So, a friend of Mine say's Tenn. claims the 1950 National Championship

[Big Red Ron]

WTF???

Those people have lost their minds. We should actually claim 1949 too but 1950??? There is absolutely no debate.

Apparently 1950 is inscribe=bed on their stadium.

[olevetonahill]

I claim 158 ger OU so they can succs it ;)

[The Maestro]

WTF???

Those people have lost their minds. We should actually claim 1949 too but 1950??? There is absolutely no debate.

Apparently 1950 is inscribe=bed on their stadium.

So have you told him you can't be friends anymore??? :D

[yermom]

if they voted like they did now, they probably would have been :eek:

[The Maestro]

Completely unrelated...Griffey, Jr. still has game. What a throw!

[badger]

Um... are you sure this friend isn't confusing Tennessee with Kentucky? I think UK claims it.

[Sabanball]

I'm certainly no friend of my border rival to the north, but keep in mind the following:

UT's only loss that year occurred the second week of the season. They won out after that and beat Texas in their bowl game. They outscored their opponents that year 335-71. They finished 11-1.

In contrast, the Sooners were undefeated in the regular season and were beaten by our own Coach Paul Bryant who, along with qb Babe Parelli, beat you guys in the Sugar Bowl, 13-7. If your team had beaten the heavy underdog wildcats, there would have been no argument. By not doing so, you opened the way for UT. OU finished 10-1 and outscored opponents 352-148. You guys won the AP--at the time, that's what counted most--but the Vols were voted NC's in two other major polls that were in existence at the time. Your loss in the game that counted most cost you a consensus NC. So I think a strong case could be made for a 'split' NC. The timing of your loss was key in this one.

[Rogue]

It's true. I was pizzed when I saw it on the ring at Neyland Stadium this year for the first time. I got back and looked it up and it's as SB says...the VOLS have a decent claim to stake for 1950. Funny though, none of the VOL fans I know are aware of this claim. Most know about 1951 and 1998. Hell, the state made special license plates after each. In fact, the 1951 plates are about the most valuable collector's license plate a feller can find.

Not sure about those "2 other major polls" though SB.
CFRA and Dunkel? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Volunteers_football)

You might wanna duck. A 'Bama fan talking about laying claim to prior MNCs is sorta like, well, something ironic or something. ;)

[Sabanball]

It's true. I was pizzed when I saw it on the ring at Neyland Stadium this year for the first time. I got back and looked it up and it's as SB says...the VOLS have a decent claim to stake for 1950. Funny though, none of the VOL fans I know are aware of this claim. Most know about 1951 and 1998. Hell, the state made special license plates after each. In fact, the 1951 plates are about the most valuable collector's license plate a feller can find.

Not sure about those "2 other major polls" though SB.
CFRA and Dunkel? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Volunteers_football)

You might wanna duck. A 'Bama fan talking about laying claim to prior MNCs is sorta like, well, something ironic or something. ;)

Lol...I know the joke. Let's just agree to let you guys claim 1950 and we'll continue to claim 1973 and let that be the end of the argument...;)

[Big Red Ron]

Yeah, back then Bowls were exhibition games and had absolutely no bearing on the national champion. The AP and Coach's poll both picked OU as the National Champion. End of story, no debate.

Final 1950 AP Poll
1. Oklahoma (213) 10-1-0
2. Army (38) 8-1-0
3. Texas (4) 9-2-0
4. Tennessee (15) 11-1-0
5. California (8) 9-1-1
6. Princeton (6) 9-0-0
7. Kentucky (7) 11-1-0
8. Michigan State (3) 8-1-0
9. Michigan6-3-1
10. Clemson (9) 9-0-1

[BigRedJed]

Looks to me like Princeton is the real champ.

[Sabanball]

Yeah, back then Bowls were exhibition games and had absolutely no bearing on the national champion. The AP and Coach's poll both picked OU as the National Champion. End of story, no debate.

