The Missing Ring?

[SteelClip49]

I went to B&N yesterday and saw in the sports area a book, forgot the exact title of it, but it was a thick one solely based on Alabama not being the 1966 National Champion. I am sure there is more than just not being the '66 champion because there is a lot of reading. I seriously wanted to burn it, then again I needed a good laugh. Alabama's title count is always changing so why have a book on just that one??? Alabama is tied with the Irish for the most in 1A, but I guess that is not enough.

You don't see Oklahoma fussing about not receiving titles for 1949, 1954, 1973 and 1978.

[badger]

Bama has good fans, so be easy on them for loving their team. We don't fuss about titles we don't have because we know more are coming in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if Bama lays off their claims now that they have Saint Saban.

[Octavian]

I went to B&N yesterday and saw in the sports area a book, forgot the exact title of it, but it was a thick one solely based on Alabama not being the 1966 National Champion. I am sure there is more than just not being the '66 champion because there is a lot of reading. I seriously wanted to burn it, then again I needed a good laugh. Alabama's title count is always changing so why have a book on just that one??? Alabama is tied with the Irish for the most in 1A, but I guess that is not enough.

You don't see Oklahoma fussing about not receiving titles for 1949, 1954, 1973 and 1978.



Because Bama won it in 64 and 65, and another title would've made a 3-peat. They were the only undefeated, untied major program in '66....the year that Michigan St. and ND tied 10-10 in East Lansing, when they just ran out the clock instead of trying to win.


The author contends that Bama --because they won the previous two NCs --received a bigger snub than usual when they weren't named at least '66 co-champions allowing for a 3 peat


The Civil Rights movement was heating up and the author claims Bama's all-white team became a symbol of the South and segregation (whereas Notre Dame and Michigan St. were both integrated), and didn't get the votes from the progressive Eastern voters.


Keith Dunnavant grew up a Bama fan and his stuff is a good read. His biography of Bear Bryant was good and so is TMR.

[AlabamaSooner]

Because Bama won it in 64 and 65, and another title would've made a 3-peat. They were the only undefeated, untied major program in '66....the year that Michigan St. and ND tied 10-10 in East Lansing, when they just ran out the clock instead of trying to win.


The author contends that Bama --because they won the previous two NCs --received a bigger snub than usual when they weren't named at least '66 co-champions allowing for a 3 peat


The Civil Rights movement was heating up and the author claims Bama's all-white team became a symbol of the South and segregation (whereas Notre Dame and Michigan St. were both integrated), and didn't get the votes from the progressive Eastern voters.


Keith Dunnavant grew up a Bama fan and his stuff is a good read. His biography of Bear Bryant was good and so is TMR.

Thank you...someone who knows what he's talking about. Not just going by what he thinks he knows. Yes, the 1966 title probably SHOULD have been won by Bama, but that's the way it goes. You know, Bama and OU fans have a great relationship, but God forbid someone bring up Bama's titles around here....people start foaming at the mouth. *flame away with the usual "they claim 52 titles"*

[Doged]

Not really related to the book, but OU has a decent argument for the 1915 championship. I honestly hope no one ever goes back and tries to claim it, though.

[SteelClip49]

1889 was a sure victory for the Sooners; I wonder if we can get a title for that?

[Oldnslo]

Because Bama won it in 64 and 65, and another title would've made a 3-peat. They were the only undefeated, untied major program in '66....the year that Michigan St. and ND tied 10-10 in East Lansing, when they just ran out the clock instead of trying to win.


54, 55, and 56 would've been a 3'r, too. And Bama could have had the second one.

But we don't. And they don't.

And Billy should've won the Heisman twice. Jason, too. And don't even get me started on Paul f'n Hornung!

[Octavian]

54, 55, and 56 would've been a 3'r, too. And Bama could have had the second one.

But we don't. And they don't.

And Billy should've won the Heisman twice. Jason, too. And don't even get me started on Paul f'n Hornung!


I don't disagree with any of that....but the question was raised on why was there a book written about it....


The answer is...a good writer is passionate about his favorite program and the history of college football, and he found a story which placed Bama and college football into the larger scheme of social history. It's a good book.


It just seems odd that fans of college football (especially those who claim to be authorities on the history of college football) would be upset about someone else writing a historical book on....college football.

[SteelClip49]

I am not upset, just curious.

I am still waiting for there to be a book about the 1984 BYU squad, unless there is already one out; or the 1990 Colorado squad that had an interesting run to their only title.
Now if there is ever a book about Boise State's 2006 season, then I will set the temperature to 451 degrees.

[MamaMia]

Bama has good fans, so be easy on them for loving their team. We don't fuss about titles we don't have because we know more are coming in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if Bama lays off their claims now that they have Saint Saban. I like the Crimson Tide fans, but the comical, self serving claims to titles they really don't have, which being made by a large majority of them, will never stop, no matter who the coach is.

[RedstickSooner]

Not really related to the book, but OU has a decent argument for the 1915 championship. I honestly hope no one ever goes back and tries to claim it, though.

No, we don't.

NOBODY has a claim to ANY championship from that era. THEY DIDN'T DECLARE NATIONAL CHAMPIONS BACK THEN.

National championships in college football started with the AP -- and all those football foundation "championships" are horse chit.

We claim the correct number of championships.