Texas Longhorn Natl' Champs in football?

[royhitshard]

Could anybody help me out and let me know how many they have? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[k19]

AP in 69
Unanimous in 63


I think thats it

 

[royhitshard]

AP in 69
Unanimous in 63


I think thats it

Thank you very much!

 

[Roughneck]

Could anybody help me out and let me know how many they have? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

Three

1963
1969
1970 (Co-National Champs along with Nebraska and Ohio State)

 

[royhitshard]

Three

1963
1969
1970 (Co-National Champs along with Nebraska and Ohio State)

Three champs in 1970? That's messed up! Wasn't born yet, so I don't understand that.

 

[Roughneck]

Three champs in 1970? How does that happen? Wasn't born yet, so I don't understand that.

Because there were more than just two polls at the time.

Nebraska = Asssociated Press, Football Writers Association of America National Champs

Texas = United Press/UP International (Coaches Poll at the time), National Football Foundation (tied #1 with OSU) National Champs

Ohio State = National Football Foundation (tied #1 with Texas) National Champs

Most people don't count 1970 as a National Championship year for OSU because they were not a concensus #1 in a single poll but it all depends on just who you talk to.

 

[royhitshard]

Because there were more than just two polls at the time.

Nebraska = Asssociated Press, Football Writers Association of America National Champs

Texas = United Press/UP International (Coaches Poll at the time), National Football Foundation (tied #1 with OSU) National Champs

Ohio State = National Football Foundation (tied #1 with Texas) National Champs

Most people don't count 1970 as a National Championship year for OSU because they were not a concensus #1 in a single poll but it all depends on just who you talk to.

Wow, I did not know that. Thank you very much for you help.

 

[joseephuss]

Wow, I did not know that. Thank you very much for you help.

Wasn't Texas undefeated that 1970 season, but then lost in the Cotton Bowl? And didn't the UPI put their final poll out before the bowl games, but the AP did theirs after?

Back then, they system for determining national champs was truly screwed up. Things have come so far.

Edit:
I found this link to the 1970 championship.

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/pages/winningtrads/1970natchamps.html

 

[royhitshard]

Wasn't Texas undefeated that 1970 season, but then lost in the Cotton Bowl? And didn't the UPI put their final poll out before the bowl games, but the AP did theirs after?

Back then, they system for determining national champs was truly screwed up. Things have come so far.

It sounds like we have come full circle.

 

[Danny White]

Wasn't Texas undefeated that 1970 season, but then lost in the Cotton Bowl? And didn't the UPI put their final poll out before the bowl games, but the AP did theirs after?

Back then, they system for determining national champs was truly screwed up. Things have come so far.

Edit:
I found this link to the 1970 championship.

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/pages/winningtrads/1970natchamps.html

I think that we have come a long way. The current system, for all of it's flaws, is much better than what we used to have.

I guarantee you that if they put in a four team playoff or a +1 system, people would be dissastisfied and beyotching about it within 3 years.

A full 16 team playoff is never going to happen. It would mean that as many as four teams would have a 15-16 game season!

The BCS had a tough job to accomplish. Due to various factors they had to maintain the status quo (the bowl system) while trying to determine a consensus National Champion. They had to keep the major conferences happy and try to manage all sorts of vocal minorities such as the Rose Bowl and Notre Dame who insisted on exceptions being made for them.

Given the constraints under which the BCS was operating under, I think they came up with a fair system. One that didn't give too much influence to the human polls and balanced it out with more objective analysis to determine the two best teams at the end of the "regular season."

No system is perfect, as this has shown, but I think it gets a bad rap from people who want something that is never going to happen (playoffs).

Just my $.02

 

[royhitshard]

I totally agree with the fact that you cannot please everybody, and I believe they got it right this year. If you have a 16 team playoff, then #17 will complain that they should be 16, and so on. The system is only set up to choose the top two teams, and maybe last year was a mess up, but not this year! The best teams will face off in the Orange Bowl. Sooners will win by 10!

 

[joseephuss]

I totally agree with the fact that you cannot please everybody, and I believe they got it right this year. If you have a 16 team playoff, then #17 will complain that they should be 16, and so on. The system is only set up to choose the top two teams, and maybe last year was a mess up, but not this year! The best teams will face off in the Orange Bowl. Sooners will win by 10!

People will listen to a team(Auburn) aruge they should be either #1 or #2 when they are undefeated. Not many people are going to care about a team with probably 2 or 3 losses arguing that they should be #16(Tennesee).

 

[joseephuss]

I think that we have come a long way. The current system, for all of it's flaws, is much better than what we used to have.

I guarantee you that if they put in a four team playoff or a +1 system, people would be dissastisfied and beyotching about it within 3 years.

A full 16 team playoff is never going to happen. It would mean that as many as four teams would have a 15-16 game season!

The BCS had a tough job to accomplish. Due to various factors they had to maintain the status quo (the bowl system) while trying to determine a consensus National Champion. They had to keep the major conferences happy and try to manage all sorts of vocal minorities such as the Rose Bowl and Notre Dame who insisted on exceptions being made for them.

Given the constraints under which the BCS was operating under, I think they came up with a fair system. One that didn't give too much influence to the human polls and balanced it out with more objective analysis to determine the two best teams at the end of the "regular season."

