- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 1908 National Champions
Posted on 12/11/12 at 9:06 am to nvasil1
Posted on 12/11/12 at 9:06 am to nvasil1
quote:
No doubt it's debatable.
Here's a decent article that breaks down the cases for each team in '08.
LINK
Hm... not sure how I feel about it. Seems like he did some research, but unless he was alive in 1908, I doubt he actually saw any of those teams play. At the end of the day, he's just a blogger. He has a valid opinion, but it's no more valuable than yours or mine.
If the National Championship Foundation saw fit to award the 1908 National Title to LSU, I see no reason the football program shouldn't acknowledge it.
Plus acknowledging it is a way of validating LSU throughout the course of CFB history. It shows that LSU has always been good, unlike some flash in the pan program like Florida who's only been relevant since the 90's.
3
Posted on 12/11/12 at 9:12 am to RedStar
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.
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.
Posted on 12/11/12 at 11:04 am to RedStar
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:
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.
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.
Posted on 12/11/12 at 11:54 am to RedStar
quote:
National Championship Foundation saw fit to award the 1908 National Title to LSU
Retroactively! There was no national championship!
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News