Started By
Message
re: Teams Claiming More National Championships Than They Should (Updated OP)
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:21 am to TxTiger82
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.
3
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 9:24 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 9:28 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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News