No system is perfect, as this has shown, but I think it gets a bad rap from people who want something that is never going to happen (playoffs).

Just my $.02

I agree that it is a difficult task to improve the sytem and I do like the current one better than the old one. But, it still leaves much to be desired.

I don't think teams will care about playing 2 or 3 more games a year if it means more money. Heck, teams now want to play in the early games(kickoff classic, black coaches association classic, etc.) for the extra income.

I also don't know about the unobjective analysis part. I learned long ago that figures can lie and liers can figure. These guys running the computer rankings can skew the numbers to make certain teams or conferences look better than others. If there was a truly unbiased statistical rating system, then there would only be need for one and not the 4 or 5 that they use.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

I think what many of you have to ask yourself is "fair" the most entertaining? Because remember that football is entertainment after all. That's the way I look at the BCS. It's not the most fair process. A playoff would be the most fair process. However, the regular season matters in college football. You can't take a weekend off like they do in the NFL. The regular season in college basketball is a joke. So in a way, it is a very entertaining process. It may not be the most fair process but it is very entertaining. Likewise, the human/subjective factor is what makes college football fun. This is why you can argue and have such passion every week.

It's not a perfect system and no system will be perfect. The last thing I want to see is what Arizona did in 1997 or what Villanove did in 1983 in college basketball. I don't want to see some team that was performing at a marginal level suddely get on a hot streak and win the whole darn thing in the end. I want to see teams take every Saturday seriously.

If they could have a playoff for only undefeated teams or teams with the same record, I would be cool with that but I wouldn't want a system in which a team could slack off and lose a game or two knowing they are in the playoffs.

 

[Danny White]

I think what many of you have to ask yourself is "fair" the most entertaining? Because remember that football is entertainment after all. That's the way I look at the BCS. It's not the most fair process. A playoff would be the most fair process. However, the regular season matters in college football. You can't take a weekend off like they do in the NFL. The regular season in college basketball is a joke. So in a way, it is a very entertaining process. It may not be the most fair process but it is very entertaining. Likewise, the human/subjective factor is what makes college football fun. This is why you can argue and have such passion every week.

It's not a perfect system and no system will be perfect. The last thing I want to see is what Arizona did in 1997 or what Villanove did in 1983 in college basketball. I don't want to see some team that was performing at a marginal level suddely get on a hot streak and win the whole darn thing in the end. I want to see teams take every Saturday seriously.

If they could have a playoff for only undefeated teams or teams with the same record, I would be cool with that but I wouldn't want a system in which a team could slack off and lose a game or two knowing they are in the playoffs.

Agreed 100%

 

[joseephuss]

I think what many of you have to ask yourself is "fair" the most entertaining? Because remember that football is entertainment after all. That's the way I look at the BCS. It's not the most fair process. A playoff would be the most fair process. However, the regular season matters in college football. You can't take a weekend off like they do in the NFL. The regular season in college basketball is a joke. So in a way, it is a very entertaining process. It may not be the most fair process but it is very entertaining. Likewise, the human/subjective factor is what makes college football fun. This is why you can argue and have such passion every week.

It's not a perfect system and no system will be perfect. The last thing I want to see is what Arizona did in 1997 or what Villanove did in 1983 in college basketball. I don't want to see some team that was performing at a marginal level suddely get on a hot streak and win the whole darn thing in the end. I want to see teams take every Saturday seriously.

If they could have a playoff for only undefeated teams or teams with the same record, I would be cool with that but I wouldn't want a system in which a team could slack off and lose a game or two knowing they are in the playoffs.

Good points. How about taking the top 12 teams into a playoff system. The top 4 get a first round by and the remaining 8 square off. That gives incentive to win all the regular season games to get into the top 4. Of the remaining 8, the 4 highest ranked teams host the game. Again there would be an incentive to win regular season games, because home field not only gives a team an advantage, it brings more money to the university. The remaining rounds could be incorporated into 7 bowl games that rotate to host the championship.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

Good points. How about taking the top 12 teams into a playoff system. The top 4 get a first round by and the remaining 8 square off. That gives incentive to win all the regular season games to get into the top 4. Of the remaining 8, the 4 highest ranked teams host the game. Again there would be an incentive to win regular season games, because home field not only gives a team an advantage, it brings more money to the university. The remaining rounds could be incorporated into 7 bowl games that rotate to host the championship.

12 is too many teams in my opinion. That's precisely the setup you don't want because a Miami, or Oklahoma will feel confident they can break the top 12 at the end. I was thinking along the lines of 6 teams.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

12 is too many teams in my opinion. That's precisely the setup you don't want because a Miami, or Oklahoma will feel confident they can break the top 12 at the end. I was thinking along the lines of 6 teams.

Six won't work. I think if you give two teams buys, then your right back to the same problem. You probably do it off of rankings and we all know that rankings aren't always fair. This year you have 4 unbeaten teams. I don't know if Auburn or Utah are better then USC or Oklahoma but I do know that because SC and OU started high in the pre-season polls, Auburn nor Utah ever had a hope of unseating them. Better if you just make it play out all on the field.

Do 4 teams or 8 teams. Seat high vs low, based on the polls and geterdone.