Final 1950 AP Poll
1. Oklahoma (213) 10-1-0
2. Army (38) 8-1-0
3. Texas (4) 9-2-0
4. Tennessee (15) 11-1-0
5. California (8) 9-1-1
6. Princeton (6) 9-0-0
7. Kentucky (7) 11-1-0
8. Michigan State (3) 8-1-0
9. Michigan6-3-1
10. Clemson (9) 9-0-1


You're exactly right. That is why we claim both 1965 and 1973, even though we lost bowl games both years. But I think the little history lesson shows why some people and polls thought differently.

Personally, I don't think we won it on the field those seasons, but considering we were robbed of the 1966 and 1977 titles, I'll take them since they were awarded.;)

[RacerX]

http://members.cox.net/racerx4ou/license_20030703115745_2536.jpg

[Sabanball]

http://members.cox.net/racerx4ou/license_20030703115745_2536.jpg

Got 12?




;)

[tulsaoilerfan]

You're exactly right. That is why we claim both 1965 and 1973, even though we lost bowl games both years. But I think the little history lesson shows why some people and polls thought differently.

Personally, I don't think we won it on the field those seasons, but considering we were robbed of the 1966 and 1977 titles, I'll take them since they were awarded.;)

IF i remember my history correctly, up until a certain year the polls were final BEFORE any bowl games were played; not sure when that changed, but i believe we came out 1-1 in National Championships because of that; can anyone state what year that actually changed?

[Big Red Ron]

After 1965, the AP voted before the bowls for two years, permanently returning to a post-bowl vote in 1968. The coaches did not vote after the bowls until 1974, in the wake of awarding their 1973 championship to Alabama, who lost to the AP champion, undefeated Notre Dame, in the Sugar Bowl.

[Sooner_Havok]

Got 12?




;)


Nah, by Bama math we got 16

;)

[Big Red Ron]

Nah, by Bama math we got 16

;)
That is actually the truth

[sooner59]

That is actually the truth

You are absolutely right. I looked this up last night actually. I counted 17 times that "someone" voted us #1 at the end of the season. That does not mean we claim it. We claim 7 (soon to be 8 hopefully). We would have 16/17 if we claimed everything. But even the sooner fan that I am cannot claim 2003. Who gave us that? Um, thanks, but why?

[tulsaoilerfan]

Thankfully, MOST schools only claim AP, UPI, or BCS National Championships :)

[tulsaoilerfan]

You are absolutely right. I looked this up last night actually. I counted 17 times that "someone" voted us #1 at the end of the season. That does not mean we claim it. We claim 7 (soon to be 8 hopefully). We would have 16/17 if we claimed everything. But even the sooner fan that I am cannot claim 2003. Who gave us that? Um, thanks, but why?

First i've heard of that one:confused:

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

I did the math the other day and figured out we'd have something like 12 legitimate (AP/UPI/BCS) national championships if we'd won all the bowl games where there's been one on the line.

By my estimation:

- TGWWDNSO
- 2004 Sugar Bowl
- 1988 Orange Bowl
- 1985 Orange Bowl (Surely, in the eyes of the voters a win by #2 OU over #4 Washington would've trumped #1 BYU's victory over a 6-5 Michigan team)
- 1978 Orange Bowl

[OUDoc]

http://members.cox.net/racerx4ou/license_20030703115745_2536.jpg

But that's still almost 900 less than the 1,950 MNC's that BRR says Tennessee claims.

[boomermagic]

Got 12?




;)

Bama doesn't seriously with a straight face claim 12 do you ? Tell me you don't..

[RacerX]

SEC - All your national championships are belong to us

[SoonerAtKU]

This is an old topic, but one that is always fun. Bama fans honestly seem to not understand why everyone else thinks their math is fruity. Of course, now you run into the same thing with USC and Michigan fans. I think they're each up to claiming 11, if I recall.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Alabama is alright with claiming 12, what is their response to our claiming 17?

[badger]

Bama doesn't seriously with a straight face claim 12 do you ? Tell me you don't..

