One addendum, often overlooked in the MSU game. A passage from a book called "Biggest Game of Them All"...

"It turns out Parseghian was blamed for running the ball up the middle when they got it back deep in their own territory with less than a minute-and-a-half to play rather than trying to throw for a touchdown or to get in field goal range. But surprisingly no one blamed Michigan State Coach Duffy Daugherty for punting the ball away on 4th-and-four on their own 36-yard line with just 1:24 left to play..."
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 6:45 pm | #

Other 60's college football player on cover of Time? -- Roger Staubach
Matt Angry Matt | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 7:01 pm | #

Bing.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 7:33 pm | #

How can USC be a 3 peat when they tied for the NC two years ago. Woudn't that just be a 2.5 peat?
Thomas Rosenberger | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 7:41 pm | #

One fact missing from the writer's article about Alabama is that the Tide lost in a bowl game after the 1964 season. Bama won the title because the polls awarded the trophies before the bowls. Arkansas won its bowl game and went undefeated, but it did not win the title. The polls changed the very next year to hold off awarding the national titles until after the bowl games. The Tide should be thankful for its 64 title and not cry so much about 66.
John | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 7:50 pm | #

Notre Dame 1993, nuff said.
Mack | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 8:05 pm | #

Auburn, 2004
Penn State, 1994
Notre Dame, 1993

And can some Bama fan explain to me why the Tide shared the 1978 crown after they lost to USc at home by 10?
Heath | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 8:45 pm | #

Doesn't home field advantage usually count for +4 points for the home team?

And didn't ND march into SPARTAN STADIUM and steal a 10-10 tie?

Had the tie been at ND, I would have voted that MSU deserved the NC. But the game wasn't at ND, and 'Bama doesn't even come into the conversation, OK?
atepesm | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 10:05 pm | #

Before the season started 2 years ago there were a rules in place to determine who should get to play for the National title. The winner of the BCS championship game is the national champ. Based on those rules, USC didn't get to play for the title and therefore didn't win it (didn't USC have a tie that year?). The national champion was Oklahoma. I don't like the media picking champions like ND in 66 or FSU in 93 just because a particular team is in vogue.

If USC wins the title this year by winning the BSC championship, then they will have one 2 in a row.
Moose Krause | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 11:38 pm | #

Somebody explain this logic to me:
"Instead of Alabama vaulting to No. 1, Notre Dame and Michigan State stayed 1-2, respectively."
Mike Steedle | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 11:40 pm | #

One week later, ND went to the Coliseum and put a 51-0 whipping on USC, "rehabilitating" their image, as it were (and setting up a big karmic payback over the subsequent years, compliments of John McKay).

If I recall correctly, the ND game was MSU's last of the season. They were Big Ten champs, but were INELIGIBLE to go to the Rose Bowl (and make their own good last impression) because they had gone to the Rose Bowl the year before, and Big Ten rules of the time prohibited the same school going two years in a row.
DJ | Email | Homepage | 08.23.05 - 11:52 pm | #

And Bryant had several opportunities to get revenge on the Irish in the years following '66. What was he, like 0 - 4?
terry lally | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 5:39 am | #

'Bama fans already take credit for about 10 national championships that they didn't win. I'm surprised they haven't just gone ahead and claimed that '66 was a championship year too.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 9:26 am | #

Still thinking the most compelling argument of all was the fact that Notre Dame was still NOTRE DAME in all caps back then. Bama wasn't robbed, they were just casualties of reputation. Notre Dame just happened to have a better one.

Give the voters an uncompelling argument, and they'll find their own reasons. Give fans a controversy, and they'll move the poles to spin it their way.
Orson Swindle | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 9:28 am | #

In '66 ND was NOT favored to beat MSU easily. I was on campus that year and the tension and anticipation was like none other. Both teams were considered world beaters by the media. Bama was not a significant factor in the media at the time---all signs pointed to East Lansing. The outcome was disappointing to all, but probably a fair reflection of the true quality and caliber of both teams. Either one would have run Bama into the ground.
Dave | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:04 am | #

If you really want to reach back in history, ND '46-'49 was unbeaten (only 3 ties), yet the were only champs in '46, '47 and '49.

Michigan won the crown in '48, and I know some of the ND players think that they were ripped-off, as the opponents ND played were of a very high caliber.

My great uncle played on those 4 ND teams, you will never convince him otherwise who the champ was in '48.
John B. | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:18 am | #

Orson - I don't think 'Bama was a victim of reputation at all. Keep in mind that in 1966 a) they were virtually tied with MSU to start the season, and b) they lost the #1 to MSU right off the bat, while ND was still #6. In other words, it wasn't Bama vs ND when they dropped out of #1; it was Bama vs MSU. ND wasn't in the hunt yet. ND eventually took over the top spot from MSU, not Bama.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:30 am | #

Still begs the question of why Bama didn't rise above two teams who tied. Horrific PR still seems like a strong explainer.
Orson Swindle | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:39 am | #

Maybe, like Dave said, the voters figured that both ND and MSU would beat Alabama in a head-to-head match.
DJ | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:46 am | #

I just like the Alabama argument for the way it makes HP and CFR's blood pressure rise.
Stranko Montana | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 11:16 am | #

Orson, that happens all the time in college football. Take Utah from last year, for instance. 12-0, but ranked behind 12-1 Oklahoma.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 11:16 am | #

"And yet, when Bama fans talk about the Game of the Century, they throw around terms like "blemish" and "black mark", as if the tie was as lousy and damning as a loss."

