DuckSouth.com

Why did Archie tell that bold face lie just before the UM vs UA game, stating that UM has won 3 national championships in football to boost the football "prestige" at UM?

It's an honest question......just want a honest answer.

b/c according to certain publications...we have won 3 NC...not stating my claim one way or another, just saying that it is recognized that way by some so it's not a bold face lie.....

Yeah, it's a bold face lie either way ya tell it.

Only one service named Mississippi in 1962 (one of the 3 claimed with banners in VHS): Litkenhous (1934-84), a difference-by-score formula developed by Edward E. Litkenhous, a professor of chemical engineering at Vanderbilt, and his brother, Frank.

But Litkenhous didn't pick UM in 1959 or 1960. So is Litkenhous valid or not?

No way that college football research is considered valid, as it's just another one of those retroactive polls/algorithms, which NO other school counts (except maybe Bama). Not one school has counted a Sagarin national championship since he started, much less Sagarin going back retroactively and choosing champions.

In 2002, Southern Call finished #1 by Dunkel, Matthews, and Sagarin. Does USC claim a NC in 2002? Do they have a banner or tell CBS that they've won THREE STRAIGHT national champions? No, Ohio State is the ONLY school considered to be the national champion that season. Heck, the way UM people are thinking about this championship selection stuff, Vanderbilt can lay claim to 2 NC's also.

Historical list of National Champions
Complete list of college football national champions by year:
2004 Southern California (13-0)
2003 Louisiana State (13-1) Southern California (12-1)
2002 Ohio State (14-0)
2001 Miami (12-0)
2000 Oklahoma (13-0)
1999 Florida State (12-0)
1998 Tennessee (13-0)
1997 Michigan (12-0) Nebraska (13-0)
1996 Florida (12-1)
1995 Nebraska (12-0)
1994 Nebraska (13-0)
1993 Florida State (12-1)
1992 Alabama (13-0)
1991 Washington (12-0) Miami (12-0)
1990 Colorado (11-1-1) Georgia Tech (11-0-1)
1989 Miami (11-1)
1988 Notre Dame (12-0)
1987 Miami (12-0)
1986 Penn State (12-0)
1985 Oklahoma (11-1)
1984 Brigham Young (13-0)
1983 Miami (11-1)
1982 Penn State (11-1)
1981 Clemson (12-0)
1980 Georgia (12-0)
1979 Alabama (12-0)
1978 Alabama (12-1) Southern Cal (12-1)
1977 Notre Dame (11-1)
1976 Pittsburgh (12-0)
1975 Oklahoma (11-1)
1974 Oklahoma (11-0) Southern Cal (10-1-1)
1973 Notre Dame (11-0) Alabama (11-1)
1972 Southern Cal (12-0)
1971 Nebraska (13-0)
1970 Nebraska (11-0-1) Texas (10-1)
1969 Texas (11-0)
1968 Ohio State (10-0)
1967 Southern Cal (10-1)
1966 Notre Dame (9-0-1)
1965 Alabama (9-1-1) Michigan St. (10-1)
1964 Alabama (10-1)
1963 Texas (11-0)
1962 Southern Cal (11-0)
1961 Alabama (11-0)
1960 Minnesota (8-2)
1959 Syracuse (11-0)
1958 LSU (11-0)
1957 Auburn (10-0) Ohio State (9-1)
1956 Oklahoma (10-0)
1955 Oklahoma (11-0)
1954 Ohio State (10-0) UCLA (9-0)
1953 Maryland (10-1)
1952 Michigan State (9-0)
1951 Tennessee (10-0)
1950 Oklahoma (10-1)
1949 Notre Dame (10-0)
1948 Michigan (9-0)
1947 Notre Dame (9-0)
1946 Notre Dame (8-0-1)
1945 Army (9-0)
1944 Army (9-0)
1943 Notre Dame (9-1)
1942 Ohio State (9-1)
1941 Minnesota (8-0)
1940 Minnesota (8-0)
1939 Texas A&M (11-0)
1938 Texas Christian (11-0)
1937 Pittsburgh (9-0-1)
1936 Minnesota (7-1)

IMHO, if you are consensus pick for the NC, then you can claim it. Notice I said 'consensus.'

Rankings have changed so much over the years, there is no way to determine an outright NC for EVERY year.

Perhaps M$U fans are just mad they've never even be in the mix.

