Bama Fans: How Can You Guys, In Good Conscience, Claim 1973 "National Championship"?

Guys,

I was browsing past National Championships and came across something that is new to me, at least: Alabama's crock 1973 "title".

The 1973 season was crazy enough, with SEVEN teams finishing undefeated going into the bowl games! Oklahoma was on probation, so no bowl soup for them!

The 1974 Sugar Bowl pitted a 11-0 Alabama team versus a 10-0 Notre Dame team. Back in the day, the final UPI/Coach's Poll was held prior to the outcome of the bowl games. In the final poll, Alabama was #1, Notre Dame #3. Therefore, the fact that they lost to the team JUST BEHIND THEM in the final regular season poll DID NOT COST THEM THEIR "HALF" OF A CHAMPIONSHIP.

Notre Dame won the game, 24-23, and yet 'Bama seemingly has no shame in claiming their "share" .

And I thought the BCS was screwy. Ugh.

A little more searching turned up the larger, end of the season scenario that included both Ohio State and Michigan. Talk about asinine!:

Back in 1973, there were few bowls and
the Rose Bowl contract required that the Big Ten and the Pac-8
could not allow any of their teams to be in any bowl, other than
to have their champions in the Rose Bowl. The regular season
climaxed with Ohio State meeting Michigan in Ann Arbor. Both
teams were undefeated and untied. The game finished as a 10-10
tie. The Big Ten’s tie breaking rules called for a vote by the
teams to decide who would go to the Rose Bowl. A 5-5 vote would
send Michigan to Pasadena, since OSU had been there more recently.
In a stunning move, Michigan State University voted in favor of
OSU. As both U-M and MSU are, in reality, owned by the taxpayers
of the State of Michigan, it was the equivalent of the government
asking the automotive divisions whether Ford or Chevy should get a
billion dollar contract and having Pontiac vote in favor of Ford,
over its GM brother. Before the game, OSU was ranked #1 in the
polls and U-M was #4. Afterwards, OSU became #3 and U-M dropped
to #6. I was outraged. How could this be? If Michigan was
expected to lose, but yet tied the best team, shouldn’t their
ranking improve?

The new #1, Alabama, met #4, Notre Dame, in the Sugar Bowl. The
sports media announced that this would be the National
Championship game and that a trophy would be given to the winner,
no matter what else happened. As it turned out, #4 Notre Dame
squeaked by #1 Alabama by 24-23, and was crowned champion. The
performance of the #2 team was irrelevant. Also irrelevant was
the performance of the previous #1, Ohio State, which clobbered
USC 42-21. Yet, as far as the championship, the AP poll cared
about only one game: the Sugar Bowl. The UPI hadn’t yet begun to
take its final poll after the bowls. The "logic" of the AP was
that #4 could become #1, but #2 never could do so. The truth
about how good the teams were would not be permitted to get into
the way of a strange set of rules that the voters had devised.

Based on this info, not only should Alabama have finished behind Notre Dame in the UPI, but a strong argument could be made that Ohio State should have as well due to their 21 point pasting of a good USC team. FOUR TEAMS were undefeated after the bowls, including Oklahoma.

(PS-That reminds me: I think teams on probation can still, theoretically, finish first in the AP poll. C'mon, Auburn fans, you should know!)

What a joke!

 

bama benefitted a couple of times by hitting it right depending on whether the NC was decided before of after the bowls. This is one reason it was finally made permanent to wait until after the bowl games. Of course bama claims the NC no matter how may others may have shared it in one poll or another. They would even clain the Sister's of the Poor Poll :hihi:

As for Auburn, we could claim the 1993 NC with an 11-0 record but weren't elgible because of probation. I don't think you ever hear Auburn people whining about that because it was the rules and we don't try to claim even a share of it. But for the record, Auburn was named NCs as follows:

1910- The Billingsley Report
1957-UPI
1983-College Researchers Assn., Massey Ratings, New York times, et. al.
1993-National Championship Foundation

So by bama standards we could claim 4 but only claim the 57 NC (actually co-NC with Ohio State who won the AP that year).

 

Well Florida could claim the 84' title but they were on probation. It would really been a split title.

 

No, I'm not saying Auburn is "claiming" a title for that year, just asking if indeed the AP poll still allows teams to be voted #1 even when on probation.

I know they voted Florida #1 in 1984 (Gators lost the next week, I believe). Could they have stayed #1 had they (a) gone undefeated and (b) were the only 1-loss team that year?

I imagine if my team was on probation yet was the only undefeated team in the country late in the season, I'd check into this. That's why I asked.

 

I think the answer is yes the AP currently excludes a team that is on probation from the poll.

 

No, they don't, Bama was on the poll Fran's last year. The coaches poll doesn't account for them but the AP does. As for being voted number 1, I have no idea.

 

The writers can vote for any team, the coaches cannot vote for teams on probation.

 

Guess I had them mixed up. I knew one did and the other didn't.

 

If Bama wants it that bad, I guess they could say that they were co-co-co-co-co-co-co-champions.

 

No Florida started out 0-1-1. They lost to Miami and then tied LSU! After that they went 9-0.