tOfficial Auburn Superthread

[boxedlunch]

I don't mind it that much. The AP poll back then was so biased that math polls were probably the most accurate. There are things about 41 that don't make sense if you look at the details, but you can say the same thing about the AP poll pretty much every year back then.

If nothing else it's a chance to point out to folks that the AP poll was horrible for many years.

This is so often said, but rarely, if ever supported. Do you have facts that indicate the AP poll was severly biased in 1941?

 

[bamabear82]

lol @ awwbun in general.

 

[boxedlunch]

There is no logical argument for '41.

On the contrary. A respected system picked Alabama. Alabama's SOS was fairly far above the others in the AP poll. I'm neither surprised that a respected selector picked them, nor am I surprised that a school claims a title given by a respected selector.

I see why it's considered iffy, but not surprised by it.

 

[4down20]

This is so often said, but rarely, if ever supported. Do you have facts that indicate the AP poll was severly biased in 1941?

1) Minnesota 8-0
2) Duke 9-1
3) Notre Dame 8-0-1
4) Texas 8-1-1
5) Michigan 6-1-1
6) Fordham 8-1
7) Missouri 8-2
8) Duquesne 8-0
9) Texas A&M 9-2
10) Navy 7-1-1
11) Northwestern 5-3
12) Oregon State 8-2
13) Ohio State 6-1-1
14) Georgia 9-1-1
15) Penn 7-1
16) Mississippi State 8-1-1
17) Mississippi 6-2-1
18) Tennessee 8-2
19) Washington State 6-4
20) Alabama 9-2

Meanwhile, SoS wise, the Helms apparently thought Alabama's was good enough for #1. Maybe Alabama wasn't the #1 team that year, but #20 is even worse.

Alabama beat #14 Georgia and #7 Texas A&M(Cotton Bowl, so before the final poll at least). Lost in an upset to Vandy and lost to Miss St.

 

[boxedlunch]

1) Minnesota 8-0
2) Duke 9-1
3) Notre Dame 8-0-1
4) Texas 8-1-1
5) Michigan 6-1-1
6) Fordham 8-1
7) Missouri 8-2
8) Duquesne 8-0
9) Texas A&M 9-2
10) Navy 7-1-1
11) Northwestern 5-3
12) Oregon State 8-2
13) Ohio State 6-1-1
14) Georgia 9-1-1
15) Penn 7-1
16) Mississippi State 8-1-1
17) Mississippi 6-2-1
18) Tennessee 8-2
19) Washington State 6-4
20) Alabama 9-2

Meanwhile, SoS wise, the Helms apparently thought Alabama's was good enough for #1. Maybe Alabama wasn't the #1 team that year, but #20 is even worse.

Alabama beat #14 Georgia and #7 Texas A&M(Cotton Bowl, so before the final poll at least). Lost in an upset to Vandy and lost to Miss St.

Helms selected Minnesota as their champion in 1941, not Alabama, which of course, in now way shows that the polls were bias or not. The two opinions agree, as did others. Houlgate's system came up with Alabama #1. Again, just another opinion. More opinions selected Minnesota than Alabama, which is not evidence of bias either way.

Now, since you've not given the record of the team at the time of the voting, it's difficult to even make a case based on what you've presented, but let's address the teams you've highlighted.

Northwestern was 5-3. There 3 losses were to top 5 teams, two undefeated. They beat a top 20 team. Now, a case can be made that they should have been lower, but it's not so odd that a team would be ranked high whose only losses came to top 5 teams. That's not so out there that I'd assume bias without supporting evidence.

Mississippi 6-2-1. Okay, Alabama probably should have been above them, but it is fairly close. So in order to show bias, I'd like your theory as to who pushed Mississippi over Alabama in the voting. Bear in mind that Alabama got 6 points, to Mississsippi's 10 points, so it's real close. Tell me that a single sportwriter got overzealous and I'll buy it. However that only works at the bottom of the poll, not the top.

Washington State 6-3. Some bad losses early, but finished up with 5 wins in a row. Probably a mistake, but the voting was 7 to 6 WSU and one place. Is this a major example of bias?

It seems more likely that there were not enough voters to justify the poll, rather than bias.

In order to show bias, you have to estabilish that the voters predominately voted for something that makes no sense logically. You've done nothing to show that logically Alabama should not have been perceived as #20, and through the votes predudice they voted against them. You and I both agree that Alabama seems low at 20, but I didn't see them play, so I don't know. Said thing is some of the voters didn't either, I'm sure, but that's another problem. I'll believe bias when I see something would indicate that nothing but the predudice of the voters decide it, otherwise it's the gut feeling of people with no evidence.

