- 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: Why hasn't LSU ever claimed the 1908 NCAA football championship?
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:25 pm to Rougarou4lsu
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:25 pm to Rougarou4lsu
Becasue we're better than that
0
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:25 pm to Rougarou4lsu
quote:
We were undefeated and recognized by the NCAA.
No we are not recognized by the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't recognize championships for FBS football. We were selected for this championship retroactively by the National Championship Foundation.
But here's the problem: LSU claiming the 1908 National Championship would be like Boise State claiming the 2009 national championship. They went undefeated, but nobody in their right mind actually believes BSU could have beaten Alabama (or Texas, for that matter). Similarly, Penn and Harvard were football powerhouses in 1908 and LSU was a backwater school playing in a joke of league.
Here's a good read on the subject. LINK
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:27 pm to kingbob
So what year can a school claim a title and not be pathetic like Bama? Anything pre1958?
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:28 pm to Lee Chatelain
Because things before the poll era (1936) get really murky. If we claim that title it opens the door to all sorts of bogus claims (see bama, arky).
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:30 pm to biglego
quote:
So what year can a school claim a title and not be pathetic like Bama? Anything pre1958?
In my opinion, it isn't about setting a cutoff point for "legit" championships, but rather getting back to what people thought at the time.
The truth is that Southern football in 1908 was nothing compared to the East coast. The Ivy League was in 1908 what the SEC is today: dominant. This is evidenced by the fact that all the original "great" midwestern teams like Michigan and Chicago got absolutely trounced by middle of the pack Ivy League and East coast schools until probably the 1910s.
FTR the first "great" Southern team (i.e., the first Southern team to beat an Eastern power) was Georgia Tech's 1917 team coached by Pop Warner. Before that, Southern football was an afterthought - like the WAC is today.
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:42 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Here's a good read on the subject. LINK
plenty of butthurt in that article.
LSU's title is legit, end of story.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:43 pm to kingbob
because Banma has claimed it despite their record...
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:50 pm to Rougarou4lsu
We paid players
Posted on 4/14/13 at 1:56 pm to Roberteaux
Because our self worth,unlike the Bamers, is not based on football national championship.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 3:23 pm to TIGRLEE
Wrong
Posted on 4/14/13 at 3:23 pm to TIGRLEE
This post was edited on 4/14/13 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 4/14/13 at 3:38 pm to TigerintheNO
Because we are not Alabama
Posted on 4/14/13 at 6:00 pm to LSUROCKS52
quote:
plenty of butthurt in that article.
What? No. The guy who runs this site is pretty impartial. You should read some of his write-ups for the other years.
quote:
LSU's title is legit, end of story.
This is wrong. LSU didn't win a title. They didn't win one then, and we didn't recognize the NCF "title" when it was "awarded" years after the fact.
I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 6:17 pm to kingbob
quote:
Why hasn't LSU ever claimed the 1908 NCAA football championship?
Why don't you write somebody that actually can do something about it???
No, rantards don't count.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 6:47 pm to Rougarou4lsu
Did the powers that be, at the time, consider this a national championship? The national media (were they even interested)? If not, they had their reasons. My view is that there are NCAA championships, then everything else. They should be kept separate. Just my opinion. 
Posted on 4/14/13 at 6:48 pm to Rougarou4lsu
Because we are not ridiculous like Alabama.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 7:25 pm to TxTiger82
TxTiger82 the guy that wrote that has no idea who is on the LSU team, much less the eastern teams.
LSU has it's Penn. 5 plus the Michigan 2 to go along with 1 Louisiana player that played in Penn for a number of years.
The other problem is he doesn't know the speed of the game in the east, one of the fastest players in the East became our coach in 1909 and he was not near as fast as Lally or Doc.
Siep would have been an all star in the east with Doc.
I know the players on all the eastern schools and the Southern schools.
Here is a little fun fact that writer has no clue about, LSU played the Yale, Havard All Star with the best end in the nation from Vandy on their team and tied them 0-0 and that was without the Smith Brothers, Seip or Lally.
SO much for his writing about the power of eastern football.
1909 LSU only lost so much because of keeping Doc in class, the Smith brothers are gone and Lally is out.
LSU has it's Penn. 5 plus the Michigan 2 to go along with 1 Louisiana player that played in Penn for a number of years.
The other problem is he doesn't know the speed of the game in the east, one of the fastest players in the East became our coach in 1909 and he was not near as fast as Lally or Doc.
Siep would have been an all star in the east with Doc.
I know the players on all the eastern schools and the Southern schools.
Here is a little fun fact that writer has no clue about, LSU played the Yale, Havard All Star with the best end in the nation from Vandy on their team and tied them 0-0 and that was without the Smith Brothers, Seip or Lally.
SO much for his writing about the power of eastern football.
1909 LSU only lost so much because of keeping Doc in class, the Smith brothers are gone and Lally is out.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 7:30 pm to TxTiger82
TxTiger82 LSU won the S.I.A.A. Championship;
No school won a national championship that year.
Most national championship before 1935 or based on small math systems and polls by writers, who for the most part saw only 10 games a year max before 1918.
No school won a national championship that year.
Most national championship before 1935 or based on small math systems and polls by writers, who for the most part saw only 10 games a year max before 1918.
Posted on 4/14/13 at 7:31 pm to Rougarou4lsu
Because that was back before the NCAA was around to protect young student-athletes from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous professionals who wanted to pay them. 
Posted on 4/14/13 at 7:58 pm to foshizzle
Call it all you were but there wasn't a national champion in 1908. Or 09, or 10 or 11 or 12.... 44.. or 1966 etc etc.
The was never a national champion until the BCS was formed. Sports writers can form any kind of group they want but that doesn't give them any authority to make a national champion.
If you play in a brec league only that league can set up the rules for declaring a champion. Just like the SEC has no authority to declare a PAC champion.
The was never a national champion until the BCS was formed. Sports writers can form any kind of group they want but that doesn't give them any authority to make a national champion.
If you play in a brec league only that league can set up the rules for declaring a champion. Just like the SEC has no authority to declare a PAC champion.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News