If sips vs domers, I am pulling for the meteor

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

A&M claims two NCs from before there were even polls, as many teams do. So ok, A&M has NC signs on the stadium for 1919 because Billingsley and the National Championship Foundation awarded it. Are those legit?

---

You actually laid out the best case for them, particularly the 1919 one. Many of the media ones, as you suggested, don't include the bowl results and had a heavy bias, mostly East Coast and Midwest. Later, in the '60s when USC was strong, UCLA had decent teams, and LA was a media hub, the West Coast started getting some attention. So I wouldn't go crowing if I were any of those schools about the superiority of having an "AP" or a "UPI" by their name, or even a "consensus" in there somewhere. Whether a school "claims" one, I don't think, is relevant. Perhaps people in Austin aren't smart enough to know what was going on a century ago.

The fact is that during the 1919 football season, college football had 99 teams. It wasn't a small sample size and FBS is currently only marginally bigger, though the schools involved are different. Sure, the rules were different then -- there wasn't a whole lot of TV games, artificial turf, replay, or 8 man officiating crews. But for the most part everyone played by the same rules as they do now. A&M, unlike any other team in the country, won 10 games. A&M, unlike any other team in the country, was unscored upon. A&M played 4 SWC teams (only one SWC team that year had a below .500 record), and two Independent teams (TCU and Southwestern). Notre Dame, by contrast, played 5 teams that were "non-major" and of the "major" ones, only Army was any good. The other 3 they beat won 3 or fewer games.

Yes, A&M's 1919 national championship was legit and on par with either of t.u.'s claimed titles of the '60s, regardless of what anyone else wants to believe. Plus, A&M was not handing out full scholarships at the time to keep players from going elsewhere.

If you want to draw a line in the sand for college football, you need to do it sometime in the early '70s. The implementation of scholarship limits, freshman eligibility and the separation of Division I into (what is now) FBS and FCS all occurred around that time. Pick a year -- it doesn't really matter. But saying championships "earned" or "awarded" in the '60s or a few years earlier are legit but those prior to the AP/UPI aren't is total bull***** If anything, the historical computer rankings spit out a much better story.

---

The point was they are all stupid. And they're all unofficial. There has never been an NCAA sanctioned national champion at the FBS level. And they've never been anything but subjective opinions by people whose polls are proven wrong every single week during the seasons in the first place. Just seeing the lists of 5 or 6 champions per year depending on who you look at should be laughable to anyone. And it only gets dumber if the next step becomes "Yeah, but this opinion counts more than that opinion". So claim 50 if you want. Or 100. Claim one for this year, in fact. It's just opinion anyway. The very act of "claiming" makes it a joke. How many Super Bowls does Dallas "claim"? None. I mean, you either win them or you don't. But watching 6 teams argue 120 years after the fact about who was actually better in their tiny isolated circle is comical.

levypantsEOY said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

It was never about proof or facts. It's always about living in their own reality.

I assume Levy thinks they actually won the game last week. That it was not bc of a certain controversial non targeting call that every single credible official has stated was incorrectly made and it was OBVIOUS targeting. LOL

---

Aggie Derangement Syndrome: an ailment characterized by an unwillingness to accept reality, especially as it relates to anything pro-tu or con-A&M.
Example: the sips "did not win" their quarterfinals game, despite the fact that they are paying in the semifinals at 6:30 CST this evening.

---

You were given it.

If you had won it, you would not have needed corruption.

It's not Aggies saying it was corruption. It's all the leading officials in the industry.

Hey, I get it, you are so used to getting help in Big 12 games, you think it's just part of the game.

I mean i guess if it makes you feel better, but you're shouting down a well, bud.

Hey we both know the truth. And it clearly bothers you or you would not respond.

It actually makes me happy knowing you know the truth and cannot admit it. Would actually have to give you a little respect if you had the courage to state, darn right that call helped us win. We Texas!

Hey I wish you had won the game like the other three final 4 teams. But you did not. You needed help, clearly. I mean, ASU was whipping your ass. Almost had double the yards at one point.

Still waiting on the " so many, easily provable ways" from the SWT stall boy.

I provided 2024, 2023 and the last decade showing you were dead wrong.

Oh no worries, he'll show up in August when the ESPN/media has sip top 3 in the pre season polls.