 

[4down20]

Helms selected Minnesota as their champion in 1941, not Alabama, which of course, in now way shows that the polls were bias or not. The two opinions agree, as did others. Houlgate's system came up with Alabama #1. Again, just another opinion. More opinions selected Minnesota than Alabama, which is not evidence of bias either way.

Yes, meant houlgate, not helms.

Now, since you've not given the record of the team at the time of the voting, it's difficult to even make a case based on what you've presented, but let's address the teams you've highlighted.

There were only a few bowls back then.

Northwestern was 5-3. There 3 losses were to top 5 teams, two undefeated. They beat a top 20 team. Now, a case can be made that they should have been lower, but it's not so odd that a team would be ranked high whose only losses came to top 5 teams. That's not so out there that I'd assume bias without supporting evidence.

ties = losses as far as I'm concerned, because they ain't wins. Even still, there is no reason why Northwestern should be where they are.

Mississippi 6-2-1. Okay, Alabama probably should have been above them, but it is fairly close. So in order to show bias, I'd like your theory as to who pushed Mississippi over Alabama in the voting. Bear in mind that Alabama got 6 points, to Mississsippi's 10 points, so it's real close. Tell me that a single sportwriter got overzealous and I'll buy it. However that only works at the bottom of the poll, not the top.

All of them who put Alabama so low... Or do you really think Alabama should be #20?

Washington State 6-3. Some bad losses early, but finished up with 5 wins in a row. Probably a mistake, but the voting was 7 to 6 WSU and one place. Is this a major example of bias?

WSU didn't belong in the top25 at all.

It seems more likely that there were not enough voters to justify the poll, rather than bias.

Well, you need more voters to overcome bias...

In order to show bias, you have to estabilish that the voters predominately voted for something that makes no sense logically. You've done nothing to show that logically Alabama should not have been perceived as #20, and through the votes predudice they voted against them. You and I both agree that Alabama seems low at 20, but I didn't see them play, so I don't know. Said thing is some of the voters didn't either, I'm sure, but that's another problem. I'll believe bias when I see something would indicate that nothing but the predudice of the voters decide it, otherwise it's the gut feeling of people with no evidence.

It's likely none of the voters saw Alabama play. Which is why the AP polls back in those days were so bad/biased.

 

[boxedlunch]

There were only a few bowls back then.

Which doesn't make it any less difficult. Also, the voting took place before the season ended.

ties = losses as far as I'm concerned, because they ain't wins. Even still, there is no reason why Northwestern should be where they are.

While ties might = a loss to you, that doesn't mean it does, or should to any voters. Even so, it has nothing to do with "bias". I don't see why Northwestern is where they are, but that doesn't mean I can't see justification for it outside of bias.

Let's put it this way. I can assume you're taking your position is because of bias. You are an Alabama fan, and Houlgate supported Alabama. If I were to say this is because of bias, I would be making a non-logical statement because I can see justification for your point of view. You saying the polls were bias based solely on Alabama's position is equally unfair, IMO.

All of them who put Alabama so low... Or do you really think Alabama should be #20?

Strictly speaking NOBODY put Alabama at #20. A majority of voters left them out of the top 10. I don't see leaving Alabama out of a top 10 as some wild point of view, I just don't. They did lose 2. There were no teams in the top 10 that lost 2. Leaving Alabama out seems natural.

WSU didn't belong in the top25 at all.

Agreed. It's not so wild that a 6-3 team ended up ranked, though.

It's likely none of the voters saw Alabama play. Which is why the AP polls back in those days were so bad/biased.

It's highly unlikely that no voters saw Alabama play. Were there no sportswriters covering Alabama? It's likely some didn't see them play. It's likely none saw all the teams play. That is not an ounce of proof of bias, though.

 

[4down20]

Strictly speaking NOBODY put Alabama at #20. A majority of voters left them out of the top 10. I don't see leaving Alabama out of a top 10 as some wild point of view, I just don't. They did lose 2. There were no teams in the top 10 that lost 2. Leaving Alabama out seems natural.

But they didn't leave Northwestern(aka Chicago) out.

 

[potzer25]

Congratulations to LSU on their 2011 National Championship:

Rank	Team		Wins	Losses	Grade 	Points	SOS GPA
1 	LSU		13  	1 	B	40 	3.500
2 	Oklahoma State	12  	1 	B	31 	3.070
3 	Alabama		12  	1 	B	28 	2.840
4 	Boise State	12  	1 	B	23 	2.460
5 	Houston		13  	1 	B	20 	2.070
6 	Arkansas	11  	2 	C	20 	2.920
7 	Oregon		12  	2 	C	19 	2.640
8 	TCU		11  	2 	C	18 	2.760
9 	Stanford	11  	2 	C	15 	2.530
10 	Michigan	11  	2 	C	15 	2.530

2011 College Football Season Rankings | Houlgate College Football Rankings​

 

[boxedlunch]

But they didn't leave Northwestern(aka Chicago) out.

