Shots fired at Bama

[JgDaCane]

How could you get that from that quote lol

 

[kutz]

Nobody defends UCF’s claims except UCF homers.

UCF can make an argument they were screwed by the playoffs if they want, they can’t claim an NC that doesn’t exist, and no serious person supports that unless they want to be clowned.

I'm a UCF Alumni, but saying that were national champions is like talking **** to the big kid that doesnt want to **** you up. Its fun to talk ****, but deep down we know we'll catch that *** whoopin.

 

[Brooklyndee]

Frost basically calling them out saying everyone knows they pay the most.

Brother i think you may be reading that one wrong. Remember last season he was leading the whole ucf should be the national champ charge (but they wouldnt let them in the playoff). Im pretty sure what hes saying is they have been put into the playoffs or the title game regardless of there being better teams that were more deserving that the bcs left out for bama (sec bias)

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Definitely misinterpreted the quote. With that said, here's a little something about a couple of Bama's earlier "titles."


1925: Myth
Alabama claims they "share" this one with Dartmouth. Who gave the Tide the title? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. Wait a second—this means 'Bama won their 1925 national championship using a formula that didn't even exist until 1927? The other title giver, Helms Athletic Foundation, wasn't founded until 1941. Hmm, another mind-blowing retroactive scam.


1926: Myth
Alabama claims they "share" this one with three other teams with equal or better records. Once again, it is the Helms Athletic Foundation (founded in 1941) that "gives" Alabama this title. But wait, this organization wasn't formed until over 15 years later, right?

1930: Myth
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. I thought there could only truthfully be one champion, but I guess I was wrong. 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.

1934: Myth
Alabama says they share this title with two other teams. The title givers this time are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was a fan—check that, fan—who came up with his own polling system. Williamson was a geologist who also came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus didn't even appear until 1946. Once again, 12 years later. Another title that should never have been claimed.


1941: Myth
One day, when I have children, I'll read about this one to them before bed each night. Fact is, it might as well be written in a book full of colorful pictures and fairy tales. 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. It completely baffles me that 'Bama claims a national title in 1941.

Well done

 

[kryptonite]

Frost basically calling them out saying everyone knows they pay the most.

First off, ***** you for getting me excited that somebody had taken a shot at saban.
Second, Frost should bear in mind that literally nobody thinks his team won a NC last season. Great job and all that, but no way UCF gets a NC for it.

 

[kryptonite]

Cool, I'm claiming NCs from 1912 until 1922. And don't give me any of that "Miami wasn't even a school back then" crap. If bama can just make stuff up so can we.

 

[DTP]

I went to UCF and I've had this discussion with friends. Yes, you have a legit gripe about not getting a shot. No, you are not some kind of defacto national champ. The list of undefeated teams that didn't wim the title is surprisingly long. Tulane isn't claiming the 1998 title.

 

[QuattroCane]

Try to not let USF and Memphis hang 100pts and 1400yds of offense on you and you'll garner a bit more respect.

 

[dfagundo]

Quite an analytical reach on your interpretation...don't quit your day job for a spot at RAND my friend...

Gouré would be proud

 

[Tad Footeball]

Definitely misinterpreted the quote. With that said, here's a little something about a couple of Bama's earlier "titles."


1925: Myth
Alabama claims they "share" this one with Dartmouth. Who gave the Tide the title? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. Wait a second—this means 'Bama won their 1925 national championship using a formula that didn't even exist until 1927? The other title giver, Helms Athletic Foundation, wasn't founded until 1941. Hmm, another mind-blowing retroactive scam.


1926: Myth
Alabama claims they "share" this one with three other teams with equal or better records. Once again, it is the Helms Athletic Foundation (founded in 1941) that "gives" Alabama this title. But wait, this organization wasn't formed until over 15 years later, right?

1930: Myth
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. I thought there could only truthfully be one champion, but I guess I was wrong. 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.

1934: Myth
Alabama says they share this title with two other teams. The title givers this time are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was a fan—check that, fan—who came up with his own polling system. Williamson was a geologist who also came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus didn't even appear until 1946. Once again, 12 years later. Another title that should never have been claimed.


1941: Myth
One day, when I have children, I'll read about this one to them before bed each night. Fact is, it might as well be written in a book full of colorful pictures and fairy tales. 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. It completely baffles me that 'Bama claims a national title in 1941.

