RBR Reading Room: The Missing Ring
Among the more common stereotypes foes of Alabama football employ against the Crimson Tide partisans centers on the 13 National Championships the university claims. Given the capricious manner by which the title has been awarded over the history of the sport, a certain amount of debate would seem to be inevitable.
Yet the matter is very straight forward in the minds of Alabama fans; we don't particularly care what the naysayers think because we remember what happened in 1966. The title of Keith Dunnavant's 2006 book says it all: The Missing Ring: How Bear Bryant and the 1966 Alabama Crimson Tide Were Denied College Football's Most Elusive Prize.
Alabama was awarded the national championship in 1964 and 1965 and were chasing an unprecedented third title in 1966. They were the pre-season No. 1 team, they were undefeated and untied in the regular season and they completely blew out the highly ranked Nebraska Cornhuskers in the 1967 Sugar Bowl.
Instead, Notre Dame, a team that not only had a tie on its record but settled for that outcome rather than playing to win, was crowned champions. Clearly something much more than what is apparent on the playing field was afoot and Dunnavant's book sets out to understand exactly what.
Dunnavant's book is one of the best about Crimson Tide football. He demonstrates a deft touch with the narrative showing a distinctive flair without succumbing to the sins of sentimentality. In the concluding chapters of The Missing Ring he lets his allegiances come to the surface but not at the expense of the overall work itself.
I think this is partially due to the specific scope he allows himself in The Missing Ring. By focusing on one season the abundance of material about the program and it's larger than life coach can be cast as background. Instead of a mountain of anecdotes and data you have a better understanding of the immediate drama of each phase of the season and how it slowly developed and reaches its bittersweet conclusion.
The Missing Ring deftly sketches the background of the Crimson Tide program, the legendary head coach, Paul W. Bryant, and the main players who were involved in the 1966 campaign. If there's a villain here it's Notre Dame head coach, Ara Parseghian, who decided to play for a tie in the match with Michigan State setting the stage for the controversy that followed.
where Ara Parseghian opted to kiss his sister.
Parseghian's decision was far too cynical a gambit in the mind of Alabama fans who were still staunch idealists when it came to their view of football.
"When you're the champ, you don't go for a tie," Coach Bryant once said. "You're out there to win."
The Missing Ring would be simply another Alabama hagiography if Dunnavant left it at that and, thankfully, he doesn't. A odious as Parseghian's decision was, it didn't represent the heart of the problem. Pollsters had too cast their votes and there was more at work on their decisions than just the outcome of football games.
The 1966 squad was playing on the edge of an era. It was one of the last great teams of one-platoon football playing in the days before television and the pro game dominated the national consciousness. "For most fans in 1966," Dunnavant writes. "Football existed much more in the mind than in the eye."
But that perception was inexorably being caught up with the vast social turmoil in the country. The opposition to the war in Vietnam was feeding the burgeoning counter-culture movement and both becoming mainstream issues. Even more pressing was the civil rights struggle that had enveloped the south for more than a decade.
Southerners might have felt these issues were neatly compartmentalized but by the mid-1960s it was increasingly apparent they were not.
One of the key points Dunnavant makes is that while the Crimson Tide football program was emblematic of everything Alabama held dear - it also represented the more distasteful aspects of their society. Segregation was a fact of life through the mid-1960s in the South and the football team in Tuscaloosa was a very visible reminder of that fact.
Even as Bryant and his coaches and players worked long hours to build a powerful football program that their state could be proud of, they were engaged in a contentious struggle for the meaning of Alabama in the nation's eyes. Was Alabama about excellence in football? Or bigotry?
The answer to that question isn't nearly as clear cut as either side tried to make it and The Missing Ring is important in laying out the many conflicting details of the situation that are often overlooked due to the mythology that Alabama football tends to attract and the stereotypical shorthand we too often let pass for our understanding of history.
The Missing Ring succeeds because, instead of trying to assign blame for what happened in 1966, Dunnavant attempts to show how the tragedy of the season underscored more profound truths about the era and the country as a whole.
In an ironic twist, by denying this clearly deserving team the national championship, the 1966 team has become one of the best remembered in the history of Alabama football. The sustained excellence of Coach Bryant's teams sometimes means the various squads become muddled and confused with each other - but no-one ever forgets Ken Stabler, Ray Perkins and the boys of '66.
Because no team in the history of college football ever had a greater claim on the national championship than that squad that year and the powers-that-be decided it wasn't to be and that's the way it is.
Fine.
But act all shocked when we turn around and insist our rightful claim on the titles from other years.
Next week: Braggin' Rights.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not to be nit picky ..
but you said 1965 twice instead of 1964
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on May 11, 2010 8:05 AM CDT reply actions
typical bammer math when it comes to NCs
Claiming two for the same year.
Good review Kleph. I’m really enjoying these.
by Nick's Hat Band on May 11, 2010 9:23 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Sounds pretty badass.
