re: 1908 National Champions

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.