Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:47 am
by Vito Corleone
atlease 12 of the Big 10's championships happened before 1950. Same can be said for Alabama. Back then teams would count it when some obsecure magazine or fishwrap would declair them the MNC. There are two ways of looking at Modern College football. Either start counting after WWII or after intergration.
BTW if you didn't know, the Big 12 sucks ass this year.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:55 am
by socal
Jimmy Medalions wrote:You wanna start this shit early?
Game on.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:05 am
by SoCalTrjn
you did forget one other conference on the national title sweepstakes
Princeton 24
Yale 19
Harvard 10
Pennsylvania 4
Cornell 2
Dartmouth 1
60 recognized national titles won by the Ivy League
pure technicaltiy though
You also do have Arkansas claiming the 1964 national title when Bama was #1 in both the AP and coaches poll, Arkansas was #2 in both and also wasnt in the SEC at the time.
Also in 1960 Minnesota and not Mississippi won the title, problem is that the voting then was done before the bowl games and Washington beat Minnesota in the Rose bowl that year, causing Ole Miss, who only beat Vandy, Kentucky, Tennessee and Miss St in the SEC before beating Rice in their bowl game 14-6, to claim half the national title even though they were 2nd in the AP and 3rd in the Coaches/UPI Poll
I think 1960 was the last year that the National Championship was awarded before the bowl games were played (and a major reason I feel that titles won before 1961 should not count)
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:00 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Jimmy Medalions wrote:Spinach Genie wrote:Jimmy Medalions wrote:Seer is correct, but even if Myopia Genie is referring to football MNCs he is wrong.
Major conferences, football mncs and shares of...which holds the most?
The SEC doesn't
Jimmah, your link is inaccurate, as it considers only current conference affiliations, to wit:
- Miami: Won 4 of 5 national championships as an independent.
- Georgia Tech: Won 3 of 4 national championships as an independent.
- Texas: Won all 3 national championships as a member of the now-defunct SWC.
- Penn State: Won both national championships as an independent.
- Texas A&M: Won both national championships as a member of the now-defunct SWC.
- Syracuse: Won only national championship as an independent.
- Arkansas: Won only national championship as a member of the now-defunct SWC.
- I didn't see Pitt on that list, but they won a national championship (in 1976) as an independent.
That's just off the top of my head. To give conferences credit for what certain members did
before they joined that conference is just asinine, imho.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:50 pm
by Killian
Vito Corleone wrote:or after intergration.
So Texas has 0?
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:57 pm
by Degenerate
Spinach Genie wrote:Keep running it. Bowl season will come, the Pac will prove out once again that they are a one team league just like they did last bowl season, and the SEC will continue to show why even in their down years, they
Hmmm...
SEC bowl records since 1997:
2004: 3-3
2003: 5-2
2002: 3-4
2001: 5-3
2000: 4-5
1999: 4-4
1998: 4-5
1997: 5-1
Three good bowl seasons in eight. I took mercy on you by including 1997, since I'm sure SEC Fan still talks it up to this day. I know they did when I was in Knoxville last year.
Nevertheless, the mediocrity speaks for itself.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:09 pm
by Sirfindafold
Jsc810 wrote: Props to USC, a very good team. But Texas will make them look like boys...
sin,
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:21 pm
by Jimmy Medalions
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Jimmah, your link is inaccurate
I know. I didn't have the time yesterday to really break it down at work. Guess you did :wink:
Regardless, it shows that the SEC is not the conference with the most national titles, per SG's inane comment above.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:31 pm
by Mikey
BCS Bowl games:
Pac10 - 6-1
SEC - 5-1
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:52 am
by SoCalTrjn
Mikey wrote:BCS Bowl games:
Pac10 - 6-1
SEC - 5-1
I think that the Pac is 6-1 in BCS bowls only since 2000 and the SEC is 5-2 during that time, or something like that.
The Pac 10 didnt fare too well in the first couple of years in BCS bowls with Stanford and UCLA losing Rose Bowls
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:25 am
by Vito Corleone
Killian wrote:Vito Corleone wrote:or after intergration.
So Texas has 0?
See me on Jan 5
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:45 pm
by Killian
Vito Corleone wrote:Killian wrote:Vito Corleone wrote:or after intergration.
So Texas has 0?
See me on Jan 5
So best case scenario, Texas will win it's first?
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:53 pm
by PSUFAN
Jimmy Medalions wrote:
:?
what's that all about?
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:55 pm
by Killian
The two dudes tonguing each other in the middle.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:26 pm
by Jimmy Medalions
PSUFAN wrote:Jimmy Medalions wrote:
:?
what's that all about?
Two LSU fans kissing on the tv broadcast. Dudes :?
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:34 pm
by PSUFAN
uh..ok.
What's that dude to the left of them doing? He appears to be draining his seminal vesicles right there, uncool, man.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:37 pm
by Mikey
SoCalTrjn wrote:Mikey wrote:BCS Bowl games:
Pac10 - 6-1
SEC - 5-1
I think that the Pac is 6-1 in BCS bowls only since 2000 and the SEC is 5-2 during that time, or something like that.
The Pac 10 didnt fare too well in the first couple of years in BCS bowls with Stanford and UCLA losing Rose Bowls
I could be wrong. I thought that was what I read in the LA Times the other day.
OK I went back and looked, and according to Chris Dufresne those are the records since 2000.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:04 pm
by Van
Vito Corleone wrote:Killian wrote:Vito Corleone wrote:or after intergration.
So Texas has 0?
See me on Jan 5 for the horrific new sig I'll be sporting, courtesy of USC stomping another Big XII paper tiger in a bonafide big game. Life will suck like I won't believe after we get exposed and lose by thirty.
Then again, I guess this'll mean that Vince Young will be back for his senior year...
Fuck.
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:19 pm
by quacker backer
PSUFAN wrote:Jimmy Medalions wrote:
:?
what's that all about?
I saw that on TV last weekend also
CBS switched away from that as soon as possible....
dont want to show the SEC as being a bunch of fudgepacking fairies now do we??