Being a fan of a team that has been robbed numerous times, I can appreciate the sentiment. Plus, any piece of literature that seeks to stick it to ND is OK in my book.
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor
dunnavant doesn't bring the knives out till the end of the book...
in describing the run up to the famous game with michigan state he’s pretty fair in explaining the irish’s unique place in the college football pantheon. the decision by the coach to hold onto the tie may be seen as the ultimate affront to the game in the eyes of alabama fans but it makes a certain amount of sense when put in the history of the notre dame program.
but, yeah, in the end dunnavant makes it clear what he thinks about the decision.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Love the part...
where the Alabama fan asks Ira to sign football to the real national champions.
"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?" Lombardi version "Winning doesn't matter, why do we have to keep score?" Auburn version
This happened before I was born
and I still hate Notre Dame for it. And I always will.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
Same here...
I wouldn’t miss anything if Notre Dame was relegated to D-2 football.
by CaliforniaTide on May 11, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Not a bad idea.
It might actually increase their SOS because they’d be forced to play big teams for the payout dollars.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on May 11, 2010 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
What's interesting is that
Notre Dame didn’t even play bowl games at the time. It was like bowls were beneath them. You can almost see their arrogance seep through.
I'll put you through hell, but at the end of it all we'll be champions.
Ah, Notre Dame.
It’s amazing how the Fainting Irish always get credit from the media.
"I want your money, but I don't want your two cents." - JVP
by ReadingRambler on May 11, 2010 10:57 AM CDT reply actions
The Missing Ring
I remember this happening and was mad then and after reading the book I was mad then too. ND should never had been given the NC in ’66. Bama had an unblemished record and should have been named the NC. They proved on the field , ND did not .
great review
Keep it up, Kleph. Been meaning to read this one a few years now and this pushed me over the edge. My dad still talks about that year, listening to the games on the radio.
Never quit. It is the easiest cop-out in the world.
Lombardi knew
When asked in the locker room after the NFL Championship in January 1967 if the Packers were the best team in the land, Lombardi responded: ‘I don’t know, we haven’t played Alabama yet…"
I’m pretty sure that was in January 1967
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie..."
What else is new....
I have said for almost fifty years that Bama has been robbed time and again. History is suppose to help us to learn so we don’t make the same mistakes, but when it comes to Bama there has been a basic prejudice since the days of Bear. The young ones don’t know about all this unless it is brought up by well meaning people who believe it is wrong. Take for instance the week off before playing Bama by five teams. How come someone did not notice that before now? The Notre Dame case is only one among many cases. Keep the faith brethren no matter what happens. Roll Tide.
by oldtiderdelo on May 11, 2010 11:45 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
While East Coast and Northern voters
have always been biased against Southern and West Coast teams, the segregationist policies of Southern schools prior to the 70’s, as well as the refusal of some to play integrated teams, is fair cause in my mind for the exclusion. Honestly, we didn’t play anyone outside of the South in 1966, while Notre Dame, love them or hate them, beat #8 Purdue and then beat #10 Oklahoma 38-0 in Oklahoma. They also beat #10 USC 51-0 in the Coliseum. The tie sucks, but people forget that they followed it up by destroying #10 USC on the road.
All partisanship aside, is it really fair to say an Alabama team whose best regular season victory came at home against an unranked, lily white LSU team deserved the title over Notre Dame? I’m as loyal to ‘Bama as anybody, but I don’t think the 1966 team deserved the title, especially in an era in which the champion was crowned prior to the bowl season. Without the 34-7 victory over Nebraska, what did the voters really have to honestly crown us the champions in 1966?
www.totteringworld.com
i'm pretty sure after out "loss" to tejas inthe 65 Cotton Bowl
that most of the polls DID start waiting til after the bowls to crown the champion starting in 66.
there is no debate about the segregation issue however. we were flat out wrong, whether or not it was the voters place to factor that into their decision making is up for debate. i gotta say i wasn’t opposed to my own Los Suns showing solidarity with the latino and native american community last week, so i’m not sure i can say i blame the voters in 66 either.
one thing is for sure though, ara parseighan was a total pussy.
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on May 11, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
The UPI (coaches' poll) continued to award NCs before the bowls
until sometime in the mid-70s. Our ’73 team was awarded the NC by the UPI but then lost its bowl game (to ND?).
As far as the segregation issue: I think it could’ve caused a voter to knock us down the polls not just for moral reasons but also as a judgement on our SOS. And that would’ve been a directly football-related reason. I think that may have been part of Bamagrad’s point too. Can you imagine if there were a group of teams today that only played white players and one of those teams went undefeated against it’s schedule full of other all-white teams? No way people would consider them worthy of the NC, and not just because of moral reasons. They wouldn’t have earned it.
All that being said, I still hate Notre Dame for stealing this championship. They played for the $%&#ing tie!