They print t-shirts with this on. You know those championship flags that OU has by the inflatable Schooner on player intros? Well, Bammer had those first and they have 12 of them at their place.

:D I'd say they're pretty serious.

[boomermagic]

They print t-shirts with this on. You know those championship flags that OU has by the inflatable Schooner on player intros? Well, Bammer had those first and they have 12 of them at their place.

:D I'd say they're pretty serious.

WOW !!!!!

[sooner518]

Bama doesn't seriously with a straight face claim 12 do you ? Tell me you don't..

youve obviously never talked football with a Bama fan or seen a Bama t-shirt.

no offense to Bama fans as I have heard nothing but good things, you just take the things they say with regard to this with the same mindset you would with a kooky uncle who says funny things. you just say "uhh huhhh" and move on

[badger]

youve obviously never talked football with a Bama fan or seen a Bama t-shirt.

no offense to Bama fans as I have heard nothing but good things, you just take the things they say with regard to this with the same mindset you would with a kooky uncle who says funny things. you just say "uhh huhhh" and move on

Aside from the whole national championship discrepancy, Bammer fans are a lot like Sooner fans. We both love crimson, yes. We both have aggie orange-like little sister schools that have the sole goal of beating us every year, yes (although he have our aggie under much better control than they do at this point). We both have legendary programs with legendary coaches, yes. Best of all, they don't trash the visiting fans (or at least they didn't trash us, I dunno about Vols and Tigers, tee hee) and act like they've won before, because quite frankly, they have, and with frequency.

As for the shirt, we've all seen the "got 7" ones that OU has, right? Here's the Alabama equivalent. (http://www.sportsfantreasures.com/p/TCALSM-010/)

[Sooner04]

Alabamuh claims a split national championship in '78 with USC even though USC beat them earlier that season.

Alabamuh claims a national championship in '41 from some poll called the Houlgate System even though they went 9-2 and even though every other competent schmuck in the country recognizes Minnesota's undefeated team as the true national champion.

You've got realize that when you're dealing with Alabmuh you're dealing with idiots. Dopes. They'll pull a national championship out of the air and claim it to be their own. You can bet if some wire service out of Guam comes forth and decrees Alabmuh to have been the best team in 1984 then the Tide will roll out another banner. It's what those dopes do. All we as Sooners can do is roll our eyes and chuckle at their ignorance.

[badger]

To be fair to Bammer, they have six (pretty much) universally recognized titles, which is still a nice number to have.

I think what some find appalling is that when Bama can already claim so many title legit-like, they still try to claim even more. Wazzu claims a title from near the turn of the century, I think. That's not as outrageous, because they don't have any other titles to claim. Kentucky claims 1950? Well, they did beat us in the bowl game and they don't have much else on their track record, so we don't have any hate for the Wildcats for that. But Bammer? SIX titles is a great number to have! Why try to claim 12 illegit ones when you can claim six legit ones?

It's like that story about King David that Veggietales parodied with rubber duckies. Larry the Cucumber (as King David) has 20 million rubber duckies, but he sees some other guy (I think the tomato) with his own duck, so he steals the duck that tomato has instead of playing with one of his 20 million.

:D Stop stealing rubber duckies, Bammer.

[soonerboomer93]

wow,

veggie tales badger? you really went there?

NP, I think yer wife's drunk, or on 'shrooms

:D

[KingBarry]

OK, the debate over lost bowl games goes on and on. Point is you deal with the rules in place at the time.

Fact 1: Had bowl games counted in the early days, we would lose on national championship, and would pick up another one or two.

Fact 2: Had Switzer-obsessed Darryl Royal not pushed the Coaches Assoc to refuse to rank teams on probation, we would have won another UPI national championship in 1974. That's right. Darryl Royal hated Switzer so much, and it looked so likely that Switzer would lead OU to a national title in 1974, that Royal cried until the Association changed the rules to omit any team on probation. This rule alone prevented Royal's own alma mater from winning a unanimous title in 1974.

