re: 1908 National Champions

I completely agree with you. I just thought he did a good job of illustrating what happened that year, so that's why I linked it.

But like you said, he's just a blogger giving an opinion. The NCF obviously did research too and thought we were strong enough to merit a share of the title. Another opinion of course, but it's as good a case as any.

quote:

---

Alabama and USCw exaggerate their NC's. Our 2003 was a BCS National Championship. Our 3 are rock solid!

---

Jeeze some of you guys sound like Auburn fans.

This post has nothing to do with Alabama. You can stop bringing Alabama up. You can stop bringing USCw up. This post has nothing to do with them either.

LSU was awarded a National Championship by a major selector and it's not acknowledged. That seems absurd.

I realize some of you guys hate Alabama, but when you constantly bring them up, you look butthurt. Alabama has nothing to do with the awarding of the 1908 National Title. I'm begging you guys to stop bringing them up. If you hate them so much, why do you talk about them? When I hate something I ignore it.

LSU also was named national champions by other polls, publications, associations and organizations in: 1908,1935,1936,1961,1962,2011
(besides 1958,2003,2007).
So we actually have 6 'Alabama' national titles on top of our 3 consensus ones.

quote:

---

This post has nothing to do with Alabama.

---

They were just saying we don't count national titles the same way Bama does. LINK

If we did we would have 1908, 1935, 1936, 1958, 1962, 2003, 2007, even 2011. They take a selection by a major selector and call it a championship. If we all did that Bama would have 18 and LSU would have 8.

I get your point. The thing about claiming those old ones is that there were several major selectors that hardly ever agreed and sometimes picked 3 different teams.

quote:

---

You can't apply today's rules to yesterday's history.

---

Funny you should say this because that's exactly what you're trying to do. LSU won nothing in 1908. They "won" that title in 1980 when the National Championship Foundation was formed. That why we don't claim it.

LSU could legitimately claim it if it wanted to.

Pretty much all titles before 1936 are retroactive. There was no such thing as the concept of "national champion" in the early days.

Hell, before 1906 the rules weren't even standardized, differnet areas of the country and different schools played with different rules.

Basically the older you go back, the harder it is to really see who was the best team that year, so it's not uncommon to have split claims and nobody would really dispute it.

FYI, the oldest title Bama claims is from 1925, a team that went 10-0 and won the Rose Bowl, so ya.

There's only one BS title Alabama claims and that's 1941, it's the only post 1936 title they claim not awarded by one of the major polls (AP or Coahes).

Keep telling yourself whatever you want, no matter how you count the titles Alabama either has the most or is tied with Notre Dame for the most. Of the 14 Alabama claims 13 of them are acknowledged consensusly, with only the bogus 1941 claim not being so.

hey can someone tell me if Jim Thorpe played for Carlisle?

That link is interesting, but wow... is that an unpersuasive argument against LSU. It works from the assumption Eastern football was a whole lot better than the South. And really, there weren't many cross-regional games back then because of the travel difficulties. Eastern teams were considered better because they had the media machine behind them.

But here's his claim that LSU isn't even a serious contender:

quote:

---

LSU played a 1-game schedule and won 10-2, and over an Auburn team that, while 6-1, we have no reason to see as particularly powerful. Auburn beat Sewanee 6-0, who tied Vanderbilt, who lost 17-6 to a mediocre Ohio State and 24-6 to Michigan. And Michigan was smashed by its two Eastern opponents. Sewanee also tied St. Louis, beaten handily at home by both the Eastern teams they played.

---

Ok, let's follow that. LSU beat up on 9 patsies but then beat Auburn, who claimed the title as the best team in the South (now we now here Bama gets it). LSU's win isn't very good because...

The team they beat also beat another contender in the South (Sewanee), but THAT team tied another team (Vanderbilt). And that FOURTH team in the causal chain lost to Michigan who lost to Penn 29-0. Seriously, follow that chain again. That's the transitive property on crack.

Penn beat Michigan
Michigan beat Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt TIED Sewanee
Auburn beat Sewanee
LSU beat Auburn...

... therefore, Penn is far better than LSU. The chain doesn't even work. That's not even a transitive chain.

Oh, and we had pro players because Grantland Rice said so and since there was no lawsuit for slander, there was no evidence presented to show they paid players, and therefore his accusations are correct. What? That doesn't make the barest bit of sense.

1908 is a lot different than those other pseudo-titles which are really questionable. 1908 is a legit title. We should claim it.

Just to add records to that chain, as well as their SRS ranking according to sport-reference.com:

#5 Penn 11-0-1
#49 Michigan 5-2-1
#29 Vanderbilt 7-2-1
#14 Sewanee 4-1-3
#3 Auburn 6-1
#2 LSU 10-0

(#1 was Chicago, BTW)