The Advocate: LSU to go 9-3, "Bama’s biggest obstacle is Bama"

Self-affirmation for the morning?

Back in either 1997 or 2000 is the first time I saw a team claim a "divisional championship." It wasn't something that the SEC recognized at that point and to this day you won't find anything in their archives under Championships that lists things like an eastern championship, a western championship, much less a co-divisional championship.

While I can't remember which year it was, in one of those two years I mentioned Auburn lost the SECCG game. Either late December or early January they began handing out shirts and memorabilia to their players celebrating "Western Division Champions." That was the first time anyone had seen the like in the the SEC.

Now, you've cited a school like Ole Miss claiming the 2003 co-divisional championship. That is ridiculous. Football has one championship and that's won in ATL during the SECCG.

You very well may find school that list things like Ole Miss has done in their media guide and claim them to promote success for the their football program. Sorry, second place means you lost. And, in 2003 with LSU winning the west, Ole Miss wasn't co-anything. They didn't win the West.

If this situation ran along the lines of me sitting here claiming a co-divisional championship in 2011 what would the reaction be? I'd be looked at as an idiot and that's at the least. There is nothing in the UA media guide in 2011 about the divisional standing other than 2nd place—and that's exactly as it should be.

In the end, hell. If you want to say Ole Miss was a co-divisional champ along with LSU in 2003 more power to you. As argumentative as you appear to be about football related things, it's my gut instinct you were criticizing USC when they were claiming a co-national championship last decade...which I'd find ironic.

 

Yet you wont apply that same logic to Bama's 487 national football titles.

 

You're making an assumption.

That is a subject I've not discussed here.

Even still, apples and oranges.

 

True on all three statements Terry. On the apples and oranges, it is the individual schools that declare championships and the conference that declares the divisional championships. Just because a school claims a championship, the entire fanbase isn't obligated to recognize and promote it.

 

Agreed.

It's different in the sense where you have an outside party, Helms or Dunkel as example of pre-AP championships, awarding a championship and the school doing so on its own as well. In this case, where a co-divisional championship was something that a school came up with, sets it apart from the national championship debates.

I'm well aware of the points of all the different parties involved. Pre-bowl versus post bowl. Pre-AP versus post-AP. One of the better stories is found in 1950 when OU (AP and Coaches) and Tennessee (a collection of others I'd have to look up) were considered national champs. Kentucky also claims the title that season due to a media publication award after they beat OU in the Sugar Bowl. Back then a bowl game really meant something considering there were only four played that season.

I've got my issues with how the University came up with claims. It's for that reason I say "the University claims 15."

There is one exception—2004—and it isn't because it's Auburn claiming a title. It's the process of how it was determined. If you recall, the People's national championship that year was done by an online poll and the day it ended USC was ahead in the votes. The owner of the poll dialed the ending date back and awarded it to Auburn.

In the end I see it this way. BCS? AP poll? AP and Coaches Poll? Pre-AP based on media awards? You make the call on what you think. It's really not worth the time or effort to argue about. Majority of the time those who make light of other schools accomplishments can't measure up with their own school used as comparison.

Oh, let me add one thing. Your comment "...the entire fanbase isn't obligated to recognize and promote it..." doesn't fit with the Bama fan base. You may have ran across those that do, but there's one thing that I can assure you—it's a hotly contested debate among fans.

 

So how many do YOU claim, Terry? Not trying to stir the pot...just honestly curious. Being that you're down to Earth (for a BAMMER ) , whatever you claim is probably the most legit, and it would be nice to know.

 

For brevity's sake, if given the choice and ability to remove one from what the University claims it would be 1941.

There are a few that I can see both sides. You'll find many who say the only years that should be recognized are the ones where the Associated Press voted the team #1. Yet, you have years like 1964. Both the AP and UPI ranked Bama as number one that season. But there are story lines involved with that season. The votes and subsequent awards were done before the bowl games and Bama lost to Texas in the Orange Bowl to close out that season. Arkansas ended the season at 11-0 versus Bama's 10-1-0. In my eyes, they have as much claim to the national title as Bama does that season. They were selected as National Champions by Billingsley, Football Research, Helms, Football Writers, Poling and a couple of other services.

Here's the kicker and it's found in that last sentence. Notice Poling was one of the services that selected the undefeated Arkansas team. In 1934 Alabama uses Poling as one of the selectors in its claim to that title. In that same year Minnesota was selected by a number of selectors including Football Research. Yet, in 1930—another year where Bama claims its championships—one of those selectors used was one in the same, Football Research.

If you recognize one for yourself it has to be a standard applied across the board.

Now, the media guides for the football program do note seasons like 1964 where you had groups that selected Arkansas, some selected Notre Dame and Michigan who both finished the season 9-1-0. I believe it's listed as "Other Champions" for those seasons.

The issue is clouded at its best. And, it certainly isn't limited to Alabama alone. 1957 has both Auburn and Ohio State. Ohio State had the coaches vote with one loss, Auburn had the AP vote with an undefeated season. Which one has the most legitimate claim? I can see people saying "Auburn because they were undefeated" yet you have the issue where their administration actively lobbied voters in the AP to vote their way that season. And, the AP at that time didn't just consist of members who covered football.

Hitting closer to home how do you view the season last decade where LSU won the BCS but Southern Cal was selected by the AP? The BCS system is what the schools agreed to but I don't have any issue with USC claiming the AP title.

So, assume we're sitting at a sports bar and you asked how many national titles Alabama has. My answer would be along the lines of "over the years they've been selected as national champs more than 20 times, the University claims 15, but there are a lot of schools that have national titles in some of those years as well. The school has fielded a lot of good football teams since the early part of last century. And, some of those teams who were selected as national champions shared those titles at the least."

In the end, the majority of the fans who bring this subject up just want to talk smack. That's not found in my DNA. And, for that reason, I look at the discussions as being a waste of time and effort.

 

Back in 1995 or 1996 I used the LexisNexis database and found 21 different years where a media outlet had awarded a championship to Alabama. The thing that intrigued me were the years where one was awarded, not recognized, but the selector was recognized in other years.

I've never met the professor who came up with which titles the University would recognize. I'd love to meet him and get the opportunity to ask how he came up with his criteria. I touched on it briefly earlier. There are years where championships were awarded but they choose not to recognize those. I'd like to ask why, and what was the criteria in not choosing those.

Why would you have an issue with USC claiming the AP title in 2003? Those USC fans I've encountered, I've asked, "what was the AP title worth in 2003?" To a man the answer has always been, "that is how the media voted."

The BCS was created to pit the #1 and #2 team against each other. It's accomplished that every year and I've pointed that out to those fans. Tension has ensued. Answers weren't offered. Stammering? In abundance.

Therein is the reason that's my answer. It's thrown cold water on some whose intention was to talk smack and I can't say they were happy. They were quiet.

On a related note:

One thing I've noticed the last few years is a footnote being used in a lot of telecasts when talking of championships. You've probably seen, "in the major poll era" or something kin to that.

If there is one issue I have it falls with people wanting to discuss championships without realizing we've been through several different eras of how they were awarded. It wouldn't shock me to learn 90% or more of college football fans today wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about if I mentioned Dunkel.

From a historical perspective, it's an interesting subject. If it boils down to one fan base trying to "one up" another? Boring. A waste of time.

 

in 2003 USC was #1 in both the Coaches and AP, LSU #2. Instead of matching #1 USC v #2 LSU, we got #2 LSU vs #3 OU and #1 USC v #4 Michigan, hence the split title