On another note, I don't think OM should crown themselves 'SEC Western Champions' in 2002. They did not go to Atlanta and the team that did represent the West in Atlanta beat them on the field.

whatever you wanna say, I am not trying to argue with you about it...but the school recognizes it....much the way USC claims a split and Auburn claimed it on being undefeated...until there is a proper system in place for determining a champion there is always going to be these discrepencies and multiple schools claiming them

But if you wanna be a ass about it anyway...I guess this is an easy one for Miss State huh???????

webbmaster wrote:IMHO, if you are consensus pick for the NC, then you can claim it. Notice I said 'consensus.'

Rankings have changed so much over the years, there is no way to determine an outright NC for EVERY year.

Perhaps M$U fans are just mad they've never even be in the mix.

On another note, I don't think OM should crown themselves 'SEC Western Champions' in 2002. They did not go to Atlanta and the team that did represent the West in Atlanta beat them on the field.

I agree, I hate them doing that....but in OM defense, BCS is the accepted crowning champion system, yet we allow AP to afford USC and other the option of claming the split....

MSU can possibly lay claim to a NC also, since they won the 1941 Orange Bowl, which was considered at that time to be the national championship bowl.

I don't feel LSU should claim a NC for 2003 nor Auburn in 2004, even though the Sugar Bowl that season was the BCS championship bowl picked in 03.

Ark claims to be the '98 SEC West Champion also, even though State beat them head to head but had the same record and went on to Atlanta and blew the SECCG against UT.

The ironic thing about the whole BCS deal is that years ago, there wasn't that much of a national debate over who the outright NC was.

these days, the BCS is supposed to take care of all questions and it seems like there is more debate now than ever.

Greenhead22 wrote:MSU can possibly lay claim to a NC also, since they won the 1941 Orange Bowl, which was considered at that time to be the national championship bowl.

I don't feel LSU should claim a NC for 2003 nor Auburn in 2004, even though the Sugar Bowl that season was the BCS championship bowl picked in 03.

Ark claims to be the '98 SEC West Champion also, even though State beat them head to head but had the same record and went on to Atlanta and blew the SECCG against UT.

Why in the heck can't LSU claim NC in 03????? They were invited to play in the champoinship game, accepted by ALL DIV 1 schools and they won it....USC is the one that shouldn't be able to claim anything, sucks for them, but they were the odd man out....and sucks for AU but they shouldn't be able to claim anythign either!

These arguements will FOREVER go on with the way things, but it's meant to be this way for money purposes, so lets get used to it...

I don't feel LSU should claim a NC for 2003

Thats BS. They won the Championship that year based on the fact the BCS system would determine the NC. Everyone agreed to it before the year and they did everything they were supposed to do.

End of story.

LSU and Auburn both went into the bowl games as the #3 ranked team in the BCS, so why should they be able to win those bowls and bump up to #1 when USC had it all the time.

If USC wins it again this season, they can rightfully claim to be the 3 time defending national champion because they will finish #1 in the BCS 3 yrs in a row even though they didn't "play" in the BCS pre-selected championship bowl game.

Greenhead22 wrote:LSU and Auburn both went into the bowl games as the #3 ranked team in the BCS, so why should they be able to win those bowls and bump up to #1 when USC had it all the time.

If USC wins it again this season, they can rightfully claim to be the 3 time defending national champion because they will finish #1 in the BCS 3 yrs in a row even though they didn't "play" in the BCS pre-selected championship bowl game.

USC DID NOT finish #1 in BCS 3 years in a row...they finished #1 last year and #3 in BCS in 03...they finished #1 in AP last 2 years....

LSU did what they were supposed to do and they won the NC.

This debate made more sense 2 years ago...now its just digging up a lost argument.

Nope, y'all don't see where I'm coming from this this..........plus I'm tryin to fire this damn board up and quite possibly found the topic to do it.

In 2003, the BCS pre-selected championship game was the Sugar Bowl.

The BCS rankings going in those bowl games where as follows: #1 USC #2 OK #3 LSU #4 VT.

USC got to play VT because the sec championship game winner is more or less required to play in the sugar bowl game, whether or not it's the bcs selected champ game or not.

In 2004, the BCS pre-selected championship game was the Rose Bowl.

USC was #1 in the BCS at that time, not sure whether or not AU was #2.......and if they were...........should've played USC instead of being forced to play in the sugar bowl, which happened not to be the pre-selected championship game for last year........so they got stuck unlike LSU didn't the year before.

well i don't see any problem with them claiming 3 titles, there where many different tings going on back then far as claiming titles, and there where many split championships that you did not list, just like alabama claims 12 national championships