Does anyone feel like we will proudly play it close with alabama most of the game?

[Sweet Feet]

So, you're saying Arkansas' claim is just as mythical as Alabama's, correct?

I think we all knew that but thanks for the wisdom...

I wasn't born until the first day of 1966, but, I've been a Bama fan since day one. I can tell you that my mother says the doctor was mad at her for going into labor because Bama was destroying Nebraska in the Orange Bowl on New Years Night in 1966.  I didn't have to be there, consciously, to know it happened. I've been around plenty of older Bama fans who remember that Bama was named national champions by the two standards of the day (and the standards since the mid 1930's.)

I agree there were a lot of different services through the years that named their own championships, but, you're trying to write your own version of history to suit your argument by saying the AP and UPI weren't the recognized standards.  Wouldn't that be why EVERY school who has been named AP/UPI champions claims them?

And for the record, I've posted many times that Arkansas should claim it. I have no problem with that. I don't get upset like you that another school claims an awarded championship.

My point in response to your hijacking of this thread was that Bama fans have as legitimate a claim (and more so given the system at the time, but, I'll leave that alone) as any other school.

Isn't it ironic that other fans make fun of Bama for claiming non-AP and non-UPI championships, yet, you make the argument they shouldn't claim these.

It was what it was, and, it is what it is. We'll have this argument down the road, again. I give you credit, Wizard. Even some Hog fans disagree with you but you continue the fight...you'll never change the fact that those two trophies reside in Tuscaloosa or that "1964" is engraved in stone at the Walk of Champions under Coach Bryant's statue.

Thank goodness that we have evolved to a better system.

RTR and Go Hogs!

1+ thats a polite smackdown.

[jkstock04]

I think a better question (at least to me) I would inquire the Bama people on here about...is will Alabama celebrate the 50 year anniversary of this natl title the same way Arkansas undoubtedly will?

[cosmodrum]

I think a better question (at least to me) I would inquire the Bama people on here about...is will Alabama celebrate the 50 year anniversary of this natl title the same way Arkansas undoubtedly will?

Nope. They have fleventy five championships. If that was their only one, maybe...

[WizardofhOgZ]

So, you're saying Arkansas' claim is just as mythical as Alabama's, correct?

Absolutely, it is.  I NEVER said anything else.  It is others, usually Bama fans, who make the bogus claim that Arkansas' claim is "suspect" because Alabama was awarded the #1 spot in the final AP and UPI polls of the season (which, by the way, were taken before even the all of the regular season games of that season were finished, let alone the Bowl games). 

That said, 1963 Texas was the undisputed, consensus #1 team and they, too, were simply "mythical" champions.  The difference is that they, alone, finished the regular and complete seasons undefeated and untied.  Had they lost to #2 Navy in the Cotton Bowl that year, the same type of chaos would have ensued.  Who knows?  Maybe it would have caused such a commotion that the polls would have taken a post-season vote a year earlier (1964) than they did.  But, yes, ALL National Championships prior to 1998 (BCS) are mythical.  However, that does not mean that some are clearly more or less valid than others, on a year by year basis.

I wasn't born until the first day of 1966, but, I've been a Bama fan since day one. . . I've been around plenty of older Bama fans who remember that Bama was named national champions by the two standards of the day (and the standards since the mid 1930's.)

Reality - you, an Alabama fan raised in a family of other Bama fans (who are NOT known for their humility when it comes to the Tide and their Championships) grew up hearing rationalizations of why Bama should claim that crown, disregarding what the college football community AT THE TIME felt and how people outside of Alabama saw things.  Of COURSE you would - it's what you want to believe anyhow, so it's easy to go along with what these trusted loved ones are telling you.  But it doesn't mean it's correct.

And your continued (and incorrect) claim that the AP and UPI were the "2 standards of the day" illustrates your misunderstanding of the situation, as it was in that day and age.  It's true, and I have so said, that the AP and UPI were respected and discussed during the season in that era.  I do not, and have not, disputed that at any time.  And, had they ALSO taken a post-Bowl vote, theirs would have been (as it later was, when they did take a post-Bowl vote) at the top of the list of National Champion awards.  But the fact that they didn't made both polls clearly flawed and added much more public interest in the "other" rating systems, especially in years where any of the top teams in serious contention lost their Bowl games.

To further clarify.  Yes, initially (20's and 30's, thr WWII), Bowls were basically "what if' exhibitions, the brainchild of businessmen who wanted to draw tourists during the Holiday Season.  Transportation and logistics being what they were at the time, it was uncommon for teams from opposite ends of the country to play each other very often.  Hence, there was a great deal of "what if?" interest in setting up some of these match-ups after the season to see if, for example, Knute Rockne's Notre Dame team would handle Pop Warner's Stanford bunch (1924 Rose Bowl).  Or, to see Michigan State play Auburn in the 1938 Orange Bowl, and so forth.  And that continued to be the case up through the 40's. 

