Scout.com/CFN discusses Alabamas "12" football national championships

by: JJ Kennedy
CollegeFootballNews.com

It must have been around mid-day when I remembered that my article on College Football News had gone live. I have to admit it was a lot of fun to see my rhetoric being sprung on message boards, much to the dismay of Alabama fans everywhere. After reading through grammatical errors and comma splices, I was able to decipher that the Neck Nation was quite upset with my musings.

Apparently, my neighbors of the Crimson Wave did not take kindly to my fact-driven opinions that seemed to highlight them in a negative light. So I said to myself, "Self, perhaps you should take it easy on these guys. Many of them are working on their GED's and are reduced to bragging about off-field subjects like recruiting when conversations of college football arise. There's no need to come down off the wall to stir the pot."

But then I thought, "Where would the fun in that be?"So I decided to lay a stick of dynamite into the greatest sacred cow of them all - The Myth of Alabama's 12 National Championships.

For the sake of space, I will refer you to Jay Coulter's insightful research at www.trackemtigers.com/story/2007/11/22/153316/48.

I realize, of course, that by referencing an Auburn website I have undoubtedly clouded what little reason might have existed in the normal Alabama fan's mind. I am grateful to report, though, that the Alabama nation is not my target audience - rather my subject matter. I have long since abandoned the idea that sheer facts hold much water with the typical Alabama fan.

I also want to add before we dive into this that I do not expect these truths to change the thinking of the Alabama nation. In NO WAY do I seek to elevate any other team over Alabama, but simply to illustrate the ridiculous nature surrounding their claim of 12 National titles. The University of Alabama has an outstanding tradition, and has actually won a few championships. Just not 12.

I feel it is also very important to point out that to begin to counter these facts with arguments such as "Every other team does that too, you're just picking on Alabama" is a weak attempt to justify something through the actions of others. In other words, it is an admission of defeat. So now that we're all feeling better about that, let's move on to blowing up this golden calf and calling it a day!

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 Alabama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation began in 1941. Can you say "retroactive"?• National Championship? = LEGITIMATE (1) (The above information is true, but they were 10-0 so we'll count it.)

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!• National Championship? = WEAK (they finished 9-0-1: under this system of naming champions, I think I would have finished 8th that year in the final polls.)

1930 National Championship - The Davis poll says that Alabama tied Notre Dame for a NC this year, and was the ONLY POLL to do so. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) conducted his poll in 1933!• National Championship? = LEGITIMATE (2) (Although this one is debatable, I will not deny a 10-0 SEC team a Championship.)

1934 National Championship - Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and The 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!• National Championship? = LEGITIMATE (3) (They were 10-0, but we're all very thankful for retroactive polls.)

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 the championship. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year.• National Championship? = ABSOLUTE CRAP (This would be similar to Clemson claiming a National Championship in '07. Alabama even lost to Vanderbilt this year).

1961 National Championship - Finally a clean NC, although one poll did not give it to Alabama.• National Championship? = LEGITIMATE (4)

1964 National Championship - While the AP did award the NC to Alabama (10-1-0), Arkansas had the better record, 11-0, and defeated Texas during the regular season. Alabama played Texas in their bowl and LOST. The AP final poll was before the bowl.• National Championship? = WEAK (lost their bowl game to a team that the undefeated team defeated. Give me a break.)

1965 National Championship - The AP gave this to Alabama, although there were 3 teams with better records. Alabama 9-1-1, Michigan St 10-1-0, Arkansas 10-1-0, Nebraska 10-1-0.• National Championship? = WEAK (3 teams with better records, one in the SEC. Hmmm....)

1973 National Championship - AP puts Alabama 4th after their bowl game loss. Alabama 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 Alabama that year. The embarrassment of naming Alabama number one caused the UPI to begin naming champions after bowl games.• National Championship? = WEAK (At some point, you should really stop saying you're better than all the other teams with better records. However, they can claim from the UPI poll.)

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.• National Championship? = WEAK (Yep, can't be claiming you're the NC when you lose to the team with a better record. Starting to see the fallacies?)

1979 National Championship - Their second legitimate NC. Their first Unanimous NC.• National Championship Category = LEGITIMATE/UNANIMOUS (5)

1992 National Championship - Their third absolutely legitimate NC. Their second Unanimous NC.• National Championship Category = LEGITIMATE/UNANIMOUS (6)

You can see why people ridicule Alabama fans when they talk about their "12 National Championships". The early ones were awarded by individuals years after the games were played. These were not consensus polls but awarded by people that had their own formula for determining champions.