Even Pitt is like "These Alabaga fools are out of control with their stolen championship valor!".

 

[Memnon]

8 team playoff. 5 major conference winner auto-bids and 3 at-larges. We'll never have to deal with this again.

8 is too many delegitimizes the CFB playoff.

Go to 6 just like the NFL, all P5 conference champs & 1 at-large bid for the best G5 school. Seeds 1 & 2 get a bye, just like the NFL playoffs.

 

[Tad Footeball]

8 is too many delegitimizes the CFB playoff.

Go to 6 just like the NFL, all P5 conference champs & 1 at-large bid for the best G5 school. Seeds 1 & 2 get a bye, just like the NFL playoffs.

I could live with your format but I don't think 8 delegitimize it. Figure this in relation to those 3 at-larges in the world we live in now:

-One will essentially be an auto-bid for a second SEC team. Why? We know why.

-One will usually go to the Group of Five media darling that year. That'll actually be a good thing because it'll validate or dispel the UCF's of the world that specific year and adds a "Cinderella" element.

-One will go to the best remaining team in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Pac 32. Surely this team will be viewed as strong enough to be included.

None of this weakens the value of the regular season because you'd also always be playing for the potential of one of those at-large bids while this also makes Conference Championship Weekend more interesting than ever.

Again, I'd take 6 as an improvement if we're then talking auto bids for conference champions. I want as close to objective criteria as we can get.

 

[SBAMACANE]

Bama has at most 12 real titles. The OP explanation was genuine and very rational. Also, if Bama really had those other 5 titles don't you think they would've had some hardware to indicate their bogus claims. I think not. Bama is getting away with those titles just like they are getting away with their cheating ways with Emmert at the helm!!

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

8 is too many delegitimizes the CFB playoff.

Go to 6 just like the NFL, all P5 conference champs & 1 at-large bid for the best G5 school. Seeds 1 & 2 get a bye, just like the NFL playoffs.

I could see this, but would NOT make the at large an automatic G5. Just make it an at large that could be a G5 like UCF or a worthy P5 non conference champ.

 

[classiccane12]

I could see this, but would NOT make the at large an automatic G5. Just make it an at large that could be a G5 like UCF or a worthy P5 non conference champ.

6 teams is the best option. There will always be a debate (as there should be) for the last couple spots no matter how much the bracket is expanded. We can't even agree on 64 for march madness. Giving 6 teams a shot to play and win a title is PLENTY for the sport of D1 college football when for all of 4 years ago it was really only the top 2. If a team is fighting for the 6th spot they don't have much sympathy from me if they get left out IMO.

I would go even further though and say only 4 of the 6 spots are automatic for the top 4 ranked conference champs. With the last 2 being at large between 5th P5 champ, P5 non-champ and G5. Rankings will still matter and the conference races will be more interesting if only 4 are automatic (teams would still need "style" points which is good). Most years one of the two spots will likely go to the 5th conf champ leaving the last spot between P5 or G5 team, but a 2 or 3 loss P5 champ could potentially be left out for 2 better/more deserving teams.

 

[DTP]

Try to not let USF and Memphis hang 100pts and 1400yds of offense on you and you'll garner a bit more respect.

Tell Alabama to try not to lose to Auburn and maybe they'd garner more respect.

 

[classiccane12]

Tell Alabama to try not to lose to Auburn and maybe they'd garner more respect.

Alabama gets no respect for losing to auburn, yet UCF gets a national title for beating them in a meaningless bowl game that was essentially a glorified jamboree for auburn?

For the record I am not giving either any respect for their "titles."

 

[DTP]

Alabama gets no respect for losing to auburn, yet UCF gets a national title for beating them in a meaningless bowl game that was essentially a glorified jamboree for auburn?

For the record I am not giving either any respect for their "titles."

No, but if you're going to trash one team for giving up a lot of yards in games they WON, you better be willing to trash a team for LOSING a game.

 

[orange&green84]

Nobody defends UCF’s claims except UCF homers.

UCF can make an argument they were screwed by the playoffs if they want, they can’t claim an NC that doesn’t exist, and no serious person supports that unless they want to be clowned.

I'm an alumni from UCF and even I think it's pathetic that they're still claiming that they're national champions.

 

[ddann]

I don't even recognize Bama's most recent title as being legit. Not after that clown show the refs put on in the title game.