But in the post-war era of the 50's, with travel becoming exponentially easier and America's interest in virtually all pursuits of leisure interests, the Bowl landscape grew to 8 games and there were more and more match-ups involving the top ranked teams.  This led to more disputes about who the "real" champions were after teams voted #1 in the final regular season polls lost their bowl games.  For example, in 1951 Tennessee was #1 from preseason all through the year, finishing atop the final regular season poll ahead of undefeated Michigan State and Maryland.  However, when the Terrapins knocked off the top-ranked Vols in the Sugar Bowl, they claimed the Championship and ignited a controversy. 

Politically, there was a lot of inertia to overcome, as Notre Dame had decided in the 1920's to not participate in them.  In the 1950's, as pressure mounted to vote after the Bowls, Notre Dame leadership feared they would be at a disadvantage if the Polls were held after Bowl games, since the Irish were not participating and might lose ground to teams that looked good in their Bowl wins.  It's hard to describe how powerful Notre Dame's influence was on college football back in that time, but it was significant.  Still, among fans in the court of public opinion, there was no doubt that Bowl games DID matter.  For the next 10-15 years, it was a matter of when - not "if" - the change would be made.  But, in the meantime, the Football Writers of America took matters in their own hands (1954) by establishing an award precisely to address this issue.  And it was immediately embraced by the public.  So that championship (FWAA) was every bit as respected and accepted in that era as the weekly AP/UPI polls were then or today.

My point in response to your hijacking of this thread was that Bama fans have as legitimate a claim (and more so given the system at the time, but, I'll leave that alone) as any other school.

Isn't it ironic that other fans make fun of Bama for claiming non-AP and non-UPI championships, yet, you make the argument they shouldn't claim these.

With regard to me "hijacking" the thread, I'll point out that it was you who - by your own admission - posted an inflammatory avatar specifically designed to bait me into this very discussion.  Don't be the pot calling the kettle black here.  You got what you asked for.

And as for your final comment on others who may complain about Bama claiming other non-AP or UPI titles . . . I couldn't care less.  That has nothing to do with this one, specific year and situation.  Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Alabama does or doesn't "deserve" the other ones.  I just really don't care, and honestly haven't done the research on them, year by year.  Candidly, for all of my competitive zealousness about the Razorbacks, where any opponent is concerned, I do have a great deal of respect for Alabama's history and I know they have won many legitimate National Championships in football.  I default to assuming the "others" are valid as well, though I have heard anecdotal comments about one or two of them being "questionable".   Bama fans have every reason to be very, very proud of their team and program.

I can only say this - and I do so knowing in advance that there is a 90% chance you won't believe me.  But it is true. 

If the situation was reversed - had Arkansas, instead of Alabama, been voted #1 in the final regular season poll of that season (and, with 2 undefeated teams from "power" conferences, one was going to get the vote and the other was going to be second, kind of a coin toss), and then Arkansas had LOST in the Cotton Bowl while Bama beat Texas, I would NOT claim that year as a Championship.  I'd feel about it exactly as I felt the next year when Arkansas lost the Cotton Bowl game to LSU that kept it from being undisputed #1.  Yes, I know the AP and UPI would show us as champions, but I know how I felt and how invested all of us (not just Arkansas fans) were in the Bowl outcomes in THAT era.  You do NOT lose your last game (Bowl) and win the National Championship - it's just counter-intuitive.  In 1935 - yes, because those were one-off exhibitions at that time.  30 years later, no.

[razorbackkid]

35-3 would be a huge improvement

Huge?  No.

Improvement?  Yes.

That is so pathetic it was hard to type. 

[uams1989]

Wiz,

you are the ONLY fan, except for a few other Hog fans who whine about Bama, that I ever hear talk about this.  I won't ask you to produce proof or link to a Bama fan who complains about Arkansas because I am willing to bet that you can't.  I'm on Hogville, multiple Bama boards, and SECRant, and, I have never seen a Bama fan complain about Arkansas' claims (I've never even seen the first comment by a Bama fan that wasn't in response to an Arkansas fan's post.)  Bama fans don't care because Bama was awarded the two trophies.

This was my primary point.  Bama fans don't care about Arkansas' claims except when you (being Hog fans in general) start saying Bama doesn't have a claim.

Sorry you got so worked up about my avatar.  It's been the same for a couple of years, so, it's old now and I removed it.  I used it because you and some others kept making the claim that Bama wasn't 1964 NC.  They were and are.

