Cool Stats

[supersmo18]

I was with you until right there.

LOL :lolabove: lol:


Yeah, tell us how legit all of your 14 titles are and then we'll talk.

 

[govolzgo]

Did you guys know that from 1926-2001 TN won more games than any other football team in the nation. Also TN is second all-time in home wins. I think we have some tradition. We are also 3rd in bowl appearances and 6th in bowl wins. We also have 6 national titles. Be proud of this program. We will be back.:rock:

Damn straight .... Rock on Vol Nation!!

 

[Volosaurus rex]

If you can only count AP or Coaches titles, you can eliminate Tennessee's claims to 38, 40, 50, and 67.

I'm not limiting it strictly to AP and UPI, although you apparently are if you dismiss the '67 Vols out of hand. As I stated previously, I do categorically reject "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS" CONFERRED BY INDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS (EITHER CONCURRENTLY OR RETROACTIVELY) OR ENTITIES THAT DID NOT EVEN EXIST DURING THE SEASONS IN QUESTION.

I should apologize, however, for not being fully aware of the circumstances surrounding Alabama's 1941 "national championship." Discount the source (Alabama Fans Claim 12 National Championships: Reality Claims Otherwise | Bleacher Report) all you want, but "The AP ranked Alabama 20th in the nation this season with 14 teams having better records above them. Once again, it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards the Tide this title. Alabama finished third in the SEC that year, while Mississippi State won the SEC title." For the Final AP poll which confirms Alabama's ranking of 20th, consult College Football Rankings 1940's ).

That places five out of Alabama's 14 (35.71%) championships clearly in the "bogus" category. Alabama obviously is the top dog in the SEC, both in terms of conference and national championships, but it does undermine your collective credibility to lay claim to this type of nonsense.

 

[SandoVOL]

Love stats

 

[bamawriter]

I'm not limiting it strictly to AP and UPI, although you apparently are if you dismiss the '67 Vols out of hand. As I stated previously, I do categorically reject "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS" CONFERRED BY INDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS (EITHER CONCURRENTLY OR RETROACTIVELY) OR ENTITIES THAT DID NOT EVEN EXIST DURING THE SEASONS IN QUESTION.


That places five out of Alabama's 14 (35.71%) championships clearly in the "bogus" category. Alabama obviously is the top dog in the SEC, both in terms of conference and national championships, but it does undermine your collective credibility to lay claim to this type of nonsense.

Then why did you include Bama's 1934 title in that list? That title was awarded at the time by the same selectors that picked UT in 1938.

 

[Vol_atile]

You oughta be 'ButchSlapped'

I feel like I already have.

 

[rockytopbill2010]

If you can only count AP or Coaches titles, you can eliminate Tennessee's claims to 38, 40, 50, and 67.

6 of yall's titles are claimed by the school

 

[bamawriter]

6 of yall's titles are claimed by the school

What are you talking about?

 

[ChattanoogaVols]

What are you talking about?

I think he's saying that 6 of bama's titles are ones that only Alabama (aka no one else) recognizes. Correct me if I'm wrong, rockytop.


Seriously though, any fan of a team who claims a national title when they 1-don't win their conference, 2-finish the season ranked 20, and 3-get shutout TWICE (by the team that DID win the conference, AND VANDY), has absolutely NO room whatsoever to comment on ANYONE ELSE for claiming championships they shouldn't.


That's the color black calling a manila folder black.

 

[AirVol]

Cool story from Bammers claim of 1941 title.






One of the oddest claims to a national title has got to be Alabama's of 1941. While there are a ton of claims from around the country that can be understood, this one is really just baffling.

The Crimson Tide finished the regular season at 8-2, ranked 20th in the AP Poll and third place in the SEC. Mississippi State not only beat Alabama in the regular season, finished with a better record and won the conference title, the Bulldogs were also ranked higher than Alabama.

So why do the Crimson Tide claim a share of the 1941 national championship when Minnesota is the only recognized champion and another SEC team was better that year? You'll have to ask Alabama fans about that one.

 

[ChattanoogaVols]

Cool story from Bammers claim of 1941 title.



One of the oddest claims to a national title has got to be Alabama's of 1941. While there are a ton of claims from around the country that can be understood, this one is really just baffling.

The Crimson Tide finished the regular season at 8-2, ranked 20th in the AP Poll and third place in the SEC. Mississippi State not only beat Alabama in the regular season, finished with a better record and won the conference title, the Bulldogs were also ranked higher than Alabama.

So why do the Crimson Tide claim a share of the 1941 national championship when Minnesota is the only recognized champion and another SEC team was better that year? You'll have to ask Alabama fans about that one.

