it just because it had "Alabama" printed in crimson and white.

“A fool and his money are soon parted.” - Thomas Tusser

[GalensGhost 0]

Honestly, a person could take a dump in a box, wrap it with themed paper and some redneck would shuck out $19.95 for it just because it had "Alabama" printed in crimson and white.

Do I sense a business opportunity? I'm not opposed to taking their money and living well.

[UA-CT 1]

Didn't Notre Dame win the 66 NC? Look at how many sports voters there are in Chicago, then look at how close to Notre Dame and the number of Notre Dame alumn there is in Chicago, shouldn't really be a suprise that they got the nod over Alabama.

Yes they did. I agree that Notre Dame is college football's media darling. TXAU, the "game of the century" as it was dubbed between ND and Michigan State ended with Notre Dame kneeling the ball, tied. You're right, and I'm not arguing, segregation and racism did exist in 1964 and 1965. I am however trying to point out that George Wallace's segregation polices came to a headway in 1966 and the media, the entire nation, and ultimately the voters took considerable notice. The worst publicity came in 1966 when George Wallace stood on the steps of the University proclaming "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever." All of these events are well documented and during that year very well publicised. They had a huge impact on the voters and an undefeated, untied Alabama football squad paid the price. I could give countless links and countless reason for why things turned out the way they did but I don't think it would matter. Most on this board are going to believe what they want to (as long as it supports the AU cause) and that's fine. If you truely believe that it was justified to crown a Notre Dame team that settled for a tie as your champion, then that's your prerogative. I, as others do, believe there were greater underlying motives.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? I find it utterly disingenuous for you to complain about the wrongs of 1966 when there are at least six of the titles you claim that are so dubious as to be laughable. You dare complain about this when you proudly pimp a "national championship" in a year you finished third in the SEC?!?!

Absurd.

Which national titles?

Oh, holy hell. Do you really want to start that up again? There are ruts in this road, it's been so well traveled. If you really want to see it again, I can try to dig up the thread containing the documentation that debunks the majority of Bama's so-called national championships.

Start it up again? Didn't you bring it up ?

Do you really want me to dig up the info AGAIN? It's only been posted 1000 times already.

Post it, email me, or drop it off by my house on your way to Starkville I don't care.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Turds' MNC

Gaylen, is this the damning evidence you're posting about? By the way guys I've already recieved several copies now for the same link...to those I haven't thanked, I hope you understand. And thanks

[WAR-MATT 2]

UA-Coach Tuberville

You had three days and that is the best you could come up with?

[UA-CT 1]

UA-Coach Tuberville

You had three days and that is the best you could come up with?

Walmart,

This dribble was hardly worth responding too, but if you insist.

Try to understand alot of the ranking systems such as the AP wasn't around until 1936, that's well after the 1925, 1926, 1930 and 1934 football squads. Championships were taken from other polls and that's who decided the final rankings. Unfortuantely, since there were more than one poll it meant that there were sometimes more than one champion. Incidently, the Helms and the Houlgate rankings started in the 1800s not 1941 or 1927....Take a look, the author doesn't even use his own credible source as a guide. http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football...s.html#HOULGATE. (SCROLL DOWN: I find the 1885 Princeton team both choosen by Helms and Houlgate particularly interesting)

Some final rankings did occur before bowl games (like the UPI) and many teams, including us were dubbed national champions before the actual bowl game. Most of those same schools inspite of losing their final bowl games claim national championships. Take the 1970 Texas football team for example. http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/ind...hange_well_id=2 Eerie, how similar they are to the 1973 team, both losing to ND and both claiming NC. The nerve of some schools!!!

[WAR-MATT 2]

UA-Coach Tuberville

You had three days and that is the best you could come up with?

Walmart,

This dribble was hardly worth responding too, but if you insist.

Try to understand alot of the ranking systems such as the AP wasn't around until 1936, that's well after the 1925, 1926, 1930 and 1934 football squads. Championships were taken from other polls and that's who decided the final rankings. Unfortuantely, since there were more than one poll it meant that there were sometimes more than one champion. Incidently, the Helms and the Houlgate rankings started in the 1800s not 1941 or 1927....Take a look, the author doesn't even use his own credible source as a guide. http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football...s.html#HOULGATE. (SCROLL DOWN: I find the 1885 Princeton team both choosen by Helms and Houlgate particularly interesting)

Some final rankings did occur before bowl games (like the UPI) and many teams, including us were dubbed national champions before the actual bowl game. Most of those same schools inspite of losing their final bowl games claim national championships. Take the 1970 Texas football team for example. http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/ind...hange_well_id=2 Eerie, how similar they are to the 1973 team, both losing to ND and both claiming NC. The nerve of some schools!!!

UA-Courtney Taylor

So your telling me using Bammer logic, AU should claim 6 MNC's also? Oh yeah I forgot the Bahr once said, " If a laundromat in Tuscaloosa wants to give us a National Championship I'll claim it".

[WinCrimson 61]

If you are counting "MNCs" then we have 25... and AU increases to 8.

Plus, I like the sound of 25 better than 12.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...onal_champs.php

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...onal_champs.php

[WAR-MATT 2]

If you are counting "MNCs" then we have 25... and AU increases to 8.

Plus, I like the sound of 25 better than 12.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...onal_champs.php

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...onal_champs.php

I think we all agree that until the NCAA pulls their heads out of their arse and comes up with a playoff. They are all MNC's.

[WinCrimson 61]

We need a playoff!!

Ahhh... common ground.

[WarTim 3,456]

And....A player caught with a stolen gun and pot in his possesion is a BAD thing. Can we at least agree on THAT too?

[WinCrimson 61]

And....A player caught with a stolen gun and pot in his possesion is a BAD thing. Can we at least agree on THAT too?

So ahhhh, how bout them Marlins?