It would be different if the Hot Springs Sentinel Record decided to name Bama NC that year and Bama fans were holding on to that.  It wasn't, and, your preaching now isn't going to change it one bit.

But, I don't see any evidence that the FWAA "outranked" the AP and UPI, either.  It was a horrible system, but, it was the system and you can't change that 50 years later.

We both got screwed in 1977, and, I think both of us have valid arguments...although, I think Bama has a better claim!  LOL!

[Sweet Feet]

Absolutely, it is.  I NEVER said anything else.  It is others, usually Bama fans, who make the bogus claim that Arkansas' claim is "suspect" because Alabama was awarded the #1 spot in the final AP and UPI polls of the season (which, by the way, were taken before even the all of the regular season games of that season were finished, let alone the Bowl games). 

That said, 1963 Texas was the undisputed, consensus #1 team and they, too, were simply "mythical" champions.  The difference is that they, alone, finished the regular and complete seasons undefeated and untied.  Had they lost to #2 Navy in the Cotton Bowl that year, the same type of chaos would have ensued.  Who knows?  Maybe it would have caused such a commotion that the polls would have taken a post-season vote a year earlier (1964) than they did.  But, yes, ALL National Championships prior to 1998 (BCS) are mythical.  However, that does not mean that some are clearly more or less valid than others, on a year by year basis.


Reality - you, an Alabama fan raised in a family of other Bama fans (who are NOT known for their humility when it comes to the Tide and their Championships) grew up hearing rationalizations of why Bama should claim that crown, disregarding what the college football community AT THE TIME felt and how people outside of Alabama saw things.  Of COURSE you would - it's what you want to believe anyhow, so it's easy to go along with what these trusted loved ones are telling you.  But it doesn't mean it's correct.

And your continued (and incorrect) claim that the AP and UPI were the "2 standards of the day" illustrates your misunderstanding of the situation, as it was in that day and age.  It's true, and I have so said, that the AP and UPI were respected and discussed during the season in that era.  I do not, and have not, disputed that at any time.  And, had they ALSO taken a post-Bowl vote, theirs would have been (as it later was, when they did take a post-Bowl vote) at the top of the list of National Champion awards.  But the fact that they didn't made both polls clearly flawed and added much more public interest in the "other" rating systems, especially in years where any of the top teams in serious contention lost their Bowl games.

To further clarify.  Yes, initially (20's and 30's, thr WWII), Bowls were basically "what if' exhibitions, the brainchild of businessmen who wanted to draw tourists during the Holiday Season.  Transportation and logistics being what they were at the time, it was uncommon for teams from opposite ends of the country to play each other very often.  Hence, there was a great deal of "what if?" interest in setting up some of these match-ups after the season to see if, for example, Knute Rockne's Notre Dame team would handle Pop Warner's Stanford bunch (1924 Rose Bowl).  Or, to see Michigan State play Auburn in the 1938 Orange Bowl, and so forth.  And that continued to be the case up through the 40's. 

But in the post-war era of the 50's, with travel becoming exponentially easier and America's interest in virtually all pursuits of leisure interests, the Bowl landscape grew to 8 games and there were more and more match-ups involving the top ranked teams.  This led to more disputes about who the "real" champions were after teams voted #1 in the final regular season polls lost their bowl games.  For example, in 1951 Tennessee was #1 from preseason all through the year, finishing atop the final regular season poll ahead of undefeated Michigan State and Maryland.  However, when the Terrapins knocked off the top-ranked Vols in the Sugar Bowl, they claimed the Championship and ignited a controversy. 

Politically, there was a lot of inertia to overcome, as Notre Dame had decided in the 1920's to not participate in them.  In the 1950's, as pressure mounted to vote after the Bowls, Notre Dame leadership feared they would be at a disadvantage if the Polls were held after Bowl games, since the Irish were not participating and might lose ground to teams that looked good in their Bowl wins.  It's hard to describe how powerful Notre Dame's influence was on college football back in that time, but it was significant.  Still, among fans in the court of public opinion, there was no doubt that Bowl games DID matter.  For the next 10-15 years, it was a matter of when - not "if" - the change would be made.  But, in the meantime, the Football Writers of America took matters in their own hands (1954) by establishing an award precisely to address this issue.  And it was immediately embraced by the public.  So that championship (FWAA) was every bit as respected and accepted in that era as the weekly AP/UPI polls were then or today.


With regard to me "hijacking" the thread, I'll point out that it was you who - by your own admission - posted an inflammatory avatar specifically designed to bait me into this very discussion.  Don't be the pot calling the kettle black here.  You got what you asked for.

