🏈 Here's a question. Both published in 1941, how is the AP Poll better than the Houlgate System?

[TerryP]

Feel free to up vote any answer you like.

 

[SoCalPatrick]

I've wondered how fans point to Auburn's 1957 championship and the letters sent from them to AP voters asking them to vote Auburn #1. But the same fans look at a poll 16 years earlier and say that's the benchmark.

 

[TerryP]

Here's another funny thing @SoCalPatrick

The way National Champions were selected changed over night apparantly. Houlgate had been around for years ranking National Champions by his formula. It was recognized around the NCAA.

The AP appears and suddenly Houlgate isn't legitimate any more? (The AP poll was five years old in 1941.)

@50+yeartidefan

Whether fans choose to recognize '41 is all on them. The University recognizes that season.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Here's another funny thing @SoCalPatrick

The way National Champions were selected changed over night apparantly. Houlgate had been around for years ranking National Champions by his formula. It was recognized around the NCAA.

The AP appears and suddenly Houlgate isn't legitimate any more? (The AP poll was five years old in 1941.)

@50+yeartidefan

Whether fans choose to recognize '41 is all on them. The University recognizes that season.

I know bama recognizes it...i have a tshirt with it and many others on it...

 

[OldPlayer]

The last Houlgate ranking was in 1958. Houlgate died in 1959. I’m guessing he didn’t give his formula to anyone.

The AP system is pretty straightforward. There are 62 sportswriters who provide their own top 25. First place votes get 25 points, second place gets 24 and so on until the 25th ranked team gets 1 point. Sum up the totals and you have the rankings.

 

[TerryP]

The last Houlgate ranking was in 1958. Houlgate died in 1959. I’m guessing he didn’t give his formula to anyone.

The AP system is pretty straightforward. There are 62 sportswriters who provide their own top 25. First place votes get 25 points, second place gets 24 and so on until the 25th ranked team gets 1 point. Sum up the totals and you have the rankings.

Here's the problem, OP. The AP system in 1941 was not straightforward. The numbers you're referring to here represent the present day AP. It's not what the AP poll was in 1941.

Here's why I ask how one is better than the other. Taking the AP for a second here.

I'm looking at a polling system that was it its fifth year. A group of newspaper editors who, like today, offer their opinion on which team is the best in the nation. We know it was predominantly north eastern based although it was nationwide.

Where were these voters getting the basis for their top ten? What made team A better than team B when they couldn't see what happened in the game: it was a box score based opinion. It was not only score biased, regionally biased, but easily influenced.

I’m guessing he didn’t give his formula to anyone.

While we were watching the shuffling of computer models at the beginning of the end of the BCS era, his great grandson John had intentions of launching HoulgateRankings.com. Literally, in the preliminary stages of being published in 2011. As we know the BCS fell by the wayside as did his plans.

His formula is not a secret. But his system and its history must be.

One thing you'd appreciate about his system is there wasn't a pre-season poll. Every team started equally. It weighed the strength of schedule along with other components.

The Houlgate System and its results were equally respected by college football's community in 1941. As you can see both systems had holes, sure.

But we're still left with the question of why one is considered better today than it was the day it was published? In 1942 people would refer to Alabama as a national title winner based on Houlgate's system but today ... ?

 

[TerryP]

I know bama recognizes it...i have a tshirt with it and many others on it...

As well as the NCAA record books.

 

[TerryP]

For what it's worth, anytime this subject comes up from people outside of Bama I always have the same reponse.

I don't care which poll you use, there's a bunch.

 

[TerryP]

Can you imagine what the US Open would be like for Phil and Dustin if it were being played at Bethpage? Or Winged Foot?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

As well as the NCAA record books.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

See the other thread on your "ranked by the AP."

Saw. But #2..3....4...
I could buy bias....but #20....
Like a lotof things thats a stretchhhhhhhhh

 

[TerryP]

Saw. But #2..3....4...
I could buy bias....but #20....
Like a lotof things thats a stretchhhhhhhhh

And we're still where we were after the first post. It's not about bias, it's about the availability of information for AP voters. It's about the infancy of that poll. It's about how these voters didn't see, or follow, teams around the nation.

So here we are...

Why is the AP poll any more credible than the Houlgate? On what basis are those AP votes based?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

And we're still where we were after the first post. It's not about bias, it's about the availability of information for AP voters. It's about the infancy of that poll. It's about how these voters didn't see, or follow, teams around the nation.

So here we are...

Why is the AP poll any more credible than the Houlgate? On what basis are those AP votes based?

All good points. Sorta anyway


There was certainly a lot less " seeing for themselves "

But then by the same thoughts. Ohio State legitimately can claim 1961 because football writers so awarded them

And bama did not win sec which started topic with A$M claim of title without even winning conference.

And also validates UCF NC claim

And then there is Tennessees 1967 with #1 by Lickenhouse. And TN also a 9-2

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Houlgate is looked as lower now because it no longer exists. It's wrong and similar to confirmation bias. If it were really good it would have lasted. Since it no longer exists it must have been bad. That's why you have the media and teams focusing on "poll era" to hammer it in that anything not AP/UPI/etc is garbage.

 

[TerryP]

But then by the same thoughts. Ohio State legitimately can claim 1961 because football writers so awarded them

That's what you're saying using the AP vote to discredit Houlgate.

Why shouldn't Ohio State claim and display that trophy? It's the Grantland Rice awarded at the time. It's not the AP they claim. In 1961 that trophy, from those writers, was a big deal. If you're saying their NC award, as writers, was wrong how was the AP vote right 20 years earlier? It's the same people. Football writers.

