Auburn article claims LSU was 1908 Nat Champ

quote:

---

We aren't petty like Bama. We don't need to claim non-legit titles

---

THIS

In Lindy's no less. I've wondered for years why they don't claim it. Truly was a great team for the era.

excellent read

Just asking. Why did he say we were NC and who else claims to be the NC that year.

quote:

---

We don't need to claim non-legit titles.

---

LSU actually has a really strong case for the 08 title. I'll let Doc Fenton educate you

We also won (by Bama standards) the '35, '36, and '61 NC's as well. (from other polls and publications.)

1908 is by far our strongest claim outside of the '58, '03 and '07 titles with which you are all familiar.

wasnt the 1908 team known as the point-a-minute team? they always say on NCAA 10 before lsu games that lsu fans can claim a title in 1908, they were 6-0 and scored a point for every minute played the whole season

Yeah, this gets brought up a few times a year.

I'll just give the abbreviated case and leave it alone after that:

(1) The AP poll did not start doing its poll until 1936, but schools have always been very preoccupied with claiming they were "the best team in the country" for a particular year. Since teams from 1936 to 1949 (before the UPI Coaches' Poll began in 1950) regularly claimed titles from the AP poll and various other computer formulas (e.g., the Dunkel Index), it quickly became a common occurrence for schools to claim national titles from before 1936 as well. In fact, virtually ... EVERY ... SINGLE ... college football program awarded a national title retroactively (by a historical research committee, that is--not by a stupid retroactive computer poll) for a season prior to 1936 claims those titles. Michigan claims titles from 1900 to 1903 or whatever, Pitt claims titles, Army claims a title, Georgia Tech claims a title in 1917--everybody does, except for LSU. Why? Because we "don't want to be like Bama." Makes a lot of sense to define everything we do by what Alabama does, huh?

(2) LSU had the best claim to a title in 1908. Penn only beat (5-5) Penn State by a score of 6-0 at home, and tied (10-2-1) Carlisle 6-6 at home. The Quakers' best quality opponent that they beat that season was (7-1-1) Cornell. Their schedule was relatively weak, so the "all the Northern schools were better" argument is hogwash. They played neither Harvard nor Yale nor Princeton nor Chicago that year, and they only played 2 road games. LSU, on the other hand, had a perfect 10-0 record with no ties. LSU did not have a particularly difficult SOS either, but they did beat (6-1) Auburn on the road 10-2, with the safety against LSU due to a clear violation of the rules by interference from an Auburn fan in the end zone. It is worth noting that Auburn would likely have claimed a national title had LSU lost that game. Furthermore, LSU's average margin of victory that season was just ridiculous, and LSU's defense only gave up points in 2 contests, in an 81-5 rout early in the season, and in a 36-4 victory on the road against Arkansas in the last game of the season. The 3 major historical NC committees were split between Penn and LSU, and I think that 2 awarded a NC to LSU. Thus, LSU has every bit as good of a claim to a 1908 title as Michigan does to one in 1997, or Washington in 1991, or Georgia Tech/Colorado in 1990.

(3) LSU definitely would claim NCs for 1935 & 1936, except for the fact that the team was embarrassed with Sugar Bowl losses in both years. It is possible that not claiming these titles is why LSU doesn't also claim the 1908 title, but there is also some speculation that LSU cheated by using professional players during the 1908 season. This argument didn't sway the historical NC committees, nor are these accusations substantiated according to TD's resident historian, tigger. Even if they were, Oklahoma still claims a national title when they were on probation in 1974, Auburn still claims a national title from when they were on probation in 1957, etc. You decide what makes sense.