And as for your final comment on others who may complain about Bama claiming other non-AP or UPI titles . . . I couldn't care less.  That has nothing to do with this one, specific year and situation.  Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Alabama does or doesn't "deserve" the other ones.  I just really don't care, and honestly haven't done the research on them, year by year.  Candidly, for all of my competitive zealousness about the Razorbacks, where any opponent is concerned, I do have a great deal of respect for Alabama's history and I know they have won many legitimate National Championships in football.  I default to assuming the "others" are valid as well, though I have heard anecdotal comments about one or two of them being "questionable".   Bama fans have every reason to be very, very proud of their team and program.

I can only say this - and I do so knowing in advance that there is a 90% chance you won't believe me.  But it is true. 

If the situation was reversed - had Arkansas, instead of Alabama, been voted #1 in the final regular season poll of that season (and, with 2 undefeated teams from "power" conferences, one was going to get the vote and the other was going to be second, kind of a coin toss), and then Arkansas had LOST in the Cotton Bowl while Bama beat Texas, I would NOT claim that year as a Championship.  I'd feel about it exactly as I felt the next year when Arkansas lost the Cotton Bowl game to LSU that kept it from being undisputed #1.  Yes, I know the AP and UPI would show us as champions, but I know how I felt and how invested all of us (not just Arkansas fans) were in the Bowl outcomes in THAT era.  You do NOT lose your last game (Bowl) and win the National Championship - it's just counter-intuitive.  In 1935 - yes, because those were one-off exhibitions at that time.  30 years later, no.

dude give it up wiz. You are trying too hard to rationalize something you really cant by giving pointless facts and subjective reasoning. The AP and UPI were the two major polls back in the day and no history lesson is never going to change that. Because every team who has a championship by these polls usually claims them. Was it flawed? Sure. But again, you are seeing this from todays standards rather than standards of back then. How flawed a system is isnt going to change the merit of the awards given by it. You wont see a * by every team pre 1966 who has won the AP and UPI titles then. Thats like putting a * on some of the past BCS champions either because they really didn belong in the title game, or they wouldve gotten beat had the playoff system been in effect (or maybe not even chosen for the playoffs). The AP and UPI national champs were given at the end of the regular season, meaning the champs had nothing to gain playing bowl games unless they wanted a postseason title claim. It doesn take a historian to know the AP polls/champs were more heralded than the fwaa.

Then to further point out holes in your argument, if the FWAA was equal to the AP and UPI polls, then on the basis of major poll votes, alabama beats arkansas 2-1. Its that simple.

Im sorry man, but your argument sound a little more subjective than objective

[WizardofhOgZ]

To uams and sweet feet . . . the final word on this.  You will either understand, or you won't.  I'm betting on the latter, based on your prior posts . . .

There are NO National Champions in college football - other than "mythical" - prior to 1998.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Therefore, despite your significant efforts to suggest otherwise, the AP and UPI (YOU call them "champions", I call them "the team that was voted #1 in the final poll of the regular season, BEFORE the Bowl games") were no more or no less recognized or "valid" than any of the other major awards (including the FWAA and the Helms Foundation) when it came to naming a National Champion.  During the season, their polls were closely watched.  But as for after the season, determining a Champion after all the games had been played, they were just one of many and NO more credible than the others.  In fact, until they started taking post-Bowl votes a few years later, noticeably NOT as credible in the early 1960's.

This is where sweet feet has it exactly backwards.  He keeps saying that I am trying to apply today's standards to 1964, yet it is HE (and uams) that are doing so by FALSELY claiming that the AP and UPI were the ones everyone looked to at the end of the season to name a National Champion.  No, that's what we do TODAY, when the votes are taken after all the games (Bowls included).  And for the last 40 years.  But in the 20 years before that, IT WAS DIFFERENT. 

Sweet feet says "Alabama's claim is better because it was voted #1 in two polls, Arkansas in one (in fact, Arkansas was recognized as the champion by 7 sources - FWAA, Helms Foundation, Sagarin, Billingsley, Poling, National Championship Foundation, College Football Research Assoc., to 4 for Alabama - AP, UPI, Berryman and Litkenhous); I say Arkansas was the choice in the polls taken after ALL games were played, while Alabama was selected by those taken before the Bowls.  I always, in ANY season, will take a poll that includes ALL games over one that does not.

I was there and spoke daily to fans of all different conferences and teams, and what I am relating is the way everyone thought and talked about college football and the National Championship.  And this was not in Arkansas!  It was in West Texas.

What I'm trying too hard to do is infuse logic into minds that can't, or choose not to think past their own existence, apparently.  I'm going to quit now.  The argument has been documented for anyone who has an interest in the truth and takes the time to read it with an open, logical mind - and the ability to think beyond their own personal experience, which is not always as easy as it sounds.  I know what I know - I remember.  Don't need anyone to tell me "how it was back then" because I was right there for the ride, the conversations with other fans, and the media coverage in real time.  Bama was voted #1 in the end of regular season AP and UPI polls; But Arkansas is the National Champion of 1964 for non-Alabama fans who were there to experience that season.  Period.