I just did. His answer: "Uhhh, roe-tie-roe"

 

[bamawriter]

I think he's saying that 6 of bama's titles are ones that only Alabama (aka no one else) recognizes. Correct me if I'm wrong, rockytop.


Seriously though, any fan of a team who claims a national title when they 1-don't win their conference, 2-finish the season ranked 20, and 3-get shutout TWICE (by the team that DID win the conference, AND VANDY), has absolutely NO room whatsoever to comment on ANYONE ELSE for claiming championships they shouldn't.


That's the color black calling a manila folder black.

Cool story from Bammers claim of 1941 title...

You both could have bothered to read.

'40 and '67 are total jokes and are only more legit than Bama's claim to 1941.

We have one bad claim out of 14.

You have two bad claims out of 6.

93% > 67%.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Then why did you include Bama's 1934 title in that list? That title was awarded at the time by the same selectors that picked UT in 1938.

That is a highly selective point, and one that is only partially true, but it is defensible, nevertheless. The 1934 Alabama team was selected national champions by Dunkel (concurrent), Houlgate System (concurrent), Poling System (concurrent), and Williamson (concurrent).

The 1938 Volunteers, on the other hand, were selected national champions by Billingsley Report (retroactively), Boand System (concurrent), College Football Researchers Association (retroactively), Dunkel System (concurrent), Houlgate System (concurrent), Litkenhous (concurrent), Poling System (concurrent), and Sagarin Ratings (retroactively) (see College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In the spirit of fairness, I will give you the ’34 team’s claim to fame. I believe, however, that we can agree upon the premise that we are both going to present self-serving data on this matter. So I will modify my original statement in the following manner: FORGIVE ME IF WE DON'T TAKE "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS" SERIOUSLY THAT WERE CONFERRED RETROACTIVELY BY INDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS OR ENTITIES, ONES THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING THE SEASONS IN QUESTION!!

That revision gives you credit for the 1934 season but still eliminates the following claims:

1925: awarded retroactively by Houlgate (founded in 1941) and Helms Athletic Foundation (founded in 1936)

1926: Helms Athletic Foundation

1930: "The Parke Davis poll says that 'Bama tied Notre Dame for the national championship this year, but this was the only poll to award it to 'Bama. Meanwhile, Notre Dame was named national champion in six different polls. . . . Interesting fact: Parke Davis is another retroactive system. He (an individual, not an organization) didn't create his system until 1933—three years after the fact” ( Alabama Fans Claim 12 National Championships: Reality Claims Otherwise | Bleacher Report).

1941: Do I even need to reiterate the reasons for rejecting this one?

That takes us back to my original statement that four out of 14 championships (28.57%) claimed by Alabama, which were awarded retroactively by individuals or entities that did not exist during the seasons in question, can be FLATLY REJECTED as bogus.

On a personal note, Bamawriter, you are a worthy intellectual adversary in terms of your historical grasp of the program that you support. This dialogue raises a very interesting topic, one that I believe I will work on for future presentation to the forum: a fine-grained analysis of the historical legitimacy of national championships claimed by Tennessee and Alabama.

 

[Backwards K]

It's more of a joke that UT was not the consensu National Champion in 1967. The final polls were decided after the regular season and before the bowl games. In 67, the Vols lost their first game of the year 20-16 at UCLA who was ranked #8 at the time.

USC won the AP poll and they lost their next to last game of the year 3-0 to an unranked Oregon team

The Vols did lose to #3 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl 26-24 when Karl Kremser missed a very makeable FG on the last play of the game. BUT, that did not factor into the Final Polls and never had up to that time.

 

[bamawriter]

Rex,

Based on your same criteria, analyze UT's claims in 1940 and 1967. True, the selectors were concurrent, but so was the Houlgate System that awarded it to Bama in 1941.

 

[bamawriter]

It's more of a joke that UT was not the consensu National Champion in 1967. The final polls were decided after the regular season and before the bowl games. In 67, the Vols lost their first game of the year 20-16 at UCLA who was ranked #8 at the time.

USC beat the same UCLA team that beat Tennessee. USC also beat three Top 5 teams during the season. UT's only win over a ranked team was #6 Alabama.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

It's more of a joke that UT was not the consensu National Champion in 1967. The final polls were decided after the regular season and before the bowl games. In 67, the Vols lost their first game of the year 20-16 at UCLA who was ranked #8 at the time.

USC won the AP poll and they lost their next to last game of the year 3-0 to an unranked Oregon team

The Vols did lose to #3 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl 26-24 when Karl Kremser missed a very makeable FG on the last play of the game. BUT, that did not factor into the Final Polls and never had up to that time.

