Started By
Message
re: Teams Claiming More National Championships Than They Should (Updated OP)
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:21 am to Vols&Shaft83
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:21 am to Vols&Shaft83
Alabama claiming 64 is a load of horse shite
2
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:21 am to TxTiger82
the 1917 gt team didnt grab the attention of the country and put southern football on the map. hell we won in 1908 and no one gave a damn.
also, the rose bowl was a big deal at the time.
also, the rose bowl was a big deal at the time.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:22 am to RightHook
So it was the 26 UA team that put southern football on the map?
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 9:23 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:23 am to BigD Ag
quote:
1919 TAMU
Got all the WWI vets back. 1918 was the weirdest year in CFB. A lot of teams didn't play. Others played shortened seasons. The best athletes were fighting. 1919 was the return to normality. I think 5 or 6 teams claim titles from that year, not to diminish A&M's accomplishments.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:24 am to Dr_Tim_Whatley
quote:
Alabama claiming 64 is a load of horse shite
it is what it is, but I understand while yall are mad, but bowl games didnt have the same meaning as they do now
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:24 am to RightHook
quote:
the 1917 gt team didnt grab the attention of the country
I just said they did. They were the first consensus national champion from the south. That is an undisputed fact. Everything before that was just a claim. Georgia Tech was hailed nationwide as the best team of the year - even in the face of an unbeaten team from the east (Pitt).
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:25 am to Dr_Tim_Whatley
The AP poll felt different..
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:25 am to Patton
na, i think it was 1925. im not a bama historian, just familiar with cfb history.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:26 am to NYCAuburn
Oklahoma claiming 1950 is bogus as it gets. Not only did they lose their bowl game, but they lost it to Kentucky, who should've had a piece of that NC.
On top of that, Tennessee deservedly claims 1950, and they beat Kentucky. I know it's circular logic, but UT beat UK, who then beat OU.
On top of that, Tennessee deservedly claims 1950, and they beat Kentucky. I know it's circular logic, but UT beat UK, who then beat OU.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:28 am to RightHook
quote:
hell we won in 1908 and no one gave a damn.
LSU did not "win" anything in 1908. We won all our games, sure. We declared ourselves "champions of the South," yes. But nobody around the country thought LSU was the best team.
In fact, the debate was between Penn and Harvard. Those teams played in the Ivy League, was was the "SEC" of its day. LSU played in the equivalent of the Mountain West.
LSU was like the Boise State of 1908. So if you think that Boise State was better than Alabama in 2009, then go ahead and claim 1908 for LSU.
The truth is that Harvard and Penn were both a LOT better than LSU. We had one player, Doc Fenton. Harvard and Penn had entire teams full of Doc Fentons. They would have waxed us.
This is why LSU didn't and doesn't claim 1908. In my opinion, we never should.
Auburn is in the same boat for 1910, frankly.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:29 am to PurpleandGoldmember
Tennessee claims 6 but only 2 are recognized by the AP/UPI/BCS.
Michigan is the worst of all though, claim 11 when only 2 are recognized by the major polls. I know people will say "yeah but Alabama" , but 10 of Alabama's 15 are AP/UPI/BCS. They embellish much less than some other schools do.
Michigan is the worst of all though, claim 11 when only 2 are recognized by the major polls. I know people will say "yeah but Alabama" , but 10 of Alabama's 15 are AP/UPI/BCS. They embellish much less than some other schools do.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 9:33 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:31 am to TxTiger82
most people thought pitt was the nc winneer that year, plus anything pre ww1 wasnt seen in the same light. cfb took off in the 20s. im not trying to diminish the 1917 gt team, but what they did isnt the same as going all the way to l.a. and putting a beat down on the pac champ. it was a HUGE deal at the time, no southern team had ever been given a bid to play there before. everyone thought them to inferior. not sure where u got ur inf that the rose bowl wasnt a big deal.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:32 am to TxTiger82
i never said we should claim it. u just know a few things and want to argue.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:33 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Auburn is in the same boat for 1910, frankly.
No way Auburn looses to 1910 Harvard. Harvard wouldn't have scored on us. Only reason Auburn lost in Austin was the guys were out chasing skirts all night.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:33 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
UT has six collegiate football national championships that have been widely recognized: 1938, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1967 and 1998
Additionally, it has another eight collegiate national titles that were awarded through various entities that it does not recognize: 1914, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1939, 1956, 1985 and 1989.
Why 1939 isn't recognized, I don't know. 10 wins, zero losses, zero points given up.
You wanna meet at Sonic and we can settle this...
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:35 am to PurpleandGoldmember
quote:
I guess a bunch of SEC teams outside of LSU do this, since we don't claim 1908
LSU should claim 1908
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:36 am to RightHook
quote:
most people thought pitt was the nc winneer that year,
That is incorrect. Pitt complained about it a lot.
quote:
plus anything pre ww1 wasnt seen in the same light
It has to be taken as its own thing. But we are talking about "what put Southern football on the map." The time period in which that happened seems irrelevant.
What is important is when the "cradle of football" (the east) recognized some other region as worthy competition.
This first started with the Midwest - Chicago, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It then spread to the South later - Georgia Tech, Alabama.
quote:
ut what they did isnt the same as going all the way to l.a. and putting a beat down on the pac champ
Two points: (a) Who is to say GT wouldn't have waxed whatever west coast team was put in front of them? (b) The Rose Bowl didn't have the significance in 1926 that is did in 1966.
quote:
no southern team had ever been given a bid to play there before
It had only been played for 10 years. Our collective memory of the game (i.e., what you are doing now), has imbued that game with more importance than it had. It was a big deal, yes. But it was not the "national championship game." Washington would not have been national champs had they won.
quote:
not sure where u got ur inf that the rose bowl wasnt a big deal.
Never said it wasn't.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 9:41 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:37 am to RightHook
quote:
i never said we should claim it. u just know a few things and want to argue.
Is that not the point of the thread?
Nobody agrees about this crap, it is all a debate. Arguing is fine!
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:38 am to cokebottleag
quote:
You wanna meet at Sonic and we can settle this...
Let's do it
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:39 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
Michigan is the worst of all though, claim 11 when only 2 are recognized by the major polls.
Their point-a-minute teams changed CFB, but they never beat a really good eastern powerhouse during that era.
Their championship claims are debatable, but the problem of that era is that the good teams didn't necessarily get to play.
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News