[Sweet Feet]

To uams and sweet feet . . . the final word on this.  You will either understand, or you won't.  I'm betting on the latter, based on your prior posts . . .

There are NO National Champions in college football - other than "mythical" - prior to 1998.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Therefore, despite your significant efforts to suggest otherwise, the AP and UPI (YOU call them "champions", I call them "the team that was voted #1 in the final poll of the regular season, BEFORE the Bowl games") were no more or no less recognized or "valid" than any of the other major awards (including the FWAA and the Helms Foundation) when it came to naming a National Champion.  During the season, their polls were closely watched.  But as for after the season, determining a Champion after all the games had been played, they were just one of many and NO more credible than the others.  In fact, until they started taking post-Bowl votes a few years later, noticeably NOT as credible in the early 1960's.

This is where sweet feet has it exactly backwards.  He keeps saying that I am trying to apply today's standards to 1964, yet it is HE (and uams) that are doing so by FALSELY claiming that the AP and UPI were the ones everyone looked to at the end of the season to name a National Champion.  No, that's what we do TODAY, when the votes are taken after all the games (Bowls included).  And for the last 40 years.  But in the 20 years before that, IT WAS DIFFERENT. 

Sweet feet says "Alabama's claim is better because it was voted #1 in two polls, Arkansas in one (in fact, Arkansas was recognized as the champion by 7 sources - FWAA, Helms Foundation, Sagarin, Billingsley, Poling, National Championship Foundation, College Football Research Assoc., to 4 for Alabama - AP, UPI, Berryman and Litkenhous); I say Arkansas was the choice in the polls taken after ALL games were played, while Alabama was selected by those taken before the Bowls.  I always, in ANY season, will take a poll that includes ALL games over one that does not.

I was there and spoke daily to fans of all different conferences and teams, and what I am relating is the way everyone thought and talked about college football and the National Championship.  And this was not in Arkansas!  It was in West Texas.

What I'm trying too hard to do is infuse logic into minds that can't, or choose not to think past their own existence, apparently.  I'm going to quit now.  The argument has been documented for anyone who has an interest in the truth and takes the time to read it with an open, logical mind - and the ability to think beyond their own personal experience, which is not always as easy as it sounds.  I know what I know - I remember.  Don't need anyone to tell me "how it was back then" because I was right there for the ride, the conversations with other fans, and the media coverage in real time.  Bama was voted #1 in the end of regular season AP and UPI polls; But Arkansas is the National Champion of 1964 for non-Alabama fans who were there to experience that season.  Period.

Its not just us that call them champions. Everyone else does. Even the NCAA. You call alabama's title claim "mythical", yet in 1950, it was said that when the AP and UPI polls were in agreement with their champion, the team was called the "Consensus" national champion, as in a general agreement that the team was the real national champion. So for you to say you were there and you knew what was what shows you really had no clue at that time. Arkansas' title was more mythical than Alabamas whether you want to admit it or not.


Again, there is a reason why teams accept championship claims from AP and UPI polls before the petty 3rd party polls you just mentioned: BECAUSE THEY WERE OF MORE VALUE. Nobody has even heard of those polls. Common sense says if the NCAA even consistantly used the AP, UPI, and FWAA to clarify the champions of back then, then those polls were obviously the major polls. Argue with the NCAA about that. Its just downright stupid to claim the AP and UPI polls had the same merit as the other irrelevant 3rd party polls nobody claims or can name without looking it up. They may have the same value to you, but anyone with football smarts knows otherwise.

Where you say i have it backwards, 1. If you think the AP and UPI had the same merit as ay other poll, then you already lost this argument. 2. You are wrong again. Everybody was more prone to base their champion of the AP and UPI polls along with other major poll in the FWAA. This was before and after they crowned their champions after bowl games. And i highly doubt theres anyone who disagrees.

Alabama's claim is more legit than arkansas once again because they had the 2 major polls on their side, not a crap ton of irrelevant polls that the average team wouldn even recognize or claim. Nobody in the USA cares about those other polls.