Some quick facts to summarize the myth:

Alabama has two legitimate, undisputed championships.

The 1941 "championship" is a downright embarrassment to claim - and if you're the kind of person who can attempt to argue that, you should be shouted down and escorted from the room immediately.

The '73 championship is a joke. How can you lose to Notre Dame in the bowl game and claim this when, once again, 3 teams finish ahead in the final polls with better records?

The '78 championship is just as ridiculous - losing to USC in the regular season, and the Trojans have a better record at the end of the season?

Maybe one day, when I have nothing better to do, I'll go to a NASCAR event with a Dale Earnhardt Jr. shirt on and just start making up stuff. I'll tell them things like: "I used to eat smurfs", and "I used to beat up Arnold Shwartzeneggar even though I'm not sure how to spell his name", and "I can bench press Yankee Stadium", and "My name is Phil McCrevice." I feel like after about 5 and a half weeks, the legend of Phil McCrevice who eats smurfs, beats up Arnold and can bench press Yankee Stadium would be alive and well in the state of Alabama.

At least then I'll have some idea of how people began saying "Alabama has 12 National Championships." haha.

Not college. But Zorb attack!

Hot Reporter Completely Owned by Zorb - Watch more free videos

SbB.com on Forbes' Nick Saban "Most Powerful Coach in Sports" article

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/forbes-saban-most-powerful-coach-in-sports-19359

Sure, he may be a terrible, horrible, no-good very-bad liar. His dalliance and eventual acceptance of the Alabama football job after promising Miami Dolphins fans that he’d never leave them was downright despicable — and totally expected. But hey, good football coaches don’t have to be good people, and thus far, Nick Saban has been a pretty good football coach.

It’s that status, plus his all-roads-lead-to-Nick control at Alabama, that caused FORBES magazine to call Saban the “most powerful coach in sports.” It’s not just about money, either. It’s about being the master of one’s universe:

What’s more, he was given total control of the football program: recruiting, coaching, business administration and public relations. There are coaches at other universities who have similar salaries, like Charlie Weis at Notre Dame and Pete Carroll at the University of Southern California. But no coach, including those in the professional leagues, can match Saban’s combination of money, control and influence. Saban, now entering his second year as the coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide, is the most powerful coach in sports.

[http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0901/092.html]

It’s important to remember that “most powerful” certainly doesn’t mean “best.” Alabama fans were reminded in Saban’s first year, when the Tide rolled to a paltry 7-6 record, while just down the road Urban Meyer and Tim Tebow earned another Heisman Trophy. Whether all of Saban’s money and influence will do Alabama fans any good is yet to be seen. In the meantime, it’ll be fun watching the Forbes cover further inflate his ego.

Not college. Just funny.

Russell Shepard

ESPN's Mandel elevates LSU to a "King" of college football

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/06/cfb.mailbag/2.html

Stewart: In a 2007 edition of your Mailbag, you described Georgia as being a regional power, not a national power (I believe you described yourself as coming of age after the Herschel years). At any rate, in your reckoning of the state of college football, is UGA any closer to being a national power?-- Tommy Bean, Black Mountain, N.C.

Well, you certainly can't get much more national attention than being ranked No. 1 in the preseason coaches' poll and Sports Illustrated, so clearly, Georgia is heading in the right direction. As I said in that column, however, national prestige is built up over a long period of time, and only now are the Dawgs starting to seep into the national conscience. If they do in fact win the national title this season, then we can start talking about reevaluating their stature.
This isn't the first e-mail I've received about that "Kings and Barons" column from last year. Many of you have asked whether I would make any changes to the pecking order a year later, and the answer is yes.

I said at the time, "While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group." Having secured said national title, I think it's safe to say that LSU is unquestionably viewed as one of the kings of college football right now and thus ascends from the rank of baron.

And a paragraph before that, I said, "Tennessee is the lone school [among the kings] that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately." Indeed, I think it's time to face the reality that a decade has now passed since the glory days of Peyton Manning and Tee Martin and that the Vols really are no longer any different from Auburn, Georgia or any number of others listed among the barons. Therefore, Tennessee is officially bumped from the ranks of the kings.