Thank you. I was going to make this point regarding the '67 team. As further documentation, consider the following data:

"November 4: #1 USC beat California at Berkeley, 31-12, to extend its record to 8-0-0. #2 UCLA stayed unbeaten, but was tied by visiting Oregon State 16-16. #3 Tennessee visited Tampa and beat the Spartans, 38-0. #4 N.C. State won at Virginia 30-8. The #5 Georgia Bulldogs narrowly lost at Houston 15-14. #6 Purdue, which had won at Illinois 42-9, returned to the Top Five. 1.USC 2.Tennessee 3.NC State 4.UCLA 5.Purdue

November 11: #1 USC finally lost, falling in the rain and mud at Oregon State 3-0. As it turned out, Oregon State, who ended the season 7-2-1, beat USC when it was #1, Purdue when it was #2, and tied UCLA when it was #2. #2 Tennessee beat Tulane 35-14. #3 N.C. State lost at Penn State 13-8. #4 UCLA shut out the visiting Washington Huskies, 48-0, and #5 Purdue beat Minnesota 41-12. UCLA took USC's place at the top, leapfrogging Tennessee, who the Bruins had beaten earlier in the year. Tennessee remained #2, and USC fell to fourth. Purdue rose to third and Purdue's rival, #6 Indiana, rose to fifth after winning at Michigan State 14-13. 1.UCLA 2.Tennessee 3.Purdue 4.USC 5.Indiana

November 18: In Los Angeles, the #1 UCLA Bruins and the #4 USC Trojans met at the Coliseum in the 1967 USC vs. UCLA football game. USC reclaimed its place at the top, edging UCLA 21-20 to win the Pac-8 title (6-1 vs. 4-1-1 for Oregon State and UCLA). #2 Tennessee faced Mississippi in Memphis and won 20-7. #3 Purdue beat Michigan State 21-7, but #5 Indiana lost to Minnesota 33-7. #7 Oklahoma, which had beaten Kansas 14-10 at home, took I.U.'s place in the Top Five. 1.USC 2.Tennessee 3.Purdue 4.UCLA 5.Oklahoma

November 25 In the final week of games before the final polls, #1 USC had completed its season at 9-1-0, qualified for the Rose Bowl, and was in no danger of losing again. #2 Tennessee won at Kentucky 17-7" (see
1967 college football season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

As Backwards K suggests, the travesty of that year was that USC is shut out by an unranked Oregon State team and only falls three spots before leapfrogging us again by virtue of a one-point victory over UCLA.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

USC beat the same UCLA team that beat Tennessee. USC also beat three Top 5 teams during the season. UT's only win over a ranked team was #6 Alabama.

All of that is true, but losing that late in the season is almost invariably lethal to a team's national championship aspirations. We all know that USC has long been a media darling and, ahem, doesn't always suffer the same consequences in the pollsters' eyes.

 

[bamawriter]

All of that is true, but losing that late in the season is almost invariably lethal to a team's national championship aspirations. We all know that USC has long been a media darling and, ahem, doesn't always suffer the same consequences in the pollsters' eyes.

Actually stuff like that was more common back then. Without massive TV exposure, only select games got widespread attention. USC happened to play one of those games that the entire country was following when they took on UCLA. Meanwhile, Tennessee was playing a game that few people would even know the result of until the following day.

 

[Phat-Phil]

We have great tradition not "some tradition".

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Actually stuff like that was more common back then. Without massive TV exposure, only select games got widespread attention. USC happened to play one of those games that the entire country was following when they took on UCLA. Meanwhile, Tennessee was playing a game that few people would even know the result of until the following day.

Yes, I remember the season well. 1967 was the first year that I followed college football closely. My remarks were couched within the context of justice, in the abstract sense of the word, as I am sure you deduced.

 

[BigBadVol]

We were the first BCS champion. That can never be taken away.

 

[bamawriter]

Rex,

You seem like a knowledgeable guy. At the very least you know how to look stuff up, which I appreciate. So give me your thoughts on the following.

I'm going to rank all 20 of Bama and UT's claimed titles in terms of their legitimacy/arguability. They'll be grouped with 1 meaning there is no rational argument against the claim, and 12 being a totally absurd claim with no logic to support it. I'll give my reasoning behind each ranking.

1. Bama '61, Bama '79, Bama '92, Tennessee '98, Bama '09, Bama '11

Every team in this group was awarded both the AP and Coaches titles and won their bowl games.


2. Tennessee '51, Bama '64

Both teams won both polls but lost their bowl games. Polls taken before polls.


3. Bama '65

Won AP poll, which was taken after the bowls. Michigan State won Coaches poll, but lost in the Rose Bowl. Bama likely would have won both polls had Coaches been awarded after bowls.


4. Bama '78

Won the AP title, but not the Coaches. Polls taken after bowls. Lost in regular season to USC, who won Coaches poll.