The basis of your flawed argument is your perception that the AP and UPI had the same merit as others and, no matter how much you deny it, that arkansas went undefeated and won a bowl game in a time where the more recognized champs were determined before bowl season and bowl games determined if you won 1 of the major polls. You are only downplaying the Ap/upi to the same value as the other polls arkansas has won just to make arkansas look like the more legitimate champion. its not working. You just tell me how it "supposedly" was back then, yet you can't give me any factual evidence that the Ap/upi was on the same level of merit and value as the other polls. You claim arkansas as champs based off your own criteria, making your argument subjective and devoid. Me and uams use legitimate facts. You can say you was there all you want, but if cant give evidence that the AP and UPI werent the main polls from the 30s to 98, then you have no argument and you lack college football IQ

To further shut this down, how are you gonna say there was no national champions prior to 1998 only mythical and turn around and say Arkansas is the National champion of 1964? I rest my case. That shows your argument is like moldy swiss cheese. Full of holes.

[870hogfan]

Arkansas is the true 1964 National Champion.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Its not just us that call them champions. Everyone else does. Even the NCAA. You call alabama's title claim "mythical", yet in 1950, it was said that when the AP and UPI polls were in agreement with their champion, the team was called the "Consensus" national champion, as in a general agreement that the team was the real national champion. So for you to say you were there and you knew what was what shows you really had no clue at that time. Arkansas' title was more mythical than Alabamas whether you want to admit it or not.


Again, there is a reason why teams accept championship claims from AP and UPI polls before the petty 3rd party polls you just mentioned: BECAUSE THEY WERE OF MORE VALUE. Nobody has even heard of those polls. Common sense says if the NCAA even consistantly used the AP, UPI, and FWAA to clarify the champions of back then, then those polls were obviously the major polls. Argue with the NCAA about that. Its just downright stupid to claim the AP and UPI polls had the same merit as the other irrelevant 3rd party polls nobody claims or can name without looking it up. They may have the same value to you, but anyone with football smarts knows otherwise.

Where you say i have it backwards, 1. If you think the AP and UPI had the same merit as ay other poll, then you already lost this argument. 2. You are wrong again. Everybody was more prone to base their champion of the AP and UPI polls along with other major poll in the FWAA. This was before and after they crowned their champions after bowl games. And i highly doubt theres anyone who disagrees.

Alabama's claim is more legit than arkansas once again because they had the 2 major polls on their side, not a crap ton of irrelevant polls that the average team wouldn even recognize or claim. Nobody in the USA cares about those other polls.

The basis of your flawed argument is your perception that the AP and UPI had the same merit as others and, no matter how much you deny it, that arkansas went undefeated and won a bowl game in a time where the more recognized champs were determined before bowl season and bowl games determined if you won 1 of the major polls. You are only downplaying the Ap/upi to the same value as the other polls arkansas has won just to make arkansas look like the more legitimate champion. its not working. You just tell me how it "supposedly" was back then, yet you can't give me any factual evidence that the Ap/upi was on the same level of merit and value as the other polls. You claim arkansas as champs based off your own criteria, making your argument subjective and devoid. Me and uams use legitimate facts. You can say you was there all you want, but if cant give evidence that the AP and UPI werent the main polls from the 30s to 98, then you have no argument and you lack college football IQ

To further shut this down, how are you gonna say there was no national champions prior to 1998 only mythical and turn around and say Arkansas is the National champion of 1964? I rest my case. That shows your argument is like moldy swiss cheese. Full of holes.

You know, I'd really not have gotten to this point . . . but I don't know how else to say it at this point. Your entire post reeks of ignorance and general cluelessness. 

I scarcely know where to begin, and I'm not going to take the time to trump all of your foolish blathering; as it is, I've wasted far too much time on someone apparently incapable of honest objectivity and intellectual integrity.  Moreover, both you and uams have been completely unresponsive to point after point I've made in prior posts - so why should I respond to your shoddy ramblings?  You either have nothing to say about them (a de facto admission that they are correct) ~or~ you don't understand them ~or~ you only read what you want to read and disregard those points that don't fit your agenda.  Or some combination of the three.  Either way, I now see you for what you are - it's like arguing with a tree stump.

So just a couple of points and then I'll leave it to you to come back with yet another futile "response" and move on.  Suffice to say you and your buddy have not brought anything to this thread that moves the needle at all.  Football IQ?  Lol . . . I leave more of that in my crapper each morning that you and uams have combined.

(a) if you had read and comprehended my posts, you'd understand that I acknowledged and explained the difference between 1950 and the mid-60's where polls, Bowls and Championships were concerned.  To bring up that particular year shows how far off point you are in this discussion.

(b) If you don't think college football national championships in the 1960's were "mythical", then read this from Dan Jenkins (I'm going to assume that you don't know it - but he was THE undisputed top college football national writer in the 1960's and 1970's, writing for Sports Illustrated, which was every bit the authority in those days that ESPN has been the last 20 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Jenkins):

"The win left Broyles's team undefeated and untied through 11 games and deserving of the mythical award as national champion. Among the major teams in contention, Arkansas had the only perfect record. It could boast that during the regular season it had defeated not only Nebraska, the Big Eight champion, but Texas, conqueror of Alabama, and Tulsa, the Bluebonnet Bowl winner, too. Moreover, the number of victories achieved by Arkansas' 11 victims totaled 57, far more than the opposition of other possible claimants, including Notre Dame and Rose Bowl champion Michigan. "I certainly consider us No. 1," said Broyles, who had rushed with his team out of a post-game banquet to cheer for Texas on television.