Notre Dame...
…the original Catholic School Girls In Trouble….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on May 11, 2010 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
good to hear that...
there is some modern day acknowledgement of that railroading. And to the gentleman that noted notre dame’s tougher schedule as reasoning… if you wanna be the champ, don’t be afraid to play after the regular season ends. also bama could claim up to 17 titles if they wanted to and have not. Furthermore several are not acknowledged just due to an abundance of class on bama’s part (1945). look it up. rtr
"get your ass ready for a streetfight... and i like a streetfight."
by make his ass quit! on May 11, 2010 3:52 PM CDT reply actions
1966 Team was NOT playing Single Platoon Football!
You said in your review “The 1966 squad was playing on the edge of an era. It was one of the last great teams of one-platoon football…”
Sorry, but the Single Platoon era ended at the start of the 1965 season. The ’66 team was not a single platoon team.
by John Tryon Hubbard Jr. on May 11, 2010 4:13 PM CDT reply actions
Huh. Pretty impressive to have won both the 1964 (single platoon)
and the 1965 (double platoon) championships then, eh?
dunnavant makes it clear...
that the 1966 squad was part of the transition from one style of play to the next. i didn’t explicitly break this down because it’s just one aspect of the narrative and i didn’t want to focus on that issue at the expense of other more prominent storylines in the book.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I would be interested
in a breakdown of the single platoon to double platoon transition in CFB, and how it impacted Alabama’s teams during those years. What brought about the rule change, and did that affect what individual players were asked to do during the transition year, etc. I haven’t read much of anything at all about that, so anything anyone knows would be enlightening.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on May 12, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
the biggest change is that bryant's preferred player
small, fast, smart and willing to give every last bit of his being to win the game was made obsolete for the specialist athlete. while folks like stabler and perkins were undoubtedly the beginning of the trend for the latter, a huge portion of the alabama lineup was filled with the former. dunnavant discusses this and how it accelerated the trend to integration of southern football as a whole.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
hell, i would be happy just knowing the def of single & double platoon...
if i had to guess (which i wouldn’t if i looked it up but i’m not so i am). is single using the same set of players for both offense and defense?
"You have to create 6 seconds of hell each play..."
Coach Nick Saban
Single platoon is really just a substitution ruling.
In todays football you have unlimted substitution between plays.
In the NCAA there have been times when substitution was unlimted and times when it was limited. The last time of limited substitution was from around 1952 until 1965. In that era you could only substitute a limited number of players. I’m going on my memory here, but I think you could sub out 2 players. At least it was only 2 for a while during that period. It may have been increased as it got closer to switching over.
What this meant was when you punted you might take two guys out (like Joe Namath was probably not going to play D) but most of the guys played both ways.
The real result was that players had to be a bit smaller, and a bit quicker. Lee Roy Jordan was the ultimate two way player. Small by today’s standards he was All American on D, but was also a great offensive center.
This sub rule also caused teams to actually need fewer players and thus JV football and/or freshman football was big during that day. Ga vs. Ga Tech Freshman game was played every Thanksgiving at Grant Field and that was a huge game.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
well that's interesting
of all my years of loving football, i never heard of such a thing. i mean i knew that back in the day more players went both ways but i thought it was more due to athletic ability instead of due to a substitution rule. actually, i never really CONSIDERED why.
thanks fity for your 26 cents!
"You have to create 6 seconds of hell each play..."
Coach Nick Saban
a good counter example is soccer
which only allows a limited number of substitutions per match. thus the emphasis on the lineup for a given contest is critical.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I haven't read this one
yet but another factor was that many of the voters felt like Alabama was not that deserving in 64 , because we lost to Texas (whom Arky had beaten) and in 65, winning by luck and almost by default.
I remember the 66 season and almost form the beginning the national media was trying to find a reason not to like Bama. We started the season later then most and that hurt us out of the blicks. Then there were two games that really did us in- beating Ole Miss by only 17-7, and then needing a miracle to beat UT 11-10.
By the way in 66 both AP & UPI voted their champions before the bowls. If it had been after the bowls it might have been different. And if Michigan State had been allowed to go to the Rose Bowl (they were barred since they went the year before) and had lost that game then that might have helped us too.
I hate Notre Dame. But the truth is Ara had the correct strategy. Late in the game he knew that if he could beat USC the next week he would be #1 no matter what Bama did when the final poll was taken before the bowl game. Coach Bryant would have likely have made some attempt to win the game, but the truth is in that day having the ball on your end with just 1 !/2 minutes made it very tough to score. I think if Notre Dame had played to win, the game would still have ended in a tie.
I know race had something to do with the whole thing, but even if we had been integrated I still think the voters would have picked Notre Dame. The press didn’t want Alabama to win 3 in row and all they needed was an excuse.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.

by 






