Why did they recognize Houlgate then, but not now?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

That's what you're saying using the AP vote to discredit Houlgate.

Why shouldn't Ohio State claim and display that trophy? It's the Grantland Rice awarded at the time. It's not the AP they claim. In 1961 that trophy, from those writers, was a big deal. If you're saying their NC award, as writers, was wrong how was the AP vote right 20 years earlier? It's the same people. Football writers.

Why did they recognize Houlgate then, but not now?

Ok.

Just anybody can claim any championship they want then!!!!!
As long as its on a tshirt!

Including the Demopolis Timbs Auburn National championship 94 ( just kidding)

 

[252BAMA]

I have never agreed with Bama recognizing 1941. With that said, IMO 1941 Minnesota is right up there with 1984 BYU as the most undeserving NC in history. Minnesota played but 3 teams with a winning record in 1941. None with over 6 wins. Bama played 8 teams with a winning record. Six of them with 8 or more wins.

The Houlgate system weighed very heavily the Bowl games and this is where Bama proved to him that they were the best team. The Texas A&M team that Bama beat in the Cotton Bowl had lost but 2 games in the previous THREE years. Look at the records of Minnesota and Bama and tell me Minnesota was better.

1941-Minnesota (Western)​
9/27​	@	Washington (5-4)	W	14​	6​
10/11​	vs.	*Illinois (2-6)	W	34​	6​
10/18​	vs.	Pittsburgh (3-6)	W	39​	0​
10/25​	@	*Michigan (6-1-1)	W	7​	0​
11/1​	vs.	*Northwestern (5-3)	W	8​	7​
11/8​	vs.	Nebraska (4-5)	W	9​	0​
11/15​	@	*Iowa (3-5)	W	34​	13​
11/22​	vs.	*Wisconsin (3-5)	W	41​	6​
	8-0-0​		186	38

1941-Alabama (SEC)​
9/27​	vs.	Louisiana-Lafayette (non-IA)	W	47​	6​
10/4​	vs.	*Mississippi State (8-1-1)	L	0​	14​
10/11​	@	Samford (non-IA)	W	61​	0​
10/18​	@	*Tennessee (8-2)	W	9​	2​
10/25​	vs.	*Georgia (9-1-1)	W	27​	14​	@ Birmingham, AL
11/1​	vs.	*Kentucky (5-4)	W	30​	0​
11/8​	@	*Tulane (5-4)	W	19​	14​
11/15​	vs.	*Georgia Tech (3-6)	W	20​	0​	@ Birmingham, AL
11/22​	@	*Vanderbilt (8-2)	L	0​	7​
11/28​	@	Miami (Florida) (8-2)	W	21​	7​
1/1​	vs.	Texas A&M (9-2)	W	29​	21​	@ Dallas, TX	Cotton Bowl
	9-2-0​		263	85

 

[XXL TideFan]

Here's the problem, OP. The AP system in 1941 was not straightforward. The numbers you're referring to here represent the present day AP. It's not what the AP poll was in 1941.

Here's why I ask how one is better than the other. Taking the AP for a second here.

I'm looking at a polling system that was it its fifth year. A group of newspaper editors who, like today, offer their opinion on which team is the best in the nation. We know it was predominantly north eastern based although it was nationwide.

Where were these voters getting the basis for their top ten? What made team A better than team B when they couldn't see what happened in the game: it was a box score based opinion. It was not only score biased, regionally biased, but easily influenced.



While we were watching the shuffling of computer models at the beginning of the end of the BCS era, his great grandson John had intentions of launching HoulgateRankings.com. Literally, in the preliminary stages of being published in 2011. As we know the BCS fell by the wayside as did his plans.

His formula is not a secret. But his system and its history must be.

One thing you'd appreciate about his system is there wasn't a pre-season poll. Every team started equally. It weighed the strength of schedule along with other components.

The Houlgate System and its results were equally respected by college football's community in 1941. As you can see both systems had holes, sure.

But we're still left with the question of why one is considered better today than it was the day it was published? In 1942 people would refer to Alabama as a national title winner based on Houlgate's system but today ... ?

It was biased against the south. Then again I generally despise yankee sportsmouths

 

[252BAMA]

As for the AP Polls, until 1960, anyone who was a member of the Associated Press could vote in their Poll. My uncle, who owned an automotive garage and service station in the Birmingham area was a member and voted. In 1957 there were 360 votes cast with Auburn receiving 210 first place votes. Rest assured, my uncle's was not one of the 210. He is the reason I am a Bama fan.

1957 Final Football Polls | College Poll Archive

www.collegepollarchive.com

 

[50+yeartidefan]

As for the AP Polls, until 1960, anyone who was a member of the Associated Press could vote in their Poll. My uncle, who owned an automotive garage and service station in the Birmingham area was a member and voted. In 1957 there were 360 votes cast with Auburn receiving 210 first place votes. Rest assured, my uncle's was not one of the 210.

1957 Final Football Polls | College Poll Archive

www.collegepollarchive.com

But you play who is on the schedule.....glad things are different now....
And there is so much exposure....with CFPs....
Different but improved CF championship world...IMO

Now...AUand the 57 NC.... they were on probation....and prohibited from playing in bowls.... i know AU fans scream about someNCs bama claim....( 41, 73, 64...etc). But if any NC is illegit ...its 57 and AU...IMO