Since 1954 the Football Writers Association of America has believed that the wire-service polls were impulsive and inconclusive, and has therefore waited until after the bowl games to select the winner of its own Grantland Rice Trophy. It was only right that the writers should name Arkansas as the nation's best college football team of 1964."

http://www.si.com/vault/1965/01/11/607262/arkansas-takes-over-at-the-top

Here is further proof that prior to the BCS games, there were only mythical national champions for college football:

"A college football national championship in the highest level of play in the United States, currently the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), is a designation awarded annually by various third-party organizations to their selection(s) of the best college football team(s). Division I FBS football is the only NCAA sport in which a yearly champion is not determined by an NCAA-sanctioned championship event. Because of this, it is sometimes referred to as a "mythical national championship".

Due to the lack of an official NCAA championship, determining the nation's top college football team has often engendered controversy. A championship team is independently declared by various individuals and organizations, often referred to as "selectors". These choices are sometimes not unanimous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

Also from that link:

Though some of the math systems selected champions after the bowl games, both of the major polls released their rankings after the end of the regular season until the AP polled writers after the bowls in 1965, resulting in what was perceived at the time as a better championship selection (Alabama) than UPI's (Michigan State).

This is reinforcement of my previously stated personal observation, having been there at the time, that the public knew that post-Bowl votes and awards were better than those awarded at the end of the regular season.  In point of fact, the obvious failure of AP and UPI to name the right team in 1964 directly led to them finally taking a post-Bowl vote the very next year.  However, this specific topic had been debated, as I've been telling you, for more than 10 years already. 

When I say that Arkansas is the one and only "true" champion of 1964, I'm not saying they are the official Champs of that year.  If you should have learned anything from the lesson I've attempted to teach you here, it's that there is no such thing as an "offical" National Champion prior to 1998.  I'm saying an objective and honest review of the 1964 season indicates that they are, without a doubt, the best choice among the several that were made before and after the Bowls. And they were the public consensus of those who watched the games in that season.

You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but you're only talking about things you don't know anything about if you do.  You may find some listeners among those who are similarly clueless, but that doesn't change what was and will always be.

[HF#1]

Just score a touchdown or two and hold Alabama under 35 and I'll be happy.

[Ramtough]

Some nights I log on to HV and see threads like this and think OMG do these people even watch college football. Lol

[uams1989]

Good Gosh, Sweet Feet...

You're arrogant. I'm an idiot...

He obviously knows what these are because he just keeps on and on.

You were right. The longer the diatribes and the more he goes on and on, the more ridiculous and self-serving he appears. It's as if he's so desperate for Arkansas to have a NC, he can't stand that it's not undisputed. 

You made valid points and are dead on. Always glad to find some rational thought on here.

He's told us twice he was "shutting this down" only to leave another lecture wreaking of desperation and talking about how we're the fools!

[Sweet Feet]

Good Gosh, Sweet Feet...

You're arrogant. I'm an idiot...

He obviously knows what these are because he just keeps on and on.

You were right. The longer the diatribes and the more he goes on and on, the more ridiculous and self-serving he appears. It's as if he's so desperate for Arkansas to have a NC, he can't stand that it's not undisputed. 

You made valid points and are dead on. Always glad to find some rational thought on here.

He's told us twice he was "shutting this down" only to leave another lecture wreaking of desperation and talking about how we're the fools!

I know lol. He still predominately talks about how flawed the polls were and still wont make the call that the AP and UPI polls had merit in their championship polls. but will pump up the one major poll that they won which is hilarious and despirate to me. I cant take him that seriously as much anymore because im starting to feel sorry for him lol. Its the price of having logical non-razorback, college football IQ i guess. Its just common sense tells me AP/UPI > FWAA because of the system prior to 66. He tries so hard to de-value the two most important polls smh

[Sweet Feet]

You know, I'd really not have gotten to this point . . . but I don't know how else to say it at this point. Your entire post reeks of ignorance and general cluelessness. 

I scarcely know where to begin, and I'm not going to take the time to trump all of your foolish blathering; as it is, I've wasted far too much time on someone apparently incapable of honest objectivity and intellectual integrity.  Moreover, both you and uams have been completely unresponsive to point after point I've made in prior posts - so why should I respond to your shoddy ramblings?  You either have nothing to say about them (a de facto admission that they are correct) ~or~ you don't understand them ~or~ you only read what you want to read and disregard those points that don't fit your agenda.  Or some combination of the three.  Either way, I now see you for what you are - it's like arguing with a tree stump.