Fact 3: Logic says OU has as much claim to 1973's national championship as anybody else. Oklahoma went 10-0-1 that year, tying USC in the Colliseum. USC also went undefeated and was voted national champion. Since we went undefeated and tied them AT THEIR PLACE, why not put that date on our scoreboard?

And these are just off the top of my head. I didn't do any research at all. I just remember these things from the old days. Think if I used the internet how many I could dig up?

[badger]

wow,

veggie tales badger? you really went there?

NP, I think yer wife's drunk, or on 'shrooms

:D

If you ever volunteer to teach Sunday School, you, too, will have Veggietales.

[Sooner04]

Fact 3: Logic says OU has as much claim to 1973's national championship as anybody else. Oklahoma went 10-0-1 that year, tying USC in the Colliseum. USC also went undefeated and was voted national champion. Since we went undefeated and tied them AT THEIR PLACE, why not put that date on our scoreboard?
USC doesn't claim one from '73. They went 9-2-1 that season. Their title claims come in '72 and the gift from '74.

[NormanPride]

wow,

veggie tales badger? you really went there?

NP, I think yer wife's drunk, or on 'shrooms

:D

I have never claimed she was normal.

[badger]

I have never claimed she was normal.

You know, I think I'm starting to love the Sooners more than you :mad:













kidding.

[OUTrumpet]

Got 12?


;)

I remember back when we played Alabama in 2003, they showed a little recap of school history. Under national championships for 'bama, it had 6.

[SteelClip49]

Oklahoma has 23 Total National Championships

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/oklahoma/all_national_champs.php

Oh yeah....we rule. Oklahoma won a lot of selectors for 1973 and 1978 and we should be recognized for those two considering Bama didn't deserve their shares in 73 and 78.

[BermudaSooner]

Oklahoma has 23 Total National Championships

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/oklahoma/all_national_champs.php

Oh yeah....we rule. Oklahoma won a lot of selectors for 1973 and 1978 and we should be recognized for those two considering Bama didn't deserve their shares in 73 and 78.

Based on that logic, bammer has 25.

[sooner518]

Based on that logic, bammer has 25.

thats why its so stupid. we have 48 national titles between the 2 of us? sounds ludicrous because it is. the point is that we dont use weird Bammer math to compute our national title count.

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

Based on that logic, bammer has 25.

Despite this "fuzzy math"...'Bama still only has 6 national titles. The other 19 are in Bear Bryant's "lock box."

[KingBarry]

USC doesn't claim one from '73. They went 9-2-1 that season. Their title claims come in '72 and the gift from '74.

See, I said it was off the top of my head. Guess I should look stuff up from now on. Crap, I hate to undermine my own credibility. It's so low already.

[badger]

I've posted it a million times before, but here goes again.

1- NCAA must begin declaring a sole champion. Not the AP, not the BCS, not the whatever poll. The governing body needs to present a trophy, the governing overlord of us all needs to start acting like the dictator in this matter.

2- Each conference must declare a sole champion. I've used the past example of a mid-major declaring two champions during March Madness to get one more bid than they deserve and it works here again. Conferences get ONE representative in the championship race and conferences themselves must determine it's sole, undisputed champion. In a game? In a tournament? Whatever, but it must be ONE team.

3- Only one team per conference (the conference champion) will be in consideration for the title. No tOSU vs. Michigan after Michigan loses to tOSU, that's BS. No SEC No. 1 vs. SEC No. 2, that's BS also, I don't care how tough your conference is.

This is the short-term solution. Playoff will be a long term solution, but this is something to build on and would eliminate BCS controversy right off the bat. Georgia would have no claim to the title game in 2007, because the SEC declared LSU its champion. Michigan would have no claim to the title game in 2006, because it was not the Big 10 champion.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

If you ever volunteer to teach Sunday School, you, too, will have Veggietales.
HA, church?! Sundays are for football.