[MANDEL'S AUGUST, 2007 'KINGS AND BARONS' COLUMN FOLLOWS]

Program pecking order: Dividing BCS teams into four-tier hierarchy and more, by ESPN's Stewart Mandel

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/
Posted by Mandel: Wednesday August 8, 2007 1:02PM; Updated: Wednesday August 8, 2007 2:21PM

One of the fun things about writing the Mailbag each week is you never know which portion will touch the biggest nerve. Last week, it was a seemingly innocuous, buried-on-page-three question from a reader named Jeff in Atlanta wondering why Georgia coach Mark Richt isn't catching any heat for failing to reach the national title game.

In the course of defending Richt -- who's "only" won two SEC titles and a division crown in six years -- I noted that the Dawgs are not the sort of "national power" whose fans are entitled to expect national titles. (Their last one came 27 years ago.) My classification of the program as a "regional power" generated a whole bunch of angry e-mails from the Peach State (though there were also quite a few Georgia fans who readily agreed), as well as this interesting query from Adam in Philadelphia:

You talk about how Georgia fans hold an inflated perception of their place in the national scene. Can you give us rankings of schools and their prestige and place in the national scene? I am a huge Penn State fan (I went there) and would like to know where you place them.
Here's what makes this question so intriguing. By any quantitative standard, Georgia has been a far better program than Penn State for some time now. Heck, the Nittany Lions have had four losing seasons this decade, while the Dawgs haven't won less than eight games in a season. And yet, I would tell you without a moment's hesitation that Penn State is a national power while Georgia is not.

So I suppose this raises a question: What exactly constitutes a "national power?" To be honest, I don't have a specific answer. Obviously, a history of on-field success (national championships, major bowls) is the key component, but the program must also continue to maintain relevance -- after all, Minnesota has a bunch of national titles on its mantle, but no one views the Gophers as a national power.

No, it's something more than wins and losses. It's a certain cachet or aura. It's the way a program is perceived by the public. Let me put it to you this way:

Suppose we went to, say, Montana. And suppose we found 100 "average" college football fans (not necessarily message-board crazies, but not twice-a-year viewers, either) and put them in a room. If I held up a Michigan helmet, my guess is all 100 would know exactly what it was. If I held up a picture of the USC song girls, all 100 would know who they were. If I happened to bring Joe Paterno along with me, all 100 would say, "Hey, look, it's Joe Paterno!"

But if I held up a Georgia "G" helmet, how many of them do you think would be able to identify it off the top of their head? And with all due respect to Mark Richt, if we secretly inserted him into a police lineup, how many of them would actually say, "Hey, look, it's Mark Richt!" (I swear, Dawgs fans, I'm not trying to pile on Georgia. It's just the example I was given. Don't hate me. Here -- Larry Munson is a god.)

So with this admittedly vague yet somehow telling criteria as my guide, I will accept Adam's challenge and rank the "prestige level" of all 66 BCS schools (including Notre Dame) by dividing them into four tiers.

KINGS
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee*, Texas and USC.
* Tennessee is the lone school in the group that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately. In the end, I figured those 100 fans in Montana still know "Rocky Top," the checkered end zones and that Peyton Manning went there.

BARONS
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU*, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.
* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group.

KNIGHTS
Arizona State, Arkansas, Boston College, Cal, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse*, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington State.
* In normal times, Syracuse would qualify as one of the barons, but they're just so darn bad and so irrelevant right now.

PEASANTS
Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers*, South Florida*, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt.
* Rutgers is another program that could be on its way up a tier, and South Florida is here by default because it's essentially a start-up.

There is one school intentionally missing from the list, and that's because I have no idea where to put it: Louisville. History-wise, the Cardinals are peasants, but the program has completely reinvented itself over the past decade and now gets mentioned with the kings and barons. For now, we'll just say: TBD.

Already anticipating what may be my biggest barrage of hate mail yet, all I ask is that you spare me any lists of all-time winning percentages, bowl wins, conference titles and whatnot. Remember -- being called a "powerhouse" is more about public perception than it is reality. Better yet, just apply the Montana test.

Not College Football. Just had to.

Not College. Just Awesome.

One of DeepSouth's favorite recent sports images. T.O. shows here that, while he may be an emotional freakshow in the N.F.L., he is an entertainer and can be fairly fun-loving when he's willing.