So just a couple of points and then I'll leave it to you to come back with yet another futile "response" and move on.  Suffice to say you and your buddy have not brought anything to this thread that moves the needle at all.  Football IQ?  Lol . . . I leave more of that in my crapper each morning that you and uams have combined.

(a) if you had read and comprehended my posts, you'd understand that I acknowledged and explained the difference between 1950 and the mid-60's where polls, Bowls and Championships were concerned.  To bring up that particular year shows how far off point you are in this discussion.

(b) If you don't think college football national championships in the 1960's were "mythical", then read this from Dan Jenkins (I'm going to assume that you don't know it - but he was THE undisputed top college football national writer in the 1960's and 1970's, writing for Sports Illustrated, which was every bit the authority in those days that ESPN has been the last 20 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Jenkins):

"The win left Broyles's team undefeated and untied through 11 games and deserving of the mythical award as national champion. Among the major teams in contention, Arkansas had the only perfect record. It could boast that during the regular season it had defeated not only Nebraska, the Big Eight champion, but Texas, conqueror of Alabama, and Tulsa, the Bluebonnet Bowl winner, too. Moreover, the number of victories achieved by Arkansas' 11 victims totaled 57, far more than the opposition of other possible claimants, including Notre Dame and Rose Bowl champion Michigan. "I certainly consider us No. 1," said Broyles, who had rushed with his team out of a post-game banquet to cheer for Texas on television.

Since 1954 the Football Writers Association of America has believed that the wire-service polls were impulsive and inconclusive, and has therefore waited until after the bowl games to select the winner of its own Grantland Rice Trophy. It was only right that the writers should name Arkansas as the nation's best college football team of 1964."

http://www.si.com/vault/1965/01/11/607262/arkansas-takes-over-at-the-top

Here is further proof that prior to the BCS games, there were only mythical national champions for college football:

"A college football national championship in the highest level of play in the United States, currently the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), is a designation awarded annually by various third-party organizations to their selection(s) of the best college football team(s). Division I FBS football is the only NCAA sport in which a yearly champion is not determined by an NCAA-sanctioned championship event. Because of this, it is sometimes referred to as a "mythical national championship".

Due to the lack of an official NCAA championship, determining the nation's top college football team has often engendered controversy. A championship team is independently declared by various individuals and organizations, often referred to as "selectors". These choices are sometimes not unanimous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

Also from that link:

Though some of the math systems selected champions after the bowl games, both of the major polls released their rankings after the end of the regular season until the AP polled writers after the bowls in 1965, resulting in what was perceived at the time as a better championship selection (Alabama) than UPI's (Michigan State).

This is reinforcement of my previously stated personal observation, having been there at the time, that the public knew that post-Bowl votes and awards were better than those awarded at the end of the regular season.  In point of fact, the obvious failure of AP and UPI to name the right team in 1964 directly led to them finally taking a post-Bowl vote the very next year.  However, this specific topic had been debated, as I've been telling you, for more than 10 years already. 

When I say that Arkansas is the one and only "true" champion of 1964, I'm not saying they are the official Champs of that year.  If you should have learned anything from the lesson I've attempted to teach you here, it's that there is no such thing as an "offical" National Champion prior to 1998.  I'm saying an objective and honest review of the 1964 season indicates that they are, without a doubt, the best choice among the several that were made before and after the Bowls. And they were the public consensus of those who watched the games in that season.

You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but you're only talking about things you don't know anything about if you do.  You may find some listeners among those who are similarly clueless, but that doesn't change what was and will always be.

You are right. It wont change what was and will always be. Thererfore,
AP/UPI > FWAA. End of story.
And no not through your pointless ramblings can you refute that. Nor by all the "i think, he think, they think" talk that you try to use, rather than "what is".  Bama has two of the major poll trophies at their place.The FWAA can say what they will, but one thing they wont take into account is how a national champion of two major polls will play in a glamorized beauty contest of a bowl game back when it had no significance to them. Alabama had nothing to play for like arkansas did, which is why they probably lost to texas and the format was changed few years later.

Il let you have the mythical argument. But even one of the sources you used to define a mythical national champion is the same source that stated a team with both ap and upi poll votes were considered consensus national champions despite how flawed people thought it was. (Poll era 1936-)

You can continue to downplay the merit and value of the AP/UPI titles because of its flaws and since it interferes with arkansas title claim in your world. But until you prove otherwise, AP and UPI together > FWAA alone. The End.