5. Bama '73

Won Coaches poll. Lost to AP champion Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl. Coaches poll awarded before bowls, AP awarded after. Would not have won Coaches poll had it been awarded after bowls.


6. Bama '34

Pre-wire service polls. Named by several contemporary selectors. Won Rose Bowl. CFDW lists Alabama as national champions.


7. Bama '25, Bama '26, Bama '30

Pre-wire service polls. Named only by retroactive selectors. '25 and '30 both won the Rose. '26 tied Stanford in the Rose and split the title with the Indians. CFDW lists Bama as national champions.


8. Tennessee '38

AP Poll Era. Did not win AP. Went 11-0, won bowl. Selected by multiple non-wire selectors. CFDW lists Tennessee as National Champions.


9. Tennessee '50

Wire Service Poll Era. Did not win either poll. Went 11-1 as did Oklahoma, who won both wire service polls. CFDW lists Tennessee as National Champions.


10. Tennessee '40

AP Era. Tennessee went unbeaten in regular season. Lost to Boston College in Sugar Bowl. AP named Minnesota National Champions before the bowls. CFDW lists Boston College and Minnesota as National Champions.


11. Tennessee '67.

Wire Service Era. Lost to UCLA. USC finished regular season with the same record and a win over UCLA. AP and Coaches both picked USC before the bowls. USC won the Rose Bowl while Tennessee lost the Orange. Only the Litkenhous Mathematical System (not a poll) picked Tennessee as NC. CFDW lists USC as National Champion.


12. Bama '41

Lost twice. Did not win conference. Finished #20 in AP poll. Only picked by Houlgate System. CFDW lists Minnesota as National Champions.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Your ranking has a slightly crimson-tinted bias, but that is entirely understandable. However, in terms of tiered levels of evidence, it seems like a legitimate methodology, with two major caveats: (1) I won’t concede awarding retroactive championships, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of discussion. (2) There is about an 8 standard deviation gap in terms of credibility in comparing a 20-th ranked AP team to any of the other candidates on that list. You have great reasons to be justifiably proud of your program’s many accomplishments, but claiming the ’41 team as national champion isn’t one of them. In all fairness to that team, they did play a very strong schedule.

As for our ’67 team, they were ranked 2nd AP. We have made our case and you have made yours and neither of us is going to change our minds. With respect to Litkenhous not being a poll, we both know that most of the pre-poll methodologies for awarding national championships were idiosyncratic mathematical systems.

To this day, it boggles the orange-blooded mind that the ’39 team, the last squad to finish a regular season undefeated, untied and unscored upon did not finish No. 1 in the pre-bowl system of awarding titles. As for my research, Ph.D. level graduate work will genetically encode the need for proper citation on your very soul. Besides, most commentary on message boards is anything but factually based.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, as much time as you spend on our board, are there no Alabama message boards, ones with whom you can commiserate with fellow Tide fans, that are of comparable quality to Volnation (for better and worse)?

 

[bamawriter]

Your ranking has a slightly crimson-tinted bias, but that is entirely understandable. However, in terms of tiered levels of evidence, it seems like a legitimate methodology, with two major caveats: (1) I won’t concede awarding retroactive championships, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of discussion.

Understood. I think that's a little shortsighted, however. That attitude assumes that, just because there weren't nationally published polls, that teams weren't considered national champions at the time. To go that route would be to suggest that there were no national champions until the late 20s.

Fact is, the Rose Bowl was considered by most at the time to be a de facto national title game.

(2) There is about an 8 standard deviation gap in terms of credibility in comparing a 20-th ranked AP team to any of the other candidates on that list. You have great reasons to be justifiably proud of your program’s many accomplishments, but claiming the ’41 team...

I'd be fine if you didn't think it deserves to be on the list at all. I will never argue for even the slightest legitimacy when it comes to that claim.

As for our ’67 team, they were ranked 2nd AP. We have made our case and you have made yours and neither of us is going to change our minds. With respect to Litkenhous not being a poll, we both know that most of the pre-poll methodologies for awarding national championships were idiosyncratic mathematical systems.

I could accept that argument prior to the advent of the wire service polls. By 1951, no one took the math systems seriously anymore.

To suggest that the math systems deserve legitimacy doesn't flow with your opposition to retroactive selections. An algorithm is what it is whether you apply it to this year or any other year. It's not like a group of people were polled for their opinions on a season they may or may not remember.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, as much time as you spend on our board, are there no Alabama message boards, ones with whom you can commiserate with fellow Tide fans, that are of comparable quality to Volnation (for better and worse)?

I don't like conversing with a bunch of people who all agree with me. It's probably a personality disorder.