Isn't it?
Todd | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 12:30 pm | #

It's not called "Southern Cal"--you may refer to it as USC, Southern California, or Troy, but calling it "Southern Cal" is like Calling San Francisco "'Frisco" or referring to South Bend as South Be...
boifromtroy | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 12:31 pm | #

Look at FSU losing to Notre Dame in 1993. They fell from #1 all the way to number #2, ahead of undefeated Nebraska, West Virginia and Ohio State (which had a tie).
Kelley Cook | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 12:37 pm | #

Reader John sent us these additional notes in an email. Thanks, John.

*** Louisiana Tech's actual classification in 1966 was NCAA's "Small College Division." The NCAA didn't split into Divisions I, II and III until about 1973, and Division I didn't split into I-A and I-AA until 1978. Tech flipped between D-II, D-IAA and D-IA before landing in I-A for good in 1989. Your point remains valid -- Tech had no business being on Bama's 1966 schedule (and they were only 1-9 that year).

*** ND did not run up the score on Southern Cal in 1966. We led 31-0 at halftime and 44-0 after three quarters. Our only fourth-quarter score was an INT return for a TD to make the final 51-0.

*** ND also denied Alabama a possible three-peat more than a decade later. In 1977, ND finished the regular season ranked 5th and Bama was 3rd. They were the only top-five teams to win their bowl games, and by comparable margins (ND 38, Texas 10; Bama 35, Ohio State 6). But because Texas was No. 1 and Ohio State only the Big Ten runners-up, ND leap-frogged over Bama in both polls to win the championship. Bama fans were so outraged they penned a derisive song called "The Little Blue Nun." Bama won a split title in 1978 (with Southern Cal) and was the consensus NC in 1979, so a 1977 title would've made it three straight.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 1:20 pm | #

Big difference in the ND/Alabama comparison and the OU/Utah comparison, reputation wise.

We've got our thoughts on the mothership, but again: bad PR didn't lose them the national championship, but it sure as hell didn't help.
Orson Swindle | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 1:46 pm | #

Three observations:

1) Comparing Utah-Oklahoma and Alabama-Notre Dame is borderline insanity. Alabama was the two-time defending national champions. It would be a closer comparison if Auburn and Oklahoma tied in the Orange Bowl and Oklahoma was given the title over Auburn or USC.

2) Alabama was the two-time defending national champions. It isn't feasible that USC could go undefeated this year and not get the title...but that's exactly what happened in '66.

3) The pollsters often change their minds between a "who you beat" mentality and a "who you lost to" mentality in their votes. In '93 FSU got the nod because they lost to ND while ND lost to BC later in the season. In '00 FSU lost to Miami, Miami lost to Washington, Washington lost to somebody not named FSU or Miami. Which team deserved to play Oklahoma? FSU lost to the best team of the three. FSU got the nod. Whether it is right or wrong is a different debate, but this has been one of the major criticisms of the polls.
I'm a Realist | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 1:56 pm | #

Realist,

The OU/Utah comparison was a counterpoint to the claim that by virtue of having a better record, a team must necessarily be ranked higher.

Your analogy to last year doesn't reflect the circumstances of 1966, in which Alabama was ranked #1 for all of one week, and fell to #2 before they'd even played a game. As I said above, it's not as if Alabama got the rug pulled out from under them at the last second -- they played the whole season at either #2 or #3.

The proper analogy to last year is if USC and Oklahoma had battled to a tie in the Orange Bowl, and then Auburn fans clamor to be ranked #1 as a result. It doesn't follow.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Regarding the 3peat, don't forget that Bama was the beneficiary of a rule change in how the National Champion was determined. In '64 the final bowl game was not counted and Bama was beaten by Texas in the Orange Bowl. Therefore there should have logically not been an NC. The following year the bowl game counted and Bama won that one which was the difference in their NC. Logically they could be argued at best to have 2 NCs and at worst only 1
martino | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Jay,

In regards to your "correct" analogy, isn't that exactly what really happened?

Consider this:

MSU = USC (ranked #1)
Alabama = Oklahoma (ranked #2)
Notre Dame = Auburn (not ranked #1 or 2)

USC and Auburn tie in the Orange Bowl, and through a miracle of science, Auburn goes back in time and changes their schedule around to have the toughest one ever conceived to get the AP championship over USC or Oklahoma. That is a valid comparison.

Wait...I don't care either way. Screw Alabama.
I'm a Realist | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 2:51 pm | #

Actually, I was thinking of USC-OU as ND-MSU and Alabama playing the role of Auburn in the '04 updated version.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 3:10 pm | #

Speak of the devil...

Scott Adamson has a piece in the Birmingham Post-Herald today about Charlie Weis. Link here.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 4:12 pm | #

In regards to the usage of the term "SOUTHERN CAL," don't people shorten words all the time, like "The Bend" and "ND?" I don't see the problem with "SOUTHERN CAL," and I don't see why people get so upset about the term "SOUTHERN CAL." Do people from "SOUTHERN CAL" not like the association with former "O's" great "Cal" (short for Calvin) Ripken.

Also, isn't "boi" a modification of the word "boy?" Why is that OK, by "SOUTHERN CAL" isn't?

SOUTHERN CAL!
Tom | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 6:31 pm | #

Orson,
How is it possible that when the two best teams in the country play and tie, the third-best team should suddenly be considered better than them? If either had tied with a lesser team, then fine, but what you are suggesting goes against both logic and common sense. I feel like you are crossing into Michigan fan territory. There, I said it!
Mike Steedle | Email | Homepage | 08.24.05 - 10:38 pm | #

I grew up in Alabama, but we rooted for ND (I went to SMC, little sister went to ND).

We had ND and SMC bumper stickers on the car we shared in high school. I can't tell you the number of times our car had nasty notes left on it or other Nasty Things. (The boys up the street from us pooped on the hood of the car one night when it was parked in the driveway. They were 'Bama fans.)

To this day, people are still bitter that The Bear never beat the Irish.
Scherza | Email | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:15 pm | #