Yes they did. Northwestern finished #11 which, by most people's reckoning is not in the top 10. It's only your bias that makes you say it is.

Okay, so more people voted for Northwestern. Alabama lost to teams outside of the top 5.

 

[BamaTee1]

Congratulations to LSU on their 2011 National Championship:

Rank	Team		Wins	Losses	Grade 	Points	SOS GPA
1 	LSU		13  	1 	B	40 	3.500
2 	Oklahoma State	12  	1 	B	31 	3.070
3 	Alabama		12  	1 	B	28 	2.840
4 	Boise State	12  	1 	B	23 	2.460
5 	Houston		13  	1 	B	20 	2.070
6 	Arkansas	11  	2 	C	20 	2.920
7 	Oregon		12  	2 	C	19 	2.640
8 	TCU		11  	2 	C	18 	2.760
9 	Stanford	11  	2 	C	15 	2.530
10 	Michigan	11  	2 	C	15 	2.530

2011 College Football Season Rankings | Houlgate College Football Rankings​

Hate to tell you but this is the type NC Auburn is looking at! They are about to be the joke of college football, if not careful!

 

[4down20]

Congratulations to LSU on their 2011 National Championship:

Rank    Team        Wins    Losses    Grade     Points    SOS GPA
1     LSU        13      1     B    40     3.500
2     Oklahoma State    12      1     B    31     3.070
3     Alabama        12      1     B    28     2.840
4     Boise State    12      1     B    23     2.460
5     Houston        13      1     B    20     2.070
6     Arkansas    11      2     C    20     2.920
7     Oregon        12      2     C    19     2.640
8     TCU        11      2     C    18     2.760
9     Stanford    11      2     C    15     2.530
10     Michigan    11      2     C    15     2.530

2011 College Football Season Rankings | Houlgate College Football Rankings​

Well shit, Les Miles will have to get their rings redone.

 

[boxedlunch]

Yes they did. Northwestern finished #11 which, by most people's reckoning is not in the top 10. It's only your bias that makes you say it is.

Okay, so more people voted for Northwestern. Alabama lost to teams outside of the top 5.

Reading this a second time, I realize I should have put a smiley face by the bias comment, as it's not as obvious a joke as I had intended.

 

[potzer25]

Hate to tell you but this is the type NC Auburn is looking at! They are about to be the joke of college football, if not careful!

Nothing I can do about it and I've already made my position clear. Couple bama posters here show that a generation from now it won't matter, though.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Well shit, Les Miles will have to get their rings redone.

Forgot about that pretty funny.

 

[boxedlunch]

The first team to finish ranked in the top 10 of the AP with 3 losses:


Alabama


An honor shared with Michigan.

 

[potzer25]

The first team to finish ranked in the top 10 of the AP with 3 losses:


Alabama


An honor shared with Michigan.

Well that's crap. The only reason a 9-2 wasn't voted National Champion is due to bias against Alabama. Don't you know the AP underrated bama for years??

 

[boxedlunch]

Well that's crap. The only reason a 9-2 wasn't voted National Champion is due to bias against Alabama. Don't you know the AP underrated bama for years??

I'm trying. I don't dismiss the possibility of bias, but I've never seen of that bias, nor have a seen a convincing argument. Not only has he failed to make a case here, he's not done enough to even show me what kind of bias he feels exist. I'll admit it looks like he's saying the polls were biased against Alabama, hence Ole Miss was ranked in front of them, etc, but it's not been stated and the case laid out is completely unclear.

I'm to the point where I have to ask, what was the poll biased for or against? If the claim is they were biased against teams that lost, then it's probably correct. If the claim is they are biased against teams that wear green or start with the letter 'A', then the claim is probably not. I usually see it used in conjunction with someone trying to feel better about their team because their rank was lower than their esteem can handle, which doesn't make a convincing argument.

 

[4down20]

The first team to finish ranked in the top 10 of the AP with 3 losses:


Alabama


An honor shared with Michigan.

What does that have to do with 41?

 

[boxedlunch]

What does that have to do with 41?

Nothing. If you remember our conversation, it had nothing to do with 1941, either. It was about bias in the polls. I must have missed where you said that the bias was for 1941 and 1941 alone because otherwise the above comment makes no sense at all.